Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 851 (554880)
04-10-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
04-10-2010 3:45 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
See Message 44 on the other thread for my answer to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 3:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 6:22 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 242 of 851 (554885)
04-10-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-10-2010 5:31 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi Faith, I read your reply, no surprise that most of it is denial.
Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Message 44
Counter to what assertion?
Message 237:
Point is that when the number is reduced as in the migration of a smaller population away from a larger one, you may get increased diversity of expressed traits as new ones will emerge that weren't expressed in the parent population, although you have fewer genes/phenotypes than the former population. This is what happens in ring species. New traits show up because of reduced genetic diversity because of reduced numbers in each new migration from the former population.
This is your assertion. You are claiming that there will be an increase in phenotype variation but a decrease in genotype variation as you go around the ring from the parent population.
According to this assertion, we should find decreasing genetic diversity as we go from parent population to daughter population to daughter population in a ring species. Therefore this assertion predicts that the parent population (a) has the most genetic diversity and (b) possesses all the genetic diversity of each daughter population. This should make it easy to find which is the parent and track the loss in genetic diversity from that point.
This does not reflect the observed facts, the observed facts are all contrary to the predictions of your assertion, ergo they are contrary to your assertion.
Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Message 44
I’ve also at times in this thread, although unfortunately not in this particular post, specified that each population be reproductively isolated from all the others, at least by geography, and specifically excluded hybrid zones, so that there won’t be gene flow to complicate the point I’m trying to make. Your example doesn’t meet the requirement.
No ring species fits your totally artificial requirement to have no hybrid zones, so either you are not talking about hybrid zones, or you are not talking about (understanding) ring species. What equivocation will you make next?
Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Message 44
RAZD, I don’t know where you get any of this from anything I’ve said. It’s the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying all along. I expect DIFFERENT traits to be expressed from population to population. That is what is going on in your example. Good grief, the whole point of a ring species is that each population is characterized by its own peculiar phenotype!
And its own particular genotype, as is known from the genetic data, each variety having genes that the other varieties do not have, with no gradual decrease in genetic diversity from one population to the next.
From the description you quote of the genetics and history it sounds like the focus is entirely on the phenotype- -- plumage and songs — and not on the genotype so that the genetic diversity is very likely being assumed here and not actually known as you claim. Can you clarify this point?
Yes, curiously, the part in the genetics and history section that says that they have the genetic data and that the genetic data shows a pattern that matches the phenotype diversity:
quote:
Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations.
The genetic data variation matches the phenotype variation, complete with gradations around the ring in plumage, songs and genes.
I assume by genes you mean alleles since it is alleles that are varying from population to population; genes are staying in place.
You seem to have this fantasy that phenotype is completely distinct from genotype, and now you seem to be adding a fantasy that alleles are completely distinct from genes? Fascinating.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 241 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 04-10-2010 6:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 7:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 8:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 243 of 851 (554892)
04-10-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by RAZD
04-10-2010 6:22 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
RAZD writes:
I assume by genes you mean alleles since it is alleles that are varying from population to population; genes are staying in place.
You seem to have this fantasy that phenotype is completely distinct from genotype, and now you seem to be adding a fantasy that alleles are completely distinct from genes? Fascinating.
I disagree about how Faith is wrong.
She's just repeating the same thing she's said many times, that the daughter population has the same genes as the main population, but that only a subset of the main population's alleles populate those genes. She's still denying the other possibilities, such as that new alleles and even new genes can be created.
Faith somehow is failing to grasp the significance of the evidence you presented, I'm not sure why, but hopefully if we continue focusing on it the point will eventually get across. Clearly Faith passionately believes that beneficial mutations are impossible, and I guess this allows her to ignore your evidence that there is no progression of diminishing alleles as one traverses around a ring species, in any direction.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Change author.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 6:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 8:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 851 (554900)
04-10-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by RAZD
04-10-2010 6:22 PM


Answer to RAZD moved from debate thread
OK, I'll answer RAZD here instead of on the other thread:
For the lurking readers, not necessarily for Faith (who can address the issue on the Great Debate Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only), as I suggested doing in Message 236)
No Faith, this is not what happens in ring species.
Point is that when the number is reduced as in the migration of a smaller population away from a larger one, you may get increased diversity of expressed traits as new ones will emerge that weren't expressed in the parent population, although you have fewer genes/phenotypes than the former population. This is what happens in ring species. New traits show up because of reduced genetic diversity because of reduced numbers in each new migration from the former population.
