Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 8:43 PM
346 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, Faith, GDR, Modulous (AdminModulous), Porosity (6 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,780 Year: 21,386/21,208 Month: 1,819/2,326 Week: 274/881 Day: 99/97 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
48NextFF
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 226 of 712 (816782)
08-11-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Taq
08-10-2017 11:55 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
If it were true that you got a whole lot of new phenotypes in the daughter population you'd never get a recognizable variety or species, but we know that's not so. What you seem to be imagining is constant increase without the selection because if you take the selection into account you have to see that the increase is not evolution, it's just the stuff that selection works on, and selection is what brings out the new phenotypes that make for new varieties and species. Selection could be the proliferation of a trait or set of traits within a population or physical separate of a part of the population, but any way it happens involves losing some genetic stuff for some traits in order to bring out others.

Again, add all the mutations you like, unless selection makes a new variety or species from them you aren't getting evolution, but the process of getting a new variety or species means losing genetic diversity. Always. And if you keep adding mutations you're just getting a dizzy exchange of increase followed by decrease followed by increase,l you aren't getting evolution.

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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2017 10:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 227 of 712 (816784)
08-11-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
08-11-2017 9:14 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

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.

You also gained genetic stuff to get the new color. That's the point.

Also, the difference in color comes from one gene. There are tens of thousands of other genes in the moth genome. You can't say that overall genetic diversity was lost because of one gene out of tens of thousands.

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.

What you are talking about is macroevolution. This is where alleles in the parent population are replaced by new mutations, resulting in a modified daughter population. This is why the human and chimp genomes are different from each other, and will continue to diverge over time due to the continual accumulation of new genetic diversity.

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.

And new mutations will continue to occur and increase genetic diversity. You keep ignoring that fact. You are trying to claim that once selection occurs for a single allele that everything just stops. It doesn't. Mutations continue to appear, and selection will continue to operate as genetic diversity increases.

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.

You have continually stated that genetic diversity can only decrease. New mutations do change the pattern you are describing.

You may get a new race of chimps but they will be chimps nevertheless.

Precisely, just as our common ancestor with chimps was a primate, and we are still primates. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we are still mammals. Our common ancestor with fish was a vertebrate, and we are still vertebrates.

I think you are finally understanding what macroevolution is.

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.

You have already agreed that mutations provide new genetic diversity, so there is no running out of genetic material.

What marvelous faith you show! You actually believe that changes in DNA sequence would get you from a chimp to a human being?

First, I have evidence that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, so no faith is needed.

Second, I am not saying that humans evolved from chimps. I am saying that both species evolved from a common primate ancestor, and we are both still primates. The differences between our genomes are due to the very mechanisms that you have already agreed to, mutations followed by selection.

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.

New mutations replenish genetic diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 9:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 1:08 PM Taq has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12988
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 228 of 712 (816785)
08-11-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
08-11-2017 10:32 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
At this point I am going to explain the basic differences in position.

You claim that there is an inevitable and continuous decline in genetic diversity

Your opponents claim that while individual species might suffer declines, on the whole genetic diversity tends to remain about the same - in the longer term.

quote:

If it were true that you got a whole lot of new phenotypes in the daughter population you'd never get a recognizable variety or species, but we know that's not so

But we know that your argument is wrong here. Existing species have considerable genetic diversity but are still recognisable as species. So we know that that level of diversity is not a problem. And this has been pointed out before.

Maybe your arguments would work if your opponents were proposing an inevitable and sustained increase in genetic diversity, but they aren't.

So ask yourself this. If you have such a great argument why are you making claims that are obviously false ?

quote:

Again, add all the mutations you like, unless selection makes a new variety or species from them you aren't getting evolution, but the process of getting a new variety or species means losing genetic diversity. Always. And if you keep adding mutations you're just getting a dizzy exchange of increase followed by decrease followed by increase,l you aren't getting evolution

That's funny because evolution IS typically a cycle of increase followed by decrease (in an isolated population) followed by increase !

You are literally saying that evolution is not evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 10:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 229 of 712 (816805)
08-11-2017 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Taq
08-11-2017 10:49 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
You have already agreed that mutations provide new genetic diversity, so there is no running out of genetic material.

