Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 9:11 AM
131 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,075 Year: 9,681/21,208 Month: 2,768/2,674 Week: 192/961 Day: 56/136 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2627
28
293031Next
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 406 of 455 (786495)
06-22-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by PaulK
06-22-2016 2:48 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
You can't just say that adding genetic diversity proves my argument wrong when the argument is specificallyl that genetic diversity MUST be reduced for a new species to emerge.

I guess you don't understand it either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 2:48 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 3:14 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 407 of 455 (786496)
06-22-2016 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
06-22-2016 3:03 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
quote:

You can't just say that adding genetic diversity proves my argument wrong when the argument is specificallyl that genetic diversity MUST be reduced for a new species to emerge.

I've said rather more than that. I have pointed out the fact that periods of decrease can be balanced by periods of increase, a consideration absent from your argument above. I have pointed out that your arguments against mutations adding to diversity are simply assertions - and obviously false, at that. It's there in this thread.

If there's a lack of understanding it is clearly on your part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 3:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 4:44 PM PaulK has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6039
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 408 of 455 (786500)
06-22-2016 3:24 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, 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.

And your theory is refuted by observation. We see mutations producing new genetic diversity in populations all of the time. We see the evidence of these mechanisms being active in the past in the form of sequence conservation and nested hierarchies.

We don't just assume that the differences between species is due to mutations. The patterns of both differences and similarities demonstrates that they were produced by evolutionary mechanisms, including mutations.

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.

This claim is disproven by examples such as the pocket mice and peppered moths. It is also disproven by classic experiments like the Lederberg plate replica experiment and the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment. All of these examples demonstrate the emergence of a new mutation which changes phenotype and increases fitness.

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.

Then please explain what mechanism prevents mutations from accumulating. We can directly observe mutations happening in every human generation.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

They sequenced a child's genome and the genome of that child's parents. They found that the child is born with DNA changes not found in either parent, otherwise known as mutations, around 35-50 per person per generation. What natural mechanism removes these mutations? What mechanism stops these mutations from accumulating in each and every generation? What mechanisms cause chimps to have the same mutations in their genomes?

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.

It is all evidence. For example, the genetic evidence:

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Out of the more than 200,000 retroviral insertions in the human genome, all but ~100 are found at the same exact location in the chimp genome. This is undeniable proof beyond any reasonable doubt that we share a common ancestor.

We also have transitional fossils. We have the matching phylogenies. We have all of the evidence.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 409 of 455 (786522)
06-22-2016 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by PaulK
06-22-2016 3:14 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
You can't just say that adding genetic diversity proves my argument wrong when the argument is specificallyl that genetic diversity MUST be reduced for a new species to emerge.

I've said rather more than that.

Well, you haven't, but I was actually addressing Dr. A's statements, not yoursk and thought you were too, since it was his argument I called obtuse. sorry I wasn't clear.

I have pointed out the fact that periods of decrease can be balanced by periods of increase, a consideration absent from your argument above.

That is exactly the same irrelevant argument I was talking about, nothing different, which is WHY it's absent from my statement above. I've addressed this version of it many times. Clearly you DON'T understand since you still think it stands. Periods of increase can happen of course, but during those periods you are not getting selection, isolation or indeed evolution, meaning change in a whole population, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT. All you are getting is scattered new phenotypes within the population. This is not what is needed to get a new species. You keep saying the new phenotypes themselves are needed. THEY ARE NOT. They add diversity but what is needed is selection and isolation to get a new species and until that happens all you are getting is willy-nilly increases here and there. And the increases are not needed anyway because there is plenty of genetic diversity to produce the changes I'm talking about, that are the actual evolution. Increasing diversity is not evolution. At best it's the material evolution works on. But it works on it by subtracting or reducing the less frequent phenotypes/alleles/genotypes so that the higher frequency phenotypes can emerge and come to dominate the new population. Your periods of increase are at best redundant. You really don't get it at all to continue to say they reverse the loss that is necessary to produce a species. AND AGAIN, if it did you'd never get established species, which presumably are the stuff evolution needs in order to keep evolving to other species.

I have pointed out that your arguments against mutations adding to diversity are simply assertions - and obviously false, at that. It's there in this thread.

