Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 1:20 AM
331 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 328 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,043 Year: 28,649/21,208 Month: 715/1,847 Week: 90/475 Day: 0/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
55565758
59
60Next
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Percy
Member
Posts: 16296
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 871 of 893 (818333)
08-27-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 867 by Faith
08-26-2017 11:02 PM


Re: Sumry uv the weirdness
Faith writes:

EvC is obviously some kind of alternative universe.

EvC is just like all the other science sites out there, dedicated to following the evidence where it leads, a conviction foreign to you. Probably the only reason you're here is because the dark background is easy on your eyes.

Nothing here makes sense, nobody makes sense, what people say about me would be funny if it weren't so bizarre.

Actually, it would be funny if you weren't so loony. Explain to us how it makes sense that you can invent your own word definitions, that you can use words that have no definition, that you can make up numbers out of thin air (95% of genomes used to be functional), that you can make up facts out of thin air (ancient animals had far more traits than they do today; most species today are not species but are subspecies). That's not sense, that's delusion. And asking people to join you in your delusions is just ludicrous.

In any case I'm no longer discussing anything with people who insult me in such bizarre ways with such a strange lack of understanding of the argument.

We *do* understand your arguments and can see that they have no evidence and make no sense. That's why we so emphatically reject them

You've threatened to leave uncountable times, and yet you're still here.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by Faith, posted 08-26-2017 11:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26702
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 872 of 893 (818344)
08-27-2017 10:42 AM


Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
What is being called ignorance on my part is really disagreement. You all like to think it's ignorance to object to the ToE. And when you disagree with a theory, when you subscribe to a different paradigm about scientific things, there's no way to avoid defining things differently. I do try to be clear and for the most part I do think I succeed but obviously not well enough for some people who just don't want to consider a different way of looking at things.

I'm not ignorant of the idea of speciation, I don't think what's called by that name is rightly called by that name. And what I've written about it that Percy called nonsensical isn't nonsensical at all, it's just Percy's difficulty reading simple English, or his determination not to understand. I believe I've given evidence for this thought in examples of animals in the wild that have no problem interbreeding but are related to each other about the same as dog breeds are related to each other, which also can interbreed.

Domestic breeding is a good model for what happens in evolution, especially loss of genetic diversity from population to population but also even in its lack of "speciation."

I'm not ignorant of the idea of environment-driven adaptation, I just have the chutzpah to think adaptation is usually genetically driven and I think the Pod Mrcaru lizards are one piece of evidence of that.

I'm not ignorant of the idea of fitness-driven evolution either, I just think it doesn't happen much.

I'm not ignorant of fossil evidence for evolution from species to species but the fact that trilobites and coelacanths exist in so many adjacent supposed "time periods" while reptiles and mammals were buried only one "time period" apart, is evidence against it. Not to mention that microevolution occurs in observable time, making millions of years utterly ridiculous. And of course the mere fact of sedimentary layers containing fossils is itself evidence against time periods and for the Flood.

I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases, and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA.

I'm not threatening to leave, I'm just not going to read insulting posts any more.

Cheers

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2017 12:21 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 874 by Percy, posted 08-27-2017 2:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 875 by JonF, posted 08-27-2017 3:50 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 877 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 1:20 PM Faith has responded

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


Message 873 of 893 (818352)
08-27-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Faith
08-27-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
quote:

What is being called ignorance on my part is really disagreement.

There is no doubt that there is real ignorance on your part.

quote:

Domestic breeding is a good model for what happens in evolution, especially loss of genetic diversity from population to population but also even in its lack of "speciation."

It's funny that you seem think that inaccuracy is a virtue. Since your overall loss of genetic diversity is not supported by the evidence and speciation certainly is I don't see how those features can be considered as anything other than differences which make breeding a poor model. Especially as those differences can be attributed directly to differences in the processes.

