Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 1:03 PM
445 online now:
14174dm, Aussie, DrJones*, Faith, james121515, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Porosity, Tanypteryx (8 members, 1 guest login, 436 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,165 Year: 6,771/21,208 Month: 2,532/2,634 Week: 195/525 Day: 28/82 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 196 of 259 (771236)
10-22-2015 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
10-21-2015 6:06 PM


Does Message 176 describe your argument
It is NOT assuming the conclusion for pete’s sake, it’s merely stating that it does not contradict my argument ...

For us to really know this we have to know what your argument is, without rambling side comments, and without confusions.

Does Message 176 describe your argument?

  1. every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.

  2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.

    THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.

  3. this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation (1st set of offspring), due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Parent Population.

  4. over time (several generations) this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated.

    THEREFORE over time (after many generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Daughter Population, one that is distinctly different from the Parent Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but appearing similar on the majority of traits).

  5. the domination of the new "Type" will drive some alleles that were previously common into lower and lower frequencies until they become eliminated from the phenome of the Daughter Population.

  6. loss of previously common alleles may eventually cause the Daughter Population to become reproductively incompatible with the Parent Population.

    THEREFORE a new subspecies is formed that has less genetic diversity than the original species.

    THEREFORE as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity being available, until the (final) resultant subspecies become unable to sub-divide further, thus ending evolution.

So, does this or does this not describe your argument?

If not please correct. You can IM/PM/message me if you don't want to post it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 10-21-2015 6:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 10-22-2015 8:57 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 197 of 259 (771249)
10-22-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
10-22-2015 3:53 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
I do want to get back to earlier posts but I'm up to my ears in a really messy furniture moving project that has disrupted my whole computer area. Thanks to the internet guy who says I have to get to a phone jack I haven't seen in ten years because it's behind a heavy bookcase with a lot of stuff in front of it. I've made progress but it's going to take help at some point.

I knew you wanted to know all that.

But to answer your question,
The main problem is that I try not to be so flat-out certain at each stage. I'd more often say this CAN happen than that it WILL happen, because it depends on completely random events. It's more or less accurate with that proviso, I think (I'm too tired to know anything right now).

ALso I've never said, as far as I recall, that "the domination of the new type" drives alleles. From what I've read, very low-frequency alleles tend to drop out of a population eventually and I think that's all I've said.

Also want to answer your statement somewhere that I must have dropped my idea that extinction is what ends evolution. That has NEVER been the idea. I may have said that this trend is toward ultimate extinction but it's not inevitable, and it's the running out of genetic diversity that brings the evolutionary processes to an end. The organism could conceivably go on at that point for a long time without extinction, but also there are likely to be other populations of the same species in a healthier state anyway.

Also, this is from the other thread where I am suspended at the moment, could petition to be reinstated but really this is all I want to say: you answered one of my usual statements that I think random "selection" is more common than natural selection in forming adaptations, as if I'd said it's the only way it happens, but I've said that natural selection of the sort that changes the beak to suit the environment CAN happen, I don't deny it as a possibility, just that it's probably not as common as the other way around. Mostly because it's costly for the bird to change the beak, there are no guarantees a particular adaptation is even available to be selected in some cases so a change in the environment could simply be lethal.

I hope I've answered your questions.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2015 3:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 10:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 203 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 11:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 198 of 259 (771268)
10-23-2015 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
10-22-2015 8:57 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
I do want to get back to earlier posts but I'm up to my ears in a really messy furniture moving project that has disrupted my whole computer area. Thanks to the internet guy who says I have to get to a phone jack I haven't seen in ten years because it's behind a heavy bookcase with a lot of stuff in front of it. I've made progress but it's going to take help at some point.

Are you getting DSL or FIOS instead of cable? Hopefully not dial-up (although that has gotten faster as everyone else moves to cable & DSL)

The main problem is that I try not to be so flat-out certain at each stage. I'd more often say this CAN happen than that it WILL happen, because it depends on completely random events. It's more or less accurate with that proviso, I think (I'm too tired to know anything right now).

