Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 8:15 AM
334 online now:
Aussie, Pressie, Stile, Tangle (4 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,207 Year: 23,813/21,208 Month: 1,778/2,468 Week: 287/822 Day: 13/67 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution
Faith
Member
Posts: 26290
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 61 of 131 (725828)
05-02-2014 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
05-02-2014 12:59 AM


Beneficial mutations and other tall tales
It would if mutation had anything to do with creating viable alleles but even you all acknowledge that the vast majority are either neutral or deleterious.

Neutral mutations - by definition - must produce alleles just as functional (at least in the sense of fitness) as the pre-mutation version.

In other words it's a good thing they can change the order of the DNA sequence and not do any real damage. Basically good design I'd say, that can survive such assaults on its integrity to the extent you all say occurs. A few more assaults on that same sequence might produce a different outcome though.

Deleterious mutations often produce alleles that are still functional. Moreover the judgement of "neutral" and "deleterious" is relevant to an environment and can change if the environment changes. Equating "less helpful in the current environment" (deleterious) to "non-functional" is just wrong.

All assumption, all theory, all Creed. The reality is that mutations are mistakes that change things that were working perfectly well. If the DNA manages to go on functioning, hooray for the DNA. Meanwhile you hold on to this idea that a destructive process can destroy the sequence of a gene and produce something "helpful" given the right environment. Does probability enter into any of these suppositions?

More importantly there is no theoretical reason why there should be a problem. Our knowledge of how mutations occur does not point to the existence of any mechanism that would prevent useful mutations from occurring. So, that observation is not very helpful to your argument at all.

No "mechanism that would prevent useful mutations from occurring?" Pretty hypothetical statement that. I'd suggest the improbability of it for one thing, given the fact that mutations are a basically destructive occurrence, interfering with the normal functioning of DNA. For another, the extreme rarity of such an occurrence, and in fact the iffiness of the evidence when you are able to trace it at all. Meanwhile there are those thousands upon thousands of known genetic diseases.

In fact your argument relies heavily on the difficulty of making the observations that you personally require, not on anything that makes a real case against the theory.

The difficulty of making the observations that I require? You mean because I said it takes thought, it's not all that easy to grasp? That's somehow a proof that it can't be a real case against the theory? This is strange logic indeed.

If you held that to be the basis of personal skepticism then it would still be a little unreasonable, I think, but that is your right. To try to make an argument of it, to say that other people should be convinced by it, is on the other hand completely unreasonable. A demand that other people should share your prejudice is not an argument.

Then it sure is fortunate that I have made no such "demand," isn't it? On the other hand you all DO demand that those who disagree with the ToE should have it shoved down the throats of our children against our will. Go figure.

I think you extrapolate this from the observed fact of new mutations occurring from generation to generation, plus the theory that requires you to believe that they are the source of functioning alleles, although this is belied by their generally nonbeneficial nature. Unfortunately the result of the accumulation of these different mutations in any population is ultimately most likely genetic disease, not the emergence of new healthy phenotypes.

Of course there is nothing really unhealthy about neutral mutations (the majority) and even deleterious mutations can become beneficial or form the basis for future beneficial changes.

More theory, creed, assumption. This is sheer blindness to the fact of what mutations really are. It's a good thing the DNA design is hardy enough to withstand these frequent assaults on its integrity to the extent it can.

But there is that assumption again, that theory, that fantasy, that says you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I mean a useful mutation out of a deleterious one that pretty much destroyed a functioning gene, if the "right environment" happens to come along to make use of it. Of course you offer no evidence of such a thing, because it's all creed, assumption based on the theory. But really maybe it's more like this familiar scenario where it gives you a painful chronic skin rash but it also protects you against frostbite? That's the usual kind of thing we get from a "good" but "deleterious" mutation. You know, malaria protection in exchange for sickle cell anemia. Wonderful.

And then there is the existence of beneficial mutations and the role of natural selection to consider.

But again this is just based on the theory, with such a minuscule bit of evidence for it that it hardly exists at all.

Considering the other evidence for evolution ...

