Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(4)
Message 3 of 259 (770671)
10-12-2015 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-11-2015 6:33 PM


where are the numbers?
Faith's argument has failed again and again because she cannot deal with the fact that mutations necessarily replenish genetic diversity.
As I pointed out long ago she needs to show the rate at which alleles are lost must exceed the rate of gain. She never produced the numbers, as she must do if her argument is to work
quote:
mutation, if it did create viable alleles as is claimed, and there is no evidence that it does,
Examples have already been provided in earlier threads, so this is an outright lie.
quote:
..would only be the source of the possible variations, and it would therefore be subject to the processes that reduce their diversity the same as if the alleles were built in from Creation.
Again, as pointed out long ago, so long as the rate of gain balances the rate of loss diversity will remain constant. The idea that diversity must inevitably diminish if there is any loss - no matter the rate of gain is utterly and obviously ridiculous. We need the numbers.
quote:
If mutation occurred in anything like the numbers required by the ToE, species like the cheetah would not be endangered
I think Faith means that if mutations occurred at a rate sufficient to explain existing genetic diversity - if her belief in a young Earth, Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood were all true (instead of being the myths that they are). Nevertheless, her claim is empty until she produces the numbers to back it up..
quote:
but if mutation did occur to such an extent, you'd never get new subspecies at all, because new phenotypes are built on new genotypes, new variations on new gene frequencies, the alleles for the former genotypes having become low frequency in the new population whereas in the former population they were high frequency. Eventually they may drop out of the new population altogether.
Again, there are no numbers here, nothing that supports the claim that no subspecies could form. If the rate of change is slow enough, if there is stabilising selection and gene flow there is no reason to think that distinctive local variants of a form could not exist.
All but the first claim are based on numbers that are never produced. Where are the numbers, Faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-11-2015 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-12-2015 11:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 15 of 259 (770704)
10-13-2015 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-12-2015 11:09 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
quote:
PaulK as usual seems not to grasp the simple principle that the processes of evolution eliminate alleles, no matter what the original source of those alleles. Granted it's not an easy idea to grasp but a little effort might help.
As usual Faith confuses disagreement with a failure to understand. In fact she is the one who fails to understand the simple point that if new alleles are added as fast as alleles are lost, net diversity will remain the same. That should be an easy concept to grasp but apparently it is completely beyond Faith.
quote:
Numbers are irrelevant. You have to grasp the dynamic of the situation. Subtractive processes bring about evolution of new subspecies; additive processes only interfere.
The evidence does not support this claim. Which is just a foolish assumption based on the idea that dog breeding sums up the whole of evolution. And even then ignoring the fact that dog breeding itself has made use of mutations.
quote:
Breeding programs are my main evidence that new subspecies require reduction in genetic diversity. You do not get pure breeds unless you eliminate traits that don’t belong to the breed.
And the dynamics of a short term artificial enterprise cannot be assumed to be identical to those of the longer term processes found in nature. Especially when the results seem to differ. It is not only subspecies that need to be accounted for, but the whole branching tree of life. Indeed, subspecies are not artificial breeds, are not bred with the aim of producing a particular form and are generally not isolated from other populations.
quote:
Mutations don’t occur often enough to make a difference, but if they did they would interfere with the processes that bring about new subspecies or breeds.
That is, of course, a claim about the supposedly irrelevant numbers. How often do mutations occur ? How often would be often enough ? And how often is needed to prevent the formation of subspecies ? It seems that the numbers are very relevant.
quote:
No failure at all, it’s just a hard idea to grasp that this supposed replenishment only detracts from evolution. I’m going to have to spell out the whole scenario to try to make my point clear. I’ll then get to the rest of your post.
In reality it is hard to support such a claim as you ought to remember. We have gone over this, and there has been no sign that you understood it - or even tried to. And that hasn't changed.
There is still no explanation of how an additive process would "interfere". All there seems to be is the assumption that all the traits found in the newly formed species - through the entirety of it's existence - must have been present in the parent population. That isn't even true of the domestic species used as examples of breeding.
Adding new variations will not stop the new subspecies - or rather species - from evolving. How could it ? It's not as if mutations will automatically reverse the course of selection and drift.restoring lost variations. But if the new variations are new, and so long as the subspecies has some distinctive traits where is the interference ?
quote:
There is no need to know the rate of mutation. Even one mutation that brought about one new trait would interfere with the processes that bring about evolution, meaning the formation of a distinctive new subspecies.
Don't be ridiculous. That's not even true in domestic breeding. The mutation responsible for the short legs of dachshunds did not turn dogs back into wolves, nor did the mutation that produced the Scottish fold cat cause the domestic cat to revert to it's wild ancestry.
It's not hard to understand, it's just obviously false.
quote:
I’m sure it’s merely a difference of opinion. Diseases brought about by mutation are well recognized in the DNA; neutral mutations that don’t change the trait are also recognizable, but the evidence for viable beneficial alleles is so scanty you might as well say it doesn’t exist. This is assumed by the ToE, it is not evidenced.
The coat colour in pocket mice is one example, as you ought to remember.
quote:
What is clear from those discussions is that mutations don’t occur frequently enough to interfere with my scenario, that the vast majority are deleterious or neutral anyway and wouldn’t contribute anything to the emerging phenotypes. Except disease.
It's clear that mutations don't occur at a rate that would prevent the existence of stable species. But that really isn't the same as the rate required to maintain genetic variation over the long term. And the evidence really does favour the idea that genetic variation is maintained over the long term, in those species that survive and prosper.
quote:
ANY gain whatever interferes with the processes of evolution. Genetic diversity MUST be reduced in the process of bringing out new phenotypes.
Again, obviously false. Even if the diversity of one gene is being reduced other genes may gain new variations without interfering at all.
And again I will repeat a point made long ago. Once a new species has formed what is to stop it gaining new variations ? The new variations cannot prevent something that has already occurred. They will not automatically revert the new species to the parent form. How then can they be considered to "interfere"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-12-2015 11:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 259 (770708)
10-13-2015 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:37 AM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
quote:
Yes it's a failure of understanding; you just don't get it, so I refer you back to the post as I said I would. I don't know if I'll try to deal with anything else in your post since it's all just the usual claims I've answered a thousand times. Except this one statement:
Completely untrue. i understand the argument fine. It's just that you have not and obviously cannot answer the objections.
Most importantly, how do new variation, added by mutation interfere in the production of sub-species and new species ? You keep refusing to answer. If YOU understand it, why can't you give any explanation ? I'Ve given reasons why it won't and you just keep on making the same claim.
quote:
The lack of genetic diversity. Duh.
So you think that your assumed "lack of genetic diversity" somehow stops mutations adding to genetic diversity. How can even you believe that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 259 (770739)
10-13-2015 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
10-13-2015 1:23 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
And yet again you fail to answer my points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 63 of 259 (770785)
10-14-2015 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
10-13-2015 9:24 PM