That is indeed one of the problems I see with your argument/s -- that you waffle around a core concept when you discuss it with others, and this makes it difficult to know for sure what that core argument is.

Now it is fine to be tentative, but your core concept needs to be a statement of certainty to be scientific -- that is what makes them falsifiable when those certain statements are shown to be incorrect (or not always correct). That certainty in the concept is also what leads to predictions that test the validity of the concept.

So to "understand the Faith argument" I need to know what that core concept is, and then we can discuss what it predicts would happen and what it predicts would not happen.

ALso I've never said, as far as I recall, that "the domination of the new type" drives alleles. From what I've read, very low-frequency alleles tend to drop out of a population eventually and I think that's all I've said.

What makes those low frequency alleles drop out other than the increase of the other alleles in the population?

How do you get the rise of new phenotypes without the increase in frequency of some alleles that were not high frequency before?

Also want to answer your statement somewhere that I must have dropped my idea that extinction is what ends evolution. That has NEVER been the idea. I may have said that this trend is toward ultimate extinction but it's not inevitable, and it's the running out of genetic diversity that brings the evolutionary processes to an end. The organism could conceivably go on at that point for a long time without extinction, but also there are likely to be other populations of the same species in a healthier state anyway.

And I believe my latest edit of the last conclusion reflects that:

THEREFORE as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity being available, until the (final) resultant subspecies become unable to sub-divide further, thus ending evolution.

Also, this is from the other thread where I am suspended at the moment, could petition to be reinstated but really this is all I want to say: you answered one of my usual statements that I think random "selection" is more common than natural selection in forming adaptations, ...

Well I would agree that natural selection and genetic drift and stochastic events (like volcanic eruptions) would impact the populations, it is just that natural selection is the only one of these that increases population fitness (adapts) by removing the lesser fit phenotype traits over time.

... as if I'd said it's the only way it happens, but I've said that natural selection of the sort that changes the beak to suit the environment CAN happen, I don't deny it as a possibility, just that it's probably not as common as the other way around. Mostly because it's costly for the bird to change the beak, there are no guarantees a particular adaptation is even available to be selected in some cases so a change in the environment could simply be lethal.

As noted in my reply to NoNukes (Message 1034), in the short run (ie each generation) there are variations in the population that could be considered to be "pre-adapted" because they are better fit to the ecology or the ecological changes -- that this is natural selection working with the natural variation in each population to select the better fit over the lesser fit.

It is the long run view, the continued trend over many generations, where you see adaption beyond what was available in the initial population: larger beaks than the largest beaks in the initial population (and the loss of the smallest beak traits).

I hope I've answered your questions.

For now.

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 10-22-2015 8:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 1:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 199 of 259 (771281)
10-23-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by RAZD
10-23-2015 10:20 AM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Just have to say this: No it is not "waffling" to use tentative words. There is no way to know how a new set of gene frequencies is going to play out, it depends on how different they are from the original population's, how large the founding population is and so on. The argument isn't tentative though, there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity, that may take more or less time to become apparent depending on those variables.

It's DSL, and the previous was DSL. Or so I thought. I don't understand why I have to get to the phone jack. He says I have to remove the white cord and stick it in the back of the new modem.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 10:20 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by JonF, posted 10-23-2015 1:35 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 1:58 PM Faith has responded
 Message 204 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 12:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 200 of 259 (771283)
10-23-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
10-23-2015 1:16 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
DSL goes over your phone line, so it does need to be connected to the phone line.

Typically any phone plugged into that line has to have a filter between it and the wall jack so only the modem sees the DSL stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 1:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 201 of 259 (771284)
10-23-2015 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
10-23-2015 1:16 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Just have to say this: No it is not "waffling" to use tentative words. ...

