Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 151 of 457 (707937)
10-02-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:57 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:
You guys are the ones evading the truth, as I said.
As a friend of mine used to say, you wouldn't know the truth if it sat down beside you in church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 457 (707944)
10-02-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by PaulK
10-02-2013 1:21 AM


Re: Back on topic
It looks more like YOU failed to get what I was saying. I was talking about an increase in the number of phenotypic variations found within a population. It doesn't make sense that reducing genetic variation would cause that.
Which, again, is exactly how you are failing to get what I've been talking about lo these many posts back through many threads over many moons. Finally you at least get what I'm saying and you think it doesn't make sense. That's a good start, finally.
New phenotypic variations emerge when you have new gene frequencies or allele frequencies, will you allow that much? And will you allow that this only occurs in an isolated subpopulation, because if it occurs in the larger population the changes will get rapidly diffused or absorbed? Somehow even within the larger population, then, you have to have some form of reproductive isolation occurring.
You say these phenotypic changes are found WITHIN a population, whereas my examples have been exclusively of new populations formed apart from a former population. But in either case you have to have reproductive isolation in order to get identifiable variations in the phenotype in an identifiable subpopulation, so this would have to be the case within the larger population wherever this is happening, by some form of sexual selection on the part of individuals within the population perhaps.
But I'm not talking about "getting a new phenotype" or a "new breed". I am talking about within-species phenotypic variation increasing, mainly because you refuse to accept variations in gene sequences as increases in genetic variation.
The reason I am talking about establishing a new breed or species is to answer the common refrain that there is nothing to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Evolutionists treat all variations of the microevolution sort as open-ended, such that there is nothing stopping fishes from evolving into zebras among other things, according to the typical evolutionist chart of the sort Coyote posted back in Message 49. My argument is that in fact there are GENETIC limits to this open-endedness, such that to get a new "species" REQUIRES that its genetic diversity be reduced from that of the population it diverges from. My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
You seem to be talking about a new phenotype in a very limited sense, the result of a mutation in an individual within a population that may produce a new trait in that individual. But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution. If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
Yes, that is how it happens in the wild and in domestic breeding. You are breeding angus cattle, then you cannot have alleles or whatever genetic material applies, for any other breed of cattle. Ideally purebreds have fixed loci for the traits that define the breed, or much homozygosity in the genome for those traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced genetic diversity.
In other words you are talking about a REDUCTION in phenotypic variation not an INCREASE. I think that adequately demonstrates which of us is "NOT getting" it.
No, I'm saying that to get a new phenotype, which is an increase in phenotypic variation, requires that you not have alleles for other phenotypes, and that is a situation of reduced genetic diversity in the population of your new phenotype with regard to the original or mother population of the species. Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes. As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
But increasing genetic diversity doesn't interfere with getting new species.
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
Once the species has formed of course it can add new variations without losing the distinctive features we use to identify it (and if a few such features were lost they would simply be discounted as diagnostic features for identifying that species - so even that is not a problem).
You are talking about details, I'm trying to stay focused on the big picture, that you don't get a new population of a new phenotype, a new set of traits, without a reduction in the underlying genetic diversity within the new subpopulation with respect to the earlier population from which it diverged. And this is most apparent with the smaller numbers of individuals that form the new population, although it is the trend even with larger groups.
Gene flow from the parent species is a potential problem (which is why reproductive isolation is an important criterion for identifying species). An incipient species could be reabsorbed into the parent species. But once it is distinct with reproductive isolation established that cannot happen. The rest of your argument is just false. New variations created by mutation AFTER a new species has formed do not in any way threaten its existence as a species.
