The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

No offense taken. That's part of evolution, just as plummeting to the ground at breakneck speeds is part of parachuting.But focusing on one part does not yield a critique of the whole process. But in order to get a new beak type, or whatever it is, fixed in a subpopulation, a new beak type must first arise. I didn't mean that you were trying to shift what you were saying from post to post; I meant that your argument is inherently shifting from one thing to another and confusing separate issues.

The last sentence of my post, and you quoted it, was, "This is why beak expression is so plastic under the influence of changing environmental pressures." It is "environmental pressures" that are responsible for natural selection. When an individual fails to survive because of insufficient adaptation to the pressures exerted by its environment, then that's natural selection. So to answer your question, it would be wrong to say that natural selection is not a key factor in changing finch beak shapes, and in fact I said the exact opposite.--Percy

Hi, Faith.Thanks for your response. Yeah, that’s right: a trait is fixed when everyone in the population has it, and nobody has something different. For a trait that is decided by one gene, this basically means that there is only one allele for that gene in the entire population.----- I’m not sure I understand what the objection is: isn’t this what we should be doing?I think I personally agree with your oversimplified examples within their limited context. In fact, I’m not sure anybody really disagrees that bottlenecks occur and that they can have major impacts on the future genetic diversity of a population, and that they can and do lead to extinctions.It’s just that you’re not restricting yourself to the limited context in which these simple examples are meaningful: you are extrapolating them to a universal context without incorporating the additional variables that are required to develop an accurate picture of the dynamics at this level.You aren’t saying that genetic bottlenecks can lead to extinction: you are saying that they always do. This is the part of your argument that we disagree with, so naturally, this is the part of your argument that we are going to focus on.----- The only way to make a claim about trends is to compare influx to outflux.But, you have repeatedly brushed off any arguments of ours that attempt to incorporate an influx (i.e. mutations), while maintaining that there is a numerical trend based purely on your observation of the outflux. This is an extremely major inconsistency on your part.Evolution is not only about outflux (elmination of alleles through selection): evolution can only be maintained on the larger scales you’re trying to discuss if it also has influx (mutations). And, there is ample evidence that this influx does occur.For example, here is a paper that used whole-genome sequencing for all individuals of a single nuclear family to estimate the human mutation rate at approximately 60 mutations/individual. If we assume this rate of mutation in some hypothetical population of organisms, natural selection has to whack 60 already-existent mutations from that population every time a new individual is born into that population; otherwise, genetic diversity inexorably increases. That means every new individual born into the population has to die in order to prevent genetic diversity on the scale of the entire genome from increasing!So, even as one allele goes about squelching all of its rivals, genetic diversity at other locations in the genome will be increasing at a very high rate! So, your argument about the dynamics at one locus on the genome cannot really be meaningfully applied to the larger scale considerations of whole-genome and whole-population dynamics. As was pointed out earlier, your extrapolation is a composition fallacy.-----Please, I honestly don’t understand why you are objecting to the tactics we’re using. It seems like our arguments, backed with evidence from actual research and observation, are sufficient to overcome the problem you raise in this thread: doesn’t this mean that we are doing exactly what is required of us to win this debate?Edited by Bluejay, : reworded the part about assuming the mutation rate in the hypothetical populationEdited by Bluejay, : their/there... ughEdited by Bluejay, : A couple rewordings and additions for clarification

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Can we please agree on a few things. Or not. Simple stuff.1) In domestic breeding -- let's stick to dogs -- do you agree that you get and maintain a breed by being sure you breed it with its own type?2) Do you agree that this is to protect the breed's particular allele complement from contamination from alleles of other dog types?3) Do you agree that any dog breed possesses a very limited genetic diversity with respect to the total dog population?4) Do you agree that it is its limited genetic diversity that is the basis for the characteristics of the breed itself and that if there is any increase in the genetic diversity the breed will lose its character at least to some extent?5) Do you agree that Darwin based his natural selection on domestic selection?6) Do you agree that natural selection is the "engine of evolution?"7) Do you agree that the end goal of evolution is speciation or is evolution simply any change at all whether it ever leads to speciation or not?Edited by Faith, : added two questionsEdited by Faith, : to add numbers for future reference if needed

quote:

---

In domestic breeding -- let's stick to dogs -- do you agree that you get and maintain a breed by being sure you breed it with its own type?

