Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 4:35 AM
349 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,006 Year: 28,612/21,208 Month: 678/1,847 Week: 53/475 Day: 0/53 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
60NextFF
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 211 of 893 (816696)
08-09-2017 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
08-09-2017 2:46 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

Mutations only help if they occur before selection. Afterward they defeat the purpose of the selection, which is the evolution of a new variety.

There is no purpose in selection. It is not a teleological process.

Take the famous peppered moth example. The source of the black moth may be a mutation, but the whole population of black moths is the result of selecting out all the white moths. There may still be the genetic material for the white moths in some individuals of the population of black moths so that you can still get a new population of white moths under new selection pressure.

There could also be mutations that occur in black peppered moths that result in white moths.

But the principle is that to get a population of the new variety requires losing the genetic stuff for the other variety.

The principle is also that new varieties occur as new mutations occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 2:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 3:08 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 212 of 893 (816697)
08-09-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Taq
08-09-2017 2:54 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Yeah yeah yeah of course selection isn't purposive but the point is that it's considered to be the way new varieties emerge that have survival value over the parent population, so in a way it looks teleological.

Sure you can get a new variety from a mutation if it's selected, so what? For it to form a population of this new variety nevertheless requires the loss of all the other varieties. Always the end result of the selection processes is loss. You keep adding stuff without seeing that all it does is produce new varieties or kill old varieties which is a dead end for the ToE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 2:54 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 3:41 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 213 of 893 (816698)
08-09-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
08-09-2017 2:46 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong argument from Faith
quote:

Mutations only help if they occur before selection. Afterward they defeat the purpose of the selection, which is the evolution of a new variety.

There is no meaningful cutoff "before selection", nor does selection have the purpose of generating new varieties, nor would additional mutations defeat it if it did.

In reality a successful species will generate large numbers of mutations, increasing diversity - so there will be plenty that occur before a speciation event. But the loss of interfertility - a rather important part of speciation is rather more likely to be due to mutations that occur during the speciation event.

With reference to the peppered moth (which didn't reach the level of speciation anyway), would a mutation for a different shape of antenna in any way interfere with the process ? If so, how ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 2:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 214 of 893 (816701)
08-09-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-09-2017 3:08 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

Yeah yeah yeah of course selection isn't purposive but the point is that it's considered to be the way new varieties emerge that have survival value over the parent population, so in a way it looks teleological.

If it isn't teleological, then new mutations don't "defeat the purpose of selection". Selection is simply what happens. You might as well say that water evaporating in the oceans defeats the purpose of rivers flowing water to the oceans.

Sure you can get a new variety from a mutation if it's selected, so what? For it to form a population of this new variety nevertheless requires the loss of all the other varieties.

There are still black and white peppered moths.

Always the end result of the selection processes is loss.

The end result of mutation is gains.

You keep adding stuff without seeing that all it does is produce new varieties or kill old varieties which is a dead end for the ToE.

You can still have the old varieties survive in other populations, and then have those two populations diverge from one another over time. This is called speciation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 3:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 10:51 PM Taq has responded

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


Message 215 of 893 (816709)
08-09-2017 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
08-09-2017 2:46 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
But the principle is that to get a population of the new variety requires losing the genetic stuff for the other variety.

There is no requirement of evolution theory that the parent population go extinct (although this is often the eventual result).
In the case of the Peppered Moth the white variety was never completely eliminated and today both varieties are common.

However beneficial information adding mutations are very rare. Most cases of new varieties and species is due to partitioning of the original gene pool so that each of the new ones has less genetic diversity than the parent population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 2:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 10:36 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 216 of 893 (816719)
08-09-2017 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by CRR
08-09-2017 6:18 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
But the principle is that to get a population of the new variety requires losing the genetic stuff for the other variety.

There is no requirement of evolution theory that the parent population go extinct (although this is often the eventual result).

What are you talking about? I said nothing about the parent population going extinct, I said nothing about the parent population at all. It may still go on as usual if its numbers are high enough, and may yet be the source of other lines of variation as well. It's in the separated lines of variation that the loss has to occur that I'm talking about, a subpopulation that is actively evolving.

In the case of the Peppered Moth the white variety was never completely eliminated and today both varieties are common.

So? Did I say anything different?

