|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
There is no "also". You accepted that natural selection does occur. Calling it "purely hypothetical" was a stupid lie. Because how else can we characterise a statement that you knew to be false and that seriously undermines your already-weak position?
And, since you haven't bothered to look at the evidence you really aren't in a position to judge which hypothesis is better even in particular cases. And there's no excuse for that when there has been a long-term observational study and even a well-known popular book about that study. As is the case for Darwin's finches.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
False. Everything you,ve seen about the cheetah's genetic problems is attributed to the bottlenecks. That's not the same thing at all. You haven't seen anything supporting the idea that the cheetah's speed is "purely accidental or random". You don't know if it's false or not, you just enjoy saying so. If new traits are the result of mere change in allele frequencies, the cheetah's characteristics would be the result of the bottleneck which just happened to "select" the alleles for its sleek fast body type. As usual we're arguing plausibilities here, not evidence. There is NO actual evidence I've seen for any of the ToE's Likely Stories either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The suoposed evidence for ToE scenarios is really well known, we all grow up having it crammed down our throats. It amounts to plausibilities on top of hypotheticals on top of fantasy on top of Likely Stories, all enforced by choruses of Great Withering Scientific Indignation to those who think there might be a problem with some of it.
However, if you have some real bonafide evidence it would be your iobligation to produce I do suspect. If you can allow yourself the deprivation of taking time out for a bit from bashing and accusing me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you've added a couple of neutral or nonfunctioning mutations and get greater genetic diversity. So what else is new? If it doesn't change the phenotype you think you've proved something?
Yes, I have proved that mutations add diversity. HBD, you know I haven't denied that so what's the point?
You complained that we were confusing phenotypic diversity with genotypic diversity but that you were only referring to genotypic diversity. I've said that where it's been shown to be the case. You convinced me your chart was really about genetic diversity so I took another look at it. I still found it to seem to refer to phenotypic diversity though some of it may be ambiguous. I haven't looked again yet.
Now I find out that you are really meaning phenotypic diversity. Sigh. As I go on to say:
I'm arguing that the processes that bring about the new phenotypes are what reduce genetic diversity
Here's the genotypes in my example immediately after the population split population A: RR, RQ, RS, QQ, QS, and SS population B: RR, RQ and QQ Where are the new phenotypes in population B? The same phenotypes were already in population A, nothing new here. No possibility of incompatibility, the same genotypes exist in both populations.
What good is increased genetic diversity that does nothing? Indeed. But we are discussing genetic diversity, not phenotypic diversity, right? So what I am pointing out is how genetic diversity is affected by the four evolutionary factors; in this case mutation. Oy. I'll try to consider it again but it's not an enticing prospect. First, allow me to make my point again: Increasing genetic diversity simply brings out some scattered new traits in an existing population. It adds absolutely nothing in terms of the processes that create new subspecies by microevolution which requires reduced genetic diversity. ==== ABE: Yes, I think the mutation example is clear enough. But is Population B a daughter population to A? I assyne it must be but you don't say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I have good reason to think that you have never seen any source making that claim. If you want to say otherwise produce one.
quote: That's hardly a rational argument. How can you tell the difference between traits existing before the bottleneck and those that only appeared with the bottleneck?
quote: What your sources say should be a matter of fact. For the cheetah if your only argument is that you find it plausible you don't have much of a case. It's only plausible to you because it fits with your assumptions. Anyway, if you want to tell us that bottlenecks produce major adaptive change why not talk about elephant seals? The major bottleneck there is in historical times, so surely it's a better chance for you to produce evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
This thread is supposedly about your ideas. If you can't produce evidence to support your claims, too bad. If you chose not to look at easily available evidence before speculating - and expect your speculations to be accepted as fact - then you are just being silly.
