Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 5:59 AM
341 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 339 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,063 Year: 25,669/21,208 Month: 1,296/2,338 Week: 53/364 Day: 4/49 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
26272829
30
31Next
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 436 of 455 (786618)
06-24-2016 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
06-23-2016 7:30 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
I have a question about your example.

According to you, if mutations were to produce new variations the child population would become indistinguishable from the parent Message 377. I, on the other hand, hold that would only be true if the mutations restored the missing traits, which is very unlikely.

So, please explain this to me. It seems to me that the white flowers with a blue centre are distinct from the original pink population. And it seems to me that this would be true even if the blue centre was the result of a mutation. Why would you claim otherwise ?

In fact, if the only difference between the pink and the white flowers is the colour is it not the case that any new variation other than restoration of the pink colour would leave the white flowers distinguishable from the pink ? Frilly petals, a change in leaf shape or even a blue variation would all be distinguishable.

Since this point covers an area of genuine disagreement, unlike your example, answering it may help move the argument on, after being stuck for years in the same place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 7:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 2:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 437 of 455 (786622)
06-24-2016 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by PaulK
06-24-2016 12:53 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
I have a question about your example.

According to you, if mutations were to produce new variations the child population would become indistinguishable from the parent Message 377.

I don't know where you are getting that from that message. After you have an established species mutations at loci specific to that species would turn it into something else, something not the species. It would destroy the species.

I, on the other hand, hold that would only be true if the mutations restored the missing traits, which is very unlikely.

I agree, and again I don't what I said that implied otherwise.

So, please explain this to me. It seems to me that the white flowers with a blue centre are distinct from the original pink population. And it seems to me that this would be true even if the blue centre was the result of a mutation. Why would you claim otherwise ?

Yes, it would be true even if it was the result of a mutation.

In fact, if the only difference between the pink and the white flowers is the colour is it not the case that any new variation other than restoration of the pink colour would leave the white flowers distinguishable from the pink ? Frilly petals, a change in leaf shape or even a blue variation would all be distinguishable.

Yes. You are supposing mutations for all those new traits, right? Are you talking about the appearance of one mutation in the whole population, a single flower with that trait?

Since this point covers an area of genuine disagreement, unlike your example, answering it may help move the argument on, after being stuck for years in the same place.

I brought up the example to demonstrate the necessity of losing alleles in order to get the new trait to become characteristic of the whole population. The argument is stuck on this point because it keeps being contested although it's my main point, and I'd rather continue to argue it than get stuck again in the question about whether it's mutation or created genetic variability that is the source of the selected changes.

You are of course assuming and asserting that mutations would produce a trait that would be just another selectable variation rather than something that would merely mar the species. I don't know how you could prove that, I think all you could do is assert it based on belief in the ToE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2016 12:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2016 3:17 AM Faith has responded
 Message 439 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2016 3:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 438 of 455 (786624)
06-24-2016 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2016 2:25 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
I brought up the example to demonstrate the necessity of losing alleles in order to get the new trait to become characteristic of the whole population. The argument is stuck on this point because it keeps being contested ..

No. It does not "keep being contested". No-one contests that. No-one in the entire world has ever contested that. Everyone agrees that for one trait out of several to become fixed in the population, the other traits must be eliminated. I know that. Paul knows that. Every geneticist in the world knows that. Everyone with a shred of common sense knows that. Even you know that.

What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) understand what fixation is, but that you (unlike us) are ignoring all the other processes that take place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 2:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 10:56 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 439 of 455 (786625)
06-24-2016 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2016 2:25 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:

I don't know where you are getting that from that message.

By reading it in context of course.

I was objecting to your earlier claim:


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.

I replied by pointing out that mutations were unlikely to reverse the changes, and so the new species would still be phenotypically distinct from the parent population, and still unable to interbreed with the parent population and therefore still a new species contradicting your claim.

You responded by asking:


How is it going to be "phenotypically distinct" if produced by mutations?

Clearly the objection is that even mutations that do not reverse the changes will still make the new species phenotypically indistinguishable from the parent population.

quote:

After you have an established species mutations at loci specific to that species would turn it into something else, something not the species. It would destroy the species

i would point out that while mutations to alleles required for the newly-fixed traits are more likely to affect those traits, they do not have to. Also, the point you were responding to was not limited to mutations at those particular loci at all, so adding that rider is a significant concession.

quote:

I brought up the example to demonstrate the necessity of losing alleles in order to get the new trait to become characteristic of the whole population. The argument is stuck on this point because it keeps being contested although it's my main point...

The argument is not stuck on that point, it is not being contested.