According to your assertion, we should find decreasing genetic diversity as we go from parent population to daughter population to daughter population in a ring species. This assertion predicts that the parent population (a) has the most genetic diversity and (b) possesses all the genetic diversity of each daughter population.
IF the migration from one to the next is of an appreciably SMALLER population leaving behind one that is appreciably larger. I’m well aware that it can play out so that the two first populations started out relatively equal and that the entire ring can play out in a similar fashion. In that case you’ll get relatively equal populations with different phenotypes and similar genetic picture to one another*****. I’ve also at times in this thread, although unfortunately not in this particular post, specified that each population be reproductively isolated from all the others, at least by geography, and specifically excluded hybrid zones, so that there won’t be gene flow to complicate the point I’m trying to make. Your example doesn’t meet the requirement.
However, let me see what I can do with your example of the greenish warblers.
The hybrid zones are all smaller than the daughter variety population zones, counter to your assertion.
Counter to what assertion? I didn’t mention hybrid zones in my post to you, and I have said in other posts I’d like to exclude them for the sake of clarity.
As for traits being combined, which I guess is what you THINK I was saying about the situation in the parent population after the daughter population migrates away, no, that is not what I was saying. My way of describing it may be off a bit but I can’t believe it’s off THAT much. In any case what you got out of it is exactly the opposite of what I intended to say.
The daughter population SHOULD show completely DISTINCT traits from the parent population, as you are confirming occurs here in your populations as well. Of COURSE. The only difference in my mind is that IF the daughter population started from an appreciably smaller number than the parent population contained, then the parent population shouldn’t be particularly affected by the loss of that small number, but BECAUSE it’s such a small number the gene frequencies in the daughter population should bring about some dramatically new traits/phenotypes, which after a number of generations of inbreeding among them should develop a characteristic phenotype peculiar to the daughter population. The parent population would also change in a similar manner if the original numbers at the split were about equal, but in EITHER case there would be DISTINCT new traits emerging. Of course that is what happened in your populations, although if the genetic diversity in each is about the same that suggests that the migration was about equal to the population left behind in each case rather than appreciably smaller, so there is no way to show whether I’m right or not about differences in genetic diversity if there were such a definite difference in population numbers from migration to migration.
None of the hybrid zones exhibit specific traits common to any of the varieties other than the two neighboring daughter variety population zones, counter to your assertion.
I made no such assertion and could hardly have such an idea. Of course they would reflect the two bordering populations.
The two largest daughter varieties are the west Siberian greenish warblers (P.t.viridanus) and the east Siberian greenish warblers (P.t.plumbeitarsus ), and neither of them exhibit traits common to the other varieties and outside their neighboring hybrid zone, nor do they exhibit all the traits found in the neighboring hybrid zones, counter to your assertion. Neither P.t.viridanus nor P.t.plumbeitarsus exhibit the traits specific to the other population, counter to your assertion.
RAZD, I don’t know where you get any of this from anything I’ve said. It’s the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying all along. I expect DIFFERENT traits to be expressed from population to population. That is what is going on in your example. Good grief, the whole point of a ring species is that each population is characterized by its own peculiar phenotype!
Then we have the genetic information from actual genetic studies on the actual daughter variety populations for the greenish warblers (ibid):
quote:
Genetics and history
Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations. All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.
EXACTLY what I’ve been talking about! I may have said things a little off, I don’t know, I tend to get it said in one post and leave something out in the next, but it’s very hard to think I said them THIS FAR off.
So viridanus has genes that plumbeitarsus does not have.
So plumbeitarsus has genes that viridanus does not have.
Furthermore:
P.t.viridanus has genes that no other variety has,
P.t.nitidus has genes that no other variety has,
P.t.ludlowi has genes that no other variety has,
P.t.trochiloides has genes that no other variety has,
P.t.obscuratus has genes that no other variety has, and
P.t.plumbeitarsus has genes that no other variety has.
This too is counter to your assertion. None of the six different varieties has markedly more nor less genetic variation than any other, also counter to your assertion. Not one piece of the data supports your assertion, all of the data runs counter to your assertion.
WHAT assertion? I don’t have any idea how you get this out of anything I’ve said. I would EXPECT such differences, it’s exactly what a ring species IS.
From the description you quote of the genetics and history it sounds like the focus is entirely on the phenotype- -- plumage and songs — and not on the genotype so that the genetic diversity is very likely being assumed here and not actually known as you claim. Can you clarify this point?
I assume by genes you mean alleles since it is alleles that are varying from population to population; genes are staying in place.