If you aren't getting the formation of a new variety or species then you can have all the genetic diversity you want. But if you are getting a new variety or species then you are losing genetic diversity. Take your pick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 10:49 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 1:10 PM Faith has responded
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2017 2:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 236 by dwise1, posted 08-11-2017 3:31 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 230 of 712 (816806)
08-11-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-11-2017 1:08 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

If you aren't getting the formation of a new variety or species then you can have all the genetic diversity you want. But if you are getting a new variety or species then you are losing genetic diversity. Take your pick.

You are gaining genetic diversity because of mutations. I don't have to pick between your false choices.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 1:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 2:44 PM Taq has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12988
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 231 of 712 (816808)
08-11-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-11-2017 1:08 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
quote:

If you aren't getting the formation of a new variety or species then you can have all the genetic diversity you want

Which is fatal to your argument. Allow genetic diversity to increase in between speciation events and there is no longer an argument for inevitable decline. You'd have to look at evidence to see if there were signs of this assumed decline (and the evidence says - very strongly - NO)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 1:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 2:38 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 232 of 712 (816810)
08-11-2017 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
08-11-2017 2:06 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

If you aren't getting the formation of a new variety or species then you can have all the genetic diversity you want.

Which is fatal to your argument. Allow genetic diversity to increase in between speciation events and there is no longer an argument for inevitable decline.

But it doesn't increase in reality. If it did you'd get only the see-saw effect I described, which is not evolution because evolution produces identifiable varieties, and macroevolution supposedly takes off from an established variety or species. You get your species that can no longer interbreed with its precursors and supposedly that is the platform for macroevolution. A big fat joke since such a species must be too genetically reduced for much further change if any, let alone change on the order of what would be needed in the direction of a new species. Really, the ToE is just fantasy upon fantasy.

You could even get a species as genetically depleted as the cheetah or the elephant seal, as the result of microevolution, and it would be absurdly celebrated as macroevolution.

You'd have to look at evidence to see if there were signs of this assumed decline (and the evidence says - very strongly - NO)

Every selective breeding program in history says a resounding YES. That's why breeding methods had to be modified in recent years, because they lead to genetic depletion which causes genetic diseases. Since all that has happened in breeding is a speeded-up version of what happens under natural selection in the wild (do you want to argue with Darwin about that?), or random selection of the sort seen in the formation of ring species by migration of portions of the previous population, we can infer that the same processes lead to the same results: reduced genetic diversity as the necessary cost of developing new species or breeds or varieties.

As long as there are identifiable species and identifiable breeds, some of which are known to have lasted hundreds of years at least, and many probably more than that, even some for which there is no doubt written evidence, as long as there are identifiable varieties, species and breeds, my argument stands because adding mutations at any appreciable rate would destroy their identifiable characteristics.

You do exert yourself quite admirably in defense of the ToE, if exertion in the absence of simple logic is a virtue, though the effort is Quixotic in the end.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2017 2:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2017 3:09 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:13 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 233 of 712 (816811)
08-11-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Taq
08-11-2017 1:10 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
You are gaining genetic diversity because of mutations. I don't have to pick between your false choices.

You are getting genetic diversity without evolution. This thread is about evolution. The silly linear model of microevolution to macroevolution is wrong because microevolution reduces genetic diversity, without which evolution has to come to a halt. If you keep throwing in mutations you bring it to a halt in another way, because it takes selection to produce a new species. Either way evolution comes to an end. The ToE is impossible no matter how you look at it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 1:10 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 10:42 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12988
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 234 of 712 (816813)
08-11-2017 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
08-11-2017 2:38 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
quote:

But it doesn't increase in reality. If it did you'd get only the see-saw effect I described, which is not evolution because evolution produces identifiable varieties, and macroevolution supposedly takes off from an established variety or species

Saying that it doesn't happen because if it did evolution would actually work isn't really much of an argument. And the additional variation would be accumulating in the established species.

quote:

You get your species that can no longer interbreed with its precursors and supposedly that is the platform for macroevolution.

That is an instance of macroevolution but so what?

quote:

You could even get a species as genetically depleted as the cheetah or the elephant seal, as the result of microevolution, and it would be absurdly celebrated as macroevolution.

