Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 901 of 1034 (759632)
06-13-2015 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 893 by Faith
06-13-2015 1:31 AM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
They get eaten in my scenario too, but that doesn't make their getting eaten the cause of the herd's adaptation to its niche.
I'm afraid that such facts mean exactly what you are denying.
Slow gazelles getting eaten is selection. All that is necessary to recognize natural selection is to understand that there is competition for life. All you need to understand the affect on the herd's adaptation is to accept that parents have a good chance of passing their own characteristics onto their offspring.
The above seem to me to be reasonable. And if they are accepted the premise of natural selection follows inevitably.
Or viewed another way, if slow gazelles disappear, then the faster ones are left. This alone would represent a change in allele frequencies that would exactly match the situation if the fast gazelles all decided to move to a Samoan island, which is exactly the situation you claim results in micro-evolution. Accordingly the herds genetic make up must change in response to the selection pressure exerted by a fast predator.
If you have some way to avoid this conclusion, let's hear it.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar. "...change represent a change allele frequencies..." => "...represent a change in allele frequencies..."

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 893 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 1:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 902 of 1034 (759633)
06-13-2015 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 893 by Faith
06-13-2015 1:31 AM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
One can't speak of a given outcome's "needing" a particular precondition? Funny, I would have thought there was plenty of room in the English language for such statements.
It is not rational to exclude selection on the basis that the outcome you are arguing for does not "need" it. Selection happens, and if that interferes with your desired outcome, then your outcome is wrong.

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 893 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 1:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 903 of 1034 (759638)
06-13-2015 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 900 by Faith
06-13-2015 10:19 AM


Re: might be off topic, but I have a question for Faith
At the risk of going off topic... I think this is hilarious
but yes, the survival of that olive tree suggests other trees also survived through the Flood.
This olive tree survived the flood ripping all the sediments from the surface of the earth and redepositing them over 1 to 2 miles deep, and then was able to survive being underwater for almost a year. Laughable.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 900 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 10:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 904 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2015 10:36 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 905 by Faith, posted 06-14-2015 2:53 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 904 of 1034 (759640)
06-13-2015 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by herebedragons
06-13-2015 9:52 PM


Re: might be off topic, but I have a question for Faith
And Wiki lists three living or recently-living trees older than the purported date of the flood, ca. 4,350 years ago.
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia
Doesn't this suggest, rather than that those trees survived being underwater for most of a year, that there was no such flood during their lifetimes?
[Can you say, "Yes!" boys and girls? (I knew you could!)]

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2015 9:52 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 905 of 1034 (759652)
06-14-2015 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 903 by herebedragons
06-13-2015 9:52 PM


Re: might be off topic, but I have a question for Faith
nobody said the strata exist on every square inch of the planet. Clearly they don't.
Not that it matters to a "Christian" like you that what God said should be taken to counter your ridiculous remark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2015 9:52 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 906 of 1034 (759653)
06-14-2015 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 857 by Admin
06-11-2015 11:40 AM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
Faith writes:
mikechell writes:
the environment weeds out unproductive changes.
Pure ToE, purely hypothetical. If this really happened in reality nobody would survive.
This has the potential to create a great deal of confusion as it seems contradictory. How can you accept selection when it involves reduced genetic diversity but reject selection in all other contexts? Why would selection operate differently upon a trait depending upon the genetic process that produced the trait?
What?
It's just one of those ToE just-sos that are pronounced from time to time but aren't really demonstrated, except for truly lethal conditions. The ToE seems to be full of such articles of faith that may or may not hold up.
However, it wouldn't contradict anything I've said about genetic diversity if it were true and I don't know why you think it would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 11:40 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 913 by Admin, posted 06-14-2015 9:21 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 907 of 1034 (759654)
06-14-2015 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 858 by Admin
06-11-2015 11:51 AM


Re: Evidence of adaptation (but mutation?}
HBD's point was that these are the types of changes one would expect as different populations of the same species experience different mutations and different selection pressures.
SOMETIMES selection is the reason for an adaptation. Where have I denied that? I only say that I think MOST such adaptations are not brought about by selection pressures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 858 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 11:51 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 908 of 1034 (759655)
06-14-2015 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 865 by Admin
06-11-2015 12:31 PM