​

Do you agree that this is to protect the breed's particular allele complement from contamination from alleles of other dog types?

---

I'll agree with those two.

quote:

---

Do you agree that any dog breed possesses a very limited genetic diversity with respect to the total dog population?

---

I can't agree with that without evidence. THere is no reason why it would have to be the case. There are a lot of genes and relatively few are likely to be involved in the desired traits.

quote:

---

Do you agree that it is its limited genetic diversity that is the basis for the characteristics of the breed itself and that if there is any increase in the genetic diversity the breed will lose its character at least to some extent?

---

I agree that distinctive traits are maintained by fixing some alleles. I can't agree that any increase in genetic diversity would affect the distinctive character of the breed. In fact I cannot imagine why any informed individual would think that. Only mutations that affected the distinctive traits of the breed would have that effect and it would be absurd to say that all mutations would do so.

quote:

---

Do you agree that Darwin based his natural selection on domestic selection?

---

To an extent. In this case I should emphasise that Darwin did not assume that natural selection would typically include the intensive inbreeding used to accelerate the fixation of traits.

quote:

---

Do you agree that natural selection is the "engine of evolution?"

---

I would say that it's more like the steering. Natural selection is what enables adaptive evolution, by providing a degree of direction. Without a source of variation, it will eventually stop.

quote:

---

Do you agree that the end goal of evolution is speciation or is evolution simply any change at all whether it ever leads to speciation or not?

---

Absolutely not. Evolution doesn't have an "end goal" and speciation is not in any way a goal of evolution. (It should also be noted that there is only limited evidence that natural selection directly favours speciation at all, and then only in cases where the populations are actually interbreeding).

Faith, you seem to want to focus on dogs because you feel like you know something about them.But the fact is, a very simple experiment already falsifies your assertions. I'm just going to quote myself:

quote:

---

IF we have a single bacterium, that is a single cell with a single genetic code, then we have zero diversity.

​

Upon allowing that individual cell to multiply into a population of many individuals, variety appears via mutation. In other words, variety spontaneously appears through the process of mutation, even when you bottleneck a population tot he absolute minimum number required to continue reproduction.

​

If you can re-establish genetic variety even after the complete and total removal of all diversity, then your assertion is completely falsified, end of story, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

​

And since that's exactly what we see in often-repeated experiments, you're just wrong, Faith.

---

Respond or don't, Faith, you're still wrong.

Evolution is descent with modification. It may result in speciation, it may not.Most importantly, evolution has no end goal. There is no result that evolution is trying to achieve. And I think this notion may be the crux of the problems in this thread. You seem to want to liken evolution to breeding. While there are some similarities, ultimately the analogy misleads you. Evolution isn't trying to make new species. Evolution is simply a process. Think of the Mississippi River. It flows downhill. At the end, it deposits massive amounts of silt and has gradually built up a delta of deposited material. But you'd never say that the purpose of the river was to deposit that stuff down there. It just happened as a natural result of the river.I think that you somehow have the notion that evolution is trying to make new species, and in order to maintain the integrity of that new species, it has to eliminate the genetic inputs that aren't part of that species, just like a dog breeder. But evolution isn't trying to make new species. New species sometimes happen. But that is simply an artifact of the effort to survive. In the end, that's all that evolution is about, trying to survive.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You are still trying to squish evolution into the confines of intelligent design. Evolution has no end goal. It's not a conscious process. It doesn't have any direction. It doesn't even care if nothing survives. It just happens. It's an inevitable result of how things work when left to themselves.You need to stop thinking of evolution as some kind of conscious entity that has a goal.Do you typically describe a rock sad, angry, happy, or mean? No. It's just a rock. It exists. It's an inanimate object. If it falls off a cliff and hits you, you don't get angry at it. You don't press assault charges on the rock. And yet, it has characteristics that we can easily use to identify it as a type of rock. It has mass. It's made of different kinds of minerals. Sometimes, it has a crystalized structure. By studying it, we can tell how it was formed and how long ago it was formed. We can even tell if it's from this planet or not. Yet, it's still just an inanimate object.Evolution has characteristics that we can study and predict. But to say that it has some kind of end goal is like saying the rock has feelings.