If it was genuinely a new species it would be an example of macroevolution. So what.

quote:

Every selective breeding program in history says a resounding YES

Selective breeding over a few hundred or even a few thousand years is not the same as natural evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. Not nearly. So selective breeding programs can't answer the question.

quote:

Since all that has happened in breeding is a speeded-up version of what happens under natural selection in the wild (do you want to argue with Darwin about that?

I doubt that Darwin said it was the same rather than similar, but even if it was you'd only be copying a part of the process and missing out the parts most important to add new variation. So of course you'd get the result you want because your model is rigged to produce that result.

quote:

As long as there are identifiable species and identifiable breeds, some of which are known to have lasted hundreds of years at least, and many probably more than that, even some for which there is no doubt written evidence, as long as there are identifiable varieties, species and breeds, my argument stands because adding mutations at any appreciable rate would destroy their identifiable characteristics.

That's just silly. Want to tell me why mutations would specifically target so many of the identifying characteristics as to produce the result you claim ? Can you really give any reason to think that's even remotely sensible ? Don't forget that we can happily lose a few unimportant ones and the important Ines are the bones that evolution almost never changes - or only changes within limits (I.e. There are all sorts of minor variations on the backbone, but having a backbone has been stable for a long, long time)

In the meantime reality still shows no sign of your genetic depletion except in cases of severe bottlenecks where it would be expected anyway, breeders don't create new species, species aren't a hodgepodge of mixed phenotypes despite their variety - unless the breeders bring it out artificially. You're just wrong and it is obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 2:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 235 of 712 (816815)
08-11-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
08-11-2017 2:38 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

But it doesn't increase in reality. If it did you'd get only the see-saw effect I described, which is not evolution because evolution produces identifiable varieties, and macroevolution supposedly takes off from an established variety or species. You get your species that can no longer interbreed with its precursors and supposedly that is the platform for macroevolution. A big fat joke since such a species must be too genetically reduced for much further change if any, let alone change on the order of what would be needed in the direction of a new species. Really, the ToE is just fantasy upon fantasy.

That's like saying you can't walk by moving your legs back and forth.

New mutations produce new phenotypes. New phenotypes are selected for. New mutations produce new phenotypes. New phenotypes are selected for. New mutations produce new phenotypes. New phenotypes are selected for.

IT NEVER STOPS. IT KEEPS GOING.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 2:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 7:17 PM Taq has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 236 of 712 (816820)
08-11-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-11-2017 1:08 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
I know that this is casting pearls before swine, but others reading this may get something out of it even if you refuse to.

It's not either-or, because both processes, selection and accumulation of greater genetic diversity, are happening at the same time. Therefore, we could work out a mathematical function of genetic diversity which incorporates the effects of both selection and the processes that increase genetic diversity such as the accumulation of genetic mutations.

Now refer to your differential calculus in which you examine the rates of change of a function with respect to an independent variable. To illustrate with a simple and intuitive example, you can develop a function of spatial displacement with respect to time, s(t); we would say "s is a function t" or "displacement s is a function of time t". If you differentiate s(t) with respect to t, you get velocity, v(t) = ds / dt. With v(t), you can determine the velocity at any point in time. If you then differentiate v(t), you get acceleration, a(t) = dv / dt.

To put that simplistically (because other factors come into play) into a practical problem, you have a rocket that needs to follow a particular trajectory, the displacement function, s(t), which yields the rocket's location at every point in time. From that trajectory, you can determine what the rocket's velocity has to be at every point in time. From that velocity function, you know how much the rocket will need to be accelerating at every point in time. From that acceleration function, you can determine how much thrust you'll need from the engines. Of course, in real life, differential calculus is often mainly used to solve problems of a more abstractly mathematical nature or to develop mathematical models of observed phenomena. The story is that Newton invented calculus to provide him the language with which to describe what he was observing.

Many functions describing the real world are multi-variant -- ie, instead of having just one independent variable, they have more than one, often several. That changes the problem to needing to determine with variables have more of an effect on the function. For that, we use partial derivatives:

quote:
In mathematics, a partial derivative of a function of several variables is its derivative with respect to one of those variables, with the others held constant (as opposed to the total derivative, in which all variables are allowed to vary).

