Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 2:18 AM
415 online now:
Dawn Bertot, Dr Adequate, GDR, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 410 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,831 Year: 6,437/21,208 Month: 2,198/2,634 Week: 386/572 Day: 3/99 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Denisova
Member (Idle past 564 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


(1)
Message 166 of 225 (757657)
05-11-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
05-11-2015 6:04 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
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.

Yes. this well known 101 genetics indeed.

However, the original questions though were:

1. 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:
2. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
3. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.

None of these are answered by your response above. When you refer to the "original" genome having MORE genes per trait, i assume you mean "then the current genomes of extant humans". In other words, you imply a loss of genes and genetic diversity in the human genome since Adam and Eve.

This is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence.
Without any evidence, you might as well contend the exact opposite.
Now, WHERE can I find the evidence for that?

And you will not find this answer by explaining how skin colour in extant humans (of whom we know the genome) is related to 4 genes.

We do not have the gene sequence of Adam and Eve.
But we DO have the gene sequence of Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Denisovia and Homo Heidelbergensis. And the genome sequence of many specimens of archaic Homo sapiens as well.

Or we may retrieve information from DNA of old human remains and compare them to modern human DNA. Or just look for genetic evidence in the extant human genome by smart comparison.

It's all there.

The only thing I ask is to provide empirical evidence for your claim.
In science we say "A lack of evidence does not need firther evidence".
It speaks for itself.

So do your homework.

SOON I will explain that AS FAR AS loss in the genetic diversity is observed in the human genome, it is very well understood (near extinction events, migration patterns).

But FIRST the evidence for your claim please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 9:08 PM Denisova has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 167 of 225 (757658)
05-11-2015 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
05-11-2015 6:04 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
Some traits are determined by the combined effect of more than one pair of genes. These are referred to as polygenic, or continuous, traits.

Some traits, Faith. No one disagrees with this. Unfortunately for you, your claims your claims require that all traits must be determined in this way.

ABE:

You actually quoted this from a section called 'Exceptions to single inheritance'. Wow.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 161 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 8:29 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 168 of 225 (757659)
05-11-2015 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by NoNukes
05-11-2015 7:49 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
"Simple" not "single" although I don't know what your "wow" is all about.

And I never said ALL traits are governed by multiple genes. Were, when the genome was complete. Could be, though, why not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 7:49 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 9:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 169 of 225 (757660)
05-11-2015 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:07 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.

If you'd just read carefully IN CONTEXT, you might have noticed that I said it isn't important "for most of this discussion" meaning where the topic is the mechanics of recombination etc. Of course it's important in other contexts.

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.

Well go for it. But it isn't just an assumption, it's based on all kinds of references to thousands of genetic diseases, descriptions of mutations as predominantly neutral, otherwise producing thousands of diseases, plus an amazing scarcity of examples of true beneficial mutations.

But go for it.

As for minced meat, I did answer your cocky claim to have destroyed my argument that separate subpopulations do indeed require reduced genetic diversity.

But go for it.

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

Go for it.

Any hope you could maybe tone down the attitude a notch? Makes for more willingness in the opponent to take you seriously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:07 PM Denisova has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 170 of 225 (757661)
05-11-2015 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:38 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
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.

Yes. this well known 101 genetics indeed.

What's with the snark? You asked for a description of what I meant about traits having more than one gene, I gave you the description, very straightforward description of what I meant.

However, the original questions though were:

1. 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:
2. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
3. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.

None of these are answered by your response above. When you refer to the "original" genome having MORE genes per trait, i assume you mean "then the current genomes of extant humans". In other words, you imply a loss of genes and genetic diversity in the human genome since Adam and Eve.

THAN, not "then." [THAN the current genomes of extant humans."] This is a HORRIBLE grammatical error people are making these days.

OK, yes, that is what I meant. I think the original genome could have had more genes per trait, meaning five or six where now there are three or four. Yes I believe there has been a great loss of genes and genetic diversithy in human AND ANIMAL genomes since Adam and Eve, but more since the huge bottleneck of the Flood that wiped out most living creatures, which I suggest is most likely the source of junk DNA. And more genes per trait is one way the earlier genome was probably fuller than it is now.