Re: Increasing genetic diversity by a couple of neutral mutations
You have long since left your position as Moderator and are deep in the debate whether you want to admit it or not.
Let me simplify HBD's point. There's a species with a main population A and an isolated subpopulation B. Consider just one gene of this species that has alleles R, Q and S, but the S allele is missing in subpopulation B. That means the populations have these possible combinations of alleles for this gene:
Population A: RR RQ QQ RS QS SS
Population B: RR RQ QQ
Notice that population B has no allele combinations that do not exist in population A. Expressed another way, every allele combination of population B already exists in population A.
I've never said I expect different alleles from one population to another, so your carrying on about that is just a straw man. Good grief. I've thought that at a certain point of reduced genetic diversity the alleles underlying new traits might not fit with the same alleles in different combinations for the traits of earlier populations. I really haven't yet seen anything that shows that to be such an unlikely idea and I believe I quoted someone who sees it the same way.
Given this information, it would be very helpful if you could answer this question:
How can population B ever be a genetically different species than population A?
I don't believe it can be and never said I did, and you obviously have NO idea what I'm trying to say, you ask the weirdest questions. Genetically different species? Can't happen. All I've tried to explain is how two populations of the SAME species might fail to interbreed.
Naturally it would also be very helpful if you could clarify whether you think speciation is even possible with your reduced genetic diversity approach.
I do not think speciation as conventionally understood exists at all. There is an event that is called speciation that does occur that is characterized by loss of interbreeding with what I've always assumed to be other members of the SAME species. So I've been thinking perhaps reduced genetic diversity might bring about a genetic condition that interferes with interbreeding between populations of the SAME species. I still haven't seen anything to show this couldn't be the case.
Everyone else already knows the answer is no, they're just waiting for you to arrive at the same conclusion.
You don't have a clue what I've been saying about these things so anybody waiting for me to see things your way has a long wait.
And once you do understand that just mixing the same old alleles into new combinations cannot create genetically new species, it should also help you understand the problems with your claim that reduced genetic diversity is how evolution works. Biologists already understand that reduced genetic diversity by itself cannot create a genetically new species, so they would never propose or even consider it as the way evolution works.
Well, since you are ridiculously wrong that I've ever made any claim that mixing old alleles could create a genetically new species, ---HOW UTTERLY RIDICULOUS -- you've also said nothing relevant to my argument that microevolution always has to lead to reduced genetic diversity. Where do you get your nonsense about reduced genetic diversity creating a genetically new species? Obviously you are imposing some half-baked version of ToE on what I've said though I've never said any such thing or even come close.
If you want to suspend me go ahead. You are not behaving like a moderator and you are not contributing anything helpful to this conversation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 12:31 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2015 4:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 911 by herebedragons, posted 06-14-2015 7:27 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 914 by Admin, posted 06-14-2015 9:32 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 909 of 1034 (759656)
06-14-2015 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 865 by Admin
06-11-2015 12:31 PM


Re: Increasing genetic diversity by a couple of neutral mutations
dup
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 12:31 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 910 of 1034 (759657)
06-14-2015 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 908 by Faith
06-14-2015 4:03 AM


Re: Increasing genetic diversity by a couple of neutral mutations
quote:
Well, since you are ridiculously wrong that I've ever made any claim that mixing old alleles could create a genetically new species, ---HOW UTTERLY RIDICULOUS
Either you are splitting hairs here or you are admitting that mutation is necessary for speciation. Without mutation all you gave is "old" alleles and every combination of alleles is a mix of alleles existing in the parent species - a mix that could have existed in the parent population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 908 by Faith, posted 06-14-2015 4:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 911 of 1034 (759663)
06-14-2015 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 908 by Faith
06-14-2015 4:03 AM


Re: Increasing genetic diversity by a couple of neutral mutations
Genetically different species? Can't happen. All I've tried to explain is how two populations of the SAME species might fail to interbreed.
So all this is about virtually NOTHING. "Genetically different" species are not included in your "hypothesis?" Only genetically identical creatures with fur and tails that cannot interbreed or maybe than can, they just look different. (However, interbreeding is not important to your argument) Also not included are bacteria, asexually reproducing animals, or fungi - which are more than 90% of the species on earth.
How do you think we might explain the origin of genetically different species, such as the grey wolf and the coyote? Every genetically different species was on the ark?
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : clarity

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 908 by Faith, posted 06-14-2015 4:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 912 of 1034 (759666)
06-14-2015 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 899 by mikechell
06-13-2015 9:17 AM


