Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2017 1:14 AM
383 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ramoss (3 members, 380 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,741 Year: 27,347/21,208 Month: 1,260/1,714 Week: 103/365 Day: 7/52 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 61 of 127 (815024)
07-14-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
07-14-2017 1:54 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
The complexisties you describe don't suggest any kind of change that would promote evolution beyond the Kind

Evolution doesn't go beyond the Kind. It modifies the kind, never goes beyond it. Hence why we are still mammals, still tetrapods. It's just we are modified mammal kinds.

it's all still changes to genes

Which is fine.

and even if those functions change they are still genes for those functions

Evolution doesn't change the laws of physics. The functions change, that's evolution. The fact that genotypes influence phenotypes isn't the thing that changes. So this is not a valid objection.

they aren't going to produce something outside the range of what genes do

Nobody is proposing that genes do things that genes can't do.

which would be necessary for evolution beyond the Kind.

Therefore evolutionary biologists are not proposing evolution beyond the Kind.

Thank you for that basic acknowledgement that selection requires loss. As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss.

There doesn't have to be loss to get the new phenotypes necessarily. The loss is only in the process of increasing the frequency of certain phenotypes relative to others.

There HAS to be a point in a series of such evolutionary processes where genetic diversity is reduced to the point that further evolution cannot happen, a hypothetical point in most cases but sometimes real.

There doesn't have to be such a point.

As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss.

And yet, even though purebreeding is an exercise at creating new animals that minimally diverge from the 'exemplar' - that is it is a deliberate attempt to reduce diversity - change still happens:

https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/...reed-improvement

Just a 100 years or so.

IF YOU GET MUTATIONS AT THAT POINT you start losing the species,

Also known as 'evolution'.

you go back to genetic diversity, you get a motley collection of new phenotypes, not an identifiable species

Except selection is also continuing to happen, which may take a motley collection and push it in a different direction from the original phenotype. That is to say: evolution.

A hedge trimmed into a primitive mammalian predator is allowed to grow out, and is then trimmed into a wolf, it grows out, and is trimmed into a domestic dog. The loss of leaves and twigs is intrinsic to the process, but so is the growth of new leaves and twigs.

And again, mutations don't change the basic function of a gene even if that gene involves more than one function.

If it loses the original function, while retaining the secondary function - the function of the gene has changed.

For instance, dogs have stiff bodies, cats have flexible bodies. What parts of the genome affect those structural differences?

HOX genes are significant players. There are also a multitude of genes that regulate their expression amongst likely many others that are involved.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 1:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 62 of 127 (815026)
07-14-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-14-2017 2:35 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:

YOu can't even show a species that developed from mutations beyond a single trait.

Chimps and humans are separated by 40 million mutations. They differ by more than one trait.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 2:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:11 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 63 of 127 (815027)
07-14-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
07-14-2017 1:54 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:

Thank you for that basic acknowledgement that selection requires loss. As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss.

The process of gain then loss, gain then loss, gain then loss is exactly what drives macroevolution. This is why the chimp genome is different from the human genome. Mutations that occurred in the chimp or human lineage replaced the pre-existing alleles to arrive at two genomes that are now different from one another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 1:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 64 of 127 (815029)
07-14-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taq
07-14-2017 3:55 PM


Mutations assumed by faith in the ToE
Typical definitional word game. Chimps and humans do NOT differ by "40 million mutations," they differ by that many TRAITS, even that many genes perhaps. The "mutations" as usual are nothing but assumptions based on faith in the ToE. Such traits are no doubt part of the basic built-in created differences between chimps and humans.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 3:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 4:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 65 of 127 (815030)
07-14-2017 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taq
07-14-2017 3:57 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
"Gain then loss" cannot work, you aren't thinking. If you changed every single allele of every gene by a mutation, which cannot possibly happen and never happens, the actual incidence of benefical mutations is minuscule by comparison, but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them. The traits of the new species are a very small selected number. So you get new fur colors, new whatevers, a lot of them, different traits (which again, does not happen) still to get a new species of a particular set of traits means getting rid of all the others, and the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed. Since the traits can only be variations on the basic genome of the Kind the variations could only be within the Kind -- and they always are. You get reduced genetic diversity no matter what, and you cannot get macroevolution from reduced genetic diversity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 3:57 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 4:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2017 4:34 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 66 of 127 (815031)
07-14-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:11 PM


Re: Mutations assumed by faith in the ToE
Faith writes:

Chimps and humans do NOT differ by "40 million mutations,"

"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
http://www.nature.com/...al/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

That is from the chimp genome paper. I think I will go with the scientists who actually sequenced the chimp genome over a lay person on an internet forum that has demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge in the field of genetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 67 of 127 (815032)
07-14-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:19 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:

If you changed every single allele of every gene by a mutation, which cannot possibly happen and never happens, the actual incidence of benefical mutations is minuscule by comparison, but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them.

