Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 661 of 908 (817922)
08-21-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
08-21-2017 3:31 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
As usual you ignore the point. And you are wrong in a very significant way. Because variety is added evolution can produce more new species - with a far greater array of differences than it could without.
Yes, you need selection to get from variation to a distinct new phenotype - but you can't have selection without variation - which you can hardly deny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 3:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:21 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 662 of 908 (817926)
08-21-2017 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
08-21-2017 3:31 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Faith writes:
Add all you want, that won't get you a new variety or species. You still have to subtract to get that.
This is just an empty redeclaration of your position, and it is wrong. It is obvious that the species in the world today are genetically distinct, most to the point of reproductive incompatibility. Being genetically distinct from one another is one of the primary observed qualities of existing species. Since adding new genes and alleles to a daughter population would make it genetically distinct, that is what you need to do to create a genetically new species.
A population with reduced genetic diversity would possess all the genes and alleles already present in the parent population. It could never be genetically distinct from the parent population.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 3:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 663 of 908 (817927)
08-21-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 660 by Faith
08-21-2017 3:49 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Faith writes:
I'm going to be continuing to watch the videos on population genetics so maybe eventually I can give you some math. But it will be a while.
I think rereading HBD's posts will go a much longer way toward understanding what he is saying than watching population genetics videos, but anyway, which videos are you watching?
Meanwhile you've got a clone in your example? How much genetic variability did you have to lose to get that?
That's the whole point of HBD's RIL example, to eliminate as much genetic variability as possible in as few a number of generations as possible, far faster than breeders or daughter populations in the wild. And yet despite RIL's extreme loss of genetic diversity, no speciation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 3:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 6:27 PM Percy has replied
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 6:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 664 of 908 (817928)
08-21-2017 4:55 PM


Faith, what you would have us believe is that there is less genetic diversity in each and all of the species on the right of this chart than there was in the original ancestral primate population.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 6:22 PM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 665 of 908 (817930)
08-21-2017 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by Coyote
08-21-2017 4:55 PM


It's hard to read your white chart. But from what you said my answer is that there should be less genetic diversity down any evolved line from the first population in the line, and of course humans are not primates, they are humans so there is no evolved line in that case to think about, only in a numan line from the ark to the present or any known level of genetic diversity in any population in an evolving line to the present. keeping in mind that added genetic diversity from gene flow of any kind including mutations will change the percentages.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2017 4:55 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2017 7:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 666 of 908 (817931)
08-21-2017 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by Percy
08-21-2017 4:53 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
I'm coming to the conclusion that nobody knows what brings about speciation, defined as inability to breed with former populations or other populations of the same species. If severe reduction in genetic diversity doesn't, then although I think that must be the actual genetic situation in most supposedly new species, or at least clearly reduced genetic diversity compared to the parent population, something else must bring it about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by Percy, posted 08-21-2017 4:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Percy, posted 08-21-2017 9:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 667 of 908 (817932)
08-21-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by Percy
08-21-2017 4:53 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Which videos: I'm skipping around in those listed at You Tube on the search term "Basic Population Genetics" The first short one is quite informative but I'm going to need to hear it again and take notes. The long one by Jorde is full of Evo assumptions that are driving me crazy but I hope to get through it eventually.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by Percy, posted 08-21-2017 4:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 668 of 908 (817933)
08-21-2017 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 665 by Faith
08-21-2017 6:22 PM


It's hard to read your white chart.
Sorry about the chart, but I was looking for one with a large range of species descended from original primates, and that's what I could find.
But from what you said my answer is that there should be less genetic diversity down any evolved line from the first population in the line...
But that's the key to what we have been discussing here--other than a belief in a mythical "fall" there is no reason to assume that there would be less genetic diversity in any particular line than in the original primate group. The genetic diversity within a particular modern species could be more, the same, or less than the original primate group. This depends on a lot of different factors.
...and of course humans are not primates, they are humans so there is no evolved line in that case to think about, only in a numan line from the ark to the present or any known level of genetic diversity in any population in an evolving line to the present.
That is a religious belief not supported by the evidence.
keeping in mind that added genetic diversity from gene flow of any kind including mutations will change the percentages.
Yes! Of course! That is what we have been trying to convey all along.
And in this chart, the broad spectrum of different modern species will have far greater diversity than the single original primate species. That greater diversity came from gene flow, mutations, and all the rest. Further, that greater diversity was not present in the original primate species.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 6:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:04 AM Coyote has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 669 of 908 (817935)
08-21-2017 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by Coyote
08-21-2017 12:08 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Ok. I don't believe the flood was 4500 years ago. I am merely 1 of the millions of old earth creationist and an advocate that everything in scripture is true. Adam and Eve lived probably a couple hundred thousand years ago which is biblical. And the flood would of been somewhere in the range of a 100,000 years ago.The book of nature has just as much to say about God as scripture and the two sources work together to explain our reality.
I will look at your post asap and post in that thread.
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2017 12:08 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 680 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2017 4:20 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 688 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2017 9:11 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 670 of 908 (817937)
08-21-2017 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by herebedragons
08-21-2017 1:21 PM