Off-Topic Notice
Some facets of the Biblical flood are on-topic in this thread, such as the resulting genetic bottleneck, but by and large the flood is off-topic.
I am, as always, reading and responding to the messages of this thread in order. I see there's a reply to your message, and I'll address it when I get there.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by mikechell, posted 06-13-2015 9:17 AM mikechell has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 913 of 1034 (759668)
06-14-2015 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 906 by Faith
06-14-2015 3:24 AM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
Faith writes:
Admin writes:
This has the potential to create a great deal of confusion as it seems contradictory. How can you accept selection when it involves reduced genetic diversity but reject selection in all other contexts? Why would selection operate differently upon a trait depending upon the genetic process that produced the trait?
What?
It's just one of those ToE just-sos that are pronounced from time to time but aren't really demonstrated, except for truly lethal conditions. The ToE seems to be full of such articles of faith that may or may not hold up.
Again, I'm not trying to debate you, I'm only seeking some clarification. I think most people will have a great deal of difficulty seeing how denying a significant role for selection makes any sense. Splits of populations into small subpopulations occur informally everywhere throughout the civilized world with creatures like dogs, cats, hamsters, cows, sheep, canaries, finches, parrots, goldfish, guppies, angelfish, ants, etc., and in the absence of any selection pressures these small isolated subpopulations never exhibit any significant phenotypic change
Here's a specific example. A family has a community of around 10 or 20 pet gerbils that they maintain over a decade or two, something that is probably incredibly common all across the United States. There's no selection (so only drift could be a factor) and they allow the gerbils to breed randomly, and no significant phenotypic change ever appears. The scenario you insist must have happened in the past never seems to happen in the real world today.
People are seeking some clarification from you about why you think this way. There are actually two significant issues where people don't understand how you can maintain your position:
  • If the forces you've identified (genetic drift, new allele combinations) can produce significant phenotypic change in the absence of selection simply by isolating a small subpopulation, why is this never observed?
  • How can a subpopulation become a genetically new species simply by losing alleles and creating new allele combinations, since all the alleles it does have already exist in the main population? If this happened over and over again in the past, why are there no examples in the real world?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 906 by Faith, posted 06-14-2015 3:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 915 by Faith, posted 06-14-2015 12:37 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 914 of 1034 (759673)
06-14-2015 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 908 by Faith
06-14-2015 4:03 AM


Re: Increasing genetic diversity by a couple of neutral mutations
Faith writes:
You have long since left your position as Moderator and are deep in the debate whether you want to admit it or not.
My position as moderator does not require me to check my brain at the door. You have expressed opinions that no one can make any sense of, including this moderator, and then you are being alternately reluctant and recalcitrant about providing evidence to support them, preferring instead to merely repeat the opinions. It is my job as moderator to try to move the thread toward a discussion of evidence rather than opinion.
In the case of the message you're replying to, you didn't seem to understand HBD's post, and you also frequently complain that his posts are too technical, so I tried to put it in understandable terms. I was only making HBD's point in simpler terminology. I was not making my own point nor trying to debate you.
Your reply addresses the issue HBD raised far better than your response in Message 827, so I'll let HBD respond.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 908 by Faith, posted 06-14-2015 4:03 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 915 of 1034 (759688)
06-14-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by Admin
06-14-2015 9:21 AM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
If the forces you've identified (genetic drift, new allele combinations) can produce significant phenotypic change in the absence of selection simply by isolating a small subpopulation, why is this never observed?
I've given plenty of examples where it's observed.
How can a subpopulation become a genetically new species simply by losing alleles and creating new allele combinations, since all the alleles it does have already exist in the main population? If this happened over and over again in the past, why are there no examples in the real world?
There are plenty of examples, you just interpret them differently and refuse to try to understand what I'm saying.
You keep saying "genetically new species," I've never said that. The same way breeds of cattle developed out of the wild herd, or the Galapagos tortoise from the mainland tortoise or the different finch beaks from the original finch, that's what I'm talking about and I've never said they are a new species; that's why I call them a subspecies, they are a race or breed or variety not a new species in the sense of macroevolution. There is no such thing as a genetically new species in the sense of macroevolution which speciation supposedly represents. I continue to think it possible that a daughter population of the same species could lose the ability to interbreed with the others.
I'm finding this discussion so obnoxious, your responses, HBD's etc, there is really no point in continuing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by Admin, posted 06-14-2015 9:21 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by jar, posted 06-14-2015 12:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 917 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2015 12:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 920 by Admin, posted 06-14-2015 3:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024