Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 6:33 AM
342 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, xongsmith (3 members, 339 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,961 Year: 25,567/21,208 Month: 1,194/2,338 Week: 315/450 Day: 8/72 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 259 (770661)
10-11-2015 6:33 PM


Otherwise known by the titles Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes , The End of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection, and various other titles on various other threads.

This thread is to continue the sequence of posts where I answered RAZDís Post #136 on the thread, How Long Does It Take to Evolve? with my post #144 on that thread, followed by RAZDís #147 which Iíll answer here after a review of my basic argument.

Yes of course I get tempted by some of the answers to my arguments to continue them, despite my really really not wanting to because even I get tired of repeating myself; and Percy wants me either to start a new thread or go back to the last one I started on the subject, Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity , which is just too too boring to continue, so I'm proposing a new one, although all I can do is repeat the same arguments. They are of course arguments that absolutely kill the ToE but because the ToE is this wiggly amorphous thing that doesn't require evidence, nothing can ever really be proved against it. So one is reduced to repeating the arguments that would kill it if the evos appreciated them properly.

The answer to the question of that other thread, How Long Does It Take to Evolve? , of course, is, not very long at all, reckoning in comparison with the absurd ideas of time required by the ToE. Domestic breeding demonstrates that it CAN be very fast, although nature would only operate that fast in the case of severe bottlenecks. They do happen of course. And the example given here a couple years ago about the Pod Mrcaru lizards* that evolved a larger head and new digestive system within thirty years, is still one of my favorites. Also the Jutland cattle example from that same old thread is a good one, four different species or races of cattle developing out of one herd in a matter of years.

All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a limited number of individuals, which brings about a new set of gene frequencies, which all by themselves are all it takes to create a new subspecies or race or variety or breed etc, in whatever time it takes for all the new genetic possibilities to work their way through the entire new population. There's the time factor: no time at all really, by ToE standards. A smallish number of founders makes the point best but even half the original population in reproductive isolation should have a new set of gene frequencies that would eventually create a new subspecies as well. It would just take somewhat longer because all the different genetic possibilities of the new population would have to work through the whole population to create the new subspecies (RAZD I believe, or someone, suggested I should use the word "phenome" for this new subspecies but the definition at Google doesn't clearly suggest this meaning.)

The processes that bring about these phenotypic changes and ultimately can create a subpopulation that is distinctively different from the parent population and from all other related populations of the same species, reduce genetic diversity with each new subpopulation. This means the trend of evolution itself is reduction in the very genetic possibilities that make evolution possible. If subpopulations form from the subpopulations, as in a ring species, that line of possible variations can ultimately reach genetic depletion, beyond which any further evolution is impossible for lack of the genetic fuel as it were. Normally genetic diversity is necessary for a healthy population, but the genetically depleted population may be able to survive. The cheetah is genetically compromised for instance though it hasn't become extinct and may be able to continue despite its state of genetic depletion for some time -- although human help may be required, which is how genetically depleted domestic breeds are able to survive as well. The elephant seal has proliferated in great numbers after having been drastically genetically reduced.

Mutation doesn't change this fact, though it is the usual argument against it here: mutation, if it did create viable alleles as is claimed, and there is no evidence that it does, 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. It makes no difference to the end result. If mutation occurred in anything like the numbers required by the ToE, species like the cheetah would not be endangered, 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.

What this implies is that the genome of each species defines the limit of that species' possible variations, beyond which no further evolution is possible.

So, with all that usual background, here's RAZD's latest post to me:

Faith writes:

Just wondering, are ANY of these creatures considered to be in the evolutionary line to human beings? ...

That was not the question.

True, and you made your point on the question of whether a brain is needed for the various different kinds of eyes. But in the process of course you treated those different kinds as if they were stages of evolution, for which there is no evidence whatever, and that's what prompted my answer.

... In fact are the "primitive multicellular organisms" in the evolutionary line to jellyfish? Are those single-celled organisms in the line to the primitive multicellular organisms? ...

