Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 811 of 1034 (759293)
06-10-2015 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 809 by mikechell
06-10-2015 2:44 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
If you put a hundred human beings on an isolated island where they have children and grandchildren for a couple hundred years, when you revisit them they will have acquired a look that is completely their own, and that will be based completely on the particular set of alleles shared among them, that excludes who knows how many alleles they left behind them in the human population at large. They have created their own race or subpopulation from limited genetic diversity. That HAS to happen when a population is started from a smallish group.
Darwin's Galapagos tortoises got their own look simply by starting from a limited number of individuals that were isolated from the mainland population and working through the particular set of alleles they happened to possess for whatever number of generations they had been on Galapagos. This is really how evolution proceeds, it ALWAYS involves the loss of alleles as a specific set of allleles becomes the basis for a new population.
No, you do NOT have limitless combinations in a reproductively isolated circumscribed population, you have only the genetic material possessed by the individuals in that population. Every race or tribe of humanity developed its racial characteristics from a limited collection of genetic materials. Every subspecies of animals did too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 2:44 PM mikechell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 812 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2015 3:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 820 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 6:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 854 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2015 11:11 AM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 812 of 1034 (759303)
06-10-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
06-10-2015 3:04 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
This is really how evolution proceeds, it ALWAYS involves the loss of alleles as a specific set of allleles becomes the basis for a new population.
No, mutation can lead to new alleles that didn't exist before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 813 of 1034 (759308)
06-10-2015 3:59 PM


To the complaint that I keep repeating myself, I can only answer that many responses continue to show that the argument isn't getting across. You may think it's getting across, you may think you're getting it, and it does get across at least partially now and then, but then something will be said that makes it clear it's not getting across after all, or somebody new will require me to start all over from scratch. I do think my repetitions vary enough because I'm trying to answer different forms of misunderstanding as they come up, but yes I know I'm being repetitive and all I can say is sorry about that.
The only real answer to me is that increased diversity does occur, mainly through mutations, and I've answered that dozens of times only to have it come up again. What can I do but repeat the reason it doesn't work as an answer; even if they occur they'll be subjected to the processes that reduce diversity whenever a new subspecies is being formed. Whenever that occurs you get reduced genetic diversity and that's always the last word.

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2015 4:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 817 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2015 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 814 of 1034 (759321)
06-10-2015 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 813 by Faith
06-10-2015 3:59 PM


Whenever that occurs you get reduced genetic diversity and that's always the last word.
No, that is completely, horribly, and fatally incorrect and wrong.
It doesn't matter how many time you repeat yourself, or re-explain it, or whatever, when you're wrong then you are wrong.
You're wrong, Faith. You're wrong.
Random mutation and natural selection do, in fact, lead to an increase in genetic diversity.
That increase in genetic diversity is what has caused all the phenotypic diversity that we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 815 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 815 of 1034 (759322)
06-10-2015 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2015 4:08 PM


Oh well, you don't get it and that's that.
You haven't even budged off square one.
Obviously you have no interest in even trying to get it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2015 4:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 818 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2015 4:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 816 of 1034 (759327)
06-10-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
06-10-2015 2:01 PM