Yes they would if they affect traits considered characteristic of that species. This is only of importance in domestic breeding where you risk losing some crucially defining characteristics, and the main thing if this occurs in the wild is that you have the absurd situation of forming a new species on the basis of its reduced genetic diversity, which is THE way new species have to form, and then you add in stuff that blurs the picture but it would never be enough new diversity to make up for the necessary and essential loss that creates the species in the first place; so what you are picturing is something like losing genetic diversity and then adding back in a little genetic diversity, then if a new species forms from that losing genetic diversity again and so on. Halting steps forward and backward forever. This is NOT how evolution is presented, as a straightforward increase in both genetic and phenotypic diversity without any glitches between the fish and the zebra.
If your opinion was sufficient to settle an argument then you wouldn't need your argument in the first place. So you need more than your opinion that adding new variations to a newly-formed species somehow makes it less of a species. It is obviously absurd to say that the appearance of a new variation not found in the parent species represents a reversion to the parent species.
Yes that would be absurd. I'm trying to keep the picture in mind of a recognizable new phenotype characteristic of a new "species" such as the new lizards on the island that Frako described, or Darwin's Galapagos turtles. They have distinctive characteristics that set them apart from the mainland populations of each species. These developments are presented as confirmation of the ToE. The picture is of an ESTABLISHED new species or breed in both cases. According to your thinking mutations would alter its traits and change the basic population-wide phenotype, which of course is true if that happens. I wonder if either phenotype HAS altered since the last look at the lizards or at Darwin's turtles. IF they have altered by such means of course they are still the same species, but this is a trivial point. The point I'm trying to keep in focus is that the FORMATION of a new species, that is, the emergence of new traits that come to characterize a new population-wide phenotype, always involves the reduction of genetic diversity; that is the DIRECTION of such changes, you don't get new species from the addition of genetic diversity. In the case of domestic breeding that will only produce a mongrel. Perhaps you can argue that in the wild it doesn't matter if the phenotype keeps changing, OK, but again that's a trivial point. I think what I'd say here is that it doesn't actually happen. You don't get that kind of blurring of the phenotype in the wild as a rule, or ever. You get pretty clearcut traits in your new inbred subpopulation, whether of Darwin's turtles or the island lizards or a subpopulation of chipmunks or whatever, as long as reproductive isolation is maintained.
And yet, that is what your argument seems to amount to.
Hardly. Increasing genetic diversity is just a side issue to my argument. I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it. I'm just trying to answer the constant refrain that assumes that mutations are always adding genetic diversity, saying that even if that happened it couldn't counteract the necessity of reducing genetic diversity in order to get a new "species" and THAT is what my argument "amounts" to, that's what it's ABOUT. Even if mutations do increase genetic diversity the effect has to be small and it is only going to create that situation of a step forward and a step back that I described above anyway, which in itself contradicts the smooth unhindered path pictured by evolutionists from micro to macroevolution.
Let's boil it down to that question:
We have a new species.
A new phenotypic variation appears in that species - it does not cause any of the features that distinguish the new species from it's parent species to be lost. It is not found in the parent species at all.
How does this make the new species any less a species ?
Until you can give an answer to that question that makes sense your argument fails.
Again, THAT is NOT "my argument" and for my answer to this side issue of a challenge see above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2013 1:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by frako, posted 10-02-2013 2:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2013 2:40 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 156 by frako, posted 10-02-2013 3:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 326 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(3)
Message 153 of 457 (707946)
10-02-2013 2:20 PM


Kind of shows the OP's point
So, as I read through this thread....and yes, I read all of it even though a lot of it was quite repetitive...I have realized that Faith is doing a magical job of providing facts to accurately back-up the OP's point of the amount of effort individuals will go through to deny facts when it confronts religious belief.
Now, I know that Faith is doing her best to avoid the arguments from the Bible, which I will commend her on, although instead she has fallen into a trap of misrepresenting genetics. It appears, and I could be wrong so please correct me if so, that she is saying that a breeder works like natural selection does. While the initial premise between the two are very similar (founder effect) in that they start from a small group of animals who have either been forcefully separated, left the original home, or isolated themselves from the parent population in some way, that is where the comparison ends. A breeder is attempting to stem the flow of evolution. If a mutation occurs that is undesirable to maintaining the breed, whether or not this mutation is beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, the breeder will refuse to allow this animal to breed meaning that asthetics, not survival to reproduce, is the deciding factor.