The question was how could primitive systems be beneficial, and thus subject to natural selection, for organisms without a complete (ie fully evolved) eye and brain ... and how would they function without the other parts (the "IC" perception). The fact that there exist today thousands of species that continue to function at primitive levels of light sensing, and continue to survive and breed because of their ability, shows that it is beneficial at these levels of development.

Yes, again you made your point. But they are no doubt not "levels of development" at all but simply different creatures altogether, with their own design. My argument is that there is no evidence whatever that it's possible to get genetically from one kind to another. It's all pure wild imaginative conjecture based on subjective assessment of the structure of the various kinds of visual equipment, and how the more primitive "must be" related to the more complex visual equipment. As I said on that thread, I'm astonished at how readily you scientifically minded people reify a mere imagined pathway from one to another as if it were fact.

... SInce you don't say, I would guess they are not, that their visual capacities developed entirely separately, and in fact even uniquely in just a few organisms out of what, thousands or more? within their own genetic families.

The evidence is that eyes evolved independently 10 or more times. Some of the evidence for this is:

  1. bug compound eyes, each with their own sensor (photoreceptor\retina)
  2. nautilus eyes with no lens, and focus is made by making a "pinhole" aperture,
  3. octopus eyes with nerves behind the retina that focus by moving the retina relative to a fixed lens, and
  4. mammal eyes with nerves in front of the retina that focus by changing the shape of the lens while the retina is fixed

And I'm sure you can find a few more.

Nor is there any claim that bug eyes evolved into mammal eyes or that octopus eyes evolved into mammal eyes.

But that is in fact not evidence for evolution at all, since it's nothing but the mental juggling of different forms of light sensitivity that show up willy-nilly among a huge variety of life forms that are not genetically related to each other. There is no support whatever for the idea that they evolved. The best explanation is that they were all separately designed for each creature's needs.

The claim is that it is easy to evolve eyes because we start with light sensitivity and then add improvements in tiny modifications that improve the effectiveness of the eye and offer more benefit to the organisms with the new and improved models.

Sure it's "easy" to imagine how the eye coulda evolved if you imagine the different visual capacities into stages and ignore the whole question of whether it's even genetically possible for it to happen. Imagination can invent all kinds of relationships between things that are similar enough but different enough. It's enough of a leap to insist that the fossils appear in such an ordered fashion that they must be explained as evolution from one level to the next, though even there you have zip evidence that such evolution is even possible, it's all a matter of imagining how one structure coulda turned into another, one small increment at a time, without any evidence whatever that this is even genetically possible. But you even go so far as to imagine how structures that haven't even the superficial temporal relation to one another that the fossils do must have evolved from the one kind to another by stages, simply because you can imagine the incremental structural changes that would be involved. You don't even have one example of a precursor type of eye in relation to a later type on your morphological tree, or in the fossil record, the way you seem to have with the reptile and mammal ear structures. The eye types are scattered all over the Linnaean chart (as the other ear structures are too except for that one example); yet you are convinced by a mere seeming, a mere subjective mental conjuring and you call it science. The ToE is made of such stuff. It's the biggest flimflam ever pulled on the human race.

So let the usual excuse for a debate begin.

ABE: Might as well give a quick answer to dwise's next post on that other thread while I'm at it:

RAZD writes:

Nor is there any claim that bug eyes evolved into mammal eyes or that octopus eyes evolved into mammal eyes.

dwise writes:

Indeed, that is a big argument against "intelligent design". An actual designer is free to introduce new elements to his design, including going back and completely reworking portions of it ("going back to the drawing board"). That includes introducing components from other unrelated designs (eg, a couple decades ago, Plymouth Voyager mini-vans, an American design, could come with either a USA engine or a Japanese engine; we owned one and it only lasted 75,000 miles, unlike my Saturn which I had to retire just past 200,000 miles).

For some odd reason, the "Intelligent Designer" of Life has never done that. Instead of going back to the drawing board or grafting in components from unrelated designs...,

The obvious answer to this is that the Designer knew what He was doing from the getgo and didn't need to go back to the drawing board to accomplish His purposes. One shot was enough, no need to start with crank-up engines on cars that looked like the buggies of the horse-and-buggy days. His designs are suited to life on this physical planet for a variety of different kinds of creatures with different functions. We got our creative abilities from the image of God but for us it's all trial and error, for Him it was a matter of speaking and it was done.