What other evidence? You mean all those assumptions piled on assumptions? Don't know what you mean here.

...at best you would have a weak case for an unknown source of beneficial genetic changes - and that would clearly fit the evidence better than your own views.

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. "Unknown source of beneficial genetic changes?" But of course I'm claiming that all beneficial genetic changes -- if we're talking about observable change from population to population at least -- that are known to occur are explained by the processes I'm laying out here. Nothing unknown about it.

--although I wouldn't put the word "beneficial" in there because that's an artifact of the ToE and has nothing to do with what really happens in reality, which is that change occurs with the shuffling of gene/allele frequencies and in most cases the change is just as viable as the original population, no better, no worse.

In a ring species there's no more or less advantaged or adapted species, they are all simply interesting variations on the genetic theme as it were.

And that is hardly what you want. (Michael Behe would be happy - but even he doesn't go that far. And he can't find the evidence he needs to support his own arguments).

Well you really HAVE lost me, I have NO idea what you are talking about now.

Again, the observed divergence between populations needs no other source than the change in gene/allele frequencies that is the natural result of the splitting of the populations itself. The best you can say for mutations is that the built in alleles were originally the result of mutations, because the new mutations would not be of any use in bringing about this divergence, since they would have to be passed on in the population, which is not too likelyl to happen to any given mutations in individuals.

This argument is just confused. Even if we accept that a particular mutation is unlikely to be passed on it does not follow that it is unlikely that any mutations are passed on. And natural selection will skew the odds away from deleterious mutations and towards beneficial mutations.

Seems to me it is VERY unlikely that any single mutations, that is, mutations possessed by single individuals, WOULD be passed on at all. As I said, only if you are assuming that all alleles were originally mutations can you suppose that mutations have anything to do with the formation of a new species.

But anyway, again, this is pure assumption, that mutations have anything at all to do with the formation of species/subspecies, and that natural selection is always the reliable hero ready to save the day when things go a bit wrong. The ToE says it's so, therefore it is so.

Moreover, the observed genetic diversity requires additional alleles to enter the population whether using your YEC ideas of the history of life, or those of mainstream science.

WHAT "observed genetic diversity?" This is FICTION, PaulK. You say it is "observed," where is the evidence? Which dog breed has more genetic diversity than a mutt? Where's your vaunted Evidence? And don't give me that rabbits in Australia scenario which ended with someone questioning the facts in the story.

You have no observations which give us any positive reason to believe otherwise.

Getting anyone who is steeped in the ToE to see anything I have to say is not something I have any illusions about any more. The argument has been sufficient but the eyes are closed.

So again it is seen that you are relying on assumption, against the evidence.

What's really odd here is that you all keep complaining I'm ignoring the evidence but what I've been getting from you is mostly theory and assumption, no evidence at all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2014 12:59 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2014 10:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9918
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 62 of 131 (725833)
05-02-2014 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
05-02-2014 12:53 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
duplicate

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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 57 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 12:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9918
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 63 of 131 (725835)
05-02-2014 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
05-02-2014 12:53 AM


Re: You can't get intelligence out of a turnip
This is pure nonsense that proves only that you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about. I said it is not easy to grasp, it requires THOUGHT

No it does not require deep thinking. Just because it took something like ten years of your life to come up with nothing does not mean it takes any real effort to point out your errors.

Evolution is not the process of coming up with breeds. If we left dogs alone to do what nature tells them to do we'd have mutts in very short order.

Darwin called his finches "species" but they were merely races or subspecies of the finch

First of all, races are not sub species. That is pre-19th century racist crap. The races represent classifications of the variety that homo sapiens encompass. Every human being on this planet is of the same classification as every other human being and they are way more alike than poodles and danes.

In fact, every time you see a new human being or grouping of humans with different appearance, but the same combination of upright walking, opposable thumbs, speech, and high intelligence, that person is a walking refutation of your ridiculous cartooning of evolution. Every human on earth is interfertile with every other, as is nearly every dog.