Indeed, the success is f breeding shows the scale of diversity that a species may hold and still retain a recognisable form instead of your "motley collection", which calls your assertion of inevitable decline in diversity into severe doubt, and falsifies your assertion that adding diversity following speciation must - somehow - prevent the species from retaining a distinctive form.

quote:

I'm not ignorant of the idea of environment-driven adaptation, I just have the chutzpah to think adaptation is usually genetically driven and I think the Pod Mrcaru lizards are one piece of evidence of that.

I'm not ignorant of the idea of fitness-driven evolution either, I just think it doesn't happen much.


Adaption is obviously not going to be driven by drift. Pure chance will not favour increased fitness while natural selection obviously will. At best you are ignorantly misusing terminology so nobody can understand what you mean, or at worst you are talking complete nonsense.

quote:

I'm not ignorant of fossil evidence for evolution from species to species but the fact that trilobites and coelacanths exist in so many adjacent supposed "time periods" while reptiles and mammals were buried only one "time period" apart, is evidence against it.

This is a quite bizarre claim and more evidence of ignorance. But feel free to extend it to an argument if you can avoid silliness like blasting scientists for daring to discover the great variety of trilobite species.

quote:

I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases, and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA.

Since reality rarely restricts itself to what you think necessary and this "original design" is purely hypothetical - and advantageous mutations are fact that really isn't much of an argument.

As I said before there is nothing strange in the failure of your arguments. The really bizarre thing is that you expect to convince anyone with arguments that have quite clearly been defeated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 10:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16296
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 874 of 893 (818361)
08-27-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Faith
08-27-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
Faith writes:

What is being called ignorance on my part is really disagreement.

No, we've only called you ignorant when you've made pronouncements about things of which you were obviously ignorant. Usually it's willful ignorance, things about which you know evidence exists (because we've told you), you've just decided to ignore it.

You all like to think it's ignorance to object to the ToE.

But I don't think anyone here blames people for being ignorant about the theory of evolution. Everybody's ignorant of a great deal. It's more the kind of willful ignorance you demonstrate that we object to, things like (sic) "I don't accept your evidence, I'm not giving my reasons, and if you don't like it you can go fly a kite."

And when you disagree with a theory, when you subscribe to a different paradigm about scientific things, there's no way to avoid defining things differently.

You're still making a case for making up your own definitions? You are perverse.

You do not have a different paradigm. You don't even have anything that makes sense.

I do try to be clear and for the most part I do think I succeed but obviously not well enough for some people who just don't want to consider a different way of looking at things.

What is clear is how and how often you are wrong, often declaring things that stand in stark contradiction to the facts.

I'm not ignorant of the idea of speciation, I don't think what's called by that name is rightly called by that name.

Don't be idiotic. Speciation already has a definition. If you'd like introduce your own type of speciation into the discussion then it's easy to come up with your own term - you can call it "Faith speciation." What you can't do is go assign speciation a different definition.

And what I've written about it that Percy called nonsensical isn't nonsensical at all, it's just Percy's difficulty reading simple English, or his determination not to understand. I believe I've given evidence for this thought in examples of animals in the wild that have no problem interbreeding but are related to each other about the same as dog breeds are related to each other, which also can interbreed.

This has already been thoroughly rebutted. Speciation is a gradual process, because evolution is a gradual process. The differentiation of two populations of a species into separate species is gradual. As the populations become more and more different, gene flow between them becomes less and less possible. While the two populations are sufficiently similar then virile hybrids are possible, but as the populations become more and more different then virile hybrids become less and less likely, and eventually no hybrids are possible at all.

Lions and tigers are phenotypically and genetically very similar, so similar their skeletons cannot be told apart. They can still produce sterile hybrids, and occasionally even virile ones. The existence in nature of species that are still sufficiently similar that they can to some extent interbreed is just what the theory of evolution predicts. It isn't evidence for your silly idea that many species of the world can interbreed, we just don't know it. There has been a great deal of genetic analysis of species like genetic distance and phylogenetics that demonstrate just how different species are.

Domestic breeding is a good model for what happens in evolution, especially loss of genetic diversity from population to population but also even in its lack of "speciation."