The difference is that saying

"I think X may sometimes cause Y" (waffling) and

"I think X causes Y, but I am not sure -- let's test it; let's say that IF X causes Y THEN Z happens and then look for Z" (scientific tentativity).

One is testable the other is not.

... There is no way to know how a new set of gene frequencies is going to play out, it depends on how different they are from the original population's, how large the founding population is and so on. ...

But if we have a core concept that we want to test we can use it to make predictions of how the new set of gene frequencies should play out if the concept is true and how it should play out if the concept is false and what happens when it is only sometimes true.

... The argument isn't tentative though, there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity, that may take more or less time to become apparent depending on those variables.

So the CORE argument is that "there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity" ... or as I had for the third conclusion:

THEREFORE a new subspecies is formed that has less genetic diversity than the original species.

... or would it be clearer to say:

THEREFORE as each new subspecies is formed that it has less genetic diversity than its parent species.
?

It's DSL, and the previous was DSL. Or so I thought. I don't understand why I have to get to the phone jack. He says I have to remove the white cord and stick it in the back of the new modem.

Your previous DSL modem would have needed the same. Is the new router wireless? That's what I have, with the modem located in the middle of the house and linked to the phone box by cable. Perhaps he wants you to use a new cable\different box to improve electrical flow (line loss).

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 1:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 2:41 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 202 of 259 (771285)
10-23-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
10-23-2015 1:58 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
I'm saying neither. I'm saying that X always causes Y but sometimes at an undetectable rate. That's why I tend to prefer extreme examples like low founding numbers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 1:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 12:09 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2015 3:22 PM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12394
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 203 of 259 (771317)
10-24-2015 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
10-22-2015 8:57 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Faith writes:

I may have said that this trend is toward ultimate extinction but it's not inevitable, and it's the running out of genetic diversity that brings the evolutionary processes to an end.

Until you support your contention that mutations play no roll or an insignificant role in evolution, please stop making or referencing the claim. There will not be a discussion of a fantasy world where mutations either don't exist or aren't relevant in any significant way until you demonstrate with evidence that that's the reality.

Also, this is from the other thread where I am suspended at the moment, could petition to be reinstated...

I'm agreeable to any administrative action that leads to more open and constructive discussion.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 10-22-2015 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12394
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 204 of 259 (771319)
10-24-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
10-23-2015 1:16 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Faith writes:

The argument isn't tentative though, there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity, that may take more or less time to become apparent depending on those variables.

You're still ignoring mutation. Even if you're right about the null or minimal role of mutation, you haven't demonstrated that, while much evidence that mutations play a significant role in evolution have been presented many times in many threads. I'd would like to avoid having yet another thread where the issue of mutation is not addressed.

It's DSL, and the previous was DSL. Or so I thought. I don't understand why I have to get to the phone jack. He says I have to remove the white cord and stick it in the back of the new modem.

Let's see if I've got this straight. Your Internet comes over your phone line, and your Internet provider wants to change the modem. Is that right? If not, such as he's changing you over from DSL to something else, ignore the rest.

The phone line comes out of a wall plate behind a heavy bookcase that is behind yet more stuff, maybe heavy furniture. Moving the furniture is turning into a major project. Am I right so far? If not, ignore the rest.

It would be very easy to take the end of your phone line where it comes out from behind your bookcase and just plug in the new modem. But since it isn't easy, that must mean the phone line doesn't emerge from behind your bookcase. Your modem must be buried behind your bookcase, and an Ethernet cable must run from behind your bookcase into your computer, or maybe it's wireless. The phone line from your wall plate to your modem must be too short too pull the modem out from behind your bookcase, or maybe it's wireless and you can't reach it or get a grip on it. Am I right so far? If not, ignore what follows.

If any of the above stuff is wrong then you may not need to move furniture, but you'll have to provide more information. But otherwise, yes, it looks like you're going to have to move the bookcase to get at the modem to replace it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 1:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2015 1:26 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12394
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 205 of 259 (771320)
10-24-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
10-23-2015 2:41 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Faith writes:

I'm saying neither. I'm saying that X always causes Y but sometimes at an undetectable rate. That's why I tend to prefer extreme examples like low founding numbers.