It's a reasoned argument, not mere assertion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 3:14 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 5:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 412 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2016 5:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 410 of 455 (786524)
06-22-2016 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
06-22-2016 4:44 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
quote:

Well, you haven't, but I was actually addressing Dr. A's statements, not yoursk and thought you were too, since it was his argument I called obtuse. sorry I wasn't clear.

Since you accused me personally of not understanding, the fact that I have produced counter-arguments which show a better understanding than you seem to possess would still seem relevant. No matter who you were talking about. And indeed, no matter who said it the existence of the counter-arguments is enough to establish that you cannot infer a failure to understand from simple disagreement.

quote:

That is exactly the same irrelevant argument I was talking about, nothing different

Calling it irrelevant is a foolish mistake. It is certainly relevant because if it is true your argument fails. And your responses to it have failed to make sense.

quote:

Periods of increase can happen of course, but during those periods you are not getting selection, isolation or indeed evolution, meaning change in a whole population, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT.

And that response is simply dishonest. Your argument is not simply about what happens in those periods. You claim an overall reduction in genetic diversity, which means that all changes must be considered. Ignoring increases because they happen in periods you don't want to talk about is a ridiculous excuse.

quote:

Your periods of increase are at best redundant.

Now that is a genuine irrelevance. Whether they are needed or not the question is whether they occur. If they do occur and do return genetic diversity to the level of the parent population your argument is wrong.

(Now I do say that new variation is needed if evolution is to continue indefinitely - and you would be disagreeing with your own argument to deny it, but that is a side issue. More relevant is my other point, which is that the theory of evolution requires a source of additional variation if it is to explain the evidence that it is intended to explain.)

quote:

It's a reasoned argument, not mere assertion.

It is? All I see is silly arguments about it being unnecessary or stuff like

quote:

if it did you'd never get established species, which presumably are the stuff evolution needs in order to keep evolving to other species.

Which is just a silly assertion. Why would we not get established species ? Where is the 'reasoned argument"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 4:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 411 of 455 (786528)
06-22-2016 5:54 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 nature the purest way this occurs is by geographic isolation. Domestic breeders do it by intentional mating. An increase in genetic diversity in either case will blur the emerging phenotypes, and as long as reproductive isolation is maintained there is no reason to have an increase.

The occasional mutation, assuming it gets expressed as a phenotype, is easily removed from the breed. But most won't get expressed as phenotypes. Mutations that do that are rather rare as I understand it. And most are something neither nature nor the domestic breeder would find helpful anyway. You get a breed or a new species by LOSS of genetic diversity. That's how it happens.

If you don't want a breed you don't have to have one, you can have all the genetic diversity you like, but enough to make up for the loss required to bring out a new breed would destroy the breed entirely. If that's what you want as a breeder, you can have it, you just won't have your breed, you'll have something else.

In nature if gene flow between populations continues while a population has at least partial reproductive isolation, you may get a recognizable breed, but reproductive isolation that prevents gene flow should bring out the most dramatic new phenotypes.

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'll be back at Square One as far as evolution of new species goes.

Possibly the blue wildebeest emerged from the black by some of the black simply getting separated from the parent black population for some number of generations while their collective new gene frequencies brought out the blueish coloring, the new body build and the new antler style. Some gene flow might not impede the process too much but the ideal condition, or at least the clearest condition to explain, is complete reproductive isolation for producing the new species of wildebeest.

It's a very simple and obvious formula: losing genetic diversity is what gets a new subspecies in the wild or a breed in domesticity. There's no problem with this unless you lose a LOT of genetic diversity. And a new species/population such as the blue wildebeest, could in fact be stable for hundreds of years. This is all hypothetical, I'm talking about how it could have happened. Reality is usually messier, of course, involving continued gene flow for instance, but the trend that brings out new species is the LOSS of genetic diversity.

If you have a large population with lots of genetic diversity and many viable mutations, it will be a motley collection of many phenotypes. It could only become a new species if selection or some kind of reproductive isolation favored a particular set of phenotypes out of the whole collection of phenotypes, over many generations, creating a new subpopulation with its own characteristics, perhaps even within the greater population. And that subpopulation will lose the genotypes for the NONfavored or unselected phenotypes, as those for the favored/selected come to characterize the new subpopulation. There is no way to get a new phenotypic presentation without such a loss.

