Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 4 of 301 (343545)
08-26-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-26-2006 2:40 AM


Faith writes:
We have our theories but no way to prove them. Mine has been based on the observation that all the processes of evolution -- except mutation -- involve a reduction in genetic diversity
That is exacty right. That is why mutations is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Without mutations, the theory wold make no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 2:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 10:41 AM fallacycop has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 20 of 301 (344285)
08-28-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
08-26-2006 10:41 AM


Faith writes:
Yes, the entire theory of evolution rests on mutation as the driving force. Is it up to its role? Well, considering that MOST observed mutations (as opposed to those simply assumed by the theory to have brought all useful traits into existence) are deleterious or useless, this is debatable.
Off course it is debatable (Everything is). But the fact that most observed mutations are deleterious or neutral does not make mutations insuficient to play the driving force of evolution as long as there some small but non-vanishing set of benefical mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 10:41 AM Faith has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 82 of 301 (345766)
09-01-2006 3:02 PM


What about the topic?
While speciation and bottlenecks are quite interesting topics, can anybody explain me how does that relate to the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
I don't even know what the heck is Macroevolution.
can anybody explain me that?

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Quetzal, posted 09-01-2006 3:20 PM fallacycop has not replied
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 09-01-2006 3:21 PM fallacycop has not replied
 Message 85 by Ben!, posted 09-01-2006 3:21 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 228 of 301 (347286)
09-07-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
09-07-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Is it a mutation?
I keep coming back to that thread to see if anybody is actually talking about macroevolution just to find out that you are still quibling about whether that was a case of benefical mutation or not. How does that connects to the macroevolution discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 09-07-2006 12:09 PM Faith has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 231 of 301 (347304)
09-07-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by NosyNed
09-07-2006 2:11 PM


Re: increasing frequency
Beneficial mutations increase in frequency over time. In this case, the gene has gone from one individual to 33. Beneficial mutations, almost as a rule, don't decrease. If a mutation goes from lots of people, to one person or less, by definition, that's not a beneficial mutation. Selection doesn't select like that.
Faith did point out that there may be very little selection on this allele since it might not affect anyone until after reproductive age.
Also the increase in the number of people carying the gene may reflect nothing more then the increase in overall population that happened last two centuries. I think crashfrog is right to believe that this is a case of benefical mutation but I don't blame Faith for feeling the need for a little more convincing evidence. Unadvertedly, though, Faith is making another point which is that even if it is a true case of benefical mutation, that is not easy to prove. Therefore the fact that not many cases of benefical mutations have been found so far cannot be taken as evidence that they do not exist or are to rare to be relevant, because it is so hard to prove that you have one (even when you are staring at one).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by NosyNed, posted 09-07-2006 2:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 281 of 301 (348016)
09-10-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
09-10-2006 9:37 PM


Re: are bottlenecks tied to speciation?
Faith writes:
You do NOT have data that shows an increase in NUMBERS of alleles in a population after it speciates
I don't understand your reasoning. You have already aknowleged that mutations do happen in real life (or haven't you?). By definition a mutation increases the number of alleles in a population. What is it again you want to see that data for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 09-10-2006 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 09-10-2006 11:50 PM fallacycop has not replied
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 09-10-2006 11:51 PM fallacycop has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 286 of 301 (348025)
09-11-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Faith
09-10-2006 11:51 PM


Re: are bottlenecks tied to speciation?
Why isn't this logical overall decrease as a result of all the splitting and selecting processes even a part of anybody's thinking for that matter? It must be because mutation is so taken for granted it's just figured into the mix AS IF it must be the "driving force of evolution" it is assumed to be.
I still don't understand. We know for a fact that mutations do occur. It seems that you agree with that. But somehow you believe that that might not be enough to increase the number of alleles in a population. How come?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 09-10-2006 11:51 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024