Secondly, Darwin's observations were limited to looking at stuff on an island for a relatively short time, so no he did not observe the entire process. Darwin did not see and had no idea what the origins of variety were, so he did not opine on genetics related mutations. This thread is about people who have observed for even longer and are getting to see more than Darwin saw. However mutations are rare, so evolution takes lots of time. And even this thread is about natural selection rather than all of evolution.

Darwin's conclusions about his observations were about the origins of species and not just longer beaks on finches. It turns out that his conclusions about species were quite correct and go far beyond what he saw finches do.

Thirdly, Darwin did not see created on the island, new homogeneous breeds of anything. That is your eight year folly. The way we get breeds is not simply by manipulating the available variety, but by segregating out diversity. We have to actively remove diversity.

As painful as it might be for you, you've spent eight years thinking about how to make box terriers, but the rest of us already know how to do that.

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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 57 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 12:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 8:08 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26290
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 64 of 131 (725836)
05-02-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
05-02-2014 7:59 AM


Re: You can't get intelligence out of a turnip
I do not want to continue this discussion with you. But I have to correct this idiotic thing you are doing with the term "race." The way I am using it is perfectly correct to describe subspecies of any animal, and this was confirmed and in fact suggested as the correct term by dwise just a short while ago when he said I should not use the term "variety" to refer to animals but only to plants. Darwin used the term "race" to apply to animals too, it's the right word, you have a narrow contemporary bias on it. However, just because there must be such silly minds here, I will try to stick to the term subspecies.

GET A CLUE. You don't understand the argument I'm making and you don't even know the proper terms for things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 7:59 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 8:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9918
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(6)
Message 65 of 131 (725837)
05-02-2014 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
05-02-2014 8:08 AM


Re: You can't get intelligence out of a turnip
I do not want to continue this discussion with you. But I have to correct this idiotic thing you are doing with the term "race." The way I am using it is perfectly correct to describe subspecies of any animal

I don't care what you and dwise agreed to. We don't refer to groupings of dogs as races. There are no races of gorrillas. Nothing contemporary about a definition that has its origins in the 17th century.

And even letting the sloppy classification stand does not change anything. You surround the term with so much tripe, that even being right about that does not save your thesis.

GET A CLUE.

That might be insulting if it came from someone I held respect for in some way. And by way of correction, Asian, black, and white people are not different subspecies, but represent variety in the same sub species, namely Homo sapiens sapiens.

Species boundaries are quite arbitrary and it has been pointed out to me that my post is quite shaky. I'll acknowledge that to be the case. But it is accurate enough to point out where you've gone wrong.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : add classification for humans.

Edited by NoNukes, : It's vs. its. Grrr,

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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 64 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 8:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 66 of 131 (725846)
05-02-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
05-02-2014 12:47 AM


I am actually talking about what I'm talking about
Black cats, calico cats, longhair cats, shorthair cats, all having the curled ear, do not constitute a breed. In a dog or cat show the whole animal is judged as to whether it is a good representative of its breed, not one single feature.

But Faith, these are recognized breeds. For example the Cat Fanciers Association calls the American Curl a breed. The International Cat Association calls it a breed. How do you think I found all these examples in the first place? I looked at lists of cat breeds.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 12:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13114
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 67 of 131 (725848)
05-02-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
05-02-2014 5:46 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
quote:

In other words it's a good thing they can change the order of the DNA sequence and not do any real damage. Basically good design I'd say, that can survive such assaults on its integrity to the extent you all say occurs. A few more assaults on that same sequence might produce a different outcome though.

It'd be a better design still, to reduce the number of "assaults" - if your views were correct.

quote:

All assumption, all theory, all Creed.

All pretty obvious facts.

quote:

No "mechanism that would prevent useful mutations from occurring?" Pretty hypothetical statement that.

My actual statement wasn't hypothetical at all. It's a fact that there's no sign of any mechanism that would prevent beneficial mutations from occurring

quote:

I'd suggest the improbability of it for one thing, given the fact that mutations are a basically destructive occurrence, interfering with the normal functioning of DNA. For another, the extreme rarity of such an occurrence, and in fact the iffiness of the evidence when you are able to trace it at all. Meanwhile there are those thousands upon thousands of known genetic diseases.