In short, you successively differentiate the function by each variable, then add up all the partial derivatives to get the total derivative. The benefit of this evolution {NavySpeak} is that each term in that total derivative tells you how much each variable contributes to the total rate of change.

So returning to our mathematical function of genetic diversity which incorporates the effects of both selection and the processes that increase genetic diversity such as the accumulation of genetic mutations, I think we can safely assume that it is a function with multiple variables, which would make it a prime candidate for partial differentiation. In term, I think we can safely assume that the constituent function for selection also has multiple variables and can itself be decomposed into partial derivatives -- those multiple variables would express selection under different conditions, such as during speciation as opposed to during stasis as opposed to normal tracking of a changing environment. The partial derivative for mutation may well prove to be much simpler and nearly constant.

The bottom line is that the none of the processes involved does turn off or on, but rather each process is at work continually. It is not a simplistic either/or situation, but rather one in which one process contribute more or less than the others under certain circumstances and, as those circumstances change ever so slightly, then so do the contributions of each process.

It is a complex interplay which can quickly outstrip the human mind's ability to imagine it. The human ability to imagine how something works is very remarkable, albeit limited. My own ability is fairly strong; coupled with my mechanical aptitude, I frequently observe a system in operation and start to analyze how it works. At a multi-day campout which started with the moon being up and spoiling our star-gazing, I visualized in my mind, coupled with some vary basic calculations based on the moon's roughly 28-day orbit, how the moon would be rising about 45 minutes later each night, and thus determined that we would have a good window of opportunity for star-gazing on the last night before the moon could rise and spoil the party.

But our ability to imagine things is limited -- a fact which you have failed to learn in your own failed geological thought experiments. In one of his most misquoted statements, Darwin described the evolution of complex organs such as the eye as being beyond human imagination, but -- he continues, which creationists always leave out in misquoting him -- if you apply reason then we can work out how the eye could have evolved. What follows varies from one edition of On the Origin of Species to the next, but he works methodically through example after example of visual organs in then-extant species starting with a photo sensitive cell to one connected to a nerve and so on and so. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins recreated that exercise, I seem to recall in Chapter 3.

Now, for Darwin's work, "reason", let's substitute "math". When I read Dawkins' description of his WEASEL program in Chapter 3, "Accumulating Small Change", of The Blind Watchmaker, I didn't believe it. So, using his description of it as my specification (he did not provide any source listing and I think it was written in BASIC anyway), I wrote a Pascal program to implement it (since rewritten in C). It worked phenomenally, which still made no sense to me. Even with my maybe-better-than-average ability to imagine a solution in my head, I simply could not understand how Dawkins' WEASEL, now my MONKEY, so named as an homage to Eddington's perennial misquote:

quote:
... If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chance of their doing so is decidedly more favourable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel.
(A. S. Eddington. The Nature of the Physical World: The Gifford Lectures, 1927)

The misquote is that creationists (and others) keep misrepresenting it as referring to the probabilities of evolution, whereas in fact he was talking about thermodynamics, as in the probability that the random motion of a gas in a container could ever result in all the molecules having moved to one side of the container -- see Infinite monkey theorem.

Because I simply could not imagine how my own MONKEY program could produce such results, I analyzed it mathematically. It was only then that I could finally understand it. Human imagination had failed me completely, but it was mathematics which showed me the truth of what was happening.

Faith, on this point, your imagination has failed you. It is time to turn to reasoning and then to mathematics. Figures don't lie, although liars can figure.


The ultimate solution with WEASEL and MONKEY lies completely in the probability models used.

My apologies, but I am decades out or practice with the academic definitions. Most probability models are based on "this happening AND this happening AND this happening AND ... ". For example, assuming a fair coin (normally impossible since heads is usually ever so slightly heavier) such that heads would have a probability of 0.5 (50%), what is the probability of tossing 10 heads in a row? That would be the product of the probability of each and every independent event, which in this case would be 0.510, which would be 0.0009765625 or 9.765625×10-4. 100 times in a row would be 0.510, which would be about 7.89×10-31. Practically all creationist probability arguments follow this model.

The problem with creationist probability arguments is that they have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution nor with how it works -- the latter being the far stronger argument.