You're just again repeating your bald declaration about breeding. Selective breeding of course demonstrates the power of natural selection, and about that we agree. But it ignores mutation and so is not a good example of evolution.

I'm not ignorant of the idea of environment-driven adaptation, I just have the chutzpah to think adaptation is usually genetically driven and I think the Pod Mrcaru lizards are one piece of evidence of that.

Genetically driven adaptation? How would that work, pray tell?

The changes in the Pod Mrcaru lizards were driven by selection pressures from the availability of a different food source (plants rather than insects) resulting in adaptations. About your earlier claim of speciation, genetically the Pod Mrcaru lizards are identical to their parent population on Pod Kopiste and are not different species.

I'm not ignorant of the idea of fitness-driven evolution either, I just think it doesn't happen much.

How is "fitness-driven evolution" different from "environment-driven adaptation"? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

In any case, selection, environment, fitness and adaptation are just different parts of the same process. Selection of the most fit for an environment gradually produces adaptations that improve fitness.

'm not ignorant of fossil evidence for evolution from species to species but the fact that trilobites and coelacanths exist in so many adjacent supposed "time periods" while reptiles and mammals were buried only one "time period" apart, is evidence against it.

You say too little here to recognize any argument. How does the time distribution of trilobites and coelacanths versus reptiles and mammals in the fossil record argue against evolution?

Not to mention that microevolution occurs in observable time, making millions of years utterly ridiculous.

Another argument that makes no sense. The effects of microevolution that occur in every generation accumulate gradually over time into the effects of macroevolution. There is nothing in that that places a limit on the amount of time. By what logic and rationale do you conclude that it makes "millions of years utterly ridiculous"?

And of course the mere fact of sedimentary layers containing fossils is itself evidence against time periods and for the Flood.

Yet another argument that makes no sense, but not the topic of this thread.

I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases,...

Once again you've stated a position with no evidence or reasoning. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. Selection tends to remove deleterious mutations from a population, neutral mutations propagate through a population by drift, and beneficial mutations are positively selected for and can propagate rapidly through a population.

...and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA.

Where is the evidence for this "elegant original design of DNA"? Why are you ignoring the evidence from ancient DNA that says that DNA then was pretty much like DNA now?

I'm not threatening to leave, I'm just not going to read insulting posts any more.

What you really mean is that you're going to ignore counterarguments and counterevidence and just keep repeating your unsupported claims over and over again, which is all you did in your message. Everything you claimed has already been rebutted in posts that you didn't reply to.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 10:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:14 PM Percy has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3998
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 875 of 893 (818370)
08-27-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Faith
08-27-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
You all like to think it's ignorance to object to the ToE.

Definitely untrue. We think it's ignorance to make claims about the real world that are known as false. Such as "mutations aren't required"; you fantasize a incoherent hypothesis that is soundly refuted. And you ignore the refutations.

ETA such as the "elegant original design of DNA". You made it up from nothing, with no evidence at all, and all you offer is more accusations and wild claims.

You certainly come across as a person with no understanding as evidence. You seem unable to distinguish between objective facts and your fantasies. I hope you aren't really like that, but I certainly suspect you are.

(Cue flounce in 3 - 2 - 1...)

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 10:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 876 of 893 (818422)
08-28-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
08-25-2017 10:00 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:

The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.

You are claiming that selection will lead to a population that is homozygous for the allele A. I have already shown that mutations can produce allele B which is then selected for. Over time, this results in the population going from homozygous A, heterozygous AB, and the homozygous B. Once you have homozygous B, a mutation can occur to produce C, and the process repeats.

It is logically unimpeachable that this process can continue and continue and continue. Evolution never stops.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 08-25-2017 10:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:44 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 877 of 893 (818437)
08-28-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Faith
08-27-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
Faith writes:

And when you disagree with a theory, when you subscribe to a different paradigm about scientific things, there's no way to avoid defining things differently.

The problem is that you are denying facts, such as the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity.