With nothing quoted and not much elaboration this is very difficult to understand, but in any case, running back over the message trail I found it leads to your Message 199 which included a statement about reduced genetic diversity as an inevitable trend. You still have to support this.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9342
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 206 of 259 (771328)
10-24-2015 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Admin
10-24-2015 12:03 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
off topic blather removed

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 12:03 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 207 of 259 (771334)
10-24-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
10-23-2015 2:41 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
... The argument isn't tentative though, there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity, that may take more or less time to become apparent depending on those variables.

So the CORE argument is that "there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity" ... or as I had for the third conclusion:

I'm saying neither. I'm saying that X always causes Y but sometimes at an undetectable rate. That's why I tend to prefer extreme examples like low founding numbers.

So the CORE hypothesis(*) of your argument is that population divisions\splits have a tendency (trend) to have some loss of genetic diversity in the daughter population?

Is that not saying the same thing as the first statement I listed on Message 176:

1. every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.

We can change "does not" to "may not" if you wish, but I would note that this makes the statement a wishy-washy "sometimes X happens and sometimes X does not happen" statement that is not testable or refutable.

Would you agree that theses statements follow from that initial CORE statement:

2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.

THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.

Would you consider those statements to be part of your argument?

Enjoy

(*) "hypothesis" because of the lack of evidence that people keep harping on.

Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 10-23-2015 2:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-24-2015 8:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 208 of 259 (771345)
10-24-2015 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
10-24-2015 3:22 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
So the CORE hypothesis(*) of your argument is that population divisions\splits have a tendency (trend) to have some loss of genetic diversity in the daughter population?

Is that not saying the same thing as the first statement I listed on Thread Name Not Available:

Every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.

Hard to know from the way you've worded it. "ALL the frequency of alleles" doesn't convey anything to me. There would be DIFFERENT frequencies of alleles just because the split was random. It's possible for all the alleles to be in all the populations but at different frequencies. It's even possible that the frequencies will be pretty much the same, for instance all of them having the greatest frequency of the same alleles, and all having roughly the same distribution of frequencies of the others down to the lowest. It's possible, not very probable with a random split but possible.

The loss of genetic diversity may not show up for a few generations in the daughter population either, although eventually it would.

Would you agree that theses statements follow from that initial CORE statement:

2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.

I'd say that's the probable situation, as above: different frequencies from each other.

THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.

In the founding generation? No, I figure they'll all look like the members of the parent population at that point. Their different frequencies of genotypes wouldn't produce new phenotypes that really APPEAR as phenotypes until after a few generations of recombination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2015 3:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2015 12:24 PM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 209 of 259 (771372)
10-25-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
10-24-2015 8:33 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Faith, I feel like I'm trying to nail down jello ...

Hard to know from the way you've worded it. "ALL the frequency of alleles" doesn't convey anything to me ...

Let me see if I can parse it differently for you

... (doesn't have all) (the frequency of alleles) ...

ie -- some would be different frequencies, some could be the same, for all the different alleles of all the different genes.

... It's possible for all the alleles to be in all the populations but at different frequencies. It's even possible that the frequencies will be pretty much the same, for instance all of them having the greatest frequency of the same alleles, and all having roughly the same distribution of frequencies of the others down to the lowest. It's possible, not very probable with a random split but possible.

I think we are saying the same thing here. Yes?

I'd say that's the probable situation, as above: different frequencies from each other.

So we agree at this stage that this is your argument. Yes?

Moving on:

THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.

In the founding generation? No, I figure they'll all look like the members of the parent population at that point. Their different frequencies of genotypes wouldn't produce new phenotypes that really APPEAR as phenotypes until after a few generations of recombination.