In other words, why is it that that "intelligent design" ended up looking exactly like evolution had done the job?

Actually, I once read a criticism of the writings of the leading figures of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Drs Henry Morris and Duane Gish, what wrote the book!, and describing the lengths they had to go to to explain away why all the world keeps looking like evolution had happened.

Well, but it obviously doesn't look like that or your apparently omniscient human race would have developed the theory long before Darwin came along. And then he got most of it wrong. His stuff was all speculation too, you know, just an exercise in imagination, and even he could see ahead to problems with it, which are now claimed to have been solved but weren't. He knew there had to be an endless presentation of transitionals, gradations galore, not the occasional seeming transitional that only emphasizes the fact that there are indeed discrete species that don't blur together either in the fossil record or among living things.

Genetically evolution is impossible beyond the microevolution that is confined to built-in variability in the genome of each species. Darwin could only get a few bizarre sorts of pigeons out of his breeding attempts. Did he run into the problem of reduced genetic diversity I wonder? Breeders did all the time until they got smart and realized they were producing ill health in their breeds and needed to breed in some genetic diversity for health's sake, even survival's sake.

He also postulated evolution by natural selection to explain the different finch beaks and the different tortoise shells of the Galapagos island, when nothing more is needed to understand them than the usual variations possible within the genomes of the finch species and the tortoise species, microevolved due to reproductive isolation of portions of the population varying their different gene frequencies in different locations. Darwin was quite wrong about the importance of natural selection in the sense of the environment's forcing an adaptation by the organism, which is a very expensive way to bring about adaptation; NS probably has some role but hardly any compared to the role of simple reproductive isolation.

==========
*Pod Mrcaru lizards (Croatia) was first mentioned by frako HERE

Rapid differentiation of Jutland cattle was first mentioned on that same thread by Percy HERE, explained mostly in terms of genetic drift. While drift could have been involved, and may also be involved in most of the examples I use, the reproductive isolation of small numbers of individuals would certainly be enough to bring about the rapid differentiation they are talking about.

==============================

ABE: So, as often happens, the discussion on the thread where this started has remained off topic but gotten even sillier. Good thing I have a new thread to collect responses to it.

This one is from Dwise to Percy who I think was characterizing my argument:

OK, so you are postulating a supernatural creator whose every single initial decision was precisely the exact correct one to have been made.

If this is meant to be a characterization of my view of Creation, of course it's true because it's biblical. I gather Intelligent Design leaves room for different ideas of the Creator God, but the Bible allows only one Creator God, the one who called everything into being according to the first verses of Genesis and then rested. He created every living thing and then rested, created no more, did it right the first time. After the first six days of creation there was no more creation. He rested on the seventh day. The Biblical Creator God cannot err so the idea that He did is just human hubris. There may be many different "creationist" views of Creation, even "Christian" views such as the various "liberal" twistings of the text to make room for evolution, but this is the only one that is truly Biblical.

....So just exactly where does that put us?

I'm sure you can still make up your own version of Creation, not being hampered by the Bible. That's the usual procedure here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : spelling

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : Shorten title and add links in new first paragraph

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : add note about Jutland cattle

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : Add answer to dwise about one-time final Creation

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2015 2:22 AM Faith has responded
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2015 12:25 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by 14174dm, posted 10-12-2015 10:25 PM Faith has responded
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 10-13-2015 11:16 AM Faith has responded
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 4:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 259 (770663)
10-11-2015 7:07 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Another Run at the End of Evolution through Genetic Processes Argument thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(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 responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 4 of 259 (770677)
10-12-2015 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-11-2015 6:33 PM


PaulK is right. You've repeated your nonsense but without fixing any of the holes in it. Genetics doesn't work like that. It works in accordance with the observations made by geneticists
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-11-2015 6:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 5 of 259 (770679)
10-12-2015 12:43 PM


So, the same old arguments that have already been shown to not be accurate. Why bother with a new thread if you have nothing new to add?