In a hypothetical situation; imagine a breeder is working with pure bred Alaskan Malamutes. One of the puppies is born with a mutation affecting the undercoat of the dog, making it slightly more susceptible to cold. In the wild, this dog could survive or find a new area and breed with another animal in a warmer climate. Whereas, the human breeder has instantly determined that this trait is deleterious. In one instance, there is an opportunity to continue to increase the genetic diversity of dogs with the addition of a dog the size of a malamute, but with shorter hair for warmer climates. In the other, there is a physical barrier guaranteeing the mutation will not propagate. So, what I would ask Faith is what is the barrier that stops mutations from accumulating, as long as the creature survives, in the wild? In other words, what is the barrier that makes it similar to breeding where asthetics chooses the beneficial mutations?
Also, you are stating that genetic diversity is only decreased by the founder effect, and in a sense, you are correct. Initially, the genetic diversity is reduced because of the smaller population size. However, after the founder population begins to propagate (say twenty pure bred malamutes are released onto a tropical island with no other dogs), the mutations will begin to accumulate, at least the neutral (a majority of mutations) and the beneficial (the minority of mutations) will accumulate, while any malamute born with a deleterious (middle of the majority and minority) mutation will be removed from the population by its inability to survive and breed. Say we leave these malamutes to propagate in a new type of enviroment for 1,000 years. With their hunting abilities being closely related to wolves and the pack mentality, we could expect them to survive off wildlife (as so many dogs did when settlers reached new lands), how many mutations could have had time to accumulate within that time? Without a mechanism to stop the number of mutations from growing, there is no telling which direction these purebred dogs could go. We could end up with dogs with no undercoat, that have shorter stature, or any of a myriad of possible options, because there is no longer a breeder controlling the process, just nature allowing what works just good enough to survive and breed. Breeders have specific requirements/Evolution has just good enough to survive and breed, that is an enormous difference between the two that you are forgetting along with your lack of a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating.
So, Faith, you want to prove your point, there are two issues you need to explain before you can even begin to make sense with your non-biblical argument. First, could you justify your statement that evolution works in similar ways to breeding animals for specific traits? Also, could you explain the mechanism that exists for stopping the accumulation of mutations on the genome in the wild? Explaining these two points should lead us to a way to test your thoughts on the issue, but until then you are the one standing in the realm of speculation.
As for the OP, I feel you have done a splendid job of showing the cognitive dissonance that religion can force someone to live under. You hand wave away evidence, or state that science is biased whenever it goes agaisnt your views and then have a hypocritical stance when it can be reconciled with your beliefs. Why not lose the hypocritical part and find a way to reconcile every bit of evidence with your belief? If you were to say, "I trust the facts currently point to evolution for the diversity of species, I trust that the evidence points to an ancient Earth, but personally, I believe in a Supernatural being without evidence, and that is my opinion of origins," I would have far less issue with you because you at least are separating your objective facts from your subjective opinion, instead of letting subjective cloud your objective.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 9:13 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 154 of 457 (707947)
10-02-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
10-02-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
New phenotypic variations emerge when you have new gene frequencies or allele frequencies, will you allow that much? And will you allow that this only occurs in an isolated subpopulation, because if it occurs in the larger population the changes will get rapidly diffused or absorbed?
And would you allow that if the whole population absorbs a change that the whole population evolved a bit or was changed a bit.
You say these phenotypic changes are found WITHIN a population, whereas my examples have been exclusively of new populations formed apart from a former population. But in either case you have to have reproductive isolation in order to get identifiable variations in the phenotype in an identifiable subpopulation, so this would have to be the case within the larger population wherever this is happening, by some form of sexual selection on the part of individuals within the population perhaps.
or even geographical isolation
My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
But that does not happen your argument is WRONG.