So, your claim that natural selection is "purely hypothetical" is false and you knew it to be false when you made the claim. The fact that rejecting natural selection also severely undermines your own position is a relevant point in the discussion And in fact let me ask you - if I argued more like you - but preferring my own beliefs rather than yours- would you be more likely to believe me or less ? I grant that I would have to say more things that are actually true, but I hardly think that you would admit to finding that a reason to disbelieve me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
From an earlier post:
...but I suspect the creature evolved its characteristic first ... And: ... then seems to be that its wonderful body design for speed was also purely accidental or random. YES, yes, yes !!!The adaptation is NOT a response to the environment. It is an accidental perturbation in the "new" genes of the offspring. But the first cat that had extra speed was able to bring down available game by itself better than the previous generation and "impressed" a mate and reproduced. This happened again and again through many generations. What we see now is just the "newest model" of the Cheetah line. Slimmer, faster cats were just more capable and reproduced. Genetic adaptation IS an accident. It's NOT a "choice". If that "accident" is beneficial, it propagates through successive generations because it HELPS reproduction.Nothing in this process though is "irreversible" and does not lead to genetic dead ends. Edited by mikechell, : No reason given.evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Faith writes: I'm trying not to redefine it but to discuss it in relation to my argument, such as to answer RAZD, involves describing what I think really happens at that point. If that's redefining it then I guess I'll have to think about a new thread. When describing what you think happens, please do not call it speciation. Speciation already has a definition. If you need a term for what you think happens, could I suggest differentiation? You could define differentiation as changing the phenotype of a subpopulation while maintaining the ability to interbreed. AbE: Please respond to my Message 794. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
've acknowledged that natural selection occurs in some cases (peppered moths for instance) but at the same time I've argued that I think it is far less often the cause of adaptive changes than mere reproductive isolation of a randomly assembled smallish daughter population. I've argued this in relation to Darwin's finches for instance, and the large-headed lizard on the island in Croatia. What do you mean when you say "I've argued"? You haven't provided any arguments. You just say this stuff without providing any support. What is your argument that the cheetahs mode of survival is not an adaption? Do you understand that such an adaptation would not even be contrary to Genesis? Tell us in your terms why your explanation of the cheetahs current state fate fits the facts better than does the theory of evolution. Or cease making the claim about fitting the facts better. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I didn't understand this part:
NoNukes writes: 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. By "progression" do you mean the progressive separations of populations into sub-populations and sub-sub-populations, etc., that result in potentially multiple speciation events? And you're saying that Faith's argument doesn't even permit one separation into a sub-population that results in speciation? And that she hasn't demonstrated that yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And you're saying that Faith's argument doesn't even permit one separation into a sub-population that results in speciation? And that she hasn't demonstrated that yet?
Yes you've exactly nailed my meaning. Faith says explicitly that making a 'breed' or 'race' exhaust diversity despite the fact that there is no evidence that the existing 'races' of humans without genetic diversity. So where is this limit she's supposedly on about? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Faith writes: 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. In this passage you seem to accept speciation as possible. In other messages you've said speciation was impossible. Complicating things have been your attempts to redefine the term speciation. An answer to this simple question would be very helpful:
Is speciation as defined by the science of biology for mammals (your preferred class) possible or not? Also, you say that mutations could only cause "scattered new traits within the population." You've said this many times, and you've received the same response many times: advantageous traits would spread through the population. An answer to this simple question would also be very helpful:
Given that advantageous traits caused by mutations would spread through a population, why do you think the new allele combinations caused by mutations are any less able to cause significant phenotypic change than new allele combinations of existing alleles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
This appears to be the case I admit but there are some racial groups where the rule doesn't hold which calls the theory into question. The Inuit and Mongolians for instance have darkish skin which doesn't fit with their high northern location... In the case of skin color, the general rule is the farther north a group lives the lighter the skin color. The reason is to permit more vitamin D to be made (it is made from UV light striking the skin). This only works when baring more skin to the sun results more vitamin D. In the case of the Inuit and other far-northern peoples, those folks aren't big on sun bathing--they'd freeze before they picked up any appreciable amounts of vitamin D. They get their vitamin from their diet. Because of this, their skin color does not associate with their latitude. There is no selection pressure for lighter skin.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. That is in effect what has happened with the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa and spreading in small bands to eventually cover the earth. Polynesians in particular would fit that model. North American natives meeting European explorers are like the closing of a ring species, from different groups spreading around the world. The changes in the different populations appears to be more a result of genetic drift than selection, as it would seem that eye color and shape have little to do with survival or reproduction (other than some element of sexual selection), and skin color seems to be mildly selected by latitude and UV\vitamin D effects (it doesn't prevent people of different skin color from living anywhere). Certainly Europeans and native Americans were reproductively isolated for many generations, evolving unique traits, but also demonstrating that reproductive isolation does not necessarily result in genetic isolation without some selective pressure to change.
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. And even on different islands: each island has a different species of tortoise, adapted to the different ecologies.
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. But there are still opportunities for mutations to provide a survival or reproductive benefit in any one habitat\ecology, and selection would favor those in each habitat\ecology, thus providing new genetic materials for every species, subspecies, variety etc. Not limitless, agreed, but not limited either. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
This isn't relevant to your point, but just in the interest of accuracy:
mikechell writes: 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...) inet2000.com is the website for an Internet provider. The specific webpage where you found your information is Welcome to Inet2000.com 2128 = 3.4 x 1038. I don't think that's the same as your value. If I just move my decimal point 38 zeros to the right and put it next to yours I get this:
340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (mine) 339,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (yours) Your value is missing three zeros and your coefficient is off by a little. It isn't "give or take a couple trillion" but "give or take hundreds of undecillions." Lots of sites seem to repeat this error. Strangely, it's the only completely incorrect value on that webpage (some of the other values are only a little off).
There are billions of genes. Tens of thousands is pretty common.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024