Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Evolution works inside Ecologies
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 37 (720353)
02-22-2014 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
02-21-2014 4:49 PM


Re: extinction event?
This is a very interesting thread, thanks. But of course I do have to point out that the evolution you are talking about is nothing but evolution within the Kind or "microevolution" as opposed to your implication that such changes validate the ToE itself.
Since I've already so many times answered the question "what prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?" I hope it doesn't get repeated here again, but maybe I should start collecting the posts where I've answered it so I can just put up links. Too bad I never think of that.
However, the ecological questions you are raising are interesting in themselves. Carry on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2014 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 8:43 AM Faith has replied
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 11:27 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 15 of 37 (720386)
02-22-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
02-22-2014 8:43 AM


Re: extinction event?
Anything observable is microevolution. But do carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 8:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 5:58 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 18 of 37 (720499)
02-24-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
02-24-2014 11:27 AM


Re: extinction event?
Can you point to differences between closely related species that could not be produced by microevolutionary mechanisms?
First, "closely related" to you implies genetic relatedness although I believe all that is based on is physical similarities which imply only similar design and not genetic relatedness.
No I couldn't point to such diferences, although they may exist; I'd also suspect there may be indicators in the genomes of each Species though I can't point to them either.
But the way I've been arguing this is by suggesting that the processes that bring about evolution / microevolution tend toward reduced genetic diversity, so that down any particular line of evolution or variation, theoretically eventually the point is reached similar to the cheetah where genes for major characteristics have become fixed so that further evolution is not possible. It may be that genetic mismatch between the new "species" and the former population may not involve completely fixed loci to that extent for further evolution to have become impossible. This trend is where I locate the end of microevolution such that macroevolution never can occur. It's not by defining the Kind, but the processes that vary the Kind. If they have a natural end as I'm suggesting, that confines evolution within the Kind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 11:27 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 12:49 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 20 of 37 (720501)
02-24-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taq
02-24-2014 12:49 PM


Re: extinction event?
I do think it's intuitively obvious, yes, so that if I describe it clearly enough it should simply be recognized. But I've also proposed tests that could be done. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to do them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 12:49 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 3:02 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 22 of 37 (720512)
02-24-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
02-24-2014 3:02 PM


Re: extinction event?
But if mutations are counted as increased diversity while in fact they don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism the whole thing is being misinterpreted. What you "see in nature," then isn't what you think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 3:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 3:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 27 of 37 (720545)
02-25-2014 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taq
02-24-2014 3:34 PM


Re: extinction event?
They can and do contribute beneficial characteristics. Among the differences between us and chimps are the mutations that have produced beneficial adaptations in humans, such as our increased brain, upright stance with effecient jogging gait, fine motor skills in hands, etc.
Ah Taq, this is precisely what I meant. Mutations are assumed to be the source of beneficial genetic changes. and chimps are assumed to be genetically related to humans, but all you can do is assert the connection the theory prescribes, that you believe in with implicit faith. None of this is proved nor can it be proved. It's pure assumption and must be taken on faith. As I said, if mutations don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism, despite the fact that you claim they do, which is one of the things you have not shown and apparently cannot show, the whole thing falls apart. It WON'T fall apart of course because you guys just go on asserting it no matter what, but it SHOULD fall apart because there is NO -- real, physical -- evidence for any of it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 02-24-2014 3:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2014 7:11 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 02-25-2014 10:44 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 30 of 37 (720627)
02-25-2014 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
02-25-2014 10:44 AM


Re: extinction event?
As usual, all you are doing is ASSERTING that mutations are the cause of genetic changes. The evidence does not prove that mutation caused any of it, such as the blackness of the pocket mice. All that is necessary is that a normally-occurring recessive allele become paired up [abe]: and prolific in the population under selection pressure, and perhaps there are other genetic routes to the same result, but mutation does not have to be one of them. [/abe] It's the same situation as with the peppered moth. All this is is Mendelian type inheritance. Again you are merely ASSUMING mutation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 02-25-2014 10:44 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2014 3:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 02-25-2014 5:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 32 of 37 (720634)
02-25-2014 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
02-25-2014 3:27 PM


Re: population shift with succession
Whether there was a mutation or the mice had a melanic allele that (like the Peppered Moths) provided better protection from predators, there certainly was a shift to black mice in these areas that exhibited a lot of black lava rock. The frequencies of the alleles in the mice population shifted from tan to black predominance.
Again, fur color is not a major change, but this was selected because of survival pressure.
The area of the lava flows would have an impact on this type of selection, with small areas not likely to have such sub-population separation and selection - it would need to be big enough that mice moving into the center would be less likely to vacate the area during the day but forage in it at night.
No problem with any of that. There was certainly selection pressure in the case of the mice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2014 3:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 36 of 37 (720655)
02-25-2014 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
02-25-2014 6:35 PM


black pocket mice
There is simply no way for the mutations that cause the black allele to spread to the mice next to that other black lava island due to the strong negative selection in the light colored desert. Guess what? There are still black mice on that other black lava field, but they don't have the same mutations as the other black mice. Black fur actually evolved twice through different mechanisms at each of the black islands.
I've moved my part of the pocket mice genetics discussion to the genetics thread, and don't want to continue it here, This is interesting and should be discussed on the other thread.
The odds against mutations occurring for this purpose are just too great, but in any case the better explanation is that the "D for dark" allele was simply most likely extremely rare in the light-colored population and strongly selected for on the lava islands where it therefore began to increase.
From what you say, it sounds like there are different ways a dark coat is genetically produced, through different gene combinations or whatnot, and it would be nice to discuss that on the other thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 02-25-2014 6:35 PM Taq 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