I'm not ignorant of fossil evidence for evolution from species to species but the fact that trilobites and coelacanths exist in so many adjacent supposed "time periods" while reptiles and mammals were buried only one "time period" apart, is evidence against it.

Huh? Mammals are found in the same time period as coelacanths, just as both coelacanths and mammals are found now. How in the world does this do away with the fact that transitional fossils exist?

Domestic breeding is a good model for what happens in evolution, especially loss of genetic diversity from population to population but also even in its lack of "speciation."

And once again you ignore the fact of mutations.

I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases, and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA.

It's not necessary to have a diesel engine in a car. Does that mean there are no cars with diesel engines in them?

You still can't understand the difference between necessity and reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Faith, posted 08-27-2017 10:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:45 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26702
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 878 of 893 (818438)
08-28-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by Taq
08-28-2017 11:10 AM


Re: What Really Happens
You are claiming that selection will lead to a population that is homozygous for the allele A. I have already shown that mutations can produce allele B which is then selected for. Over time, this results in the population going from homozygous A, heterozygous AB, and the homozygous B. Once you have homozygous B, a mutation can occur to produce C, and the process repeats.
It is logically unimpeachable that this process can continue and continue and continue. Evolution never stops.

As so often is the case when discussing mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE. Just how much time are you imagining for this scenario to unfold? And have you ever seen it happen anywhere perchance?

Given that it shouldn't take long at all, a matter of years even, to get a new variety or race from a smallish number of founders (Pod Mrcaru), more time of course with a larger founding number but still within a human time frame, what's your estimate how likely it is that your scenario will occur at all in that time period?

Also, you're talking change in ONE allele, so you have to be assuming that particular change is going to make a big difference in the new population? If you have to add other changes in other genes your odds are going to diminish too.

Meanwhile ordinary recombination of a new set of gene frequencies from the genomes of the founders will bring out new characteristics in the new population within years without mutations.

I haven't said such a random selection will produce a homozygous A in one population split though if the numbers are right even that could happen. I'm talking about a trend through a number of population splits that will ULTIMATELY show the loss of genetic diversity that has to occur for the new phenotypes to emerge, because this is the only way you get new phenotypes, which domestic breeding exemplifies. This random selection will in any case change the look of the population for sure just from the new combinations, and over some generations probably will increase the homozygosity in the population. Certainly will in subsequent populations if it's like a ring species that keeps sending out founders for new daughter populations.

Not only are mutations unnecessary to this process but they couldn't possibly occur as needed and their usual effect is destructive anyway rather than beneficial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 11:10 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 881 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 2:09 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 882 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2017 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 883 by JonF, posted 08-28-2017 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 884 by Percy, posted 08-28-2017 3:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26702
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 879 of 893 (818439)
08-28-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by Taq
08-28-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 1:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 2:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 887 by Percy, posted 08-28-2017 5:39 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 880 of 893 (818442)
08-28-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 879 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:45 PM


Re: Sumry uv Sum uv thuh evdince agin thuh ToE
Faith writes:

This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it.

It's the truth, so you avoid it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 881 of 893 (818443)
08-28-2017 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:44 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:

As so often is the case when discussing mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE. Just how much time are you imagining for this scenario to unfold? And have you ever seen it happen anywhere perchance?

We have seen it happen with pocket mice and peppered moths, as has been shown to you many times now. There are also the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, demonstrating that changes to DNA sequences can and are beneficial.

Given that it shouldn't take long at all, a matter of years even, to get a new variety or race from a smallish number of founders (Pod Mrcaru), more time of course with a larger founding number but still within a human time frame, what's your estimate how likely it is that your scenario will occur at all in that time period?