You accept mutations, what is stopping mutations in these new species, every mutation increases genetic diversity, a neutral mutation does it, a bad mutation does it, and so do good mutations. Mutations are random they dont turn the species back to its parrent species, they make the new species more diverse. Or even produce a NEW NEW species.
But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-skink-live-birth-eggs
Lizards who before layed eggs are now giving birth A NEW TRAIT A WHOLE POPULATION OF THEM NOW HAPPY ??
. If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
Why do genomes just stop mutating, no new gens, no more deletions of old gens, no more duplications of old gens ... It all just stops?
Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes.
Yes many factors do this inclouding natural selection, if the new phenotype is better then the old one.
As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
So counter intuitive i dont get what you are saying.
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
HOW is it destroying it is a species just a SPECIFIC genome, or a different variations of a simmilar genome. A new species with with little genetic diversity has only a few genomes in its population almost identical. But with every new member in the population the diversity increases where once yoou had 10 genomes almost identical you now have 11 and because of mutation it is also a bit different. As the population grows these differences exponentially increase increasing genetic diversity. And yes new speciation events can accure the new new specis can also have a low genetic diversity, but in the samw way it increases its genetic diverysity again.
I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it.
How do you know most mutations are deleterius? When all observations made by science shows that most are neutral some are deleterius and some are enhancing.
You get an influx of new individuals all the time its called REPRODUCTION. AND NO INDIVIDUAL IS A 100% copy of their parents. IT HAS GENS NEITHER OF THEM HAS AND WHEN HE BREEDS THOSE GENS GET PASSED ON TO HIS CHILDREN THEY POSSES THESE NEW GENES BUT ALSO HAVE SOME NEW ONES OF THEIR OWN.
So if a wolf was borne in a pack that had a mutation making him stronger he would not pass this trait on because a weaker wolf would be the one fathering all the new children?
In nature its usualy the best strongest and healthiest individuals who are the fathers of the next generation. They fight for females, they haveto survive till breeding season. An individual with a deleterius mutation has a slim chance of fathering a single offspring let alone multiple. An individual with a good mutation has a better chance of fathering more children as he can fight off more rivals who want to reproduce. So a deleterius mutation is selected against, while a good one is selected for. NATURAL SELECTION. http://postfiles10.naver.net/...542eIY8u_GIF/ringspecies.gif[\img]
My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
But that does not happen your argument is WRONG.
You accept mutations, what is stopping mutations in these new species, every mutation increases genetic diversity, a neutral mutation does it, a bad mutation does it, and so do good mutations. Mutations are random they dont turn the species back to its parrent species, they make the new species more diverse. Or even produce a NEW NEW species.
But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-skink-live-birth-eggs
Lizards who before layed eggs are now giving birth A NEW TRAIT A WHOLE POPULATION OF THEM NOW HAPPY ??
. If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
Why do genomes just stop mutating, no new gens, no more deletions of old gens, no more duplications of old gens ... It all just stops?
Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes.
Yes many factors do this inclouding natural selection, if the new phenotype is better then the old one.
As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
So counter intuitive i dont get what you are saying.
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
HOW is it destroying it is a species just a SPECIFIC genome, or a different variations of a simmilar genome. A new species with with little genetic diversity has only a few genomes in its population almost identical. But with every new member in the population the diversity increases where once yoou had 10 genomes almost identical you now have 11 and because of mutation it is also a bit different. As the population grows these differences exponentially increase increasing genetic diversity. And yes new speciation events can accure the new new specis can also have a low genetic diversity, but in the samw way it increases its genetic diverysity again.
I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it.
How do you know most mutations are deleterius? When all observations made by science shows that most are neutral some are deleterius and some are enhancing.
