Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 7:12 AM
386 online now:
14174dm, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 381 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,053 Year: 13,659/21,208 Month: 3,141/3,605 Week: 483/933 Day: 21/51 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
28293031Next
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 391 of 455 (786078)
06-15-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by PaulK
06-15-2016 12:52 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
You really need to rein in your gratuitous snide remarks.

Tangle started it in Message 352


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 12:52 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 1:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 392 of 455 (786080)
06-15-2016 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Faith
06-15-2016 12:57 PM


Re: Epistemological digression
And yet you are spending more effort on the subject than on the topic of this thread.

I note that you have not answered Message 379

Please explain how adding variations not found in the parent population would make a new species phenotypically indistinguishable from the parent population as you seem to be claiming. Surely new variations should add to the phenotypic distinction between the populations, not eliminate it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6455
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 393 of 455 (786147)
06-17-2016 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
06-14-2016 8:57 PM


Re: Mutations are not alleles
I don't define "beneficial" by human aesthetics.

Yes, you do. You have already said that humans are looking for animals that look a certain way. Any mutation that changes the way they look would be selected against.

Genetic diversity. Meaning the sum of the genetic possibilities available in the population for creating new varieties of phenotypes (which you think of as mutations and I think of as Created for the purpose of variation of the Kind).

That is exactly what this mutation does.

When I'm talking about the production of phenotypes I'm talking specifically about how that process reduces genetic diversity. I'm not focused on how the pool of genetic diversity originated from which the new population developed, but when mutations get into the picture I do acknowledge that of course they WOULD contribute to that diversity if they really do what you all say they do. I have acknowledged that much as a hypothetical situation I don't know how many times.

Chimps are physically different from humans, are they not?

Those physical differences are due to DNA sequence differences between our genomes, are they not?

Mutations produce DNA sequence differences, do they not?

The logic seems pretty straightforward to me.

This would happen whether those new gene frequencies were mutations or built in.

The evidence demonstrates that they aren't built in. They appear over time. You can't make this conclusion go away by stomping your feet and insisting otherwise.

I'm focused on the reduction of genetic diversity through the mere reduction in numbers of individuals that founded the new population, which works best in reproductive isolation.

You are ignoring the biological processes that increase genetic diversity. You can't make claims about the whole process of evolution by only focusing on one part of it. You have to focus on the entire process, and that includes the observed and known production of mutations. It includes concepts like Ka/Ks ratios and the pattern of conserved sequences, which are evidence for random mutations and selection occurring over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 06-14-2016 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6455
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 394 of 455 (786148)
06-17-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
06-15-2016 10:02 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
To get a new subspecies, species or breed requires the loss of genetic diversity. If it isn't lost or at least reduced, you don't get a subspecies, species or breed.

In order to get a new species, you need new mutations to appear in the population so that they two populations diverge over time. Mutations are what produces the divergence between the populations.

For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps did not have a mixture of the exact alleles found in the human and chimp populations. The vast majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to different mutations that occurred in each lineage after they split from their common ancestor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 10:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:27 PM Taq has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 395 of 455 (786413)
06-21-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by PaulK
06-15-2016 10:18 AM


A serious question for Faith
As we have seen you make claims that are obviously false.

E.g


In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all.

You say that people who do not believe these claims are "obtuse" (or worse) although you make no argument for them.

If you are being honest, as you assert then clearly you believe that these obviously false claims are obvious truths.

How would you describe someone who mistakes an obvious falsehood for an obvious truth ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2016 10:18 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:30 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 396 of 455 (786429)
06-21-2016 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Taq
06-17-2016 12:57 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
In order to get a new species, you need new mutations to appear in the population so that they two populations diverge over time. Mutations are what produces the divergence between the populations.