I really don't know if you are obtuse or willfully pretending to be. If pretending, that's understandable, of course, in a diehard evo who couldn't bear to find out the ToE is wrong and there is a God who constructed this biological pattern, because this is definitely a pattern that contradicts the ToE and shows that it could never work.

I am aware of your dogma. You are still ignoring the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity. What you have shown is that if you remove mutations from the theory of evolution, you are left with an abortive theory that doesn't work. We knew that. But as you cannot effect a corresponding removal of mutations from reality, your botched and stunted theory of how evolution happens has no relevance to the world we actually live in.


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 413 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 5:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 412 of 455 (786529)
06-22-2016 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
06-22-2016 4:44 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
I was actually addressing Dr. A's statements ...

Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

Clearly you DON'T understand since you still think it stands. Periods of increase can happen of course, but during those periods you are not getting selection, isolation or indeed evolution, meaning change in a whole population, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT.

But ignoring the periods of increase does not prevent them from happening, which means they need to be taken into account if we do not wish to make total assswits of ourselves.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 4:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 413 of 455 (786530)
06-22-2016 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2016 5:54 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
am aware of your dogma. You are still ignoring the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity. What you have shown is that if you remove mutations from the theory of evolution, you are left with an abortive theory that doesn't work. We knew that. But as you cannot effect a corresponding removal of mutations from reality, your botched and stunted theory of how evolution happens has no relevance to the world we actually live in.

You are certainly very good at saying absolutely nothing as if you were saying something. I don't deny that mutations increase genetic diversity, what I deny is that it changes my argument. One way you don't get it. Removing mutations leaves built-in genetic diversity so there is really no difference in how the scenario plays out with or without mutations. Another way you don't get it. And the rest is just you flying the Evo Flag and reciting the Evo Pledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2016 5:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2016 6:25 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 414 of 455 (786532)
06-22-2016 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by Faith
06-22-2016 5:59 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
You are certainly very good at saying absolutely nothing as if you were saying something. I don't deny that mutations increase genetic diversity, what I deny is that it changes my argument.

Well, was this not your argument?

Faith, message#4 writes:

If evolution, meaning the production of a population-wide change in phenotypic presentation (black wildebeests to blue wildebeests, normal lizards to large-headed lizards, Darwin’s finches and so on, all changes normally called evolution) always requires a reduction in genetic diversity, that is obviously contrary to what evolution needs in order to do what the ToE says it does.

Now, if mutations increase genetic diversity, which they do, then this supplies "what evolution needs in order to do what the ToE says it does". Obviously. Darwin called his idea "the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection". The variation exists, and so the theory works. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Shouting and stamping your feet won't make it go away. Telling us in capital letters that that's not what your argument's about will not make it go away, but will tell everyone that your argument is predicated on willful blindness to incontrovertible facts. Then they will point at you and laugh.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 5:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 415 of 455 (786540)
06-23-2016 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2016 6:25 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
Well, was this not your argument?

Faith, message#4 writes:

If evolution, meaning the production of a population-wide change in phenotypic presentation (black wildebeests to blue wildebeests, normal lizards to large-headed lizards, Darwin’s finches and so on, all changes normally called evolution) always requires a reduction in genetic diversity, that is obviously contrary to what evolution needs in order to do what the ToE says it does.

Now, if mutations increase genetic diversity, which they do, then this supplies "what evolution needs in order to do what the ToE says it does".

That would only be true, assuming the additions were viable, which they aren't but anyway, it would only be true IF the reduction in genetic diversity was not necessary to make new species. It's because of the necessity of this reduction through selection and isolation that any increases have to get reduced in turn IF species are to be formed. You don't have to have species, but isn't speciation considered to be the jumping-off point from micro to macroevolution? You don't have to have speciation but then you don't have the main part of evolution. Mutations won't do anything except produce a motley collection of phenotypes within a population. You can have all the genetic diversity you want as long as selection processes aren't operating, but then you don't have the evolution of new species. To get a species out of them requires reduction, throwing out some of them so that others get expressed. At the very least the constant addition of mutations would only slow down evolution of new species, making it start-stop-start-stop process, but eventually it has to stop if you do get a new species because added gene flow will mess it up. Again, this reduction happens whether the genetic diversity is built in or created by mutations.

