Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 6:20 PM
355 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, halibut, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, xongsmith (7 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,308 Year: 23,914/21,208 Month: 1,879/2,468 Week: 388/822 Day: 48/66 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5758
59
60616263Next
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 871 of 936 (813745)
06-30-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 869 by Taq
06-30-2017 11:53 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
Then you misread me or I wasn't clear. I mean and always mean that A WHOLE POPULATION of a particular phenotype is produced by selection, not the black fur itself. I've said over and over that it doesn't matter how the genetic diversity is produced, whether by mutation or built in alleles, when you have evolution, meaning the production of a population of new phenotypes, it can only happen by the reduction of genetic diversity. If the mutation for black fur is selected then you have to lose the alleles for light fur.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by Taq, posted 06-30-2017 11:53 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 872 by Taq, posted 06-30-2017 12:06 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 872 of 936 (813748)
06-30-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by Faith
06-30-2017 11:59 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
Faith writes:

I mean and always mean that A WHOLE POPULATION of a particular phenotype is produced by selection, not the black fur itself.

Would you also agree that black fur color was produced by a mutation, and that mutation is beneficial?

I've said over and over that it doesn't matter how the genetic diversity is produced, whether by mutation or built in alleles, when you have evolution, meaning the production of a population of new phenotypes, it can only happen by the reduction of genetic diversity.

At one point there was just brown mice. Due to a mutation, there is now black and brown mice. This is evolution. How is this a reduction in genetic diversity when you go from one phenotype to two phenotypes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 11:59 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 4:43 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 873 of 936 (813799)
06-30-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Taq
06-30-2017 12:06 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
I don't know what to think of the mutation theory. It may be a mutation, but it doesn't matter. Again, it's the selection that reduces the genetic diversity, and it's the selection that creates the new population, or in some cases "species." In the new population there is only the one phenotype.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Taq, posted 06-30-2017 12:06 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by JonF, posted 06-30-2017 5:03 PM Faith has responded
 Message 912 by Taq, posted 07-05-2017 12:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 874 of 936 (813802)
06-30-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by Faith
06-30-2017 4:43 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
It may be a mutation, but it doesn't matter.

It matters. A lot. If it's a mutation your claims about loss of genetic diversity are false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 4:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 875 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 11:21 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 875 of 936 (813817)
06-30-2017 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 874 by JonF
06-30-2017 5:03 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, new species etc. It does NOT matter what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the new gene frequencies form, you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by JonF, posted 06-30-2017 5:03 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2017 3:05 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 877 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 6:44 AM Faith has responded
 Message 913 by Taq, posted 07-05-2017 12:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 876 of 936 (813823)
07-01-2017 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by Faith
06-30-2017 11:21 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
This change only requires the - eventual - replacement of one allele. And the arrival of a number of different alleles for black fur - maintained by natural selection in the regions where it is beneficial - has increased the genetic diversity of the species.

Thus we do not need an ever-declining diversity. A fluctuating diversity, where new alleles are introduced by mutation and eventually replace the "originals" is quite sufficient. And the pocket mice are strong evidence that it is possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 11:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 877 of 936 (813826)
07-01-2017 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by Faith
06-30-2017 11:21 PM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, ...

Still wrong, still invalidated by polyploidy increasing genetic diversity. Still invalidated by actual evolution. Without mutations adding to the genetic diversity selection has nothing to select other than the old phenotypes.

The scientific evolution - not Faitholution - includes mutation and selection in a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Those are four facts that make up the actual real world process of evolution -- it is observed, documented fact.

Denial is delusion.

... It does NOT matter what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the new gene frequencies form, you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species.

The source of genetic diversity is mutations. This gives selection something new to work with to adapt a population to an ecology, something that didn't exist before.

Polyploidy, for example, provides another copy of the genome to mutate and then the organisms have both the original version and the new version. Thus they have more genetic diversity ON THEIR OWN than their parents.

Denial is delusion.

... you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species.

Where do the alleles for larger size come from in Pelycodus Faith? Selection is removing the alleles for the smaller organisms, but where do the larger organisms get the alleles for increased size?

quote:


How has all of Pelycodus jarrovii become larger than all of Pelycodus ralstoni except by the addition of alleles for larger and larger organisms, while selection removes the old alleles for smaller organisms.

Selection removes alleles when there is a choice, and choice is provided by mutations.

Evolution and anagenesis explains this very simply, with no torturous mental fantasy.