Re: Increasing genetic diversity by a couple of neutral mutations
For one thing the scenario is totally hypothetical. It may never have happened and never will happen.
Given that your position is that evolution is impossible even when mutations are included, a hypothetical answer is sufficient to counter your argument that evolution cannot happen.
I'm arguing that the processes that bring about the new phenotypes are what reduce genetic diversity.
Actually, you are not presenting much of an argument. You are pretty much asserting. And for the few arguments you do present, you dismiss the counter arguments with more assertion. You don't actually have any evidence but there is little excuse for how often you revert to assertion rather than argument.
Isn't the point to prove that it contributes to the evolution that's bringing out the new traits
Evolution is a series of processes some of which add variety and others of which reduce the variety in populations and sub populations. You assert that the net variety change post selection must be negative regardless of whether variety is added before or after selection. You simply cannot accomplish what you are attempting without showing us some numbers. I doubt that you can make the showing even with some mathematics.
I'd also make the point that a diversity comparison at the point of selection is not sufficient to win your argument. In order to show a progressive loss of diversity you have to show a loss of diversity between the time of formation of the original population and the diversity in the sub population when gene flow between the populations ends. As long as diversity increases or is flat by that comparison, continued speciation is possible.
You haven't even attempted to make that argument. You instead focus on the point of selection or speciation.
Let's imagine that there is some limit. Where might that limit be? Is it necessary according to your argument that a progression cannot exceed two separations? three? You claim that the answer is not even one, but you certainly haven't shown even that.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 2:01 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 850 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 9:44 AM NoNukes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 817 of 1034 (759328)
06-10-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 813 by Faith
06-10-2015 3:59 PM


Faith, we understand your opinions. We just don't agree with them.
What you are really saying is that you have to keep repeating your opinions because you can't support them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 3:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 818 of 1034 (759336)
06-10-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 815 by Faith
06-10-2015 4:10 PM


Oh well, you don't get it and that's that.
Oh, no, I get it. It's as plain as day, Faith.
You're trying to come up with a way to square your religious beliefs in creationism with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
You've been stripped down to accepting that the processes behind evolution actually do occur, but you've had to invent this nonsense about "only reducing genetic diversity" in order to save your religious beliefs.
You have literally zero evidence for it other than your wishful thinking.
Your entire position is a just a giant deduction - from the minimum amount of evolution that you have to accept because it is undeniable - coupled with your relentless efforts to absolutely refuse to give up your per-conceived religious beliefs in creationism.
This has lead you to the inescapable place of evolution only being able to reduce genetic diversity.
There's no reason to think it other than you have to.
Obviously you have no interest in even trying to get it.
I get it. I really do.
Its just painfully and terribly incorrect and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 819 of 1034 (759343)
06-10-2015 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 807 by Faith
06-10-2015 2:26 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
I don't know yet if I need to continue to argue against the definition of speciation, but I'm leaving it for now. So inability to interbreed just IS the definition of speciation.
Look at it this way Faith: we observe that populations split into subpopulations inhabiting different habitats, they become reproductively isolated ... over time their genetic changes as they adapt to these different habitats produce alleles that cause genetic isolation when they get acquainted. We need a name for this, and the name chosen is "speciation" for convenience. It also matches the biological definition of species as being a breeding population that is reproductively isolated from other breeding populations. The name is arbitrary human identification of a process that exists whether we name it or not.
Now you have been trying to say that this happens with subspecies ... a distinction without a purpose that I can see. In cladistics there is not the emphasis on genus and family and all the other taxonomic labels, partly because at the point of separation\genetic isolation you have "species" -- another label for convenience of human communication. All organisms are members of a species breeding population, whether that population has diverged into many daughter, granddaughter, etc, populations.
|
                         ^ a
                        / \
                       /   \
                      /     \
                     /       ^ b
                  c ^       / \
                   / \     /   \
                  d   e   f     g
Where a, b, and c are speciation events, and we can label their parent populations a, b and c as well. Population a gives rise to populations b and c, population c gives rise to populations d and e and population b gives rise to populations f and g. They are all species as far as cladistics is concerned.
I still have the question, What if speciation brings about new species that are always genetically less diverse or variable than the populations that preceded them? Doesn't that imply LESS ability to evolve and doesn't that imply that it doesn't really fulfill the evolutionary requirement assigned to it in its official definition:
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.
That is, if new biological species CAN'T arise from this point due to genetic impoverishment, what then?
The offspring are always members of a species, by definition. From my side of the argument there is never a point at which mutations cannot provide new genetic diversity and replenish the well.
Sure, but if it has less genetic variability with which to evolve beyond this point, how is it "the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise?"
If you have speciation -- two populations that become genetically isolated -- you have new species by definition.
You know you have a new population that can no longer interbreed with others and you are calling that macroevolution, which implies the ability to continue to evolve beyond that point.
Not quite, I call the long term changes in the populations and the isolation and development of genetically incompatible daughter populations -- the formation of a clade -- macroevolution. It occurs via evolution within disparate populations. Macroevolution is looking at the larger picture of all species, while microevolution is looking at the changes in a single breeding population.
As I see it there are two options for a species -- continued evolution (because nothing is static) ... or extinction. As long as you have mutations and selection mechanisms, evolution will continue to occur.
I think evolution comes to a natural stopping point with the loss of genetic diversity brought about by the very processes that produce new species. I think of this as the outer limit of the Kind beyond which no further change/variation/ evolution is possible for sheer lack of the genetic stuff needed for it. It's more of a functional definition than a category definition. If there is a natural ending point then you can never get a new "species" or the species you do get is a dead end in itself and not a platform for further evolution.
Curiously what you think has little effect on reality. To move beyond the hypothetical concepts you need to show evidence that such decrease in viability occurs.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 2:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 6:52 PM RAZD has replied