What is being contested is the question of whether adding variation from mutation over the lifetime of the species is sufficient to counteract the losses from the initial speciation event. We contend that it can, and that the evidence indicates that it does, you contend that it can not. That has been the situation for all the years this argument has gone on. How can you not know that ?

quote:

You are of course assuming and asserting that mutations would produce a trait that would be just another selectable variation rather than something that would merely mar the species.

Could, not would. To be more precise, that it can happen and happens sufficiently often for evolution to work the way the theory says it does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 2:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 440 of 455 (786652)
06-24-2016 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Dr Adequate
06-24-2016 3:17 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
I brought up the example to demonstrate the necessity of losing alleles in order to get the new trait to become characteristic of the whole population. The argument is stuck on this point because it keeps being contested ..

No. It does not "keep being contested". No-one contests that. No-one in the entire world has ever contested that. Everyone agrees that for one trait out of several to become fixed in the population, the other traits must be eliminated. ...

What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) understand what fixation is, but that you (unlike us) are ignoring all the other processes that take place.

Strictly speaking you are right that loss of genetic diversity isn't the thing being contested, and I misspoke, but it is still true that the typical way people speak of evolution implies that no such thing as loss of genetic diversity could be involved in it. When it's discussed in some detail you and others recognize the point, but it still doesn't affect how you think of evolution.

Which is of course because you think "all the other processes that take place" make up for it. And here you are wrong about me because I DON'T "ignore" those processes, I've knocked myself out trying to show how they do NOT make a difference in the general trend to loss of alleles. It's most of my argument.

CORRECTION:
ABE: I have to take back the above because of your post showing all the dog breeds that implied there is no loss of genetic diversity at all, missing the whole point I'd been laboriously making. That is a MAJOR misunderstanding, as good as getting absolutely nothing I'd ever said, and it keeps cropping up in this discussion, so I didn't misspeak, that basic point DOES keep getting contested.

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 438 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2016 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2016 11:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 445 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2016 5:24 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 441 of 455 (786658)
06-24-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by Faith
06-24-2016 10:56 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:

...but it is still true that the typical way people speak of evolution implies that no such thing as loss of genetic diversity could be involved in it

Is it true ? Selection gets mentioned all the time. The only people I've seen ignoring that are the occasional creationist who insists that evolution is entirely random.

quote:

Which is of course because you think "all the other processes that take place" make up for it. And here you are wrong about me because I DON'T "ignore" those processes, I've knocked myself out trying to show how they do NOT make a difference in the general trend to loss of alleles. It's most of my argument.

That is a substantial misrepresentation. Sometimes you do try to ignore mutation and make up excuses for that. Sometimes you make the assertion that mutation can't make up for the loss for some reason that never makes sense and you never explain. Even when I try to get you to explain. It looks to me as if you're just saying things that sound sort of plausible to you without any real thought or understanding behind them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 10:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 442 of 455 (786672)
06-24-2016 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by herebedragons
06-23-2016 11:01 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
So you've eliminated all the pink versions. Now you've eliminated all the pure white versions and all the smaller versions and got large white flowers with a blue center. Which you got by LOSING all the other versions you rejected. Your new flower has NO B alleles, no small size alleles, and no pure white alleles. You've probably got homozygosity for all those traits you selected. Perhaps you've even reached the point where cross-pollination has become genetically impossible between your new variety and those it evolved from.

What's happened? You've LOST genetic diversity by producing a new variety or species.

Or... you now have a population of plants with pink flowers AND a population of plants with white flowers AND a population with large white flowers with a blue center. So you may have lost the pink allele in the white-flowered version, but that doesn't mean the pink allele is lost completely. And if they won't cross breed, you now have three separate species that originated from a common ancestor by descent with modification.

Groan.

I often fail to make ALL the necessary distinctions that belong to my argument in any given discussion, but I would think that by now it would be clear that I am ALWAYS talking about genetic diversity ONLY in relation to the particular breed or variety or subspecies I'm talking about. I do often remember to point out that plenty of genetic diversity remains in other populations of the same Species, I just don't always mention it. I'm NEVER saying ANY allele is lost "completely." The whole argument is about what happens in a particular population that is EVOLVING, not in the whole Species at large.

Faith writes:
Chihuahuas don't stop being chihuahuas because of their many subtypes, but if they're all bred with cocker spaniels or allowed to mate with mongrels and reproductive isolation is not maintained then the chihuahua breed would no longer exist. Same if mutations kept changing them.

Well, if ALL Chihuahuas bred with cocker spaniels, then yes, the Chihuahua breed would no longer exist. But what if only the Chihuahuas in Southern California were bred with cocker spaniels but the Chihuahuas in the rest of the world were not bred with cocker spaniels, the breed would not be lost.