It is already happening:

quote:
Fondon and Gardner hypothesized that repeat length polymorphisms, particularly those occurring in regulatory regions, were an important source of morphologic variation, in part because they occur at a mutation rate 100,000× greater than SNPs [20]. Their contention is supported by a comparison of repeat lengths between humans and dogs at 36 developmentally associated loci, which revealed significant recent changes in the length of the dog alleles. When these same loci were compared amongst dog breeds, five genes exhibited large repeat expansions or contractions. Among the more interesting was a polymorphism observed in Great Pyrenees within the coding sequence of the Alx-4 gene, which is postulated to be responsible for their characteristic rear digit polydactyly [20]. Four Great Pyrenees exhibiting rear digit polydactyly possessed the variant Alx-4 allele, while one Great Pyrenees who lacked rear digit polydactyly did not carry the variant allele [20].
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/j...

Mutations in dog genomes are already producing new genetic diversity and new phenotypes in dog breeds.

Also, you're talking change in ONE allele, so you have to be assuming that particular change is going to make a big difference in the new population? If you have to add other changes in other genes your odds are going to diminish too.

We can directly observe that mutations happen in all genes. No assumption needed.

I'm talking about a trend through a number of population splits that will ULTIMATELY show the loss of genetic diversity that has to occur for the new phenotypes to emerge, because this is the only way you get new phenotypes, which domestic breeding exemplifies.

You are changing your story again. You are saying that once a gene reaches a homozygous state that evolution will stop. This is false. New mutations in that homozygous gene will increase genetic diversity and keep evolution going.

Not only are mutations unnecessary to this process but they couldn't possibly occur as needed and their usual effect is destructive anyway rather than beneficial.

We need to see evidence for these claims. Mere assertions aren't going to cut it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 882 of 893 (818444)
08-28-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:44 PM


Re: What Really Happens
quote:

As so often is the case when discussing mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE.

Of course it is only necessary that mutations occur, which hardly seems to merit that description.

quote:

Also, you're talking change in ONE allele, so you have to be assuming that particular change is going to make a big difference in the new population? If you have to add other changes in other genes your odds are going to diminish too.

No such assumption is necessary.

quote:

Meanwhile ordinary recombination of a new set of gene frequencies from the genomes of the founders will bring out new characteristics in the new population within years without mutations.

And how is that relevant ? The point is that evolution will not stop as you claim. How does this assertion address the issue ?

quote:

Not only are mutations unnecessary to this process but they couldn't possibly occur as needed and their usual effect is destructive anyway rather than beneficial.

Mutations are necessary to keep evolution going. If you deny that then you are just denying the argument Taq set out to disprove. Happening "as needed" is happening at all - and we know that they do happen. Even the assertion that most are deleterious (which would need support even if it is restricted to mutations with phenotypic effects) isn't sufficient to answer Taq's argument.

Given that it's not even the first time that this refutation has been offered the fact that you can't adequately rebut it - or even construct a rational argument against it - shows that you are simply clinging to a failed argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3998
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 883 of 893 (818446)
08-28-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:44 PM


Re: What Really Happens
mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE.

Actually mostly they don't come along at the right time. About 99% of all the species that ever lived are extinct. They sure wouldn't agree mutations come along at the right time. Obviously that's difficult to measure but it is definitely a very high percentage.

You are only seeing the winners. It's exactly the same as surveying lottery winners and expressing surprise that every one of them won a lottery!

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16296
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 884 of 893 (818447)
08-28-2017 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2017 1:44 PM


Re: What Really Happens
Faith writes:

As so often is the case when discussing mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE.

Taq did not make it sound like mutations "come along exactly as needed," and they don't do that. If mutations occurred as needed there would never be extinction. What has been said over and over and over again is that mutations occur randomly, and that they are random regarding fitness. Nothing like your claim has ever been said or implied.

Plus a mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to reach fixation (AB => BB). Neutral and mildly deleterious mutations become fixated in populations all the time.

Just how much time are you imagining for this scenario to unfold?

For how often mutations occur we've often used the example of humans, which have around 60 mutations per individual. Maybe somebody else can tell you how often they occur in a coding region and how often they are mildly deleterious versus neutral versus beneficial.

How long it takes for fixation depends upon selection pressures, size of the population, and generation times.