Re: No lack of evidence
quote:
I'm not talking about natural selection. It can be one of the processes involved, but I'm just talking about reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. It's much more benign a process than natural selection but very effective at creating new subspecies.
It is? I thought that drift and differing selective pressures were the main cause. There may be a Founder Effect, especially if the new sub-population is small, but otherwise isolation mainly removes the homogenising effect of gene flow.
quote:
Pure breeds, however, always were defined as having fixed loci, that genetically depleted condition. It's the only guarantee of a pure breed.
Pure breeds are mainly defined by phenotype and ancestry, not any genetic analysis. And a good genetic analysis would probably allow more diversity than is actually present in many.
quote:
The cheetah is understood to have been the result of a bottleneck. But a series of population splits would end up creating the same genetic situation in the end. The creature may survive or not. The elephant seal seems to be surviving and proliferating in a condition of genetic depletion.
The state of the cheetah's genes is the result of a serious bottleneck (compounded by a more recent bottleneck). The idea that modern cheetahs are so different in phenotype from their pre-bottleneck ancestors that they could be considered a distinct breed is something I've only heard from you. Do you have any evidence ?
Further, in the case of the elephant seals the bottleneck occurred in historic time. If they are so phenotypically distinct from their pre-bottleneck ancestors it should be relatively easy to discover. Have you any evidence that they are ?
quote:
You don't need mutation for any of the scenarios I've given. All you need is the isolation of a portion of the gene pool over generations
That's something of a red herring. Evolutionary science (and it is science despite all your nasty lying) is not and cannot be limited to dealing with your scenarios. Mutations will occur despite the fact that you don't like them, they are likely needed for much of the non-geographic reproductive isolation that we see. Consider the fact that dog breeds still have to be artificially isolated to prevent outbreeding. Mutations will be more important in the wild than in the artificial world of breeding, and really even breeders take advantage of useful mutations, and will likely ignore mutations that don't get in the way of their objectives.
So really, you still don't have a case. Even your chosen model - poor as it is - fails to support you. Bluster and bullying your way past the objections didn't work before, and starting a new thread just to repeat the same failed tactics hardly seems worthwhile.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 75 of 259 (770832)
10-14-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
10-14-2015 3:04 PM