  
mikechell
Inactive Member


Message 820 of 1034 (759354)
06-10-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
06-10-2015 3:04 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
If you put a hundred human beings on an isolated island where they have children and grandchildren for a couple hundred years, when you revisit them they will have acquired a look that is completely their own, and that will be based completely on the particular set of alleles shared among them, that excludes who knows how many alleles they left behind them in the human population at large. They have created their own race or subpopulation from limited genetic diversity. That HAS to happen when a population is started from a smallish group.
No, you do NOT have limitless combinations in a reproductively isolated circumscribed population
As long as that group of people are confined to that island, you are correct. BUT ... if the rest of the world's population was wiped out, and the islanders got off the island, they would repopulate the Earth. And those that repopulate the tropical regions will evolve differently than those that repopulate the other parts of the world. In a few generations, they will look differently. After a few more generations, the Earth's population might look much as it does today.
AND ... if some of the original islanders stayed on the island and refused to mingle with the rest of the world, they might eventually be unable to breed with anyone except other islanders and two species of humans will exist. Homo-Islandus and Homo-therestofus.

evidence over faith ... observation over theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 7:10 PM mikechell has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 821 of 1034 (759358)
06-10-2015 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by RAZD
06-10-2015 4:39 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
Look at it this way Faith: we observe that populations split into subpopulations inhabiting different habitats, they become reproductively isolated ...
over time their genetic changes as they adapt to these different habitats produce alleles that cause genetic isolation when they get acquainted.
Let me just ask you some questions:
What sort of "genetic changes" are you talking about that occur "as they adapt to the different habitats"
and what causes these genetic changes?
How can adaptation "produce alleles?"
And how to the alleles "cause genetic isolation?
And what "gets acquainted?"
We need a name for this, and the name chosen is "speciation" for convenience. /qs
You haven't mentioned cessation of interbreeding, or are you using "reproductive isolation" to mean that?
qs\ It also matches the biological definition of species as being a breeding population that is reproductively isolated from other breeding populations. The name is arbitrary human identification of a process that exists whether we name it or not.
Now you have been trying to say that this happens with subspecies ... a distinction without a purpose that I can see.
I'm interested in what happens at different population levels and degrees of genetic diversity. There are many levels and degrees between a fairly large daughter population that wouldn't lose a lot of diversity and a very small daughter population which would, and these could occur in a series, one splitting off from the former, all able to interbreed except the ones at the extremes that can happen in ring species. You aren't always getting speciation although you are always getting some degree of reduced genetic diversity as new subpopulations form their 9own unique traits. That's why I have subspecies in mind. Species by definition requires the cessation of interbreeding.
In cladistics there is not the emphasis on genus and family and all the other taxonomic labels, partly because at the point of separation\genetic isolation you have "species" -- another label for convenience of human communication. All organisms are members of a species breeding population, whether that population has diverged into many daughter, granddaughter, etc, populations.
|
^ a
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ ^ b
c ^ / \
/ \ / \
d e f g
Where a, b, and c are speciation events, and we can label their parent populations a, b and c as well. Population a gives rise to populations b and c, population c gives rise to populations d and e and population b gives rise to populations f and g. They are all species as far as cladistics is concerned.
But this is purely conceptual. If what I'm saying is true, that species may lack enough genetic diversity to continue to evolve then they can't "give rise to" any further populations as your chart assumes they do.