Yes since this is about a whole breed that is scattered everywhere my language isn't clear enough to get the point across. I'm usually only talking about a NEW breed that just got formed, but chihuahuas can't be localized like that. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that in any given population any increase in genetic diversity will alter the breed. Dr. A's examples of variations on the breed which he attributes to mutations aren't what I'm talking about because those traits were selected as a breed themselves. And in order for that to happen, as always, competing traits have to be eliminated, so they are the usual result of reduced genetic diversity. But random mutations in an established breed will of course increase genetic diversity while altering the breed in UNdesired ways. That was the -- admittedly confusing -- point about unrestricted mating with mongrels, or putting cocker spaniels into the mix. {But again, of course a mutation COULD be selected and bred, but then again you'd be reducing the genetic diversity.)

But if they had become genetically unable to mate with the wild types he'd have had a new species of pigeon, right? At the cost of all the traits in the wild type. It's an either/or: either you get the new variety with low genetic diversity or you lose the new variety in exchange for high genetic diversity.

But there are still wild pigeons, right?

Of course. Groan.

And why do you consider losing the "wild" traits to be a "cost?"

It's the cost to the specific breed of forming that breed. It's the same loss of genetic diversity I've been talking about for seeming millennia, that occurs in an evolving line, toward the formation of a new species, that requires the loss of genetic diversity.

The point is that the traits in the new pigeon "species" were favored for some reason and so they were selected for. Yes, you have lost some traits in your new pigeon breed, but now you have a pigeon that is "better" than the wild breed.

No, that is not the point, not MY point anyway. MY point again for the zillionth time is that to get your new "better" breed or subspecies or variety REQUIRES losing the genetic stuff for the other traits. GETTING NEW SUBSPECIES REQUIRES THIS LOSS. YOU DON'T GET THEM OTHERWISE.

While it may be true that diversity has decreased from the wild type to the new breed, there is no reason that variation can't increase in the new breed due to new mutations.

Groan.
Have you even read any of the endless discussion about this very claim?

Of course if those mutations are undesirable, they will be unlikely to make it into the next generations. However, if they are neutral or of minimal effect they can continue to accumulate until the next selection event, where a desirable trait emerges (such as a blue center in a flower, a flatter, shorter snout in a bulldog, or a peculiar color in the pigeon feathers), ....

At which point the reduction in genetic diversity resumes as the new trait is incorporated into the breed. Always always always that has to happen when a phenotype is selected. It's my same point over and over and over again. Mutation or any other form of genetic increase is a liability to the breed unless a new trait is selected and the genetic diversity is again decreased by eliminating any traits competing with the new selected trait.

Honestly, this is beginning to sound like a slightly more sophisticated version of the "If humans evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" argument coupled with the no new genetic information argument.

Since you so egregiously misrepresent the argument it's no wonder if it sounds like something else. Perhaps you are just too busy to really follow the argument here? This post was like talking to someone who had never read anything I'd ever written on the subject.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by herebedragons, posted 06-23-2016 11:01 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2016 1:58 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 455 by herebedragons, posted 06-27-2016 12:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 443 of 455 (786677)
06-24-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
06-24-2016 12:53 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:

The point I'm trying to make, however, is that in any given population any increase in genetic diversity will alter the breed.

It will add a new variation to the breed, yes. That's what we've been talking about. Now are you ever going to explain how this helps your argument in any way ?

quote:

But random mutations in an established breed will of course increase genetic diversity while altering the breed in UNdesired ways.

If you've been following the discussion you'll know that that isn't even true for breeds. And, since evolution has no desires it is not even relevant to the main discussion.

quote:

Groan.
Have you even read any of the endless discussion about this very claim?

I'm sure he has. Have you ? Because no such reason has come up, not in all the years this argument has been going on.

quote:

At which point the reduction in genetic diversity resumes as the new trait is incorporated into the breed.

Not necessarily. Why would you think that ?

quote:

Always always always that has to happen when a phenotype is selected.

And if it spreads by drift ?

quote:

It's my same point over and over and over again. Mutation or any other form of genetic increase is a liability to the breed unless a new trait is selected and the genetic diversity is again decreased by eliminating any traits competing with the new selected trait.

a neutral variation would not be a liability by definition, nor would it be selected, again by definition. So if a neutral variation were to spread by drift until it got a secure foothold in the population we would have an increase in genetic variation that could be expected to hang around for quite a while.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 444 of 455 (786688)
06-24-2016 3:49 PM


In case it seems like I'm abandoning the thread
For the next week I may not be able to participate much because I've got a lot of family things going on and will have only occasional access to someone's laptop. There's still a lot I want to respond to though.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 445 of 455 (786693)
06-24-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Faith
06-24-2016 10:56 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
Strictly speaking you are right that loss of genetic diversity isn't the thing being contested, and I misspoke, but it is still true that the typical way people speak of evolution implies that no such thing as loss of genetic diversity could be involved in it.