I have just been reading the September 2015 issue of Scientific American. The whole issue is devoted to articles about Albert Einstein. He was a true master at "thought Experiments", many of which were confirmed be subsequent observations.

Your method of conjuring hypotheses in your mind is not working out very well because observations of biology, genetics and evolution contradict you.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-12-2015


(2)
Message 6 of 259 (770693)
10-12-2015 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-11-2015 6:33 PM


If true, how would the founder look?
Instead of arguing about things from the evolutionary side, shouldn't we be examining the predictions to be made based on Faith's proposal? The search for falsification or confirmation based on prediction & evidence?

So Faith is saying that the pair of canine-kind that walked off the ark had all the genes for all the descendants that now make up the canine family? I assume that would have to include species that have gone extinct.

Not big on biology but wondering how that would work.

Which genes would be switched on in the founding generation? All of them?

With the tiny number of individuals per generation for the first few generations, how would only the genes that became gray wolf stay together in lineage A while only the genes in the silver fox stayed together only in lineage B. Wouldn't you end up mixing them back together?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 12:19 AM 14174dm has responded
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 10-13-2015 9:29 AM 14174dm has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 12:06 PM 14174dm has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 259 (770694)
10-12-2015 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
10-12-2015 2:22 AM


Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
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.

PaulK: ďWhere are the numbers?Ē

Numbers are irrelevant. You have to grasp the dynamic of the situation. Subtractive processes bring about evolution of new subspecies; additive processes only interfere.

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 donít belong to the breed.

Endangered species such as the cheetah also demonstrate the principle that you get a specialized subspecies by the LOSS of alleles for competing traits. The cheetah is reduced to fixed loci for most of its characteristics. In this world of death and disease thatís a hardship for the cheetah, but nevertheless it demonstrates the principle that you get the new subspecies by losing the traits for other versions of the same species. You get a cheetah by eliminating the alleles for lions and tigers and housecats.

Mutations donít occur often enough to make a difference, but if they did they would interfere with the processes that bring about new subspecies or breeds.

Faith's argument has failed again and again because she cannot deal with the fact that mutations necessarily replenish genetic diversity.

No failure at all, itís just a hard idea to grasp that this supposed replenishment only detracts from evolution. Iím going to have to spell out the whole scenario to try to make my point clear. Iíll then get to the rest of your post.

Hereís the gist: Iím using the example of what happens when a daughter population forms and becomes reproductively isolated from its parent population, because this particular example most clearly illustrates what evolution actually is. Evolution is really nothing but reproductive isolation of a subpopulation until it blends together into a distinctive new set of characteristics that set it apart from other populations of the same species.

Reproductive isolation makes it clear that the new phenotypes that emerge are due solely to the alleles shared by the individuals that make up the new population. If there is any gene flow between this population and the parent population or any other population of the same species the illustration just isnít as clear. What creates the new phenotypes is the reduction of genetic diversity itself, due to the new gene frequencies shared among the individuals of the new population. Alleles that were high frequency in the original population may not be high frequency in this population and vice versa. In any case there will be a new set of frequencies of all the alleles for all the traits of the species, brought about only by the isolation and inbreeding of a subset of individuals, which is going to bring out completely new traits. If this population remains reproductively isolated over many generations eventually the new traits will become part of an overall new appearance that distinguishes the new population from the parent population, and from other daughter populations of the same species. This seems to me to be the best example for illustrating how evolution, microevolution that is, occurs and creates the changes evolution is expected to bring about.

The new population is made up of individuals from the parent population that are randomly ďselectedĒ by simply separating from the parent population geographically as by migration to a new habitat. This is the easiest situation to visualize at least, but the same situation of reproductive isolation of a subset of individuals can occur in other ways, such as by natural selection which confers reproductive advantage on individuals that possess traits useful to the population, or even by random mate selection within the parent population, which can effectively isolate a group of individuals from the rest without any particular reason for it. But the illustration of geographic isolation is the clearest for showing how evolution works.