I still have the question, What if speciation brings about new species that are always genetically less diverse or variable than the populations that preceded them? Doesn't that imply LESS ability to evolve and doesn't that imply that it doesn't really fulfill the evolutionary requirement assigned to it in its official definition:
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.
That is, if new biological species CAN'T arise from this point due to genetic impoverishment, what then?
The offspring are always members of a species, by definition. From my side of the argument there is never a point at which mutations cannot provide new genetic diversity and replenish the well.
Which is the argument everyone has, but as I keep trying to get across, even if you could get sufficient genetic diversity from mutations at a point of genetic depletion, (and if you could the cheetah would have been saved long ago but it's not happening) you'd just be getting scattered new traits within the population and not a new subspecies or species; that requires the processes that bring about reduced genetic diversity. If speciation really is the way new biological species arise then evolution is not happening unless you are getting the processes that lead to speciation and those are the processes that reduce genetic diversity, so adding diversity may get you a new trait or two but otherwise it goes nowhere evolutionarily speaking.
Sure, but if it has less genetic variability with which to evolve beyond this point, how is it "the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise?"
If you have speciation -- two populations that become genetically isolated -- you have new species by definition.
But if the species haven't the genetic ability to evolve further there is no more evolution.
You know you have a new population that can no longer interbreed with others and you are calling that macroevolution, which implies the ability to continue to evolve beyond that point.
Not quite, I call the long term changes in the populations and the isolation and development of genetically incompatible daughter populations -- the formation of a clade -- macroevolution. It occurs via evolution within disparate populations.
But evolution can't occur if there is no genetic variability left because of the evolutionary processes that brought about the species.
Macroevolution is looking at the larger picture of all species, while microevolution is looking at the changes in a single breeding population.
Again, you can't get macroevolution if genetic diversity has run out in the process of bringing about speciation.
n As I see it there are two options for a species -- continued evolution (because nothing is static) ... or extinction. As long as you have mutations and selection mechanisms, evolution will continue to occur.
You can't get enough mutations for that when you've run out of genetic variability, and even if you could they produce scattered traits rather than a species, and to produce a species requires the processes that reduce genetic diversity.
I think evolution comes to a natural stopping point with the loss of genetic diversity brought about by the very processes that produce new species. I think of this as the outer limit of the Kind beyond which no further change/variation/ evolution is possible for sheer lack of the genetic stuff needed for it. It's more of a functional definition than a category definition. If there is a natural ending point then you can never get a new "species" or the species you do get is a dead end in itself and not a platform for further evolution.
Curiously what you think has little effect on reality. To move beyond the hypothetical concepts you need to show evidence that such decrease in viability occurs.
Curiously, it's your concepts that have no relation to reality. It's all conceptual or hypothetical. You assume you can get evolution when you have no genetic variability to make it possible, and you think you can build up variability with mutations which can't occur that reliably and in actual fact DON'T occur reliably, or again the cheetah and other endangered species would not be in danger. THAT's the reality, RAZD. Your clades and youir diagrams are at best hypothetical and most probably pure fiction.
90% of what is offered as "reality" of evolution isn't reality at all, it's purely conceptual, and yet dissertations and websites and debate posts go on and on with these definitional sallies as if they did represent reality. Amazing really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2015 4:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 7:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 852 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 10:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 866 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2015 1:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
mikechell
Inactive Member