You get an influx of new individuals all the time its called REPRODUCTION. AND NO INDIVIDUAL IS A 100% copy of their parents. IT HAS GENS NEITHER OF THEM HAS AND WHEN HE BREEDS THOSE GENS GET PASSED ON TO HIS CHILDREN THEY POSSES THESE NEW GENES BUT ALSO HAVE SOME NEW ONES OF THEIR OWN.
So if a wolf was borne in a pack that had a mutation making him stronger he would not pass this trait on because a weaker wolf would be the one fathering all the new children?
In nature its usualy the best strongest and healthiest individuals who are the fathers of the next generation. They fight for females, they haveto survive till breeding season. An individual with a deleterius mutation has a slim chance of fathering a single offspring let alone multiple. An individual with a good mutation has a better chance of fathering more children as he can fight off more rivals who want to reproduce. So a deleterius mutation is selected against, while a good one is selected for. NATURAL SELECTION.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 155 of 457 (707948)
10-02-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
10-02-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
quote:
Which, again, is exactly how you are failing to get what I've been talking about lo these many posts back through many threads over many moons. Finally you at least get what I'm saying and you think it doesn't make sense. That's a good start, finally.
Just to be really clear you are claiming that increased genetic variation measured at the level of the phenotype is produced by reduced genetic variation ? Because if you aren't you're the one failing to understand the point.
quote:
New phenotypic variations emerge when you have new gene frequencies or allele frequencies, will you allow that much? And will you allow that this only occurs in an isolated subpopulation, because if it occurs in the larger population the changes will get rapidly diffused or absorbed? Somehow even within the larger population, then, you have to have some form of reproductive isolation occurring.
No, I won't grant that. Changing the frequencies of genes won't change the combinations possible so without the addition of new genetic variations the possible range of phenotype so remains the same. At most you can produce phenotypes that would be incredibly unlikely given the original gene frequencies.
quote:
You say these phenotypic changes are found WITHIN a population, whereas my examples have been exclusively of new populations formed apart from a former population. But in either case you have to have reproductive isolation in order to get identifiable variations in the phenotype in an identifiable subpopulation, so this would have to be the case within the larger population wherever this is happening, by some form of sexual selection on the part of individuals within the population perhaps.
This seems to be nonsense. A "new population" is a population so the idea that I couldn't mean that just because I used the word "population" is so obviously silly that it needs no further comment. All species display a range of phenotypic variation, and we can get distinct subspecies without absolute reproductive isolation.
quote:
The reason I am talking about establishing a new breed or species is to answer the common refrain that there is nothing to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Evolutionists treat all variations of the microevolution sort as open-ended, such that there is nothing stopping fishes from evolving into zebras among other things, according to the typical evolutionist chart of the sort Coyote posted back in Message 49. My argument is that in fact there are GENETIC limits to this open-endedness, such that to get a new "species" REQUIRES that its genetic diversity be reduced from that of the population it diverges from. My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
Speciation is, as you know, macroevolution in the scientific use of the term. But again you need to produce an argument that shows that genetic diversity cannot increase after the new species has formed.
quote:
You seem to be talking about a new phenotype in a very limited sense, the result of a mutation in an individual within a population that may produce a new trait in that individual
Of course I am talking about new phenotypic variations because that's the point I am making. And the only reason I am talking about phenotype is that you apparently won't accept changes measured at the level of genotype.
quote:
But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution
Actually it IS evolution - microevolution. And I must say that not thinking about a point that could defeat your argument is hardly a good way to answer it.
quote:
If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
The trouble with this argument is that it fails to establish an overall trend. If the new species can increase in genetic diversity to the same level as the parent species there is no need for a long-term overall decline - just a pattern of peaks and troughs. By not considering increases in genetic diversity you missed this obvious and serious problem in your argument.
quote:
No, I'm saying that to get a new phenotype, which is an increase in phenotypic variation, requires that you not have alleles for other phenotypes, and that is a situation of reduced genetic diversity in the population of your new phenotype with regard to the original or mother population of the species
Obviously you are talking about reduced phenotypic VARIATION.
quote:
Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes. As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
But THAT population has reduced phenotypic variation. That's the whole point of your argument. So you're the one not getting it.
quote:
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
No you've expressed it clearly enough. You just haven't offered any explanation of how it could possibly be true.
quote:
You are talking about details, I'm trying to stay focused on the big picture, that you don't get a new population of a new phenotype, a new set of traits, without a reduction in the underlying genetic diversity within the new subpopulation with respect to the earlier population from which it diverged. And this is most apparent with the smaller numbers of individuals that form the new population, although it is the trend even with larger groups.