Let's return to that coin toss sequence. One coin, one thumb, one single series of attempts. Now let's look at how evolution would need to work. One population. Multiple members of that populations, hence multiple parents and multiple sets of progeny. Immediately, we see the typical creationist format providing only one single path, whereas in reality life itself follows multiple parallel paths. So instead of ANDing (Boolean multiplication, BTW) each step, we need to be ORing (Boolean addition, BTW) each step.

I explain all this in my analysis of MONKEY, MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS) -- I have been informed of an error therein: in calculating the Markovian chain probabilities for each step of a given scenario, I was off by one iteration. When you open the page, search for "de Morgan Theorem". As part of my training as a computer electronics technician, I was taught Boolean algebra, which was later supplemented by a university electrical engineering course in logic design. "De-Morganizing" a circuit or Boolean expression was an every-day skill for us.

Here is the section on Wikipedia about the engineering use of de Morgan's Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws#Engineering. Basically, to de-Morganize a Boolean expression, you invert all the Boolean variables and replace the ANDs with ORs and the ORs with ANDs.

Here is how I applied that to the probability model. Please note that for every probability, P, of something happening, there is also the probability, Q, of it not happening, such that Q = (1.0 - P) -- BTW, probability values range from 0 (absolute impossibility) to 1.0 (absolute certainty).

Now, here is the bottom line from MPROBS and the ultimate reason why both MONKEY and WEASEL succeed so inevitably. For MONKEY to fail, it would require every single parallel path to fail. When we work out the probabilities of that happening, such complete and utter failure is so small as to be deemed "virtually impossible", which by inversion ( P = (1 - Q) ) , renders the probability of success virtually inevitable.

I could not ever have possibly imagined that outcome! But the mathematics shows it to be virtually inevitable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 1:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 6:40 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 237 of 712 (816829)
08-11-2017 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by dwise1
08-11-2017 3:31 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
I saw a demonstration of Dawkins' silly little program years ago and realized that it assumes the same linear development I'm objecting to here, and I suppose your version does also. It's very cute and it's fun to watch it do its thing, but it doesn't take into account the FACT that to get a new variety or species requires the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by dwise1, posted 08-11-2017 3:31 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2017 2:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 369 by dwise1, posted 08-15-2017 3:29 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 238 of 712 (816832)
08-11-2017 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Taq
08-11-2017 3:13 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
New mutations produce new phenotypes. New phenotypes are selected for. New mutations produce new phenotypes. New phenotypes are selected for. New mutations produce new phenotypes. New phenotypes are selected for.
IT NEVER STOPS. IT KEEPS GOING

We could argue about how frequently mutations produce new phenotypes -- it's not as often as you are implying -- but that would be off the point. The point is that when the new phenotypes are selected for and form a new population, over time they replace the unselected phenotypes throughout the population and that makes for a loss of genetic diversity in this new population.

Another way to talk about genetic diversity is in terms of heterozygosity. You get increasing homozygosity for the selected traits in a new population that becomes a new variety or species. This is a general trend. At the extreme, as in old fashioned domestic breeding to get a pure breed, your purebred animal will have a great number of fixed loci for the salient traits of the breed.

This is what must also happen in nature though not as cleanly and rapidly. If you are getting migrations of portions of a main population to new territory where they become isolated and inbred over a number of generations. This is a form of selection. You are isolating a small portion of the gene pool of the parent population which produces a new set of gene frequencies from the parent population. The smaller the daughter population the more effect this will have on the development of its new trait picture because the gene frequencies will be more dramatically different from the parent population.

This must be what happens in a ring species. The second species in the ring would start with a relatively small number of individuals from the original species, and over a number of generations in isolation it develops a whole new look from the original. New coloring for the salamander species in California, new plumage and song for the greenish warblers, new markings for the seagulls that ring the Atlantic, and I'm not sure how the chipmunks of the Sierra vary but they too form a ring species around the mountains.

The third species in the ring develops from a small number of individuals from the second, and so on around the ring, each new species of necessity losing the genetic material for earlier phenotypes as new ones become prominent. After a number of such population splits, each losing some genetic material present in the former, the last in the ring should be fairly genetically depleted. Of course in reality there are going to be hybrid zones or continued or resumed gene flow between populations, so it's not going to be this streamlined, but the principle should be recognizable nevertheless.