The probability isn't a mechanism and the alleged rarity is an implicit admission that beneficial mutations do occur (although they are frequent enough in bacteria that we can get them to occur in laboratory experiments). The "iffiness" of the evidence is due to our inability to collect the evidence you want - which just means we don't have the evidence to decide either way (at least not by direct means).

quote:

The difficulty of making the observations that I require? You mean because I said it takes thought, it's not all that easy to grasp? That's somehow a proof that it can't be a real case against the theory? This is strange logic indeed.

Which should tip you off that you are badly wrong. If indeed the difference between making observations and thinking somehow escaped you. Fir the record I was referring to your general refusal to accept that mutations have occurred unless given proof (which is rarely available), not agreeing with your attempts to cover up your lack of an argument.

quote:

Then it sure is fortunate that I have made no such "demand," isn't it?

Unfortunately you did exactly what I said. And in fact you did it again when you talked about the "iffiness" of the evidence for mutations. Again, the evidence is not "iffy" in any way that suggests that beneficial mutations are rarer than we think.

quote:

More theory, creed, assumption.

More facts you don't like.

quote:

But again this is just based on the theory, with such a minuscule bit of evidence for it that it hardly exists at all.

Since this thread is supposedly about work demonstrating natural selection (despite this derailment) that seems an unwise comment to make.

quote:

What other evidence? You mean all those assumptions piled on assumptions? Don't know what you mean here.

I am so sorry but rectifying your gross ignorance would take way too long and go much too far off topic, Go and read an introductory book on evolution. Then move on to a decent undergraduate text. That should do the trick. Well, it would if you were capable of dealing with them in an honest and open-minded fashion, but I think we all now that that is too much to hope for.

quote:

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. "Unknown source of beneficial genetic changes?" But of course I'm claiming that all beneficial genetic changes -- if we're talking about observable change from population to population at least -- that are known to occur are explained by the processes I'm laying out here. Nothing unknown about it.

Well that's odd because you seem to be denying any such process. What is the source of new beneficial variations in your view ? It doesn't seem to be mutation but I haven't seen any other.

quote:

--although I wouldn't put the word "beneficial" in there because that's an artifact of the ToE and has nothing to do with what really happens in reality, which is that change occurs with the shuffling of gene/allele frequencies and in most cases the change is just as viable as the original population, no better, no worse.

Well that's just babbling nonsense.

quote:

Well you really HAVE lost me, I have NO idea what you are talking about now.

Michael Behe, famous ID supporter and former creationist now argues that evolution is mostly true but that God occasionally steps in to give it a helping hand, by causing an extra mutation or too. Except he's still looking for a real case where that would be necessary. So I guess that you ought to ask yourself why someone, someone who had the full support of the ID movement would go so far in embracing evolution (to an extent that many in the ID movement would NOT accept at all), unless he was convinced that the evidence pointed that way ?

quote:

Seems to me it is VERY unlikely that any single mutations, that is, mutations possessed by single individuals, WOULD be passed on at all.

Can you explain your reasoning ? It seems pretty likely to make it into the next generation, at least. And again, the probability that some will be passed on is very different from the probability that a particular one will be passed on.

quote:

But anyway, again, this is pure assumption, that mutations have anything at all to do with the formation of species/subspecies, and that natural selection is always the reliable hero ready to save the day when things go a bit wrong. The ToE says it's so, therefore it is so.

Funny that you are attacking things I didn't even say.

quote:

WHAT "observed genetic diversity?" This is FICTION, PaulK. You say it is "observed," where is the evidence?

I was thinking of the human genes in the Human leukocyte antigen genes, some of which have hundreds of alleles, as an example. Fact, not "FICTION"

quote:

Getting anyone who is steeped in the ToE to see anything I have to say is not something I have any illusions about any more. The argument has been sufficient but the eyes are closed.

And that's an outright lie. In reality your argument stops before getting to the crucial point, which is and always has been an unsupported assumption.

You've made various attempts to support it, for instance insisting that mutations don't happen or asserting that new variations would interfere with evolution in some way you could never explain, but it is quite obvious that those are inadequate. Now you just try to pretend that you have an argument but never try to explain it.

quote:

What's really odd here is that you all keep complaining I'm ignoring the evidence but what I've been getting from you is mostly theory and assumption, no evidence at all.

Not really, when it is considered that the evidence has already been discussed, this whole conversation is off the main topic of the thread and there is always time to go into more detail if it is needed.

On the other hand it really is odd that you tell people that they will find that your argument is correct if they only think - when it obviously hasn't worked for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 5:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 11:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9918
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 68 of 131 (725852)
05-02-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
05-02-2014 10:59 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Unfortunately you did exactly what I said. And in fact you did it again when you talked about the "iffiness" of the evidence for mutations. Again, the evidence is not "iffy" in any way that suggests that beneficial mutations are rarer than we think.

Faith's argument is worse than you are allowing for here. Because despite her disbelief that there can be any substantial number of beneficial mutations, her claim is that even if she allows us to have those mutations, evolution is still a dead end because making new breeds chews up any diversity.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 67 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2014 10:59 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 3:52 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26290
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 69 of 131 (725862)
05-02-2014 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
05-02-2014 11:13 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Faith's argument is worse than you are allowing for here. Because despite her disbelief that there can be any substantial number of beneficial mutations, her claim is that even if she allows us to have those mutations, evolution is still a dead end because making new breeds chews up any diversity.

Which is true exactly as I've presented it. The example of breeding is the only accessible example of how this has to happen to get the new traits of a new breed, and it's perfectly good as an example of what has to happen in the wild too. The alleles for other traits can't remain in the population, period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 11:13 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 5:02 PM Faith has responded
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2014 5:02 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 7:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9918
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 70 of 131 (725865)
05-02-2014 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-02-2014 3:52 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
The example of breeding is the only accessible example of how this has to happen to get the new traits of a new breed, and it's perfectly good as an example of what has to happen in the wild too.

How long have you been thinking about this?

Let's suppose in the wild, a mutation gives a wolf a curly ear that presents no advantage over other wolves. The result is of course that wolves as a population becomes more diverse. And that is true regardless of whether that mutation is a gain of a new gene or is a modification of a gene that used to ensure pointy ears.

The fact that you come along later and declare that the curly eared wolves are a new breed does not change or mean anything. The entire population of wolves now has a genetic variation and a corresponding phenotype that did not exist before.

And of course if a population of wolves having the curly ear and all of the wolves other variations gets isolated from the other wolves, then at that point they are necessarily less diverse than all of the wolves together, but nothing then prevents new mutations from generating spots, or bobbed tails, or an enhanced sense of smell etc. In time the grouping might be just as diverse as the original pool, and that is regardless of the fact that the new group lacks a gene for pointy ears.

The alleles for other traits can't remain in the population, period.

Well, I could construct a scenario where an old trait could be recovered, but the point is that the loss of one trait does not prevent diversity from increasing with regard to other traits as long as mutations are allowed.

And the second point is that making breeds is not what evolution requires.

If your argument is simply that humans are unlikely to regain things that were lost during evolution, like tails or gills, I'm down with that. But there are so many other ways to gain diversity that such a principle does not make evolution a dead end.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 69 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 3:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 8:23 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 71 of 131 (725866)
05-02-2014 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-02-2014 3:52 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Which is true exactly as I've presented it. The example of breeding is the only accessible example of how this has to happen to get the new traits of a new breed, and it's perfectly good as an example of what has to happen in the wild too. The alleles for other traits can't remain in the population, period.

Hey, you remember we can see what actually happens? Since it's the exact opposite of what your reasoning tells you must happen, this rather suggests that there's a flaw in your reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 3:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 72 of 131 (725869)
05-02-2014 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
05-01-2014 9:19 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
But the vast majority of those mutations are either deleterious or "neutral" and proving even a single beneficial one that could be passed on is rare and often not even a certain thing.

Why would it need to be any more than rare in order to produce the biodiveristy that we see today?

No, you observe new phenotypes emerging but the idea that this is due to mutations is purely theory.

It is no longer a theory, as is shown in rock pocket mice.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.long

The new phenotypes emerge due to the shuffling of the allele frequencies brought about by the reproductive isolation alone working on the BUILT-IN alleles shared within the new populations.

Evidence please. In the case of the rock pocket mice, the dark allele is not found in the rest of the population, and it is not due to a combination of the existing light fur alleles. You are clearly wrong.

BUT EVEN IF MUTATIONS WERE THE SOURCE OF THE NEW PHENOTYPES, you still have to have a reduction, sometimes elimination, of the competing alleles for the traits that emerge in the new population.

If that mutation only happens in one population, and is selected for, what you have is two populations with different alleles, and different alleles than were found in their ancestors. That is an increase in genetic variation by every measure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 9:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 131 (725872)
05-02-2014 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-02-2014 3:52 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts that increase diversity
Which is true exactly as I've presented it. ...

Except that you have totally failed to show any decrease in diversity, even with these mutation-on-a-platter examples being singled out (from many possible examples of non-lethal mutations).

Is there any loss of diversity in the Galapagos Finches? Can you demonstrate that the diversity in finches is less now than 40 years ago?

No, you can't, because it isn't true.

... The example of breeding is the only accessible example of how this has to happen to get the new traits of a new breed, ...

Except for the new variety of finch on the Galapagos Islands ... and others ...

But what these cat examples show is a mutation that causes sufficient difference to develop a new breed, the old breed still exist so what we obviously have is an increase in diversity, more variation within the domestic cat species.

... and it's perfectly good as an example of what has to happen in the wild too. ...

Agreed, ... with the caveat that such mutations would add to variation within a breeding population and would not be segregated into different breeding populations.

Certainly if there were reproductive isolation between two cat populations and one of these mutations occurred in one that - because it is dominant - becomes the standard of that isolated population that you could see the beginning of speciation occurring.

Just as the Grants have been observing with the "big bird" becoming dominant within it's breeding population with reproductive segregation possible due to different mating songs.

... The alleles for other traits can't remain in the population, period.

Whether or not this is true is irrelevant because they will still remain in the OTHER population/s (other breeds) and thus there WILL be an increase in diversity: two populations with different alleles.

Singular linear thinking is hopelessly inadequate in a multi-linear world.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 3:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26290
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 74 of 131 (725873)
05-02-2014 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
05-02-2014 5:02 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
The example of breeding is the only accessible example of how this has to happen to get the new traits of a new breed, and it's perfectly good as an example of what has to happen in the wild too.

How long have you been thinking about this?

Let's suppose in the wild, a mutation gives a wolf a curly ear that presents no advantage over other wolves. The result is of course that wolves as a population becomes more diverse.

Why do you keep talking about phenotypic diversity? That has nothing to do with my argument. Of course you can get traits popping up in a wild population from time to time that make it more diverse at that level. Mutation isn't required, just the occasional expression of a rare recessive allele will do it. That's has nothing to do with my argument.

And that is true regardless of whether that mutation is a gain of a new gene or is a modification of a gene that used to ensure pointy ears.

It won't be the gain of a new gene, only an allele for the gene that makes ear shape. But in any case this has nothing whatever to do with my argument.

The fact that you come along later and declare that the curly eared wolves are a new breed does not change or mean anything.

Of course it doesn't mean anything. It's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It IS somewhat similar to Dr. Adequate's case of the curled-eared cat, which gets called a "breed" just for its ear apparently, which is also not what I'm talking about.

The entire population of wolves now has a genetic variation and a corresponding phenotype that did not exist before.

Yeah, and?

And of course if a population of wolves having the curly ear and all of the wolves other variations gets isolated from the other wolves, then at that point they are necessarily less diverse than all of the wolves together,

You really have NO idea what I've been arguing, at all.

What do you mean "They" are necessarily "less diverse?" Within a generation or two of their isolation they could be much more diverse as new traits from new genetic combinations start appearing among them. But I'm not focused on the diversity of the phenotype, ONLY the fact that the GENETIC POTENTIALS reduce AS YOU GET THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SUBPOPULATION. In new populations split off from old you have new gene/allele frequencies. Some alleles for some genes are MORE frequent, some less. This brings about some changes in the phenotype. Maybe the curly ears become more frequent. But it's only when the new group inbreeds for enough generations to begin developing a characteristic look to the whole population that we can talk about the formation of a new race or breed or subspecies. That's when it begins to look appreciably different from the other population, when the divergence between the two becomes evident, when the various traits of individuals that make the population diverse in the sense you are talking about start to blend into a trait picture shared by all the individuals, some disappearing, some spreading to all members etc. If the process goes on long enough you may even have a new species in the sense of a distinctively different population that cannot interbreed with the former population any more. Isn't that when you want to talk about speciation? A new species?

What I've been trying to point out in this scenario is that there will be a loss of genetic material for the characteristic traits, a loss of competing alleles for those traits. That has to happen for those traits to become characteristic.

but nothing then prevents new mutations from generating spots, or bobbed tails, or an enhanced sense of smell etc. In time the grouping might be just as diverse as the original pool, and that is regardless of the fact that the new group lacks a gene for pointy ears.

All quite true and all quite irrelevant to the point I've been trying to make. You are talking about phenotypic diversity, I am talking about genetic diversity, specific the loss of it as a POPULAIION acquires the haracter of a race or breed or subspecies. To get the second species in a ring species requires that the alleles for the new traits be more frequent and alleles for traits that are different from it stay behind in the old population. And so on around the ring. Ultimately a "true breed" may have ONLY those alleles for its characteristic traits and they may become homozygous or "fixed loci" while ALL alleles that are different from that character have been completely eliminated from the population. Complete elimination doesn't have to happen for the new species to exist, of course, there can be a few lingering old alleles that still pop up from time to time.

The alleles for other traits can't remain in the population, period.
Well, I could construct a scenario where an old trait could be recovered,

And so could I but it would interfere with the trait picture that characterizes the new population or new species. The point is that you have to eliminate the alleles for other traits to preserve the characteristic traits. This is what breeders do intentionally, nature does it randomly.

but the point is that the loss of one trait does not prevent diversity from increasing with regard to other traits as long as mutations are allowed.

But we're not talking about increasing diversity, that's another subject, we're talking about creating a new subspecies or even species in which a new trait picture is formed that's different from the other populations of that Species, and that is what requires the overall reduction of genetic diversity. GENETIC diversity. GENETIC.

And the second point is that making breeds is not what evolution requires.

Surely the making of new species is what it is all about. It's about how there are four different kinds of finches discovered by Darwin, whole populations of them that have different habits from the other finch populations. It's about his Galapagos turtles which look different from those on the mainland they sprang from. What else could it be about? Supposedly it's about CHANGE, change in whole populations, not just change in individuals, which happens among human beings all the time, even from parents to children. What I'm talking about is change that comes to characterize a whole group, race, breed, subspecies, whatever you want to call it, a group, a population, that is isolated from the other members of the Species to inbreed long enough to develop its own peculiar characteristics. Again take the ring species, I'm talking about the kind of POPULATION-WIDE differences that exist between one species and another around the ring.

If your argument is simply that humans are unlikely to regain things that were lost during evolution, like tails or gills, I'm down with that. But there are so many other ways to gain diversity that such a principle does not make evolution a dead end.

Dear nukeywukey, you really really aren't getting this at all.

Down any path where the changes I'm talking about are occurring there has to ultimately be an end where no more variation is possible becaue there is no more genetic diversity left in that population. And since it's these paths that are definitive of evolution this clearly shows that macroevolution simply cannot happen.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 5:02 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2014 9:18 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 10:14 PM Faith has responded
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2014 12:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 75 of 131 (725874)
05-02-2014 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-02-2014 8:23 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Why do you keep talking about phenotypic diversity?

He was talking about genetic diversity. That's why he wrote: "Let's suppose in the wild, a mutation gives a wolf a curly ear ..."

You may have set a new personal record for how quickly you can get to a risible misunderstanding of the point under discussion. The mistake was in the seventh word of your post. But I'm sure you can do better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 8:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017