I didn't like the way I worded #7 as it was and you all are making something of it that has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Don't take "goal" so literally, I just couldn't find the best way to express what I'm after.What's wrong with answering all the questions? It would help me understand where we are miscommunicating.I would like to improve the list and try to reword #7 but there's no point if nobody is going to answer them anyway.PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE answer the questions? Subbie, Rahvin, Taz, Bluejay, Dr. A., nwr, RAZD, Percy, Wounded King, and whoever else has posted on the thread plus anyone else who hasn't.But thanks very much to Paul K that he did answer them and if I don't get any more answers, eventually I'll respond to his at least.Edited by Faith, : To add "PLEASE" paragraph.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.You ask if that is how we "get and maintain a breed". That may be how we "maintain" a breed, but it it is not how we get one.See my previous posts.And in fact it's not necessarily how we maintain a breed. Look up cat breeding and the rules for an "American Curl". Again, look up the American Curl. Yes, by definition. Any subset of dogs is less diverse than all dogs. Now you are using weasel words. This seems to me to be the essence of the mess you're making. NO, I would not say anything like that, because it would be grossly deceptive, and I hate deceit.Note that I am not implying that you are insincere in saying so --- just that if I, with my superior knowledge, was to say such a thing, then I would either be lying or insane. No.Darwin used artifical selection as an analogy for natural selection.In any case, who really gives a fuck about what Darwin thought? Your goal is to argue that every biologist living today, right now is wrong about biology. No. In fact, I have often explained the different roles of mutation and selection to people by using the analogy that mutation is the engine --- and selection is the steering wheel. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. Evolution is simply any change whatsoever in the composition of a gene pool. And it has no "end goals". If you wish to talk about speciation, then speciation is what you should actually talk about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Thanks to Dr. A for answering my questions too.I could continue the discussion from this point or I could go back through the posts -- I still haven't read them all -- or I could take up the most recent posts as Percy suggested, or at least the particular two he suggested. I'm trying to take this thread very slowly to keep the frustration level down but I also wanted to get some answers to these questions first, before going back to the posts, hoping I'd have a different way to approach them, to avoid the usual repetitiveness. But it didn't happen that way.I learned a few things about what's happening psychologically on this thread, though, as I skimmed through some of the posts I haven't answered yet. I'd like to say thanks to nwr for his civil and objective way of dealing with this thread, and his comment to that effect in answer to someone here, I forget who, saying he's just responding to what I'm saying, assuming I'm being honest, and not reading ulterior motives into it, and I much appreciate that.It does seem that some others are responding more to their own ideas about my beliefs as a creationist than to what I'm actually arguing, that is, to what they think are my ulterior motives. That does make conversation difficult. I'm not arguing any of this from my creationist presuppositions. If I were I'd have stated them. Of course any argument I make is going to be consistent with them, but I'm arguing honestly, what I say is what I mean -- or at least what I'm TRYING to say is what I mean since I'm probably not saying things as accurately as I'd like. But there's nothing hidden in it that I know of.It would take a LOT of conversation with each individual here to get some of us talking on a level of honest straightforward discussion. It would be great if there were time and opportunity to do that to dispel whatever suspiciousness is skewing the topic. I know I get touchy too and misread people's intentions, Percy's for instance most recently, oh and Dr. A's. I want to keep that to a minimum.I'm going to sleep on it but I think tomorrow I'm going to go read those posts Percy thinks I should have answered next already and try to answer them, hoping it won't just be the same old, then come back to these questions.===============================
OOPS, sorry, I didn't intend this as a reply to you, Dr. A, intended it as a General Reply. Hit the wrong button.Edited by Faith, : To add last statement