However beneficial information adding mutations are very rare. Most cases of new varieties and species is due to partitioning of the original gene pool so that each of the new ones has less genetic diversity than the parent population

That's my usual argument. What you are calling partitioning is the formation of a daughter population and it's a form of selection, and the end result in each daughter population is what I'm talking about here, the trend to loss of genetic diversity that makes evolution ultimately impossible. And it can occur without mutations at all since the variations are built into the genome, and you are going to get new gene frequencies whatever their source; but I usually allow for the evo assumption of mutations because the same thing happens in either case and they are so fond of mutations there's no point in making an issue of it for that part of the argument.

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 215 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:18 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 10:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 217 of 893 (816720)
08-09-2017 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Taq
08-09-2017 3:41 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Yes the other varieties survive in other populations. When you get a Great Dane by losing all the genetic stuff for all the other breeds, you aren't eliminating all the other breeds themselves that exist elsewhere you are only eliminating their genes in the Great Dane breed. It's in the formation of a breed that the processes of evolution are seen, how the formation of new phenotypes REQUJRES the loss of other genotypes. Pure breeds are often homozygous for all their salient traits. But those traits are different in each breed of course. I'm always talking about the evolving LINE, not the entire population. It's where new phenotypes are forming that the loss of genetic diversity has to occur. It's where EVOLUTION is occurring in other words that you are losing genetic diversity. WHEREVER you are getting new phenotypes you are losing genetic diversity. There may be plenty of genetic diversity left in other populations, even other evolving lines and there may be hybrids forming as well, but the trend is always to reduction where you are getting new phenotypes in an isolated population. We could talk complicating factors but not until this basic principle is acknowledged. And it is basic, it has to happen if you are getting new phenotypes, new variations, new subspecies etc.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 3:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 10:50 AM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 218 of 893 (816740)
08-10-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
08-09-2017 10:51 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

It's in the formation of a breed that the processes of evolution are seen, how the formation of new phenotypes REQUJRES the loss of other genotypes.

The formation of new phenotypes only requires mutations. Selection for an already existing phenotype is not the formation of new phenotypes.

I'm always talking about the evolving LINE, not the entire population. It's where new phenotypes are forming that the loss of genetic diversity has to occur.

Over time, new mutations will occur and accumulate in those breeds which increases genetic diversity.

There may be plenty of genetic diversity left in other populations, even other evolving lines and there may be hybrids forming as well, but the trend is always to reduction where you are getting new phenotypes in an isolated population.

As long as the population increases or stays the same you will always get an increase in genetic diversity due to the accumulation of new mutations. That is why species who have not gone through a recent bottleneck have more genetic diversity than species who have gone through a recent genetic bottleneck.

We could talk complicating factors but not until this basic principle is acknowledged.

You need to acknowledge the basic principle that every individual in every generation is born with mutations which increase genetic diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 10:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-10-2017 11:20 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 219 of 893 (816741)
08-10-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
08-09-2017 10:36 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

It's in the separated lines of variation that the loss has to occur that I'm talking about, a subpopulation that is actively evolving.

Genetic diversity increases due to the accumulation of mutations. If you are selecting for just one allele at one gene locus there are still tens of thousands of other genes that are mutating.

So? Did I say anything different?

Yes, you did. You claimed that one allele must replace the other allele. That is your whole spiel.

stage 1: all white moths
stage 2: 1 black moth and the rest are white moths
stage 3: 50% black moths and 50% white moths

Is stage 3 an increase in genetic diversity over stage 1? Yes or no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 10:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 220 of 893 (816742)
08-10-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Taq
08-10-2017 10:50 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
The formation of new phenotypes only requires mutations. Selection for an already existing phenotype is not the formation of new phenotypes.

I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I haven't made myself clear about this: I'm not talking about just getting A new phenotype within a population, I'm talking about getting a whole new population characterized by new phenotypes, which is clearly illustrated by domestic breeding. You get a whole new breed, a whole new population with its own characteristics. The new phenotypes are brought about by changed gene frequencies due to the formation of an isolated daughter population which may be caused by natural selection or just random migration, or intentional selection in the case of domestic breeding. As the new characteristics become established in the new population they replace the characteristics of the parent population, and eventually lose them altogether if the same selection pressures continue. That's how you get a new breed or species. You DO have to lose the old for the new to become established. Have to.