What happens with a Founder population, one that develops from very very few individuals, is an extreme of what I'm talking about. That's how the cheetah formed, and the elephant seals. It's really just a more drastic way to form a new species though in this fallen world it compromises the health of the animal. In the ideal world God originally made all such new species would be healthy, but I digress.

Founder Effect is just an extreme of what I'm talking about. The more individuals that found a new population the less obvious both the phenotypic changes and the genetic loss will be, but it should still be the trend nevertheless.

Evo thinking has assumed that evolution takes a long time, but in reality it doesn't. This is demonstrated by such examples as the Pod Mrcaru lizards which were discussed here a few years ago, and the Jutland cattle somebody also brought up on that same thread.

Ten lizards, five male and five female, were introduced onto an island and left to their own devices. Thirty years later they were found to have become numerous and to have developed a completely new morphology: a very large head and jaw, and a new diet of much tougher food than the original population ate -- but not because the same food was not present in their new location, just because their laws were now suited to the tougher stuff. This was regarded as showing an unusually high rate of evolution, but it's exactly what I think we should expect. It doesn't take many generations to produce a new species or race or variety starting from a small number of individuals. The number could have been larger and would still have produced some noticeable changes in the total population over thirty years, perhaps not the same changes.

The cattle example as I recall was a case of accidental separation of four different groups from the parent population, each of which developed a brand new strikingly different appearance after only a few years in isolation. That's because the ToE is wrong: evolution does not take a long time, all it takes is the normal sexual recombination of a new set of gene frequencies over whatever number of years needed to blend them all together.

There is no reason to assume mutations had anything to do with these changes, but the processes involved would be the same with or without them. The original alleles would be quite enough to produce the observed changes.

Surely there can be no argument that in these cases there had to have been greately reduced genetic diversity in each new population in relation to the parent population, because that's the inevitable situation with the founding of a new population from a small number of individuals.

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 235 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 3:13 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2017 2:56 AM Faith has responded
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 10:46 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12988
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 239 of 712 (816844)
08-12-2017 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
08-11-2017 6:40 PM


Faith gets it wrong again
quote:

...it doesn't take into account the FACT that to get a new variety or species requires the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes.

Really ? The weasel program uses very heavy selection. The original sentence is lost. Each selective step cause the loss of considerable amounts of variation. How can you possibly have missed that ?

Of course the weasel only considers asexual reproduction and when you start with only a single organism you don't have any variation to start with. But then that is actually done with experiments with bacteria (including demonstrations of the evolution of antibiotic resistance)

Of course it destroys your assertion that the loss of variation must end evolution, but it's hardly the first time that has been disproved. So why get upset about it ? Especially when it is in a book published decades ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 6:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 08-12-2017 3:27 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12988
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 240 of 712 (816845)
08-12-2017 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
08-11-2017 7:17 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
quote:

The point is that when the new phenotypes are selected for and form a new population, over time they replace the unselected phenotypes throughout the population and that makes for a loss of genetic diversity in this new population.

And that point has been accepted all through this long, long discussion. You need to actually deal with the disagreements if you want to get any further.

quote:

Evo thinking has assumed that evolution takes a long time, but in reality it doesn't. This is demonstrated by such examples as the Pod Mrcaru lizards which were discussed here a few years ago, and the Jutland cattle somebody also brought up on that same thread.

Funny then, that you condemn Punctuated Equilibria when rapid speciation is one of the major points of it.

I will, however, point out the following facts that undermine your claim:

1) The Pod Mrcau lizards are a very unusual case. Taking such cases as typical is an obvious mistake

2) We do not know the basis of the phenotypic changes in the lizards - it may be partly (or even wholly) an environmental response which would be much quicker.

3) We do not know if the lizards would interbreed with the ancestral species - and we do know that Jutland cattle CAN interbreed with other cattle. So we cannot say that either represents full speciation.

And, of course, neither deals with the time or conditions for variation to recover (which it is unlikely to do since the populations remain relatively small)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 7:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 08-12-2017 3:48 AM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
48NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017