This is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence.

It's a reasoned guess that fits the biblical facts and also observations about both mutations and the loss of genetic diversity in evolutionary processes.

Without any evidence, you might as well contend the exact opposite.

The exact opposite wouldn't fit either the observed facts or the biblical facts.

Now, WHERE can I find the evidence for that?

And you will not find this answer by explaining how skin colour in extant humans (of whom we know the genome) is related to 4 genes.

We do not have the gene sequence of Adam and Eve.
But we DO have the gene sequence of Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Denisovia and Homo Heidelbergensis. And the genome sequence of many specimens of archaic Homo sapiens as well.

Or we may retrieve information from DNA of old human remains and compare them to modern human DNA. Or just look for genetic evidence in the extant human genome by smart comparison.

It's all there.

Since you are bound to get the dates wrong there's really little point in arguing as you suggest above. And forget mitochondrial DNA if that's part of your argument.

The only thing I ask is to provide empirical evidence for your claim.
In science we say "A lack of evidence does not need firther evidence".
It speaks for itself.

So do your homework.

I'm sorry, you are not my professor.

SOON I will explain that AS FAR AS loss in the genetic diversity is observed in the human genome, it is very well understood (near extinction events, migration patterns).

May I recommend that you cut to the chase and present your argument for this now, because I can tell I'm going to have very little patience with your basic approach and especially your attitude and indeed probably your whole interpretive system. Try it and see but I don't hold out much hope for this discussion. I was happy that you stuck to the terms in your first post about subpopulations since that's what I focus on. Too bad it's all gone downhill since then.

But FIRST the evidence for your claim please.

You've got all you're getting, my good reasoning. If you object then go argue with someone else.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:38 PM Denisova has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 5:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 192 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:39 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 171 of 225 (757662)
05-11-2015 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
05-11-2015 8:29 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
although I don't know what your "wow" is all about.

And I never said ALL traits are governed by multiple genes. Were, when the genome was complete. Could be, though, why not?

I cannot quite parse out the meaning of the second of your three sentences quoted above. But, yes you did claim that all variety is caused by combinations of genes. That means no single gene dominance. It is also your method for denying the effect of mutations. So yeah, you are stuck with a position that the references you cite say is not correct.

Aren't we done here?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 168 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 8:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 172 of 225 (757663)
05-11-2015 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:01 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.

The question can't possibly require more than a brief answer. If you just want to drive me off this thread with your attitude, say so and I'll go or just ignore your posts.

The only relevant point I made here was your ERROR about reduced genetic variance. There is no reduced genetic variance.

Which you utterly failed to demonstrate in your last post although you declared victory.

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.

Your attitude alone is hard times enough. Get any harder and I just write you off.

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.

As I already pointed out, I said INBREEDING.

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.

Just to be clear, does "variance" mean "diversity?"

And that is no problem NOR A REQUIREMENT for evolution.

Sorry, I just proved that it is.

I predict that we are going to have lots of terminological difficulties.

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.

Oh I'm sure that even *I* could guarantee that much.

Evolution theory predicts a gain in genetic variance and so it happens.

Oh this is claimed all the time. Do you think you are informing me of something I didn't know? It absolutely cannot happen and I'm quite sure you will only use obfuscating terminology to make sure there's no way to understand your argument anyway. I hope I'm wrong.

the fact that this variance is parcelled out in different isolated genomes is exactly the central point of evolution: speciation.

Sounds like some kind of word magic coming up. You can't get REAL speciation from reduced genetic variance/diversity. I see such a miserable mess of verbal flimflam on the horizon I can't even say "go for it" any more.
'

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.

Only by some kind of definitional word games could this possibly be true.

See above.

Oy.

I just read through the rest of your post which is something like having my brain removed piece by piece with scalpel and tweezers, so I'm going to try to answer that part separately.

Oy.

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 189 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2015 7:09 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 7:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15468
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 173 of 225 (757665)
05-11-2015 10:52 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 ...