No, I'm taking a BROADER view than you. Where you only think about soeciation I am thinking about what happens to the population in the periods between speciation events as well - which is a considerable majority of the lifespan of a successful species.
quote:
Yes they would if they affect traits considered characteristic of that species. This is only of importance in domestic breeding where you risk losing some crucially defining characteristics, and the main thing if this occurs in the wild is that you have the absurd situation of forming a new species on the basis of its reduced genetic diversity, which is THE way new species have to form, and then you add in stuff that blurs the picture but it would never be enough new diversity to make up for the necessary and essential loss that creates the species in the first place; so what you are picturing is something like losing genetic diversity and then adding back in a little genetic diversity, then if a new species forms from that losing genetic diversity again and so on. Halting steps forward and backward forever. This is NOT how evolution is presented, as a straightforward increase in both genetic and phenotypic diversity without any glitches between the fish and the zebra.
There are no "crucially defining features" of a wild species. There are only the features we use to identify a species and if members if a species lack one or more if those traits we were wrong to regard them as reliable identifiers in the first place.
And you are even more wrong about evolution. Evolutionary theory never says that the within-species level of genetic variation - which is what you are talking about in your argument - must increase. Yes if you add the genetic variations in zebras to those in fish you will find a lot more than in any single species but your argument says nothing to that could get in the way of that.
And simply assuming that the increases in genetic variation cannot balance the losses is just an assumption.
quote:
The point I'm trying to keep in focus is that the FORMATION of a new species, that is, the emergence of new traits that come to characterize a new population-wide phenotype, always involves the reduction of genetic diversity; that is the DIRECTION of such changes, you don't get new species from the addition of genetic diversity. In the case of domestic breeding that will only produce a mongrel. Perhaps you can argue that in the wild it doesn't matter if the phenotype keeps changing, OK, but again that's a trivial point. I think what I'd say here is that it doesn't actually happen. You don't get that kind of blurring of the phenotype in the wild as a rule, or ever. You get pretty clearcut traits in your new inbred subpopulation, whether of Darwin's turtles or the island lizards or a subpopulation of chipmunks or whatever, as long as reproductive isolation is maintained
You say that we get no "blurring" but what does that mean ? You can't imagine that every member of a species is identical to the others in phenotype or genotype. But what is this "blurring" other than variation within the species ?
quote:
Hardly. Increasing genetic diversity is just a side issue to my argument.
Then you don't understand your own argument.
quote:
I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it. I'm just trying to answer the constant refrain that assumes that mutations are always adding genetic diversity, saying that even if that happened it couldn't counteract the necessity of reducing genetic diversity in order to get a new "species" and THAT is what my argument "amounts" to, that's what it's ABOUT. Even if mutations do increase genetic diversity the effect has to be small and it is only going to create that situation of a step forward and a step back that I described above anyway, which in itself contradicts the smooth unhindered path pictured by evolutionists from micro to macroevolution.
In other words you are just making assumptions. At the level of the genotype most mutations are neutral anyway. Likely a lot of phenotypic mutations are neutral too. And, of course, natural selection weighs in to spread beneficial mutations and remove deleterious mutations. I've made this point before but it seems I must make it again. Assuming that numbers you don't know happen to favour your view is not an argument. It's just an assumption.
quote:
Again, THAT is NOT "my argument" and for my answer to this side issue of a challenge see above.