Obviously. Darwin called his idea "the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection". The variation exists, and so the theory works.

Variation of phenotypes requires reduction of genetic variability. Darwin didn't realize that selection requires this reduction. It totally destroys his theory. Variation is not synonymous with mutations, it's what happens when some traits are selected over others.

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Again, variation according to Darwin (and me) is the emergence of new phenotypes, it has nothing to do with adding genetic diversity.

Shouting and stamping your feet won't make it go away. Telling us in capital letters that that's not what your argument's about will not make it go away, but will tell everyone that your argument is predicated on willful blindness to incontrovertible facts. Then they will point at you and laugh.

I really truly can't believe you are this dense. I have to believe this is YOU being willfully ignorant.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2016 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2016 2:27 AM Faith has responded
 Message 418 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2016 10:49 AM Faith has responded
 Message 419 by NoNukes, posted 06-23-2016 3:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 416 of 455 (786543)
06-23-2016 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
06-23-2016 12:00 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
That would only be true, assuming the additions were viable, which they aren't ...

Once again,my friend Mr. Direct Observation begs to differ.

which they aren't but anyway, it would only be true IF the reduction in genetic diversity was not necessary to make new species.

Uh, no.

In order for selection to take place, there needs to be a variety of genotypes to select from. Mutations supplies these. The fact that selection is required to produce new species does not mean that mutation does not provide the variety that is selected from. Because why would it?

Variation of phenotypes requires reduction of genetic variability.

That is a very odd collection of words.

Darwin didn't realize that selection requires this reduction.

Darwin realized that selection was a selective process which selects for some variations and against others. This is why he called it selection. And ever since then, everyone who has undertaken even the most cursory study of evolution has understood it. I understand it. All the geneticists in the world understand it. Even you understand it.

What makes you unique is that you cannot also grasp what Darwin and I and all the geneticists everywhere can grasp: that if there is a constant supply of new variation, natural selection will never run out of variation to select from.

Again, variation according to Darwin (and me) is the emergence of new phenotypes, it has nothing to do with adding genetic diversity.

If you can quote Darwin saying that or anything remotely like it, I shall eat my hat. But if, as I suspect, you are just making shit up, my hat will remain unscathed.

I really truly can't believe you are this dense.

I am indeed not dense. Nor are all the geneticists in the world. Indeed, if you thought about it for a moment you might begin to suspect that if anyone is being dense, it's the woman who disagrees with all the geneticists about genetics while being repeatedly unable to define such fundamental terms as "mutation".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 12:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 6:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 417 of 455 (786544)
06-23-2016 2:56 AM


Example?
It is hard to understand what is going on in your mind, Faith.

Talk me through an example. You suppose, do you not, that the alleles for (e.g.) Dalmatians were present in wolves from Creation Week on, that they survived the bottleneck of the Flood, and then thousands of years later someone in Croatia decided to select for Dalmatian-y phenotypes and so create the Dalmatian breed.

But what if instead the alleles arose much more recently, by mutation, and then someone in Croatia decided to select for Dalmatian-y phenotypes and so create the Dalmatian breed. Why wouldn't that work out just as well for the dog breeder? How would it matter when or how the variation arose? Surely for the purposes of creating the breed, all that matters is that it's there?

If not, please explain why not.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 418 of 455 (786563)
06-23-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
06-23-2016 12:00 AM


Forgetful?
I guess you are as old as I am and so a bit forgetful.

That would only be true, assuming the additions were viable, which they aren't but anyway, it would only be true IF the reduction in genetic diversity was not necessary to make new species.

You have a number of "additions" remember? They are viable right?
Everyone has viable changes.

So that statement that they aren't is totally wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 12:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 4:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9429
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 419 of 455 (786579)
06-23-2016 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
06-23-2016 12:00 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
but eventually it has to stop if you do get a new species because added gene flow will mess it up.

If you want to make headway in having your theory viewed more seriously, you should appreciate that this particular statement is one which causes major difficulty in your making progress in this group. To a large degree this point is the crux of your theory. It is the one that most exposes your analogy between breeding and evolution.