All these processes are subtractive processes. That is, they isolate a number of individuals that then reproduce only among themselves for a number of generations, combining the gene frequencies within that group until a new set of traits emerges and eventually blends together to create a new phenotypic appearance shared by the group as a whole that sets it apart from the parent population. In the process they lose the alleles for other traits that may have been in the original population.

Wildebeests: Assuming the black type best represents the parent population although itís just an assumption, some number of individuals at some point in the past migrated away from the main populationís location to a new habitat far enough away to prevent gene flow or interbreeding with the parent population. Over some number of generations this daughter population bred only among themselves with the groupís own shared set of gene frequencies different from the original populationís gene frequencies. They originally looked just like all the animals in the original population but their own set of gene frequencies would bring out new traits. So the new traits emerged and eventually blended into a recognizably different (sub)species of wildebeests, with a somewhat different body structure, different shaped horns, different coloring. Itís a distinctively different subspecies from the original population.

Similarly when cattle were still wild but being brought under domestication, small herds would have been isolated from the wild herd and bred by nomads and eventually cattle ranchers in isolation from it. The new daughter herds would have had their own gene frequencies different from that of the wild herd and over generations of inbreeding within the smaller herd would develop a distinctive appearance that became a unique and recognizable breed of cattle. Each small herd thus isolated from the wild herd would develop its own peculiar characteristics in this way due to their own unique collection of gene frequencies until eventually there were hundreds of different breeds of cattle formed by simple reproductive isolation from the original herd for generations. At some point they would have been subjected to human selection to bring out desired traits but the original geographic isolation would have been enough in itself for different breeds to emerge. Which is what breeders of all kinds of animals aim for after all, distinctive recognizable characteristics that set apart their breed from all others. The desired traits are selected and bred for. In the wild either natural selection or just the same kind of random selection brought about by geographic migration would also bring about new populations with their own distinctive characteristics. All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a number of individuals sharing a new set of gene frequencies, whether that is intentionally or randomly brought about.

All this illustrates how microevolution works. Itís a subtractive process, a matter of isolating a number of animals from the main population. Thatís all it takes to produce new breeds or races of any sexually reproducing animal. In the process of developing the distinctive new set of traits, other traits are eliminated from the population. This is how reduction of genetic diversity must occur for evolution to occur.

In reality the isolation may not be perfect, there may be gene flow between different populations or even with the original wild population. But for purposes of illustrating what evolution is I think it helps to suppose perfect reproduductive isolation. Evolution, or the product ion of new phenotypes that come to characterize a new subpopulation or breed or race or subspecies, or species if you prefer, is the result of reproductive isolation of some individuals from the main population. Thatís all it is, and it is that in all cases. If this isolation isnít occurring, evolution isnít occurring. You may get new phenotypes scattered within a population but you wonít get a new population with its own distinctive characteristics unless it is reproductively isolated from the other populations for enough generations to blend those characteristics into a distinctive recognizable species/supspecies.

Evolution is all subtractive, additive processes interfere with it:

I felt I had to spell all that out again because itís only when itís clear how microevolution produces a new species or subspecies that it becomes clear why mutation has no role in it.

Gene flow interferes with these processes. The processes that produce new subpopulations are subtractive, gene flow is additive. Mutations are additive. They can only interfere with the processes that bring about evolution to a new subspecies.

When there is incomplete geographic isolation gene flow may continue. Hybrid zones between original and new populations may form. If they also become reproductively isolated at some point they also will eventually form a distinctive subspecies. Likewise if mutation occurred to enough of an extent to change traits within a group, to that extent the group would not be evolving into a new subpopulation. Itís only reproductive isolation that makes that possible. If you have worked for decades to produce your ideal breed of dogs or cats or cattle or whatever, the last thing you want is for a trait that doesnít belong to your ideal to show up. Nature of course doesnít care one way or another, but the same effect would occur in the wild too: mutations can only interfere with the development of a distinctive new subpopulation.