Re: kinds and clades again
I guess because you didn't realize I went to college, it is valuable insight?? Ty for nothing. 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : Err

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by herebedragons, posted 08-21-2017 1:21 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 671 of 908 (817938)
08-21-2017 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
08-21-2017 6:27 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Faith writes:
I'm coming to the conclusion that nobody knows what brings about speciation,...
You're just repeating your position again, still absent any evidence or argument that can hold water or make sense.
...speciation, defined as inability to breed with...other populations of the same species.
Regarding inability to breed with other populations of the same species, inability to breed is the very definition of different species. If two populations can't interbreed then they're not the same species.
If severe reduction in genetic diversity doesn't, then although I think that must be the actual genetic situation in most supposedly new species, or at least clearly reduced genetic diversity compared to the parent population, something else must bring it about.
Gradually accumulating genetic differences in separated populations is what brings about speciation. This is obvious because genetic distinctness is what defines all the species that exist in the world today. Differing allele frequencies do not define species, different alleles and genes do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 6:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 11:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 672 of 908 (817940)
08-21-2017 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Percy
08-21-2017 9:07 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Gradually accumulating genetic differences in separated populations is what brings about speciation.
Right, so how are those genetic differences accumulated? What brings that about?
My argument accounts for a great deal of genetic difference accumulating between separated populations, but the differences I keep saying accumulate don't do it for you. So please explain how you think they are accumulated.
This is obvious because genetic distinctness is what defines all the species that exist in the world today. Differing allele frequencies do not define species, different alleles and genes do.
Different alleles obviously don't or that would be the case in my scenarios. Different genes -- where do they come from? Do you have even a shred of evidence of different genes occurring and causing speciation?:
If you do, which I strongly doubt, my guess is you're talking about a severely deleterious situation, just another way further evolution becomes impossible and most likely a step on the way to extinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Percy, posted 08-21-2017 9:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 12:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 681 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 7:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 673 of 908 (817941)
08-22-2017 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by Coyote
08-21-2017 7:17 PM


Maybe I'll never be able to prove it, though I think it's obvious from everything I've argued about this. There's nothing "religious" about it at all, it's all about genetics, whether anybody gets it or not. If breeds are developed by losing genetic diversity, so are varieties, races and yes, species. You are all fooling yourselves that genetic diversity has to increase or that it even could increase when selection has to cut it down over and over again to get a population with a new character. The ToE has all of you under a spell, not persuaded by evidence at all, just under a spell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2017 7:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 8:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 674 of 908 (817943)
08-22-2017 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 661 by PaulK
08-21-2017 3:56 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Of course it's true that you don't have selection without variation. My argument is that ultimately you WILL completely run out of variation so there is nothing more to select, which means evolution must stop. That would be the point where there is so much homozygosity you've run out of variation. All of it could be recently accumulated mutations but once they've been reduced to enough homozygosity, end of evolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2017 3:56 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 8:19 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 675 of 908 (817944)
08-22-2017 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Faith
08-21-2017 11:56 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
quote:
Right, so how are those genetic differences accumulated? What brings that about?
By the obvious means, mutation of course. While in principle it is possible for the same mutation to occur in both populations it isn't likely, still less for all of them to occur in both populations.
quote:
My argument accounts for a great deal of genetic difference accumulating between separated populations, but the differences I keep saying accumulate don't do it for you. So please explain how you think they are accumulated.
By only counting loss of alleles, not gain, you are missing the most likely source of genetic incompatibility. Not to mention the effects of chromosomal rearrangements.
It should be obvious that genetic incompatibility within a population is a disadvantage, while genetic incompatibility with a population that is never encountered is not. Thus a gradual accumulation of new variations that maintain compatibility with the local population is the most likely explanation. This is confirmed by the evidence HBD has introduced, showing that simply removing alleles does not produce loss of interfertility as we would expect anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 11:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024