Well it is kind of important since it wrecks your entire argument. If there's a constant source of genetic diversity, then there is a constant supply of raw material for selection, evolution need never stop, and even if your fantasies about species formation were perfectly accurate, new species would not in the long run lose diversity. Or to put it another way, if there's a constant source of genetic diversity then we'd be living in the real world and would observe the things that we actually do observe.


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 175 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 12:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 174 of 225 (757666)
05-11-2015 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:01 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
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,

WHAT? Both populations have an increase in genetic variance /diversity? And what brings this about? It would be amazing enough of one did but you are blandly saying bothdo? At the same time?

mostly by genetic innovation in the "arid" subpopulation

What is ďgenetic innovationĒ and why would this occur at this point?

- 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.

Genetic drift does not increase genetic diversity. Itís like any subpopulation with random new gene frequencies even though this occurs within the larger population: If it acquires new traits it loses genetic diversity, which is the ONLY way new traits can be acquired.

And you havenít said one thing to this point about how such a genetic increase is possible, what could possibly bring it about, and it looks like you have no intention of explaining that:

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.

I assume you meant to say there ISNíT any.

Well, I went through all of this and have no idea what youíre talking about. I expected some serious explanations at least, but all you did was say oh there was an increase in genetic diversity and both subpopulations had this increase.

You seem to be implying that the environment brought it about but offer no explanation how that could be.

As for the math, it's meaningless to me. You have to use English.

This example of a supposed increase in genetic diversity is so devoid of reason or meaning I have to ask, are you joking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:01 PM Denisova has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 175 of 225 (757667)
05-12-2015 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 10:52 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 ...

Well it is kind of important since it wrecks your entire argument. If there's a constant source of genetic diversity, then there is a constant supply of raw material for selection, evolution need never stop,

Once again, Dr. A, you prove you do not have Clue One about the argument I'm making.

Evolution doesn't come to an end for lack of genetic material, it comes to an end because the processes that bring it about require the reduction of genetic material.

and even if your fantasies about species formation were perfectly accurate, new species would not in the long run lose diversity. Or to put it another way, if there's a constant source of genetic diversity then we'd be living in the real world and would observe the things that we actually do observe.

You can have all the genetic diversity you want and still wherever evolution is actively occurring, wherever new traits are developing in new subpopulations, you are getting reduced genetic diversity as a necessary consequence and for that evolving line you are running out of the fuel for evolution. You can have lots of fuel in the mother population but if it's not forming new subspecies then you don't have evolution.

I know it's hard for you to consider you could be getting this wrong, but you are. Please rethink it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2015 12:29 AM Faith has responded
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2015 12:42 AM Faith has responded
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2015 1:09 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 176 of 225 (757668)
05-12-2015 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
05-12-2015 12:08 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
You can have lots of fuel in the mother population but if it's not forming new subspecies then you don't have evolution.

Your statement is wrong on several fronts.

Once a subspecies forms from a mother population, added mutations can increase diversity in the new subspecies. You've tried to argue that this destroys the subspecies but you are wrong. Sub species can, and in the wild do have diverse members. In this way, species differ completely from breeds which are artificially maintained to be homogeneous even after they are created. Left to themselves, there'd be no such thing as collies and poodles in a few decades. We'd have a bunch of mutts.

In the wild though, without some culling we'd get mutation and drift of new traits in a population. Eventually some change in the environment might act on some of that diversity. But at that point the new species might well be more diverse than the population it came from. And that first population itself might be more diverse. I note here that you seldom mention genetic drift as a process even though it is vital to the theory of evolution. Why is that?

The second front on which you are wrong is that evolution is the change in genetic makeup in a population over time. Evolution occurs even when speciation is not happening.

Your case is pure nonsense, and everybody here including the posters who arrived five minutes ago can see the problems with it at a glance. Nature does not of necessity act to reduce diversity although such a thing can result. Nature instead promotes survival strategies. Lots of them. That's why evolution can explain the process of common descent from simple beginning. On the other hand reducing diversity is absolutely the goal of what breeders do. What breeders do cannot explain earth's diversity.