No. You don't get to decide what people are implying. And if you ever notice us talking to creationists other than yourself, you will notice that we spend a lot of time shouting at them about natural selection, because most creationists take the tactic of ignoring that and focusing only on mutations. (It would be an interesting experiment to put you in a room with them and lock the door.)

Which is of course because you think "all the other processes that take place" make up for it. And here you are wrong about me because I DON'T "ignore" those processes, I've knocked myself out trying to show how they do NOT make a difference in the general trend to loss of alleles. It's most of my argument.

You probably shouldn't have knocked yourself out.

ABE: I have to take back the above because of your post showing all the dog breeds that implied there is no loss of genetic diversity at all, missing the whole point I'd been laboriously making. That is a MAJOR misunderstanding, as good as getting absolutely nothing I'd ever said, and it keeps cropping up in this discussion, so I didn't misspeak, that basic point DOES keep getting contested.

No. Pointing out that there are lots of different kinds of dogs is not the same as contesting the existence of natural selection. And yes, the production of a purebreed does involve homogenizing certain genes of that breed, I never denied that, but on the other hand the careful preservation of mutations has added diversity to the whole species, to Canis lupus.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 10:56 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 7:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 446 of 455 (786694)
06-24-2016 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by Dr Adequate
06-24-2016 5:24 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
... it is still true that the typical way people speak of evolution implies that no such thing as loss of genetic diversity could be involved in it.

No. You don't get to decide what people are implying.

And you don't get to tell me I'm "deciding" something when I'm giving a reasonable opinion. The fact is that the typical way evolution is described implies that variation is open-ended, without a hint of suspicion that loss of genetic diversity is inherent in evolutionary processes. Otherwise there wouldn't be this constant question one gets, "what's to stop microevolution from continuing."

And here I was thinking the tone of the thread had improved.

And if you ever notice us talking to creationists other than yourself, you will notice that we spend a lot of time shouting at them about natural selection, because most creationists take the tactic of ignoring that and focusing only on mutations. (It would be an interesting experiment to put you in a room with them and lock the door.)

In general people DO NOT think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity. I don't think even you do except when you are in this sort of discussion on this thread.

Which is of course because you think "all the other processes that take place" make up for it. And here you are wrong about me because I DON'T "ignore" those processes, I've knocked myself out trying to show how they do NOT make a difference in the general trend to loss of alleles. It's most of my argument.

You probably shouldn't have knocked yourself out.

Well, it's going to continue for a while because it's still a hot topic.

ABE: I have to take back the above because of your post showing all the dog breeds that implied there is no loss of genetic diversity at all, missing the whole point I'd been laboriously making. That is a MAJOR misunderstanding, as good as getting absolutely nothing I'd ever said, and it keeps cropping up in this discussion, so I didn't misspeak, that basic point DOES keep getting contested.

No. Pointing out that there are lots of different kinds of dogs is not the same as contesting the existence of natural selection.

No, natural selection was never the topic, though for some reason you are now insisting on it as if it's synonymous with loss of genetic diversity, which among other problems ignores that natural selection is only one of the processes I point to as requiring loss of genetic diversity, another one I emphasize a lot more being geographic isolation and other forms of population splits.

What you were contesting was not natural selection but the loss of genetic diversity by implying that I'd overlooked how much genetic diversity there is in the Dog Kind as a whole, which is an astonishing misrepresentation of my argument after I've spent so many years trying to get it across and being told you get it you get it when you don't get it. Maybe you do now but I'm not holding my breath. And again, when people speak of natural selection they are not thinking of loss of genetic diversity or I wouldn't be having to work so hard to get it across. When the ToE is defined in the abstract no such concept as the loss of genetic diversity is even hinted at and in many discussions it seems to be implicitly denied. You just don't like being caught in an error so you have to get mean about it.

And yes, the production of a purebreed does involve homogenizing certain genes of that breed,

"Homogenizing" is an odd word in this context it seems to me, and I'm not exclusively focused on purebeeds. The trend is present in any breeding program or development of subspecies in the wild.

I never denied that, but on the other hand the careful preservation of mutations has added diversity to the whole species, to Canis lupus.

Which you can't prove.

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 445 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2016 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2016 9:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 448 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2016 1:13 AM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 447 of 455 (786696)
06-24-2016 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
06-24-2016 7:01 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
And you don't get to tell me I'm "deciding" something when I'm giving a reasonable opinion.