The processes of evolution necessarily diminish genetic diversity. This MUST happen or you are not getting evolution because the emergence of new phenotypes depends on eliminating the alleles for other phenotypes. If instead you have gene flow of any kind to any extent at all, to that extent you are not getting evolution. You may get a hybrid zone, you may get new phenotypes scattered throughout a population, but evolution would mean getting a whole new subpopulation in which the individuals all share the same characteristics. That only happens with reproductive isolation of a subset of individuals and that requires reduction of genetic diversity.

Sorry for so much repetition but it seems necessary because if this basic stuff isnít understood thereís no way to make it clear why mutations can only interfere with evolution.

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

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.

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.

Iím sure itís merely a difference of opinion. Diseases brought about by mutation are well recognized in the DNA; neutral mutations that donít change the trait are also recognizable, but the evidence for viable beneficial alleles is so scanty you might as well say it doesnít exist. This is assumed by the ToE, it is not evidenced.

Just to satisfy your requirement to know a rate I tried to find out the rate of mutation in gametes which of course is where they must occur to be inherited, and although I looked at quite a few discussions I couldnít find this out. Hereís a representative discussion. It gives the frequency of mutations in an individual but doesnít distinguish somatic from sex cell mutations.

What is clear from those discussions is that mutations donít occur frequently enough to interfere with my scenario, that the vast majority are deleterious or neutral anyway and wouldnít contribute anything to the emerging phenotypes. Except disease.

..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.

ANY gain whatever interferes with the processes of evolution. Genetic diversity MUST be reduced in the process of bringing out new phenotypes. Mutation theoretically could be the source of a particular allele that becomes incorporated in the new subspecies, but it would have to already be there and occur in high enough frequency for that to occur. In which case, as I keep saying, there is no difference between mutations and built-in alleles. For evolution to produce a new subspecies some have to be expressed and others suppressed or eliminated, it really doesnít matter which. You donít get a new subspecies unless low frequency traits donít get expressed, or drop out of the population altogether. In fact you will find that most discussions of how this works mention that low frequency alleles DO drop out of the population altogether. All Iím adding to this is that itís necessary for the formation of the characteristic traits of the new population, itís HOW they form.

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..

Your continuing to ask for numbers only demonstrates that you arenít getting the idea here at all. I said what I meant: mutations of a beneficial sort donít occur frequently enough to save the cheetah or the elephant seals. Why should they be thought to occur frequently enough to contribute anything to the genetic diversity of populations in general? But again, if they did then evolution wouldnít be occurring at that point because evolution of new subspecies depends on reducing, not increasing, genetic diversity. Which I said in the next quote of mine that PaulK produced:

Faith writes:

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.

Iím talking about new subspecies that are recognizably different subspecies. These occur with the reduction or elimination of genetic diversity and not otherwise. Rate of change has nothing to do with it, the same processes have to occur or you arenít getting a new subspecies, period. Again, numbers are irrelevant. Even ONE mutation that brings out a new trait would interfere with the development of a new subspecies just as any gene flow of any kind would interfere. It can slow down for a long long time, reality is messy, but actual evolution requires reduction in genetic diversity or it isnít going to happen.

Now if you persist in your misunderstanding all I can do is refer you back to this post. If you donít get it you donít get it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2015 2:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2015 11:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2015 2:11 AM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 8 of 259 (770696)
10-12-2015 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-12-2015 11:09 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
Iím talking about new subspecies that are recognizably different subspecies. These occur with the reduction or elimination of genetic diversity and not otherwise.

Or the addition of a new trait due to a mutation.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 10-12-2015 11:45 PM Coyote has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 259 (770697)
10-12-2015 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
10-12-2015 11:21 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
Or the addition of a new trait due to a mutation.

Nope, as I just laboriously proved. You might try understanding the argument before chiming in.

The addition of a new trait contributes nothing to the formation of a new subspecies unless it becomes a high frequency allele within a reproductively isolated daughter population. Then it may be blended into the overall characteristics of the new subspecies. In other words it would act like any allele for any trait, contributing its own trait to the overall phenotypic portrait of the subspecies. Just another allele among the hundreds of other alleles. A different shade of green eyes maybe?

Unfortunately, in reality mutation doesn't even contribute that much. The frequency of known useful mutations is somewhere near zero.