I understand that is the theory. My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in, and because nonselected traits must be lost for the selected traits to emerge at those loci, over time there is a trend to loss of the genetic stuff that would make further evolution possible. You aren't going to get further change from the loci that don't affect the main appearance of the creature: that is, all those loci that code for secondary or internal or invisible traits. The divergence of phenotypes is due completely to new combinations of preexisting alleles, and the divergence is limited by the necessity for loss of competing traits. You can get two populations evolving in entirely different directions but only up to the point that they no longer have genetic diversity for further variation or evolution. Even if you had constant input of mutations all you could ever get is traits from those particular mutations that are selected, while all the rest are lost to the evolving creature, so that eventually no more evolution is possible in that evolving line.

For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps did not have a mixture of the exact alleles found in the human and chimp populations. The vast majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to different mutations that occurred in each lineage after they split from their common ancestor.

Yes, that's the theory but it's not the reality and you have no evidence that it ever did our could happen, it's ALL theory, ALL assumption. You can only get variations or differences within a Species or Kind, and there the differences are due to new combinations of new gene frequencies, and for them to emerge as a new species requires that competing alleles be eliminated from the population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Taq, posted 06-17-2016 12:57 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2016 11:09 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 399 by NoNukes, posted 06-21-2016 11:22 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:56 AM Faith has responded
 Message 408 by Taq, posted 06-22-2016 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 397 of 455 (786430)
06-21-2016 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by PaulK
06-21-2016 3:38 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2016 3:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:40 AM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5784
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 398 of 455 (786452)
06-21-2016 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
06-21-2016 6:27 PM


Scientific terms (again)
it's ALL theory, ALL assumption...

In science, if not in creation "science," theory and assumption are two different things entirely. The fact that you use them interchangeably does not make it so.

Here are some definitions, for about the 10th time:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"

If you misuse scientific terms you only engender confusion, and derision.


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

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

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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 396 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9546
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 399 of 455 (786453)
06-21-2016 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
06-21-2016 6:27 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in

A "theory" for which there is absolutely no evidence. I could describe a number of scientific problems with your theory having to do with the number of alleles that get inscribed in a single person's genome per location, but the most significant problem is not about the science at all.

From Message 281

Faith writes:

Yes, I think of the extra alleles having already been added a long time ago. Yes I guess I'm going to have to give up that idea. Some explanation is needed but not accidental replication events.

Again, you occasionally do realize that one of your ideas does not work. But that never seems to prevent you from re-earthing those same ideas if they are needed again. I understand, as you expressed in the post I quoted that it is vital that you find some method of variation other than mutations, but you have not done so. Your need to return to discarded ideas indicates that you are probably never going to come up with an explanation that works.

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 396 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 400 of 455 (786457)
06-22-2016 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Faith
06-21-2016 6:30 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
quote:

No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions

False.

Message 372


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 2:20 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 401 of 455 (786458)
06-22-2016 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
06-21-2016 6:27 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
quote:

My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in, and because nonselected traits must be lost for the selected traits to emerge at those loci, over time there is a trend to loss of the genetic stuff that would make further evolution possible.

That is your assumption. As we have seen it has serious problems.

quote:

You aren't going to get further change from the loci that don't affect the main appearance of the creature: that is, all those loci that code for secondary or internal or invisible traits

You have very little understanding of genetics. Loci do not code for anything and the relationship between genes and traits is not nearly as simple as you seem to think. And your understanding of evolution is equally poor. External appearance is no more important than "internal or invisible" traits - it is simply more obvious.

quote:

The divergence of phenotypes is due completely to new combinations of preexisting alleles, and the divergence is limited by the necessity for loss of competing traits

That is your assumption, but one that certainly appears to be false.

quote:

Even if you had constant input of mutations all you could ever get is traits from those particular mutations that are selected, while all the rest are lost to the evolving creature, so that eventually no more evolution is possible in that evolving line.

And that is an obvious falsehood as I have already proved. Even if you will not or cannot think about these things yourself you could at least accept the truth when it is shown to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 2:08 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 402 of 455 (786489)
06-22-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by PaulK
06-22-2016 12:56 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
You haven't proved one thing so stop claiming it.