And what I'm saying is that genetic loss, being necessary to evolving this new species or breed, characterizes evolution itself, and this is not recognized. We know it's not recognized because of all the silly wrong linear analogies that are given to describe it, ignoring the necessity of genetic loss. Evos are always saying how macroevolution is just a continuation of microevolution, just putting one foot in front of the other, a difference between walking to the curb or walking a mile and so on, but it is not. This ignores the fact that you have to lose traits and their genotypes in order to get a population with its own characteristic new traits. HAVE TO.

It does not matter whether the new population incorporates a mutation or not. If it does that means the mutation is a high frequency allele in the new context and its characteristics will show up in the new phenotypic presentation. Meanwhile the OTHER traits are being lost while the new are getting established, the new including your mutation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 10:50 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2017 11:44 AM Faith has responded
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 11:55 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 221 of 893 (816743)
08-10-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
08-10-2017 11:20 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
quote:

And what I'm saying is that genetic loss, being necessary to evolving this new species or breed, characterizes evolution itself, and this is not recognized

It is recognised as a part of evolution, but it is only a part.

quote:

We know it's not recognized because of all the silly wrong linear analogies that are given to describe it, ignoring the necessity of genetic loss.

So people actually prefer standard evolutionary theory to your personal opinions. Just because reason and evidence are against you. That may seem silly to you but it isn't

Look, I understand you don't like the fact that your precious argument is foolish and wrong but that is the way it is. You can be as arrogant and rude as you like but you can't beat the truth that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-10-2017 11:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 7:39 AM PaulK has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 222 of 893 (816746)
08-10-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
08-10-2017 11:20 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I haven't made myself clear about this: I'm not talking about just getting A new phenotype within a population, I'm talking about getting a whole new population characterized by new phenotypes, which is clearly illustrated by domestic breeding.

It is also illustrated by the pocket mice and peppered moths we have discussed previously. In both cases you start with just one color. Over time, you get a mixed population of two colors. How is that not an increase in genetic diversity?

The new phenotypes are brought about by changed gene frequencies due to the formation of an isolated daughter population which may be caused by natural selection or just random migration, or intentional selection in the case of domestic breeding.

False. Those new phenotypes are brought about by mutations in the parent population. New phenotypes will continue to appear in the daughter populations since mutations never stop. If one allele for one gene is selected for this does not stop the process of mutation. It continues in every generation. It is the accumulation of these mutations over time that results in macroevolution.

And what I'm saying is that genetic loss, being necessary to evolving this new species or breed, characterizes evolution itself, and this is not recognized.

You won't recognize the increase in genetic diversity produced by new mutations. We already recognize that mutations in the human lineage have replaced alleles that existed in the common ancestor of humans and chimps. You won't recognize that this is an ongoing process and that it never stops due to the fact that mutations continue to appear and continue to be selected for. This is how we get two co-existing species with different genomes, otherwise known as macroevolution.

This ignores the fact that you have to lose traits and their genotypes in order to get a population with its own characteristic new traits. HAVE TO.

You HAVE TO have mutations to select for, and those mutations increase genetic diversity. You HAVE TO have an accumulation of those mutations over time because there is no mechanism that will prevent it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-10-2017 11:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 9:14 AM Taq has responded
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 10:32 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 223 of 893 (816776)
08-11-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
08-10-2017 11:44 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
It is recognised as a part of evolution, but it is only a part.

It is obviously not recognized even as a part or we wouldn't keep getting these silly wrong linear analogies that pretend there is a straight unimpeded line from microevolution to macroevolution. Since there must be genetic loss because of microevolution in the formation of a new variety or race or species, getting from there to further evolution is really not even possible at all.

We know it's not recognized because of all the silly wrong linear analogies that are given to describe it, ignoring the necessity of genetic loss.

So people actually prefer standard evolutionary theory to your personal opinions. Just because reason and evidence are against you. That may seem silly to you but it isn't

Look, I understand you don't like the fact that your precious argument is foolish and wrong but that is the way it is. You can be as arrogant and rude as you like but you can't beat the truth that way.