Re: you make your assertions, mine are better
quote:
Since nobody is saying anything relevant or even intelligent with respect to my OP
I guess that actually answering the relevant and valid criticisms is too much for you. Lying: the creationist answer to everything
quote:
Have you thought for half a second about what I said in the OP? Do you know the difference between GENETIC diversity and NEW PHENOTYPES? Do you know that if you change gene frequencies so that blue eyes which were high frequency in the original population are low frequency in the daughter population so that now after many generations of recombination of the new gene frequencies the new population is characterized by all purple eyes? NEW phenotype brought about by eliminating the alleles for the OLD phenotype. The blue eyes of course remain in the old population. But we do now have a brand new population with pretty purple eyes because we eliminated the alleles for blue eyes and other colors too.
I guess that you have your usual problems understanding reality. Purple eyes would only be a new phenotype if they were completely absent from the original population. And eliminating other colours is simply not guaranteed to bring a new colour of eye into existence.
quote:
Oh of course not. I waste my breath here.
What did you expect? Did you really think that everybody would suddenly forget the objections to your argument ? Did you really think that arrogant bluster and lies would be enough of an answer? Are you just too lazy to try to patch up the holes, or did you try and fail ?
quote:
Yawn. It would be nice if I could erase all the dumb posts in the thread but I guess they have to remain.
You could. You wrote them. But it would be very bad form,
Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tags (thanks RAZD - the perils of using a tablet to post)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 4:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 81 of 259 (770848)
10-14-2015 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
10-14-2015 4:30 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
quote:
Adding genetic variety can only PREVENT speciation.
You do realise that that makes no sense? Adding genetic variety to the new sub-population will make it more different from the parent population. That would surely be a step towards speciation, if only a small one.
quote:
Think of speciation in terms of a breeder establishing a breed. Does the breeder want more genetic variety? Of course not, that only prevents getting the breed. The genetic variety has to be reduced to the particular characteristics the breeder desires.
A misunderstood and poor analogy. The breeder only cares about eliminating unwanted variations. Others may be wanted or irrelevant. The same is true in natural evolution - except that natural evolution has no idea of a final form and is even more likely than a breeder to embrace suitable variations. So no, the idea of a closed-minded breeder who simply will not tolerate any new variations - even those he is unaware of - is not even an accurate description of breeders, let alone a good analogy for speciation.
Even more, because of the longer timescales (and because successful species grow to have large populations) natural evolution has much more chance to incorporate new variations into the population.
And that you have never answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 4:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 87 of 259 (770856)
10-14-2015 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:44 PM


Re: Issue to Focus On
quote:
READ WHAT I WROTE AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sheesh. What makes the kind of difference that leads to speciation is REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY,. Good grief. n
I did read what you wrote. I pointed out why it was wrong - it isn't even true that breeders care about reducing diversity that doesn't interfere with desired traits. a falsehood is hardly a great basis for an argument.
I know that you assume that speciation requires a reduction in genetic diversity. I also know that it is at best misleading. And I've explained why and only got the response that you don't want to consider it.
Why don't you go away really think about your argument and see if you can really answer the objections. If you can't don't bother posting about it again. You're just wasting everybody's time by refusing to seriously discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 100 of 259 (770873)
10-15-2015 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
10-14-2015 10:07 PM