You have very little understanding of genetics. Loci do not code for anything

What is this, another semantic pretense to be right? Locus refers to a gene which governs a particular trait or traits. How would you prefer I say that? The form of the gene does the coding, but when is there not a form of the gene at the locus? What kind of word games are you playing?

and the relationship between genes and traits is not nearly as simple as you seem to think.

I make a point of keeping it simple because the complexities aren't relevant. I've many times mentioned that there may be many genes controlling one trait or one gene affecting many, and there are certainly complexities involving dominance and recessive. All the complexities do is make the route more circuitous to the same end.

And your understanding of evolution is equally poor.

It's sufficient for the purpose. Especially since the ToE is made up of assumptions and conjurings and very little actual reality.

External appearance is no more important than "internal or invisible" traits - it is simply more obvious.

The point was that the internal or invisible traits do not create a species, it's the appearance that leads to that designation. If you have an animal that looks exactly the same as another except for changes in the blood chemistry or something like that you'll identify both as the same species. My point was that when all the loci for the salient characteristics, i.e. the appearance, are approaching or at homozygosity, this idea that mutations in other parts of the genome will provide the necessary genetic diversity to make up for the losses brought about by creating the species in the first place, is untenable. But those losses are where it counts, the other parts of the genome are not. And it's a silly idea anyway that you'd only get changes to the other parts of the genome, or enough mutations to matter after the extreme losses that brought the creature to homozygosity in the first place. All grasping at straws.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:56 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 403 of 455 (786490)
06-22-2016 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by PaulK
06-22-2016 12:40 AM


Re: A serious question for Faith
No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions

False.

Message 372

Read all the posts on that subject. The point is that to give the answers he gives means he hasn't a clue about the argument I'm making. If you understand it then you know adding mutations won't change the outcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 2:48 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 404 of 455 (786493)
06-22-2016 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Faith
06-22-2016 2:08 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
quote:

You haven't proved one thing so stop claiming it.

In fact I did prove it. I suggest that you stop assuming that everyone else shares your faults.

quote:

What is this, another semantic pretense to be right?

Again, that is what you do, not me. The locus is the position of the gene on the chromosome. You were wrong. Get over it.

quote:

I make a point of keeping it simple because the complexities aren't relevant.

And you are wrong again because the complexities are relevant.

quote:

It's sufficient for the purpose. Especially since the ToE is made up of assumptions and conjurings and very little actual reality.

Obviously if you're just going to lie you don't care about the truth. But simply lying will not convince anyone who can see that you are wrong.

quote:

The point was that the internal or invisible traits do not create a species, it's the appearance that leads to that designation. If you have an animal that looks exactly the same as another except for changes in the blood chemistry or something like that you'll identify both as the same species

And you are wrong again. Look up cryptic species some time. Different species can appear to be the same.

quote:

My point was that when all the loci for the salient characteristics, i.e. the appearance, are approaching or at homozygosity, this idea that mutations in other parts of the genome will provide the necessary genetic diversity to make up for the losses brought about by creating the species in the first place, is untenable.

That is far from obviously true. So until you have a solid argument I think I will decline to agree.

quote:

And it's a silly idea anyway that you'd only get changes to the other parts of the genome, or enough mutations to matter after the extreme losses that brought the creature to homozygosity in the first place

It is silly to think that mutations would specifically target a few genes out of the tens of thousands a species typically has, so obviously most will be in other genes. It is also far from clear that mutations that do hit those genes would affect the "important" traits. As u said the relationship between genes and traits is not that simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 2:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 405 of 455 (786494)
06-22-2016 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Faith
06-22-2016 2:20 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
quote:

Read all the posts on that subject. The point is that to give the answers he gives means he hasn't a clue about the argument I'm making. If you understand it then you know adding mutations won't change the outcome.

And there you prove my point. You are objecting to disagreement and calling it a lack of understanding. But as I pointed out the assertions you use to support your claim are obviously false - and on being challenged you fail to support them

So in fact anyone who,understood your argument would not agree.

So, again, you mistake obvious falsehoods for obvious truths as proven right here, in this thread. How would you describe someone who makes such an error, even after it has been shown to her ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 2:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 3:03 PM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
28293031Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017