I am going to offer two reasons why people might easily dismiss your position based on this point alone. It is up to you how you deal with these reasons. My guess is that you'll simply dismiss my post as not understanding you.

1. When it comes to breeds of dogs, we can appreciate that breeders must remove any effect that causes any phenotype change, because that would cause a problem in the eyes of those wanting a certain look. This removal might include the expression of recessive genes as well as phenotypic changes resulting those from mutation. Accordingly one might say that mutations interfere with the creation of a breed and still be taken seriously. (It might even be necessary to remove traits that are directly expressed because of the combination or to introduce dogs from outside of the original types chosen, but we will ignore that for the current discussion)

However when we look at natural species, nobody sees the variation in some traits as any kind of obstacle to that animal being born or existing other than having that trait deselected by natural selection. And natural selection simply does not have a breeders eye towards removing diversity.

Generally we define species based the phenotypic and genotypic differences between animals. If an animal in the wild has a distinct physiology or genetic make up, we may define that animal to be in a different species but there is no obstacle to that animals formation. And that animal might well be found living amongst its siblings in a population despite their differences. It is only our definition or classification scheme that would makes a dark moth a different species than a white moth, if we do elect to arrive at such a classification. If we include those different phenotypes in our definition, then the species has increased diversity as a result of mutation. But if we separate them out, then we have two species with less diversity. Only when some other force wipes out on of the two phenotypes will we say that overall diversity has decreased. Prior to that time, unless the populations are separated or become non inter fertile, the overall effect is increased biological diversity for the species. And even after separation there is overall increased biodiversity in the world taken as a whole.

Here is the second reason and probably more significant reason.

2. We can look at the humans within a single race, and we do not find the homogeneous collection of beings you are insisting on. There are some gross features that they all share, but even folks within a single race vary greatly in height, persistence in lactase tolerance, eye color, hair color and texture, body hair extent, etc. Of course we could further classify those folks into individual types, but that would be an entirely artificial thing to do. In reality all of those folks live together, work for and with each other, marry each other, and their offspring may have any of those traits. Humans then have the potential to become more diverse as a species as long as we don't elect to cull folks out using some kind of eugenics program.

The fact is that a mutation which causes a new phenotype within any of a large number of non essential characteristics quite obviously would not prevent the offspring of a Caucasian human from being considered a Caucasian human being. Even a mutation which provided kinky hair and darker than average skin would not make a baby a different species despite how folks might react to such a person socially. So when you talk about mutations ruining a species, people understandably resist such a statement. Our experience with the most visible species on earth simply does not agree with what you are saying. You yourself possess something like 50 mutations, and none of those mutations change your species.

Once a mutation shows up that gives humans laser beam eyes or wings, then we 'might' decide that those variations are another species. But I bet we would not consider humans with a proto-tail to be a different species.

Add on top of that that racial classifications are themselves artificial and that all humans currently alive are actually in the same species and sub species, and that those folk routinely have interracial offspring, and you might see that the idea you press becomes even less persuasive.

Deal with those two arguments successfully, and I guarantee you that folks will take you more seriously at least to the point of providing more serious arguments. But I for one cannot accept your conclusion without a satisfactory response.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 415 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 12:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 420 of 455 (786585)
06-23-2016 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by NosyNed
06-23-2016 10:49 AM


Re: Forgetful?
I guess you are as old as I am and so a bit forgetful.

That would only be true, assuming the additions were viable, which they aren't but anyway, it would only be true IF the reduction in genetic diversity was not necessary to make new species.

You have a number of "additions" remember? They are viable right?
Everyone has viable changes.

So that statement that they aren't is totally wrong.

Perhaps you could do me the favor of linking to the post where I agreed with this?

In any case, that was a parenthetical remark, meaning it doesn't really matter to the point I'm making if it's true or not. Even if viable, the point was that the addition of mutations or any kind of gene flow doesn't improve the situation caused by the fact that the reduction in genetic diversity is necessary to make new species. It can slow the processes of species-formation, it can blur the phenotypic character of a species etc., but adding genetic diversity doesn't do much or anything to change the trend to reduced genetic diversity NECESSARY TO THE FORMATION OF SPECIES.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2016 10:49 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2016 5:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2627
28
293031Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017