Re: Moderator Concern
Faith, raising valid objections IS discussion, even if you cannot answer them. Brushing them off with accusations that they "do not get it" - with no explanation at all is an evasion.
It seems that your idea of "discussion" is mindless agreement. To you, dissent, no matter how cogent is automatically wrong simply because it IS dissent. That's a really poor attitude here, and one directly opposed to the search for truth.
quote:
I've rebutted them a million times already and more than once on this thread. He doesn't get it I'm tired of repeating myself. The rebuttal has been stated and stated and stated and stated. Just reread it. Require HIM to reread it. It's all there
And that is an outright lie. You have never, for instance, given any reason to think that breeders would reject new variations that do not interfere with their plans - or even that they would determinedly look for such variations if they were not easily apparent. And yet your argument depends on evolution having to do that. But if breeders succeed in producing new breeds without doing that, why is it necessary? You don't say.
if you want to disagree just provide a quote which addresses it and a reference to the message which contains the quote. Don't just throw unsubstantiated accusations as has become your habit.
And let us not forget that you refuse to even consider what happens between speciation events, even though speciation events comprise a small part of a species existence. How can you rebut arguments by refusing to discuss them ?
Lying is not the answer, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 107 of 259 (770929)
10-16-2015 1:49 AM


A simple refutation to Faith's argument
Let us imagine that a species has become genetically homogenous, with only one allele per locus. Can it still evolve? If the answer is "yes" Faith's argument is disproven.
Even if we neglect stabilising selection and neutral drift, there is still the possibility if a beneficial mutation occurring in the species and starting to spread through the population by selection. Evolution, even in that case, would not stop, only be slowed to the rate at which beneficial mutations arrived.
Faith's argument has many other flaws, but even neglecting them it still fails.

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:42 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2015 7:59 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 109 of 259 (770933)
10-16-2015 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
10-16-2015 5:42 AM


Faith doesn't get it
Go back and read your OP. It's perfectly clear what it claims, and perfectly clear that I have successfully refuted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:42 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 10-16-2015 10:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 115 of 259 (770946)
10-16-2015 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Admin
10-16-2015 10:25 AM


Re: Faith doesn't get it
to avoid side trails, I'm simply responding to her claim that I haven't refuted her argument. As for the rest, I think it worth seeing how she responds. Clarification will be coming, but the form is yet to be decided depending on Faith"s response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 10-16-2015 10:25 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 10-17-2015 4:46 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 125 of 259 (770975)
10-16-2015 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
10-16-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Repeated refutation to Faith's argument
Faith, I would like to congratulate you on actually making a productive post which better explains your position.
So here's something to think about. Wolves are not a hitch-potch of different phenotypes. Yet - even if you allow a role for mutations they must contain a good deal of the genetic variability that leads to the huge variety of the different breeds of dogs.
Doesn't this show that genetic variation does not automatically produce your "hotch-potch" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 2:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 259 (770992)
10-16-2015 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
10-16-2015 5:16 PM


Re: Adding alleles prevents evolution from occurring
But quite obviously you are incorrect.
There's nothing in your argument that shows that adding alleles interferes with evolution at all.
Even more, as I have explained to you most of the additions will be after the speciation event, when the population is growing and when it is large (the first because selection is relaxed, the second because mutations occur with each birth - a larger population means more births, means more mutations)
I ask again, how can mutations that occur after the process of speciation is complete possibly interfere in the process of speciation ? How can you even imagine that it is possible ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 132 of 259 (770995)
10-16-2015 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
10-16-2015 5:47 PM


Re: Repeated refutation to Faith's argument
The problem remains. The genetic diversity is certainly there but this state of "motley phenotypes" is not observed. All you've produced is what you call "mental conjuring", and in this case it is at odds with the evidence.
Let me make a basic point again. Natural species are not the same as artificial breeds. Even in the rare cases where genetic diversity has been seriously reduced by extreme bottlenecks the selective element that produces breeds is missing.
The only case where you might get a collection of mixed and diverging phenotypes is adaptive radiation, where a species splits multiple ways. However this requires weak selection and multiple open niches in the ecosystem.
In general there is no reason to expect any "motley effect". Instead you should expect to see a slow piecemeal accumulation of change. Which really is much like dog breeding as it actually occurred. Breeders didn't find a new breed suddenly appearing - each breed was developed over a period of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 10-16-2015 5:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024