But it is your argument. You even used it in this post:
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 156 of 457 (707951)
10-02-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
10-02-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
Since reading cant convince you perhaps you can take a bit of time and look at a video that shows what testing is done and why evolution is fact.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 157 of 457 (707959)
10-02-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
10-01-2013 5:24 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:
Yes, I thought I was clear that I'm objecting to that definition, not that I'm not aware of it. It's a tendentious question-begging definition that obscures the fact that you still have the same genome and therefore the same species, not a new species in the sense you would have to have to validate the claims of the ToE. All that has happened in most cases is that you get a very small population that has become reproductively isolated and inbred over many generations, and the inbreeding over those many generations of this group with severely reduced genetic diversity does lead to genetic incompatibility with the original population. It's still the same species nevertheless and the term "speciation" only serves to obfuscate that fact. I refer to it by that name anyway, but every time I do I have to append all these caveats and qualifications.
You're saying that when scientists think a species is descended from another species, in reality they're the same species, but the descendent species has reduced genetic diversity. If this were true then the descendent species would possess only a subset of alleles of the parent species, and it would have no alleles unique to itself. No genetic analysis has ever revealed any such thing, therefore you're wrong.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 5:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 10:06 PM Percy has replied
 Message 159 by Diomedes, posted 10-02-2013 10:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 160 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 11:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 158 of 457 (707961)
10-02-2013 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
10-02-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Back on topic
You're saying that when scientists think a species is descended from another species, in reality they're the same species, but the descendent species has reduced genetic diversity. If this were true then the descendent species would possess only a subset of alleles of the parent species, and it would have no alleles unique to itself.
What it has is new allele FREQUENCIES unique to itself. THAT's what evolution is made of, Percy. It's how you get new breeds, new races, new varieties, new "species."
No genetic analysis has ever revealed any such thing, therefore you're wrong.
No genetic analysis has ever revealed new allele frequencies in a daughter population? How odd.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-02-2013 7:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-03-2013 8:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 159 of 457 (707962)
10-02-2013 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
10-02-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Back on topic
You're saying that when scientists think a species is descended from another species, in reality they're the same species, but the descendent species has reduced genetic diversity. If this were true then the descendent species would possess only a subset of alleles of the parent species, and it would have no alleles unique to itself. No genetic analysis has ever revealed any such thing, therefore you're wrong
Not only is she wrong, she would have to deny meiosis to validate her hypothesis.
Meiosis, inheritance and variation Science Learning Hub
The following paragraphs sum things up well:
quote:
Genetic variation is increased by meiosis
During fertilisation, 1 gamete from each parent combines to form a zygote. Because of recombination and independent assortment in meiosis, each gamete contains a different set of DNA. This produces a unique combination of genes in the resulting zygote.
Recombination or crossing over occurs during prophase I. Homologous chromosomes — 1 inherited from each parent — pair along their lengths, gene by gene. Breaks occur along the chromosomes, and they rejoin, trading some of their genes. The chromosomes now have genes in a unique combination.
Independent assortment is the process where the chromosomes move randomly to separate poles during meiosis. A gamete will end up with 23 chromosomes after meiosis, but independent assortment means that each gamete will have 1 of many different combinations of chromosomes.
This reshuffling of genes into unique combinations increases the genetic variation in a population and explains the variation we see between siblings with the same parents.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-02-2013 7:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 12:15 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 160 of 457 (707963)
10-02-2013 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
10-02-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Back on topic
You're saying that when scientists think a species is descended from another species, in reality they're the same species
I think what she means is that she is only interested in speciation that produces new kinds. She does not care about evolution between finches with different sized beaks. I don't have an issue with that. The problem is that Faith thinks the proper way to get us to talk about her topic is to redefine species to her liking.
I can understand her frustration, but I'm not going to help her out by giving her control of the dictionary. Particularly when "kind" is so poorly defined. For example Lions and other big cats that can't mate are still of the "Catty" kind, but humans and all other apes are of different kinds by fiat.