The evidence and truth happen to be on my side despite entrenched evo denials. Some honest clear thinking would show an honest person that this is not opinion but fact, and all your insults only serve to distract from this simple fact. What's "foolish" is the wrongheaded denials of a simple logical proof that macroevolution is dead in the water-- though of course very understandable considering the investment you all have in the ToE . I am of course making what must seem like an outlandish claim, but truth is truth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 221 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2017 11:44 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2017 8:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 224 of 893 (816777)
08-11-2017 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
08-11-2017 7:39 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
quote:

It is obviously not recognized even as a part or we wouldn't keep getting these silly wrong linear analogies that pretend there is a straight unimpeded line from microevolution to macroevolution

In reality there is no clear problem with the analogies, and the role of selection certainly isn't a problem to them.

quote:

Since there must be genetic loss because of microevolution in the formation of a new species, getting from there to further evolution is really not even possible at all.

That's your opinion and it is obviously wrong. Mutation plays an important role in evolution and ignoring it is not a viable option. That is the reason people disagree with and your refusal to acknowledge that hardly helps your case.

quote:

The evidence and truth happen to be on my side despite entrenched evo denials

I guess that's why you've failed to produce any significant evidence, failed to answer the counter-arguments and failed to make a case for so many years.

quote:

Some honest clear thinking would show an honest person that this is not opinion but fact, and all your insults only serve to distract from this simple fact

If you were thinking clearly and honestly you would habve noticed that there weren't any insults. You would also notice that your argument is a failure.

quote:

What's "foolish" is the wrongheaded denials of a simple logical proof that macroevolution is dead in the water

There is no such proof, Your argument was wrong-head from the start and you still haven't been able to answer the objections produced the first time you raised it.

quote:

I am of course making what must seem like an outlandish claim, but truth is truth.

I wouldn't call it an outlandish claim. I'd call it a proven lie. And that IS the truth.

The fact is that mutations supply a constant stream of new variations and that refutes your argument. As it did from the start. And if you had any sense at all - or any honesty - you would at least stop using your argument until you had an answer to that, even if you can't accept it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 7:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 225 of 893 (816780)
08-11-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Taq
08-10-2017 11:55 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I haven't made myself clear about this: I'm not talking about just getting A new phenotype within a population, I'm talking about getting a whole new population characterized by new phenotypes, which is clearly illustrated by domestic breeding.

It is also illustrated by the pocket mice and peppered moths we have discussed previously. In both cases you start with just one color. Over time, you get a mixed population of two colors. How is that not an increase in genetic diversity?

I'm not denying increases in genetic diversity through mutation, that's not the point. When you are getting the whole population of black moths you are losing the genetic stuff for the peppered moths, and vice versa. This is the point: when you are actually getting a whole new population characterized by a new phenotype (or set of new phenotypes due to changed gene frequency), in this case a population of black moths, you are losing, you must lose, all the genetic stuff for the traits the new traits are displacing, in this case the peppered moths. (Same with the black and white mice. White population has lost the genetic substrate for black; the black population has lost the genetic substrate for white) The other trait or traits may still be present in small numbers so still recoverable under changed selection, but the principle still holds, and when the former traits, the peppered moths, become selected again it will operate in the same way: you'll get a population of peppered moths without black moths or their genetic underpinnings. We are getting a very limited picture of microevolution in this example, nothing that could possibly proceed to macroevolution, but it does demonstrate the principle that to get a new variety requires genetic loss.

Faith writes:

The new phenotypes are brought about by changed gene frequencies due to the formation of an isolated daughter population which may be caused by natural selection or just random migration, or intentional selection in the case of domestic breeding.

False. Those new phenotypes are brought about by mutations in the parent population. New phenotypes will continue to appear in the daughter populations since mutations never stop. If one allele for one gene is selected for this does not stop the process of mutation. It continues in every generation. It is the accumulation of these mutations over time that results in macroevolution.

A mutation changes a single allele in a single gene. Getting a whole lot of single-allele phenotypes in a population isn't evolution and in most cases you aren't even going to get that much as the mutations most often don't change the phenotype. And even if a mutation/phenotype spreads through a population, by drift or positive selection, that is just another case of microevolution, and what's happening while it spreads? It's displacing the alleles for another trait, that other trait and its allele being the genetic loss I'm talking about. If the new trait is strongly selected it may come to replace the former trait altogether and you'll have the whole new population with the new trait I'm talking about --- because of the LOSS I'm talking about of the other trait and its genetic substrate.