I've said it before and I'll say it again, why wouldn't this be a more sensible discussion to have in a great debate with just one or two folk from the evolutionary camp? As it is you are just asking for a hellacious dogpile, to the extent that you seem to have slathered yourself in tasty marrowbone jelly as well.I understand your willingness to take on all comers and I'm sure it says something about your character. But approaching a thread this way just seems to produce an exercise in frustration for everyone involved.You don' t have the time to respond fully to everybody. Any contentious response you make tends to attract multiple replies most of whom will expect a response and since everyone has their own particular approach the whole thread just seems to become chaotic and unfocused switching between microsatellite sequencing in cheetahs, to microbial experiments, to finch beaks and then to dog breeding.*ABE*In fact looking at your new 'rabbit trail' thread proposal maybe what is really needed is several great debates. You could have a bacterial evolution thread, an endangered species/speciation thread and a artificial vs Natural selection thread for all the domestic breeding issues.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Well, this seems strange.You assert that you know all about the evolution of dogs and cats and giraffes and humans, something that you have never observed. And you wish to cry up your "knowledge" as the paradigm for evolution.But there are some cases where we can watch exactly how evolution happens. We have watched evolution in experimental model organisms such as "fruit flies, bacteria, viruses and plants".So you say that there's "no point in using them in this argument", on the grounds that you don't know anything about this.I am at a loss for words. You rule out discussion of all actual observations of evolution simply on the grounds that you yourself don't know anything about these observations. Whereas you assert knowledge about the evolution of giraffes ... when this is something that neither you nor anyone else has ever observed.You rule out as a topic of discussion everything that everyone can watch happening if they take enough trouble. But you assert as a fact something contrary to reason that no-one has ever seen.Do I wake or sleep?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A specialized dog breed where some members breed with the general dog population will tend to lose its unique character and revert, just as you say. But if it maintains its isolation it will still pick up new mutations which will cause it to not only lose its unique character but also become more and more different from the general dog population, which is how speciation eventually happens.As Dr A has explained, any dog breed is still a dog. It possesses a unique subset of dog alleles, and mixing and remixing that allele subset has only limited means of changing the breed to a new species (I know dog breeders want to maintain the breed, but remember that your true focus is on how new species are created, not how they're maintained). Mutations, which are brand new alleles completely unique to dogs, have the potential to change the breed much faster than allele remixing. Mutations are a common component in speciation.By the way, mutations do make contributions to breeding. For example, the dachshund's short legs originated through mutation (Scientists discover secret of why dachshunds have short legs).--Percy

Faith, I previously responded only to question 7 as I felt that was the only question for which I had a helpful response. You then asked that we respond to all the questions, so I'll give it my best shot. In addition, I'll modify my previous answer to 7 in light of your comments. Well, that's certainly not how you get a breed. As far as how you maintained a breed, haven't the foggiest idea. I'm not a dog breeder and I've never looked into it. I am curious about the genesis of your understanding. How many dog breeders have you talked to? Well, since I don't agree that that's what dog breeders do, I'm not particularly inclined to speculate on reasons, but I doubt they use the word "contaminate." Yes. Well, that's two questions asking two very different things. As far as the first part, I don't know. As far as the second part, absolutely not. Genetic diversity is increasing in every breed every day a litter is born. The genetic material from the sire and the bitch recombine in unique ways to create pups. I know you don't want that fact to be the focus in a thread dedicated to the reduction of genetic diversity, but it's a fact nonetheless. Nope. I don't know what you mean by "engine of evolution," so I can't answer that question.If I were to imagine what you might mean, I would suppose that an engine is something that provides impetus to something else, that powers it forward. I might then compare that to the steering wheel, which gives direction to the impetus. If I were to look at it in that way, I would disagree that natural selection is the "engine of evolution." I would instead say that mutations are the engine of evolution and natural selection is the steering wheel.If you are thinking of the engine of evolution in a different way, please explain. My answer might change. Evolution is descent with modification. It may result in speciation, it may not. If you want to talk metaphorically about the end goal of evolution, it is simply survival. It really is very elegant in its simplicity. Each generation, there are more organisms born than can survive to maturity to reproduce. Thus, they are competing with one another for resources. They are also competing with some other organisms for some of the resources. Some of them will be better at competing than others. These better competitors will pass more of their genetic material onto the next generation. Then the whole process starts over again.That's really all there is to it. The rest is just details. The end goal of evolution is survival. It's really that simple.Most importantly, evolution has no end goal. There is no result that evolution is trying to achieve. And I think this notion may be the crux of the problems in this thread. You seem to want to liken evolution to breeding. While there are some similarities, ultimately the analogy misleads you. Evolution isn't trying to make new species. Evolution is simply a process. Think of the Mississippi River. It flows downhill. At the end, it deposits massive amounts of silt and has gradually built up a delta of deposited material. But you'd never say that the purpose of the river was to deposit that stuff down there. It just happened as a natural result of the river.I think that you somehow have the notion that evolution is trying to make new species, and in order to maintain the integrity of that new species, it has to eliminate the genetic inputs that aren't part of that species, just like a dog breeder. But evolution isn't trying to make new species. New species sometimes happen. But that is simply an artifact of the effort to survive. In the end, that's all that evolution is about, trying to survive.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat