Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 4:29 AM
398 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 397 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,997 Year: 6,603/21,208 Month: 2,364/2,634 Week: 27/525 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 151 of 225 (757629)
05-11-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Denisova
05-11-2015 3:50 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.

Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information but their own claims imply a gigantic and astonishingly rapid emerging of new genetic information. '

What?

I can only think you've confounded new information with the vast variety of new traits possible from mixing the existing genetic possibilities. Simple sexual recombination alone of the extant genetic possibilities in the genome can produce a staggering number of new trait combinations. Consider the dog breeds we've been discussing for instance, all nothing but different combinations of the genetic possibilities in the dog genome. New combinations of existing genetic possibilities do not produce new information.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 3:50 PM Denisova has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 4:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 5:44 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 152 of 225 (757633)
05-11-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
05-11-2015 4:02 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.

So, you now admit that non-harmful genetic variation is caused by mutation. Are we done here?

I can only think you've confounded new information with the vast variety of new traits possible from mixing the existing genetic possibilities. Simple sexual recombination alone of the extant genetic possibilities in the genome can produce a staggering number of new trait combinations. Consider the dog breeds we've been discussing for instance, all nothing but different combinations of the genetic possibilities in the dog genome

Well, apparently we're not done here, because a paragraph later you forget what you've just admitted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 4:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 153 of 225 (757637)
05-11-2015 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
05-11-2015 3:43 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's a very reasonable postulate, and what's funny is that mutation as the source of viable genetic material has NO evidence at all, is pure assumption but that doesn't bother you, only MY postulate bothers you.

You have yet to challenge the evidence offered to you regarding several specific instances of mutation generated variation. So yes there is evidence supporting my position that mutation can be a source of variation and diversity. The hilarious part of your statement above is that at times you even admit that such is the case.

But with regard to your assumptions, since you are the one claiming to have proven something, then yes I do have the right to challenge any naked assumptions you make. An unanswered challenge of that sort means that you have not provided the proof you claim to have provided.


Je Suis Charlie

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

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 148 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 154 of 225 (757638)
05-11-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Denisova
05-11-2015 2:53 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

*yawn* New blood, old complaint

Let's point out to your flaws.

Evolution REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity....

Here is how evolution *actually* is conceived: genetic mutations produce genetic change.

I was going to try to answer you in larger chunks but find that I need to address just about every statement you make.

"Genetic mutations produce genetic change" you say. Could I ask you first of all why "genetic change" is needed when the genome is chock full of genes that can combine in an enormous number of ways to produce an enormous variety of traits? Why is there always this idea that "change" is needed? Why the emphasis on novel mutations when according to current thinking the whole genome is supposedly composed of alleles produced by mutation anyway? Change is superfluous at best given the vast varieties possible from the existing genetic diversity whether built in or produced by mutation, yet all anyone ever focuses on is some expected novel and of course optimistically beneficial mutation. All it would do is vary an existing trait if it occurred anyway.

When this change matches the environmental conditions, they will be reinforced and retained. When they are harmful, they will be weeded out due to their very disadvantageousness: they will bring lower survival and/or reproduction chances. And along with their carrier, they will die out and not be passed to the next generation.

Yes, this is the Just-So Story we get from evolutionists, but it's all headtrip with little or no reality to it. First, you don't need mutations to get adaptations, that's a matter of fit between creature and environment whatever the source of the genetic trait involved. And Natural Selection doesn't really operate this way. It usually exchanges something that's OK as it is for something that just accidentally doesn't work because of local conditions, such as the proliferation of poisonous newts brought about by the local snakes eating all the nonpoisonous ones. So the preyed-upon newt adapts to the snake by developing its poisonous genetic possibilities. But there was nothing "harmful" about its original condition, and one COULD argue that we'd be a lot better off without poisonous newts, thanks anyway Mr. Snake.

But the point I've been trying to make occurs in this situation too: however a new subspecies is evolved, in this case through the snake's appetite for newts, the loss of genetic diversity I'm talking about has to occur. The newt has evolved to create a poisonous population, losing the alleles for the nonpoisonous type. If this is a temporary situation and the snake starts getting picked off by hawks in huge numbers or the newt migrates to a snake-free environment, then the nonpoisonous newt may re-emerge. But if the poisonous type becomes fixed then it's essentially a "new species" and it has FEWER genetic possibilities than it did before. This is what I mean by evolution's requiring a reduction in genetic diversity: it's how you GET new types, breeds, races, subspecies. But most often new subspecies are created without the violence of Natural Selection: a small number of newts go off and get themselves isolated in a new location. Being a smallish number they possess their own new set of gene frequencies by comparison with their former population, more of some alleles, fewer of others, and most likely the complete loss of some, so that by inbreeding over some number of generations (it really doesn't take long, at most decades) they develop a new set of traits and look quite different from the newts they left behind. All from simple sexual recombination of a new mix of genetic possibilities. Which required the reduction of their original genetic diversity, which I'm arguing is required by evolution. Newts evolved into new type, newts lost a bunch of genetic possibilities in the process.

Of course if they didn't get isolated but instead met up with a whole other population of newts and mixed in with them they'd contribute their own mix to that population and it might change somewhat over time too, but this is an additive process that increases genetic diversity, not the subtractive process that is the route to speciation.

When the genetic variance is piling up, the subpopulations will experience genetic divergence. When this genetic divergence accumulates to the extent the two sub-genomes are genetically not compatible anymore, the subpopulations do not interbreed anymore (or interbreeding will not produce valid offspring) and genetic isolation occurred and by definition speciation took place.

Yes indeed. This is how it happens. But what you are failing to appreciate is that wherever there is the development of new subpopulations, each will have its own set of gene frequencies and if the number of individuals is small very likely the loss of some alleles as well, though those alleles remain in the other population. Each population will over generations of inbreeding develop its own characteristic appearance and possibly lose the ability to interbreed with the other populations as you say, and if this inability occurs then you are right, by arbitrary definition this is speciation. But it IS an arbitrary definitional sort of thing that is intended to suggest that the creature has arrived at a genetic platform for further evolution; but the actual fact is that it is genetically LESS capable of further evolution from this point than before because it has LESS genetic diversity to work with. This isn't usually a handicap if the original founding numbers were large enough but if further subpopulations develop from this point they will have less and less genetic diversity, therefore less ability for further evolution. My point is that the very processes that bring about new phenotypes, new traits, new subspecies, also bring about less genetic diversity which makes for less ability to evolve, which defeats the whole idea of evolution itself.

As soon as speciation happened, we will now have 2 species with different and separated genomes. And evidently each genome inevitably will be a *subset* of the original combined genome of the ancestral species.

True. Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populationsin reproductive isolation from each other.

From this we conclude:
1. there is NO reduction in genetic diversity but DISPERSION. NOTHING of the original genetic diversity is lost, it's just PARCELLED OUT to split genomes

True, the population as a whole hasn't lost genetic diversity, only the separate subpopulations. But these are where the development of new traits is occurring, i.e. where evolution is occurring, and where speciation is ultimately expected to occur, and although each subpopulation has LESS genetic diversity somehow evolutionists still expect it to be able to go on evolving.

EVEN THEN, the reduced genetic diversity in any of the two distinct genomes is not "required" by evolution but a CONSEQUENCE. Consequences cannot be requirement, that would be just plain unsound logic.

Um, let's reconsider this. In order to GET your subpopulation's new traits / phenotypes, in order to get a new subspecies with the potential of speciation and loss of breeding with former populations, you HAD to lose the alleles/ genetic possibilities for the traits left behind in those other populations. You have a new subspecies with a new set of traits, but you ONLY get that by losing the genetic stuff for OTHER sets of traits. You have a GAIN in new traits along with a LOSS of genetic diversity. Your "consequence" of evolution in the loss of genetic diversity is indeed a requirement since you wouldn't get your new traits without it.

I think hereby the whole framework of your posts just collapsed.

Oh dear. Well, you might want to reconsider that too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 2:53 PM Denisova has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 163 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:01 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 155 of 225 (757640)
05-11-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:14 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

*yawn* New blood, old complaint

And if you were to go about preaching that two plus two equals five, you would become bored and fatigued by the number of people who tell you that you have a profound misunderstanding of arithmetic.

You could have saved yourself this irritation by listening to the first person who noticed that you don't know what you're talking about. But failing that, it might be as well to listen to the hundredth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 156 of 225 (757641)
05-11-2015 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 5:19 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
*yawn* Very old blood, very old erroneous complaint. Did you even read my post to Denisova? One thing I liked very much about his(?) post was that he was talking about exactly what I'm talking about in the same terms, though he came to the wrong conclusion therefrom.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:49 PM Faith has responded

    
Denisova
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 157 of 225 (757642)
05-11-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
05-11-2015 4:02 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.

That the original genome had many more genes per trait isn't quite clear enough. From a genetic point of view for many reasons it is even highly unlikely. I think it is your ASSUMPTION which needs evidence.

When you think you already addressed this issue, I would appreciate when you would point me out to the particular posts because for obvious reason it is impossible to (re)read the whole thread.

As a new debater not having read the complete thread here I need to be careful, though.
I may interpret your contention in two ways:
1. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
2. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.

Please explain your exact position otherwise I may jump to premature conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 4:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:04 PM Denisova has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 158 of 225 (757643)
05-11-2015 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:38 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Did you even read my post to Denisova?

Yes. It's the same old nonsense. We've explained to you why it's wrong. Anyone with a moderate understanding of genetics could explain to you why it's wrong. If you ever acquire a moderate understanding of genetics, you'll be able to explain to yourself why it's wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 159 of 225 (757644)
05-11-2015 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 5:49 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
These contentless posts of yours are just hot air. How do you bring yourself to write so many of them?

The more I write out this argument the more solid it becomes. I really wish you would try harder to get it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 6:02 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 160 of 225 (757646)
05-11-2015 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:59 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
These contentless posts of yours are just hot air. How do you bring yourself to write so many of them?

The more I write out this argument the more solid it becomes. I really wish you would try harder to get it.

This, I take it, is an example of a contentful post containing a solid argument?

---

I have already understood your argument. This is why I was able to explain why it's bunk. You seem to have admitted now that it's bunk yourself, since you have admitted the existence of mutations increasing genetic diversity. You're welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:09 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 161 of 225 (757647)
05-11-2015 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Denisova
05-11-2015 5:44 PM


Traits governed by more than one gene
I wish I had a way to keep track of my own posts.

From Exceptions to Simple Inheritance:

Polygenic Traits

Some traits are determined by the combined effect of more than one pair of genes. These are referred to as polygenic, or continuous, traits. An example of this is human stature. The combined size of all of the body parts from head to foot determines the height of an individual. There is an additive effect. The sizes of all of these body parts are, in turn, determined by numerous genes. Human skin, hair, and eye color are also polygenic traits because they are influenced by more than one allele at different loci. The result is the perception of continuous gradation in the expression of these traits.

I knew human skin color was governed by at least four genes and that was brought up earlier in the thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 5:44 PM Denisova has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:38 PM Faith has responded
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 7:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 186 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 6:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 162 of 225 (757648)
05-11-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 6:02 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I have already understood your argument. This is why I was able to explain why it's bunk. You seem to have admitted now that it's bunk yourself, since you have admitted the existence of mutations increasing genetic diversity. You're welcome.

It's a position I take for the sake of argument since the source of genetic diversity isn't important for most of this discussion, but of course even destructive mutations do produce new alleles, for all kinds of fascinating genetic diseases, if you want to call that "increasing genetic diversity."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 6:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:07 PM Faith has responded
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:52 PM Faith has responded

    
Denisova
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 163 of 225 (757652)
05-11-2015 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:14 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Could I ask you first of all why "genetic change" is needed when the genome is chock full of genes that can combine in an enormous number of ways to produce an enormous variety of traits?

I don't think I will go to explain the whole of biology and genetics to you. I don't think this suits the purpose of this forum here.

Moreover, this point is irrelevant in the ongoing discussion.
The only relevant point I made here was your ERROR about reduced genetic variance. There is no reduced genetic variance.

Unfortunately, now it seems, you ALSO have no idea about OTHER parts of it as well but as I said we can't summarize 101 of all biology and genetics here. SURE ENOUGH I will come back to these points though.
Because the empirical evidence on all the separate mechanisms of evolution is abundant. I promise you hard times.

So, if you don't mind, for the same reason I skip the next two elaborations as well and I will immediately jump to the relevant part, the reduced variance. First the PRINCIPLES right.

Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populations in reproductive isolation from each other.

Interbreeding between populations in reproductive isolation is an oxymoron.

True, the population as a whole hasn't lost genetic diversity, only the separate subpopulations. But these are where the development of new traits is occurring, i.e. where evolution is occurring, and where speciation is ultimately expected to occur, and although each subpopulation has LESS genetic diversity somehow evolutionists still expect it to be able to go on evolving.

Glad you recognize that there is no loss in genetic variation but dispersion and parcelling out in two isolated genomes. I should also have said: and every genome is now also specialized.

Because of this specialization, each distinct genome has less genetic variance. And that is no problem NOR A REQUIREMENT for evolution. It is a CONSEQUENCE. And I guarantee you that you will find not a single paper on evolution where this was claimed or even implied. Evolution theory predicts a gain in genetic variance and so it happens. the fact that this variance is parcelled out in different isolated genomes is exactly the central point of evolution: speciation.

Um, let's reconsider this. In order to GET your subpopulation's new traits / phenotypes, in order to get a new subspecies with the potential of speciation and loss of breeding with former populations, you HAD to lose the alleles/ genetic possibilities for the traits left behind in those other populations. You have a new subspecies with a new set of traits, but you ONLY get that by losing the genetic stuff for OTHER sets of traits. You have a GAIN in new traits along with a LOSS of genetic diversity. Your "consequence" of evolution in the loss of genetic diversity is indeed a requirement since you wouldn't get your new traits without it.

The GAIN in genetic variance HAS occurred. See above.
Let's assume the ancestral species lived in lush, wet environments but that the habitat of one of its subpopulations is living in an region where the climate becomes very dry and arid. Basically these animals have 3 "options": 1. adaptation to the new conditions, or: 2. migrate to lush regions so they can resume their old lifestyle, or: 3. get extinct. Actually, all happen and are observed in an abundance on field observations and even experiments.

Now let's assume that migration is not possible (predators there, overcrowding, some geographic barrier etc.) and the species manages to adapt.

So, first the genetic variance in the species' TOTAL genome (including the ones still living in the original lush habitat AND the ones living in the area that is getting more arid) INCREASES, mostly by genetic innovation in the "arid" subpopulation - the ones living in the original, lush area don't need to change (other than through genetic drift) because they don't experience new environmental change.

AFTER this increase, the genomes may split up.
But each subpopulation picks up only a part of this INCREASED genetic variance.

I HARDLY doubt ANY of the two subpopulations having a genome with less genetic variance than the original ancestral genome though. Not in the subpopulation living in the original, lush environment because there was no much need to change. But NEITHER in the "arid" subpopulation because in those animals the traits that relate to living in lush environment will be discarded (genes disabled by mutations or just by plain gene deletions) and new genes will be formed (by gene duplications or altering old ones).

A little calculation already proves this. Let's depict the original. ancestral genome in this, simplified way, where each Xi represents a single, distinct gene:

Ga = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-X7-X8-X9-X10-X11-X12-X13-X14-X15-X16

After one subpopulation experiencing arid conditions:
G1 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-X7-X8-X9-X10-X11-X17-X13-X14-X15-X16
(the subpopulation still living in unchanged, lush conditions, hence, genome only changed a little bit due to genetic drift, represented by the gene X17, retrieved from the original gene X12)

PLUS:

G2 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X17-X7-Z1-X9-Z2-X11-X12-Z3-X14-X15-X16-Z4 (the subpopulation experiencing an more arid environment, adaptation through the new genes Z1, Z2 en Z3, replacing old genes X8, X10 and X13, which are disabled, mutation of old gene X6 into X17 and the new gene Z4 - added without replacement of former genes).

So, as a matter of fact, I should redrawn the picture for G2 as follows:

G2 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X17-X7-(X8)-Z1-X9-Z2-(X10)-X11-X12-Z3-(X13)-X14-X15-X16-Z4

where (X8), (X10) and (X13) represent the disables genes whose sequences still are there but "degraded" to junk DNA (to pseudogenes).

IN OTHER WORDS, in the sub-genomes there is ANY reduction in genetic variance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 7:22 PM Denisova has responded
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 9:53 PM Denisova has responded
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 11:59 PM Denisova has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:07 AM Denisova has responded

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 164 of 225 (757653)
05-11-2015 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
05-11-2015 6:09 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's a position I take for the sake of argument since the source of genetic diversity isn't important for most of this discussion, but of course even destructive mutations do produce new alleles, for all kinds of fascinating genetic diseases, if you want to call that "increasing genetic diversity."

1. the source of the genetic diversification is CRUCIAL for the ongoing debate because it was your contention that genetic mutations cannot account for that.

2. your ASSUMPTION that genetic mutations only result in deteriorations like genetic disease will very soon be made minced meat by me because it is blatant denial of a abundant series of genetic studies.

But, as I said, the principles first so we speak of the SAME evolution theory as it is conceived last 150 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 8:43 PM Denisova has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 165 of 225 (757656)
05-11-2015 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:01 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
ABE:

Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populations in reproductive isolation from each other.

Interbreeding between populations in reproductive isolation is an oxymoron.

You apparently missed the word "INBREEDING" which refers to what was going on in each of the separate populations. You DO know the difference between "inbreeding" and "interbreeding," right?

Just what I need, another new poster who is rude and ready to find fault without thinking for even half a second. /ABE

Gosh you're confused. I'm going to have to come back to this later.

What, may I ask, is your expertise in these matters, your credentials? You speak from a very highhanded attitude.

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 163 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:01 PM Denisova has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 6:04 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017