In other words the process I'm talking about occurs no matter where you are getting a changed population characterized by a new phenotype or set of phenotypes. I focus on the situation where a portion of a population is physically isolated from the parent population because it makes the case more clearly, but the principle applies wherever one set of traits is replacing another -- you're losing the replaced traits and their genetic substrate. So bring on the mutations. If they are selected they demonstrate the same principle I'm talking about. They do not get you to macroevolution because selection makes macroevolution impossible.

Faith writes:

And what I'm saying is that genetic loss, being necessary to evolving this new species or breed, characterizes evolution itself, and this is not recognized.

You won't recognize the increase in genetic diversity produced by new mutations.

As I say above, increase in genetic diversity doesn't change the pattern I'm talking about, microevolution which leads to a new variety or species. A motley collection of new alleles isn't microevolution; you have to have selection of a new trait or set of traits and their alleles to get microevolution, and selection involves losing the old traits while the new traits proliferate. It really doesn't matter whether the new traits are due to mutations or just changed gene frequencies of old alleles, the same processes have to occur in either case.

We already recognize that mutations in the human lineage have replaced alleles that existed in the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Well, you don't know this at all, you assume it. However, even this scenario also requires loss, loss of the "replaced alleles." It's impossible because you'd reach the point long before you got a human from a chimp beyond which further evolution couldn't happen because you've run out of genetic diversity. The chimp genome is only going to produce chimp alleles for chimp characteristics, and mutation is only going to come up with variations on the chimp alleles for chimp characteristics because that's what the chimp gene does, it doesn't do human characteristics, it does chimp characteristics, and active microevolution is going to make all those genes homozygous over some number of generations, beyond which point further evolution just plain cannot happen. Oh maybe a fluke mutation for purple fur will pop up, maybe it might even be selected, so that you get purple chimps and lose a bunch of gray ones in the process. Maybe the purple ones will kill all the gray ones too. Or vice versa. But anyway. macroevolution is a pipe dream because genetic loss always attends genetic change from population to population.
'

You won't recognize that this is an ongoing process and that it never stops due to the fact that mutations continue to appear and continue to be selected for.

Um, continue to appear, yes, but continue to be selected for? Everything you all say about the nature of mutations puts the lie to that claim. But even if it were true the processes I've described above have to operate on your selected mutations as described. Selection can only occur by eliminating the traits not selected. You may get a new race of chimps but they will be chimps nevertheless.

The best you'll ever get from mutations is variations on the chimp genome, you'll never get anything but a chimp and while you are getting a new purple chimp or a chimp with too many toes, you have to lose the genetic material for the old chimp so you'll eventually run out of the genetic material needed for further evolution.

This is how we get two co-existing species with different genomes, otherwise known as macroevolution.

What marvelous faith you show! You actually believe that changes in DNA sequence would get you from a chimp to a human being? Have you noticed that all you've done is assert this here by the way? How it could possibly happen in reality is not even suggested, it's entirely a figment of your imagination. And the REAL reality is that when you do get phenotypic change you have to lose genetic diversity and eventually that has to lead to inability to change further.

You HAVE TO have mutations to select for, and those mutations increase genetic diversity.

Even if so it's the selection that runs you out of genetic diversity, and it's the selection that brings out the new phenotypes that form the new variety or species, and in order to do that it eliminates the genetic substrate for all the other traits. Those other traits may still be present in the parent population, but they aren't present in whatever population is based on selection of OTHER traits.

If you can figure out how to get macroevolution without selection, go for it, pile up all the mutations you like, but selection is always going to lead to genetic loss and eventual inability to evolve further.

You HAVE TO have an accumulation of those mutations over time because there is no mechanism that will prevent it.

As I say above, if you can show how the accumulation of mutations can lead to macroevolution without selection, go for it. But selection, even random selection, anything that furthers one trait over another so that a new population with the new trait emerges as a variety or species unto itself, has to work on those mutations, and it's selection that reduces genetic diversity, and if continued eventually will make further evolution impossible.

Again, try getting evolution without selection.

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 222 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 11:55 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 10:49 AM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
60NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017