Apparently you've also decided that your opinions are reasonable.

The fact is that the typical way evolution is described implies that variation is open-ended ...

Well, of course it is.

... without a hint of suspicion that loss of genetic diversity is inherent in evolutionary processes.

We know that it's inherent in some evolutionary processes. I know that. Geneticists know that. Everyone who was awake in science class knows that. Even you know that.

What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) are aware that some evolutionary processes reduce genetic diversity, but that you (unlike us) are unable to grasp the role and significance of those that increase it.

In general people DO NOT think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity.

Yes they do. I think of it that way. Geneticists think of it that way. Everyone who was awake in science class thinks of it that way. Even you think of it that way.

What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity, but that you (unlike us) are blithely indifferent to the processes that ensure a constant supply of diversity to select from.

What you were contesting was not natural selection but the loss of genetic diversity by implying that I'd overlooked how much genetic diversity there is in the Dog Kind as a whole ...

Which you do indeed persistently do.

And again, when people speak of natural selection they are not thinking of loss of genetic diversity or I wouldn't be having to work so hard to get it across.

You have not had to do any work to get that across. I think of it that way. Geneticists think of it that way. Everyone who was awake in science class thinks of it that way. Even you think of it that way.

What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) think of natural selection as involving loss of genetic diversity, but that you (unlike us) are blithely indifferent to the processes that ensure a constant supply of diversity to select from.

Which you can't prove.

Do I have to show you the pictures again?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 7:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 448 of 455 (786699)
06-25-2016 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
06-24-2016 7:01 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:

And you don't get to tell me I'm "deciding" something when I'm giving a reasonable opinion. The fact is that the typical way evolution is described implies that variation is open-ended, without a hint of suspicion that loss of genetic diversity is inherent in evolutionary processes. Otherwise there wouldn't be this constant question one gets, "what's to stop microevolution from continuing."

That is obviously not a reasonable opinion. Perhaps you should consider the fact that trying to find justifications for your assertions is a very different thing from seeing implications. The more so since you often fail to see the implications of your own words and have been known to get quite angry when they are pointed out.

In reality variation is "open-ended" and there is nothing "to stop microevolution occurring" because there is an ongoing source of new variation. If you do not realise that other people believe that, then you have ignored all the discussion in this topic for many years.

And in fact - as I have pointed out - other people do often speak of the reduction. That IS natural selection.

So let us be clear - your inference relies on assuming that other people think in a particular way despite the presence of obvious evidence that they do not. That is not reasonable.

quote:

And here I was thinking the tone of the thread had improved

If you engage in obvious misrepresentation and then in further misrepresentation to justify it I cannot see that you have a valid complaint if you are caught at it.

quote:

In general people DO NOT think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity. I don't think even you do except when you are in this sort of discussion on this thread

I can't see how you can honestly justify that. Especially since your argument above rests on an obvious falsehood.

quote:

Well, it's going to continue for a while because it's still a hot topic.

I think the point is that your efforts to date have been dismal failures. Which is rather to be expected when the evidence is against you.

In general the approach of jumping to conclusions and trying to make up justifications - without true understanding - is not a good way of getting to the truth nor of producing good arguments. Knocking yourself out trying to follow such a method - and coming up with nothing of value - would seem to be badly misdirected effort.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 7:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 06-25-2016 11:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 449 of 455 (786704)
06-25-2016 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Faith
06-23-2016 10:18 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
No, I say mutations themselves stop the processes of evolution that form new species, I certainly haven't said that mutations mean evolution will never stop, because evolution requires selection which always reduces genetic diversity. If you add diversity after you have a new species as a result of evolution/selection/reduction of genetic diversity, you simply lose your species. It's no longer the same species. You may get something else, even another species eventually, but you'll have lost the species originally selected. This isn't evolution(...)

I think you need to reread this. You're saying that mutations changing a species so that it eventually ends up as a different species is not evolution. This is exactly what everyone else means by evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 10:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-25-2016 11:37 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26453
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 450 of 455 (786706)
06-25-2016 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by caffeine
06-25-2016 9:47 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
No I don't think it is what you all mean by evolution. The main thing is that you don't count in the loss of genetic diversity with each new species/subspecies. In reality you don't keep getting the mutations you claim occur anyway, but if you did there would be nothing that fits the ToE in a series of new species that all reduce the genetic diversity you suppose you get with the mutations you suppose you get.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by caffeine, posted 06-25-2016 9:47 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2016 12:48 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 454 by NoNukes, posted 06-26-2016 2:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
26272829
30
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017