FWIW you've already admitted to enough so that your statements are a concession of the entire argument. At a minimum, you've admitted that you don't have proof, but belief. And secondly, you've admitted enough about mutations to allow evolution as described by the theory of evolution to work. I'm curious to see how you attempt to deny your admissions so that you can pretend to have won this argument six months from now.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : More stuff.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 175 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 12:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 12:47 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15468
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 177 of 225 (757669)
05-12-2015 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
05-12-2015 12:08 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
You can have all the genetic diversity you want and still wherever evolution is actively occurring, wherever new traits are developing in new subpopulations, you are getting reduced genetic diversity as a necessary consequence and for that evolving line you are running out of the fuel for evolution. You can have lots of fuel in the mother population but if it's not forming new subspecies then you don't have evolution.

I know it's hard for you to consider you could be getting this wrong, but you are. Please rethink it.

You are still wrong for just the reason I explained: if you have a constant supply of fuel, you do not run out of fuel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 12:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 12:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 178 of 225 (757670)
05-12-2015 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by NoNukes
05-12-2015 12:29 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Your statement is wrong on several fronts.

Once a subspecies forms from a mother population, added mutations can increase diversity in the new subspecies. You've tried to argue that this destroys the subspecies but you are wrong. Sub species can, and in the wild do have diverse members.

This can of course be true, but to the degree they retain genetic diversity it's to that degree that they are not evolving in the sense I'm talking about, toward speciation, because despite your inability to get the point that DOES require the reduction of genetic diversity.

In this way, species differ completely from breeds which are artificially wrong on several fronts.

Eh?

Eventually the new diversity might well replace the single gene on which the original speciation event is based.

What "single gene?" What "new diversity?" I'm sorry, not getting what you mean.

The second front on which you are wrong is that evolution is the change in genetic makeup in a population over time. Evolution occurs even when speciation is not happening.

Yes, and if new traits are forming slowly within a population over time that's evolution too, and that too requires the loss of genetic diversity. It's just easier to grasp what's happening where subspecies are actively being formed, to see how the reduction of genetic diversity is required to bring about new traits.

Your case is pure nonsense, and everybody here including the posters who arrived five minutes ago can see the problems with it at a glance.

I'm not at all surprised if people can't get it and think they see problems in it, because everybody has been indoctrinated in the completely opposite point of view.

FWIW you've already admitted to enough so that your statements are a concession of the entire argument. At a minimum, you've admitted that you don't have proof, but belief. And secondly, you've admitted enough about mutations to allow evolution as described by the theory of evolution to work. I'm curious to see how you attempt to deny your admissions so that you can pretend to have won this argument six months from now.

None of the admissions affects the basic form of the argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2015 12:29 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2015 7:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 179 of 225 (757671)
05-12-2015 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2015 12:42 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
You are still wrong for just the reason I explained: if you have a constant supply of fuel, you do not run out of fuel.

Well, fuel is not a very apt analogy for what is really going on. This is a dynamic thing that REQUIRES the loss of fuel to occur at all. Adding fuel will just keep it from occurring.

Oh well. Maybe it will come to you in a dream.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2015 12:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2015 1:12 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2015 1:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12426
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 180 of 225 (757674)
05-12-2015 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
05-12-2015 12:08 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
quote:

Once again, Dr. A, you prove you do not have Clue One about the argument I'm making.

Faith, claiming that people do not understand your argument when they obviously do is not helping your position.

quote:

Evolution doesn't come to an end for lack of genetic material, it comes to an end because the processes that bring it about require the reduction of genetic material.

Because said - assumed - reduction results in a lack of genetic diversity, just as Doctor Adequate said.

quote:

You can have all the genetic diversity you want and still wherever evolution is actively occurring, wherever new traits are developing in new subpopulations, you are getting reduced genetic diversity as a necessary consequence and for that evolving line you are running out of the fuel for evolution. You can have lots of fuel in the mother population but if it's not forming new subspecies then you don't have evolution.

All of which ignores Dr Adequate's point. Assuming any amount of starting diversity is not the same as assuming additional variations entering the populations over time. Since this is the same objection you've spent years failing to answer you really ought to have a better response than trying to ignore it or pretending that it shows a lack of understanding of the argument.

quote:

I know it's hard for you to consider you could be getting this wrong, but you are. Please rethink it.

Dr Adequate is obviously right as proven by your response.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 12:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017