The parent population is not cookie-cutter homogeneous, but a mixture of varieties. These varieties may not be extremely different, just slightly different as the different alleles\traits are distributed in bell curves for each gene.

So this is a consequence of having different allele frequencies in the founding\first population, that the mixture of these slight varieties would be different from what was found in the parent population. These would not be new phenotypes, just a different selection of phenotypes that existed in the parent population.

For instance you could have a higher % of blue eyes than in the parent population, and a lower % of curly hair than in the parent population.

... Their different frequencies of genotypes wouldn't produce new phenotypes that really APPEAR as phenotypes until after a few generations of recombination.

Which is essentially what I was saying in 3 and 4 and the conclusion that followed them:

3. this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation (1st set of offspring), due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Parent Population.

4. over time (several generations) this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated.

THEREFORE over time (after many generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Daughter Population, one that is distinctly different from the Parent Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but appearing similar on the majority of traits).

Do you agree with that being an accurate representation of your argument?

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-24-2015 8:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 10-29-2015 12:32 AM RAZD has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 210 of 259 (771415)
10-25-2015 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
10-21-2015 6:06 PM


Re: Your "falsifications" are falsified
I will have to make this brief, hopefully I will be able to come back to this discussion later in the week.

But again only SELECTIVE breeding is what I’m talking about. Cross breeding ADDS ALLELES, it’s a completely different form of breeding. My whole focus is on what happens genetically due to SELECTION AND ISOLATION.

If that was the entirety of your argument, then this discussion is a total waste of bandwidth. We agreed long ago that that type of breeding DOES reduce genetic diversity; it removes alleles just as you say.

Here is the exchange from 2013 from my first encounter with you on this issue

HBD writes:

I did not say that artificial breeding does not reduce genetic variability. It does and in that she was largely correct.

Faith writes:

Hip hip hooray. I may have to copy that out, change the font to something formal like Olde English and put it in 72 point and hang it on my wall. Yikes, a tiny little concession. Means SO much.

But what she seemed to imply was that breeding is accomplished by eliminating genetic diversity alone.

Faith writes:

Yes, that is indeed my argument. You do not get new breeds, new phenotypes, either in the wild or under domestication, or keep an established breed pure, without reducing the genetic diversity, or once the breed is established, by keeping the genetic understructure limited to ONLY what expresses the characteristics of that breed.

But that selective breeding reduces genetic diversity is NOT the whole of your argument is it? You have said that selective breeding is the ONLY way to create new breeds, species, varieties, or whatever. You have said that selective breeding is a DIRECT comparison to natural selection and therefore, evolution is wrong.

However, it doesn't appear that you can find even one example of selective breeding from the sources I referenced that shows reduced genetic diversity. You instead find cross breeding that introduces new alleles into a population and the new breeds are developed from there. So new breeds are made by crossing and reinforced or fixed by selecting.

Well you should have recognized that when a dog was registered says nothing about it genetically, and that brings the study itself into question. To say anything about my argument you’d have to have dogs in a direct line of descent. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the dogs on this chart.

I did recognize that and even mentioned it in my post, which is why I supplied the phylogenetic diagram as well.

Why should more recently registered dogs have higher genetic diversity? The only reason I can think of is what I said earlier, that they may not have been as severely selectively bred as earlier breeds.

No, when breeds were developed and when they were registered does not correlate perfectly. But since breeds don't have a "made on" date attached to them and instead were developed over periods of time, registration seems to be a valid surrogate. Also, a breed can only be registered when they have a suitable sized breeding population, so when a breed is actually "developed" is kinda vague, instead registration is when they were officially recognized as a breed.

There are a couple out-of-place breeds on the chart I presented (the Akita and the American Eskimo are two) but, the list appears to be in a general sense ordered from oldest breeds to youngest breeds. But if you want to take a look at table 1 and reorder the list from oldest breed to youngest breed I could create a new chart with a new trend-line.