And of course even resolving that issue does not make her diversity argument any more rational. It's no more convincing here than it was in the other two threads devoted to the topic.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-02-2013 7:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 12:04 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 10-03-2013 8:54 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 457 (707967)
10-03-2013 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by NoNukes
10-02-2013 11:26 PM


Re: Back on topic
Finding the right words is a problem there doesn't seem to be any solution to. If I use the words "species" and "speciation" because they are attached to real phenomena that I want to describe, I run the risk of their being read only in the sense established by the ToE, which will of course only confuse things and make my argument all the harder to understand. The best I've come up with is to put those words in quote marks to show that I'm using them in a different sense and of course to keep repeating how I AM using them which gets tedious but that seems more desirable than the confusion I'd expect from not trying to qualify them.
Yes you are right, I'm trying to keep the focus on what the ToE promises, new Kinds (or Species the way that word was used back in Darwin's day), which requires me to keep explaining that the actually observed phenomenon of "speciation" only refers to microevolution or the playing out of the genome of the evolving Species and not in any sense a step toward that ToE promise.
Defining the Kind or Species isn't possible beyond some broad or imprecise categories, but the basic concept ought to be clear enough at least, and what I keep arguing about reduced genetic diversity leading to a point where further inability to vary or speciate comes to a stop becomes a sort of functional definition of the boundary of a Kind.
The diversity argument you find so irrational seems to me to be the soul of simplicity and obviousness, not necessarily easily grasped due to evolutionist assumptions but nevertheless simple enough if one makes an effort to see it within the creationist paradigm, and aids to understanding it are available from a basic knowledge of how breeding works and what conservationists do. It is indeed frustrating not to be able to get something so simple across. To my mind this is a frustrating but interesting case of paradigm clash.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 11:26 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 12:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2013 1:55 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 162 of 457 (707968)
10-03-2013 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
10-03-2013 12:04 AM


Re: Back on topic
Species the way that word was used back in Darwin's day
Apparently you missed the significance of the finch beak example. Darwin meant to include such changes as evolution, and he did not make other than a quantitative distinction between that and any other evolution.
You are the one deviating from Darwin's day.
t is indeed frustrating not to be able to get something so simple across.
We understand what you are trying to convey. The problem is that we recognize instantly that what you say is wrong.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
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)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 12:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 12:17 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 457 (707969)
10-03-2013 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Diomedes
10-02-2013 10:37 PM


Re: Back on topic
Far from denying that obvious and well known process it is implied in everything I've said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Diomedes, posted 10-02-2013 10:37 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 457 (707970)
10-03-2013 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by NoNukes
10-03-2013 12:12 AM


Re: Back on topic
OK fine, so the terminological problem is too complex to solve at all.
You do not "recognize" what I say is wrong, you ARE misunderstanding it and you are imposing a bias on it. Everybody likes to say they understand it but when they actually try to characterize it it's clear they are miles away from getting it. Frako doesn't get it at all, neither does Percy although he has very strenuously claimed to many times, and neither does PaulK. And now I know you don't either.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 12:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 165 of 457 (707972)
10-03-2013 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
10-03-2013 12:17 AM


Re: Back on topic
You do not "recognize" what I say is wrong,
Yes, I do recognize it is wrong, and so does everyone else here. Isn't it at least possible that you are simply not capable of seeing the holes in your explanations? And the problem isn't the terminology. We've all spotted you that mistake.
You want to believe that we just cannot get it, but given the way you have to bail out of other discussions about genetics because they are too hard for you, just how likely is it that you are some kind of evolution savant on the topic of genetic diversity?
And now I know you don't either.
And yet I haven't tried to characterize your argument, and I haven't said anything about evolution that you disagree with. You've formed your opinion that I don't understand you simply from knowing that I disagree. That tells me that you cannot even conceive of being wrong on a topic you know next to nothing 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)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 12:17 AM 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