Why would I have to lose all the new mutations in order to get a new species? Why would a new species have a genome identical to it's ancestors?

So you get new fur colors, new whatevers, a lot of them, different traits (which again, does not happen) still to get a new species of a particular set of traits means getting rid of all the others, and the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed.

New traits continue to appear due to mutations. You get a continual pattern of gain then loss, gain then loss, gain then loss. This is what changes the daughter populations compared to the ancestral populations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 68 of 127 (815034)
07-14-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:19 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
quote:

"Gain then loss" cannot work, you aren't thinking.

Of course it can - and if you really thought about it you'd see that.

quote:

...but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them

And here we have proof that you aren't thinking. There is no need to lose most if them. If, for instance a dozen genes got a new allele then keeping all of them - in place of older variations would be the most effective way to move towards a new species.

quote:

... the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed

You assume that, but if there is any such effect then so far it has been overwhelmed by other factors. Like, for instance, the fact that the number of genes is not fixed, and genes can get added.

quote:

Since the traits can only be variations on the basic genome of the Kind the variations could only be within the Kind -- and they always are.

Since all life on Earth is the same Kind - to the extent that "Kinds" can be said to exist then that is trivially true, but completely useless to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:51 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 69 of 127 (815035)
07-14-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
07-14-2017 4:34 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
It doesn't happen, it can't happen, it doesn't need to happen. There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see. Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species. Species within a Kind.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2017 4:34 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2017 4:57 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 5:08 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 70 of 127 (815036)
07-14-2017 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:51 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
quote:

It doesn't happen, it can't happen, it doesn't need to happen.

It certainly can happen, the evidence says that it has happened and reality doesn't care whether it "needs" to happen.

quote:

There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see

That's your assumption, and the evidence disagrees with you.

quote:

Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do.

And another assumption contradicted by the evidence

quote:

BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species

Obviously wrong. Replace enough alleles with new ones and you'll get something that would be considered a different species from the original population, without any net loss of diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 71 of 127 (815037)
07-14-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:51 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:

There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see. Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species. Species within a Kind.

The mutations would be an increase.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 6:37 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 72 of 127 (815041)
07-14-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Taq
07-14-2017 5:08 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Mutations make no difference.

Domestic breeding is evidence that reduced genetic diversity is necessary.

And it would be simple to confirm this with wild creatures too in the simple lab experiment I've so often suggested, of creating a series of daughter populations and checking the DNA for rate of homozygosity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 5:08 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2017 1:28 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 07-17-2017 3:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 73 of 127 (815051)
07-15-2017 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
07-14-2017 6:37 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
quote:

Mutations make no difference.

Obviously untrue.

quote:

Domestic breeding is evidence that reduced genetic diversity is necessary

The fact that domestic breeders can and do use mutations they consider desirable proves that mutations do add genetic diversity - which evolution can use. They also prove that existing species can have considerable genetic diversity while still being recognisable as a species.

quote:

And it would be simple to confirm this with wild creatures too in the simple lab experiment I've so often suggested, of creating a series of daughter populations and checking the DNA for rate of homozygosity.

How would this experiment allow for the relatively slow pace of evolution ? A typical speciation event is expected to take hundreds of years, while the time between speciation events should be hundreds of thousands of years. Unless you are somehow going to find a way to dramatically speed up all the processes involved by the same factor and can show that the acceleration won't significantly affect the outcome your experiment is utterly impractical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 6:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 74 of 127 (815052)
07-15-2017 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
07-14-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Simple Example
Taq writes:

Evolution doesn't need to produce new information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.


Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 10:58 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 7:00 AM CRR has responded
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 07-17-2017 3:30 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 75 of 127 (815056)
07-15-2017 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by CRR
07-15-2017 1:38 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
Taq writes:

Evolution doesn't need to produce new information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.


Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information.

So the "created kind" evolves by losing genetic diversity ...

... then does any mutation that adds to the genetic diversity mean it is evolution outside the kind?

inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 07-15-2017 1:38 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 07-15-2017 5:36 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 86 by CRR, posted 07-16-2017 6:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017