But if it pops up in the process of an evolving subspecies it will only interfere with that process, the way a new trait in a pure breed would interfere. Of course we don't HAVE to have evolution, we can have stasis, we can have long periods where nothing is happening at all. But evolution does require the reduction of genetic diversity.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : change alleles to mutations


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2015 11:21 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2015 12:07 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 10-13-2015 9:05 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 4:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 10 of 259 (770698)
10-13-2015 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
10-12-2015 11:45 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
You have consistently shown you are anti-science and have no regard for scientific evidence. Additionally, you are consistently wrong in what you claim.

Why should we give credence to anything you post here?

Why should we even bother showing you evidence when you just hand-wave away any evidence that contradicts your religious beliefs?

And why should we even bother reading your posts? (We must be masochistic or something.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 10-12-2015 11:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 259 (770699)
10-13-2015 12:13 AM


So let's see, that's what, four out of six posts by my opponents that contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion?
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2015 12:20 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 259 (770700)
10-13-2015 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by 14174dm
10-12-2015 10:25 PM


Re: If true, how would the founder look?
Hello 14174dm (How about just "dm?") I don't think I understand your question. Maybe you could try to spell it out more clearly?

But I think your basic attitude is a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 14174dm, posted 10-12-2015 10:25 PM 14174dm has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by 14174dm, posted 10-13-2015 12:42 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 13 of 259 (770701)
10-13-2015 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
10-13-2015 12:13 AM


Contributed absolutely nothing??
My post, at least, has described your posting history here accurately.

You are anti-science and anti-evidence, and have admitted that on many occasions.

With that anti-science anti-evidence approach, you have no business in the Science Forums.

You have made your position very clear, so don't complain when we call you on it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 12:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:52 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 259 (770702)
10-13-2015 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coyote
10-13-2015 12:20 AM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
I would like to avoid answering this kind of nonpost that is nothing but a personal attack not worth bothering with. But the fact is that you are miserably wrong wrong wrong. I am not antiscience and I am not anti evidence. I am anti-evolution and there IS no evidence for evolution, it's all mental conjurings and I've made that case over and over and over. I've SHOWN how it's all imagined, but THAT evidence you are conveniently ignoring.

All the major points that hold together the ToE are pure assumption, conjecture, fantasy. It is assumed that life is all genetically related although there is no evidence that that is even possible, and my argument on this thread shows that it isn't possible It is assumed that evolution occurred from one fossil to another though there isn't one shred of evidence that it's possible for that to happen genetically. Not a shred. The argument I make above proves it can't happen.

Mutations are assumed to be the source of all the alleles in DNA. That's an assumption without one shred of actual evidence. The actual evidence shows that mutations produce diseases and otherwise often do nothing. The idea that they contribute viable alleles is just that, an idea, period. What, sickle cell for malaria, one interesting mutation that protects against heart disease somewhere in Italy or something like that? What else? Hardly the overwhelming evidence needed to support the assertion that mutations make viable alleles.

It's all an edifice constructed out of mental stuff, interpretations, conjectures, made-up scenarios about invented "hominids" nobody has ever seen, but they must be hominids and not humans because the ToE needs them to be. Or what life was like multiple millions of years ago. It's all a sick joke.

Tanypteryx mentioned how Einstein could use his mind to imagine things that others were later able to validate. That's because Einstein was actually doing science. Evolution just IS imagination, it is NOT science.

And everything I've written here is supported by evidence or reasoned argument,

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2015 12:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 12:26 PM Faith has responded
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 4:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(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 donít 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 donít 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, itís just a hard idea to grasp that this supposed replenishment only detracts from evolution. Iím going to have to spell out the whole scenario to try to make my point clear. Iíll 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:

Iím sure itís merely a difference of opinion. Diseases brought about by mutation are well recognized in the DNA; neutral mutations that donít change the trait are also recognizable, but the evidence for viable beneficial alleles is so scanty you might as well say it doesnít 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 donít occur frequently enough to interfere with my scenario, that the vast majority are deleterious or neutral anyway and wouldnít 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 responded

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

    
1
23456
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017