And have you ever seen it happen anywhere perchance?

Given mutation rates, mutations occur in all individuals in every generation almost without exception. And our examination of genomes reveals that fixation happens all time time (and you agree that fixation occurs anyway). So of course mutation followed by fixation must happen all the time.

Given that it shouldn't take long at all, a matter of years even, to get a new variety or race from a smallish number of founders (Pod Mrcaru), more time of course with a larger founding number but still within a human time frame, what's your estimate how likely it is that your scenario will occur at all in that time period?

Taq's example was of a single allele mutating into two alleles and then becoming fixated into one. Mutations happen in every reproductive event, so there need be no waiting for a mutation. According to the Widipedia article on fixation:

quote:
Kimura and Ohta (1969) showed that a new mutation that eventually fixes will spend an average of 4Ne generations as a polymorphism in the population. Average time to fixation Ne is the effective population size, the number of individuals in an idealised population under genetic drift required to produce an equivalent amount of genetic diversity.

The definition of Ne is a little hard to follow, maybe Taq can explain it better.

Also, you're talking change in ONE allele, so you have to be assuming that particular change is going to make a big difference in the new population? If you have to add other changes in other genes your odds are going to diminish too.

You're getting the arguments confused. Here's Taq's original example from Message 815:

Taq in Message 815 writes:


Start -Mutation---Selection-----Middle-----Selection------End
allele: AA AB BB

It was a rebuttal to your claim that evolution halts once a population is homozygous (AA). It wasn't a claim that a single allele change can "make a big difference in the new population." It wasn't even talking about new populations, just your claim about evolution halting with homozygosity.

Meanwhile ordinary recombination of a new set of gene frequencies from the genomes of the founders will bring out new characteristics in the new population within years without mutations.

Again (and again and again), we do not disagree about selective breeding and the ability of phenotypes to change without speciation.

I'm talking about a trend through a number of population splits that will ULTIMATELY show the loss of genetic diversity that has to occur for the new phenotypes to emerge, because this is the only way you get new phenotypes, which domestic breeding exemplifies.

One more time, we do not disagree about selective breeding. But without mutation you cannot produce a new species. And as people keep asking you in various ways, how is it that you don't understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency. Mutations are sufficient to produce phenotypic change, they aren't necessary. But mutations are necessary for speciation.

Not only are mutations unnecessary to this process but they couldn't possibly occur as needed and their usual effect is destructive anyway rather than beneficial.

You're just repeating yourself. Mutations are unnecessary for anything analogous to selective breeding, but they are essential for speciation. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. Deleterious mutations tend to get selected out of a population, neutral mutations will drift, and beneficial mutations will tend to get selected for.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : mutaion => speciation in last paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 885 of 893 (818448)
08-28-2017 4:16 PM


Modern dog breeds required mutations
As it turns out, the different types of coats in some dog breeds required mutations.

Picture found here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure?id=10...

"Figure 4. Coat variation in the dog.
Coat texture and length are features that distinguish between breeds and between varieties of the same breed [16]. Clockwise from the left are shown the Vizsla with a short, straight coat. These dogs and others like them have wild-type alleles for the three critical genes controlling coat texture, length, and curl, which are RSPO-2, FGF5, and KRT71, respectively. The giant Schnauzer displays the eyebrows and moustache characteristic of the trait called “furnishings” and carries the variant form of RSPO-2. Dogs with furnishings usually exhibit wiry coats as well. The Cocker spaniel has long straight hair, demonstrating the variant form of FGF5, but wild-type alleles at other loci. The Bichon frise has variant alleles at all three critical loci, RSPO-2, FGF5, and KRT71, and displays a coat that is long, curly, and with furnishings. (Image: Giant schnauzer and Bichon frise pictures provided by Mary Bloom, American Kennel Club.)"
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/j...

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 886 by Percy, posted 08-28-2017 5:03 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 889 by Faith, posted 08-29-2017 10:24 PM Taq has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
55565758
59
60Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017