Message 822 of 1034 (759359)
06-10-2015 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 821 by Faith
06-10-2015 6:52 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
What sort of "genetic changes" are you talking about that occur "as they adapt to the different habitats"
and what causes these genetic changes?
You keep asking this. Genetic change in inevitable when half each of two parents' genes make the genes of the offspring. The changes that benefit the offspring in the drive to reproduce are carried on. The changes that inhibit reproduction aren't.
The genetic changes aren't a response to the environment, the environment weeds out unproductive changes.

evidence over faith ... observation over theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 7:13 PM mikechell has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 823 of 1034 (759360)
06-10-2015 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by mikechell
06-10-2015 6:09 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
As long as that group of people are confined to that island, you are correct.
And this is ALWAYS the situation I'm trying to keep in mind. The reduction in genetic diversity I'm talking about occurs in this context of reproductive isolation iof a subpopulation.
BUT ... if the rest of the world's population was wiped out, and the islanders got off the island, they would repopulate the Earth.
That can happen but they'd all look like that island tribe because they'd all have only those same genetic potentials to pass on.
And those that repopulate the tropical regions will evolve differently than those that repopulate the other parts of the world.
You are assuming adaptive selection but I don't. They developed a particular set of alleles on the island and it's that same set of alleles they pass on to their descendants to repopulate the earth.
In a few generations, they will look differently. After a few more generations, the Earth's population might look much as it does today.
Again you are assuming genetic adaptation. That's a tenet of the ToE that is an assumption without any real evidence. You are also assuming there would be enough genetic diversity in the group for a huge range of different traits, but even if the island group had fairly good genetic diversity despite being a bottleneck, it would lack most of the allelles possessed by the rest of the world that you've killed off. The only way you will get different types in different parts of the world is if there happened to be enough genetic diversity in the island popujaltion despite its limitedness, for subpopulations to develop portions of their alleles apart from each other. Just as their particular allele mix brought about their racial or group characteristics on the island, if there's enough builtin diversity they can still form new racial groups wherever small subpopulations get isolated, but the majority of traits of the greater population that died will be completely lost. They aren't going to look much like today's groupings.
AND ... if some of the original islanders stayed on the island and refused to mingle with the rest of the world, they might eventually be unable to breed with anyone except other islanders and two species of humans will exist. Homo-Islandus and Homo-therestofus.
Theoretically that could happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 6:09 PM mikechell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 7:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 830 by herebedragons, posted 06-10-2015 10:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 824 of 1034 (759361)
06-10-2015 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by mikechell
06-10-2015 7:05 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
the environment weeds out unproductive changes.
Pure ToE, purely hypothetical. If this really happened in reality nobody would survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 7:05 PM mikechell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by mikechell, posted 06-10-2015 7:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 829 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2015 8:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 831 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2015 1:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 857 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 11:40 AM Faith has replied

  
mikechell
Inactive Member


Message 825 of 1034 (759367)
06-10-2015 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
06-10-2015 7:10 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
You are assuming adaptive selection but I don't. They developed a particular set of alleles on the island and it's that same set of alleles they pass on to their descendants to repopulate the earth.
Alleles are not a one time and done code. Basically, they are on/off switches. This means that any set of alleles can be switched on or off, and any group of alleles have several combinations based on which ones are on and which ones are off.
Just as an example, use computer code: (from inet2000.com)
128-bit = 339,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations (give or take a couple trillion...)
There are billions of genes. The number of alleles combinations is almost infinite. The fact that the parents only give HALF of their DNA to the offspring refreshes the alleles possibilities. There is no "dead end" because the "system" is:
1) Partially reset in each generation.
2) Virtually infinite even if it didn't reset.

evidence over faith ... observation over theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 11:27 AM mikechell has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024