Denial is delusion.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by Faith, posted 06-30-2017 11:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 8:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 878 of 936 (813830)
07-01-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 877 by RAZD
07-01-2017 6:44 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
Heritable traits like fur color will never lead to macroevolution. And reduction of genetic diversity is ALWAYS necessary to get a new species, can't happen any other way. Drift also loses genetic diversity to produce its new phenotypes.

Mutations are not needed to produce new varieties, but even if mutation was the cause of a particular change, the same processes have to occur in order to make a species out of it. What has to happen is that an existing or mutated allele or set of alleles for larger size be selected and become characteristic of a new population. And for the larger size to become characteristic, the genetic material for the smaller size will be reduced or lost.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 6:44 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 9:06 AM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 879 of 936 (813835)
07-01-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
07-01-2017 8:37 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
Heritable traits like fur color will never lead to macroevolution. ...

Except when it is cause for a population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one fur color remains in its current ecology and the new fur color moves into a new ecology and starts evolving independently of the original fur color population.

Except when simple size difference causes one population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one size inhabits outer tree branches while the other inhabits a more ground based ecology, foraging and reproducing in those different habitats.

... And reduction of genetic diversity is ALWAYS necessary to get a new species, ...

Totally and utterly falsified by polyploidy, failure to understand this is not a refutation of the facts.

Denial is delusion.

... can't happen any other way. ...

Except when it so obviously does.

Denial is delusion.

... Drift also loses genetic diversity to produce its new phenotypes.

Except when there are prior mutations that provide alternatives and it is this gain in genetic diversity that provides the ability for drift into develop a new phenotype.

Mutations are not needed to produce new varieties, ...

Except when mutations provide the traits for the new varieties, as in the black mice.

Denial is delusion.

... but even if mutation was the cause of a particular change, the same processes have to occur in order to make a species out of it. ...

You mean the division of the population into two independently evolving daughter populations, as in polyploidy species and fossil species like pelycodus, where the opportunity provided by mutation allowed the original population to inhabit a second ecology.

... What has to happen is that an existing or mutated allele or set of alleles for larger size be selected and become characteristic of a new population. ...

That didn't exist in the previous population, so it must be a mutated allele/s that are selected.

... And for the larger size to become characteristic, the genetic material for the smaller size will be reduced or lost.

Because they have been replaced/displaced by the new larger allele that were just gained by mutation. Net change in genetic material hovers around zero in a never ending equilibrium between new and old as new becomes old.

Enjoy

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 8:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:14 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 881 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:19 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 880 of 936 (813838)
07-01-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 879 by RAZD
07-01-2017 9:06 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race, evolution within the Kind, not macroevolution. You get a population of blue wildebeests that split off from the black population; you get a new pattern of colors on the new population of salamanders, new plumage on the new population of green warblers and so on. You do not get macroevolution.

You don't need mutation for adaptations either, just new combinations of existing alleles.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 9:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 882 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 9:43 AM Faith has responded
 Message 915 by Taq, posted 07-05-2017 12:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 881 of 936 (813839)
07-01-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 879 by RAZD
07-01-2017 9:06 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
Polyploidy isn't any different really from any mutation, it doesn't make anything new, in fact it doesn't even make anything as new as a mutation can supposedly make if it codes for a new protein.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 9:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 882 of 936 (813844)
07-01-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 880 by Faith
07-01-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race, evolution within the Kind, not macroevolution. ...

All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race or species, evolution within the Clade, which is the definition of (scientific) macroevolution.

... You get a population of blue wildebeests that split off from the black population; you get a new pattern of colors on the new population of salamanders, new plumage on the new population of green warblers and so on. You do not get macroevolution.

Anagenesis(1) and cladogenesis(1).

Can you tell me what your definition is for macroevolution?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

  1. quote:
    Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic transformation", and in contrast to cladogenesis, is the process in which a species, gradually accumulating change, eventually becomes sufficiently distinct from its ancestral form that it may be labeled a new species (a new form). When this is deemed to occur, no branching or splitting off of new taxa in the lineage is shown in a phylogenetic tree. When no populations of the ancestor species remain the ancestral species can then be considered as being extinct.

  2. quote:
    Cladogenes is is an evolutionary splitting event where a parent species splits into two distinct species, forming a clade.[1]

    To determine whether a speciation event is cladogenesis or anagenesis, researchers may use simulation, evidence from fossils, molecular evidence from the DNA of different living species, or modelling.


Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:52 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 883 of 936 (813845)
07-01-2017 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 882 by RAZD
07-01-2017 9:43 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems. Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind,--- abe: no not ANY change, I mean a new population -- but it can't happen, you run out of genetic diversity at that point.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 882 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 9:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2017 11:26 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 885 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2017 12:27 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 884 of 936 (813855)
07-01-2017 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by Faith
07-01-2017 9:52 AM


Re: Polyploidy -- evolution by doubling the genome
quote:

A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems

That is what you hope however it is obviously not the case.

quote:

Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind

As we see this attempt fails because the whole idea of "the boundary of the Kind" is meaningless. Oh, I suppose we could more accurately phrase it as "evolution which creationists reject" but that is somewhat subjective and not exactly useful to science.

quote:

no not ANY change, I mean a new population -- but it can't happen, you run out of genetic diversity at that point.

That's your opinion but the evidence is still against you. And your opinion hardly outweighs the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 885 of 936 (813861)
07-01-2017 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 883 by Faith
07-01-2017 9:52 AM


Faith: Macroevolution is any new population beyond the boundary of the Kind
A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems ...

Which seems to be your way of "proving" your opinions, semantics and twisted definitions to fit your opinions ...

... Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind ... abe: no not ANY change, I mean a new population ...

So you have: Macroevolution is any new population beyond the boundary of their Kind, yes?

What is "the Kind" and what is the "boundary of the Kind" and how do we identify and find them?

If a new population is descendant from an existing "kind" species, isn't it -- by definition -- a part of that "kind" (and thus cannot be outside the "boundary of the Kind")?

Without knowing this your definition is useless and as arbitrary as your opinion.

Let us talk about dogs for starters, Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species.

Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection of new mutations, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species, because the mutations occur randomly and the only difference is the selection and viability of the populations (artificial selection does not test for survivability in a natural environment because the breeds are kept in protected environments -- this artificially increases the different types that would survive). Some are much more viable than others, especially when the breed is used for specific purposes (eg - sheep herding, fox hunting, etc).

So how big is the "Dog Kind"? We have dogs (all breeds) and wolves (all species) and presumably all other members of Canidae:

quote:
The biological family Canidae /ˈknᵻdiː/ [3] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈknᵻd/, /ˈkeɪnᵻd/).[4]

How do we know if these are "Dog Kind" members?

OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Caniformia:

quote:
Caniformia, or Canoidea (literally "dog-like"), is a suborder within the order Carnivora. They typically possess a long snout and nonretractile claws (in contrast to the cat-like carnivorans, the Feliformia). The Pinnipedia (seals, walruses and sea lions) are also assigned to this group. The center of diversification for Caniformia is North America and northern Eurasia. This contrasts with the feliforms, the center of diversification of which was in Africa and southern Asia.

Caniformia also includes bears and badgers -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too?

How do we know?

Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary?

OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivora:

quote:
Carnivora (/kɑːrˈnɪvərə/;[3][4] from Latin carō (stem carn-) "flesh" and vorāre "to devour") is a diverse scrotiferan order that includes over 280 species of placental mammals. Its members are formally referred to as carnivorans, whereas the word "carnivore" (often popularly applied to members of this group) can refer to any meat-eating organism. Carnivorans are the most diverse in size of any mammalian order, ranging from the least weasel (Mustela nivalis), at as little as 25 g (0.88 oz) and 11 cm (4.3 in), to the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which can weigh up to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), to the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina), whose adult males weigh up to 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) and measure up to 6.9 m (23 ft) in length.

Some carnivorans, such as cats and pinnipeds, depend entirely on meat for their nutrition. Others, such as raccoons and bears, depending on the local habitat, are more omnivorous: the giant panda is almost exclusively a herbivore, but will take fish, eggs and insects, while the polar bear subsists mainly on seals. Carnivorans have teeth and claws adapted for catching and eating other animals. Many hunt in packs and are social animals, giving them an advantage over larger prey.


Carnivora also includes cats and other members of Feliforma (jackals, mongoose, etc) -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too?

How do we know?

Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary?

OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivoramorpha:

quote:
Classification and phylogeny
  • Clade Carnivoramorpha

    • Superfamily Miacoidea

      • Family Miacidae
        • genera: Chailicyon, Eostictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaemus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon

      • Family Viverravidae
        • genera: Bryanictis, Didymictis, Ictidopappus, Mustelodon, Pristinictis, Protictis, Raphictis, Simpsonictis, Viverravus

    • Order Carnivora
      • Superfamily Caniformia or Canoidea
      • Superfamily Feliformia or Feloidea

Carnivoramorpha also includes the (extinct) Miacoidea -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too?

How do we know?

Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary?

Before we can say that something has evolved outside the "boundary of the Kind" don't we have to know what that boundary is and how we can test species against that boundary?

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 9:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 886 by Faith, posted 07-01-2017 12:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5758
59
60616263Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017