But keep in mind, we are looking for a TREND here. There is strong selection in breeding (much stronger than we would find in natural populations), so if your hypothesis is true, genetic diversity should be getting depleted in dog breeds over time. Overall, new breeds should have less diversity than older breeds. I know you say that it has nothing to do with you argument since it isn't exclusively "selective breeding," but if that's truly the case then I don't see how domestic breeding works as an example of your hypothesis since domestic breeding relies heavily on cross breeding - introducing new traits into an existing genetic background.

If we were to find a gene that provided resistance to a particular disease, we would not just try and select for that trait, we would try to cross that trait into a variety that has a desirable genetic background - such as high yielding, upright growth, whatever characteristics that particular crop requires. Selection is hardly the only tool in a breeders toolkit.

Genetically that means absolutely nothing and it’s hard to fathom why anyone would even do such a study or think you could find out anything about the genetics of the breeds from it.

Right, that is why I presented the phylogenetic study. I tracked down the original source of the phylogram and the source is listed below. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. I was able to download it at work, but when I tried to post the link, I couldn't get access.

**Pollinger, John P., et al. "Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication." Nature 464.7290 (2010): 898-902.

It's a good study and does mean something genetically. It was published in Nature, a very highly respected journal, so I trust that it has been adequately peer-reviewed. A couple of quotes from the article:

quote:
we analysed more than 48,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) typed in a panel of 912 dogs from 85 breeds as well as an extensive sample of 225 grey wolves (the ancestor of the domestic dog) from 11 globally distributed populations

quote:
The radiation of modern dog breeds has been difficult to resolve because most have originated recently and lack deep, detailed histories. Consequently, the evolutionary process underlying the genesis of phenotypic/functional groupings is obscure. Specifically, many breeds have been documented as originating through crosses of genealogically or geographically distant stocks and thus, parallel evolution and genetic heterogeneity within phenotypic/functional breed groupings is expected. Nonetheless, we discern distinct genetic clusters within modern dogs that largely correspond to those based on phenotype or function, including spaniels, scent hounds, mastifflike breeds, small terriers, retrievers, herding dogs and sight hounds

quote:
Notably, toy and working dogs have a more varied relationship to genetic groupings, which is consistent with their known histories involving crosses between breeds from divergent genetic lineages. The heterogeneous composition of toy breeds may specifically indicate their frequent origin as a cross between a larger dog from a distinct breed grouping and a toy or dwarfed breed

quote:
Finally, within each breed, there is a remarkable concordance with known origin as all dogs are correctly assigned to the breed or population from which they were sampled, with one exception (bull terrier and miniature bull terrier).

While I don't expect that this study gives us an exact reconstruction of the history of dog breeds, it does shed some light on the genetics of dog breeds. We know that genes are inherited from the parents and so genetic studies like this are helpful to resolve genealogical histories. So this tree shows where a particular breed got its genes from (or at least the markers the authors studied).

So, the Labrador, the Golden retriever, Flat-coated retriever and Newfoundland all share a common ancestor. The Newfoundland was derived from this ancestral stock first. The St. John's water dog (now extinct) was developed from the Newfoundland. The Labrador, Golden and Flat-coated all began from bedding stock that had it's beginnings in the St. John's water dog. Thus this cladogram matches reasonably well with what is known about the history of the retriever group.

To prove anything about my argument they would have to be in a direct line of descent by selective breeding only.

That is an unrealistic expectation considering the complexity of breeding programs. Do you have any examples of breeds, varieties, species that are the direct result of the type of "selective only" breeding programs you are describing? If so, present them and we can try to see if we can find any diversity studies on those organisms.

If nothing else, this should demonstrate that evolution (even evolution by artificial selection) is not a straight forward process, but is messy and includes many diverse processes besides just selection.

I have already spent way more time here than I should have, so I need to wrap this up now.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 10-21-2015 6:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 10-28-2015 11:31 PM herebedragons has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
15161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017