Curiously, all the data supports the evolutionary biological observation that new mutations arise continually, and the evolutionary biological prediction that differential evolution in isolated populations will result in different new mutations being added to the existing mixes in the daughter populations from generation to generation. The differences between the daughter variety populations is not explained by gene loss, but by changes to which specific genes are being passed, including which new mutations, from one generation to the next, and where the only gene sharing between daughter variety populations is through hybrid zones between daughter variety population zones, as long as such hybrid zones last.
The data supports the evolutionary biological prediction that new mutations are added to the mix of mutations in breeding populations, and that subsequent evolution can include some of these new mutations.
This appears to be nothing more than the standard supposition/assumption/hypoethesis based on the ToE, made by focusing on the PHENOTYPES. You really know nothing at all about the genotypes. You are ASSUMING mutations explain the differences, you have not documented them. You ASSUME increased genetic diversity based on the superficial visible differences between the populations.
The differences ARE explained by gene loss (allele loss). When you DON’T have gene sharing, THAT is where the differences in traits emerge. It is with the loss of the alleles for the OTHER traits that the trait peculiar to the given population can be expressed. This is clearly what is happening here. Each population is characterized by a phenotype that couldn’t emerge unless the alleles for the other types were lost.
Mutation is a fiction assumed on the basis of the ToE. There is no evidence whatever for mutation as I have come to see without a doubt in the discussion with Bluejay.
The real scenario must be that the population started out with a good variety of alleles for many genes, and it broke into populations in which a complement of those alleles was retained peculiar to each population and not to the other populations. Since you haven’t even looked at the actual genes but only supposed the whole thing, there is no way to show this one way or the other.
Interestingly, the most robust populations based on area populated are viridanus and plumbeitarsus, the ones at the ends of the ring. This suggests that each has become very adapted to their ecological opportunities, and that neither is headed towards extinction, rather that their differentiation into new species will continue.
Since you know nothing about their genotypes this is wild speculation. But I haven’t said that the end result of the processes I’m describing is always extinction. I’ve clearly said that some populations become quite robust in numbers even after a drastic bottleneck. But reduced genetic diversity does tend ultimately in that direction. The only way you can know in a particular situation is to look at the DNA. This hasn’t been done here.
Tell you what I'd predict if you did: one of those populations in Siberia will have much greater genetic diversity than the other.
ABE: Also, since each population DID break off from the previous, I'm STILL going to predict that you have reduced genetic diversity from beginning to end around the ring.
In other words, I'm realizing that my prediction doesn't depend on the daughter populations being appreciably smaller after all. As you go around the ring you keep losing alleles even if the populations are equal in numbers.
But you aren't going to find out by looking at the phenotypes and hallucinating mutations.
***** Actually you WON'T get a similar genetic picture even if the populations ARE about the same, as I'm just now discovering. You WILL get reduced genetic diversity as you go around the ring even in that case.
Reduced genetic diversity would be shown by such effects as fixed loci in the farthest population from the first one, many recessives coming out along the way, many more alleles for different traits in the earlier populations even though they have a characteristic phenotype -- the effect of many dominants -- which is why you have to look at the genes to find out about the genetic diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 6:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 245 of 851 (554904)
04-10-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
04-10-2010 3:45 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
The article you cited, The greenish warbler ring species, describes the phenotypic differences but is non-specific about the genetic differences. There is no data contradicting Faith's belief that the differences are due to allele reduction.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 3:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 8:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 11:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 851 (554905)
04-10-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by RAZD
04-10-2010 6:22 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi Faith, I read your reply, no surprise that most of it is denial.
Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only)Message 44
Counter to what assertion?
Message 237:
Point is that when the number is reduced as in the migration of a smaller population away from a larger one, you may get increased diversity of expressed traits as new ones will emerge that weren't expressed in the parent population, although you have fewer genes/phenotypes than the former population. This is what happens in ring species. New traits show up because of reduced genetic diversity because of reduced numbers in each new migration from the former population.
This is your assertion. You are claiming that there will be an increase in phenotype variation but a decrease in genotype variation as you go around the ring from the parent population.
RAZD, you don't seem to know the difference between the EXPRESSION of traits and the NUMBER of traits although I've taken pains to explain it.
According to this assertion, we should find decreasing genetic diversity as we go from parent population to daughter population to daughter population in a ring species. Therefore this assertion predicts that the parent population (a) has the most genetic diversity and (b) possesses all the genetic diversity of each daughter population. This should make it easy to find which is the parent and track the loss in genetic diversity from that point.
It doesn't have to possess ALL the diversity but it should show greater genetic diversity.
But this is not something that would be apparent by merely looking at the character of the population the way evolutionists do, as everything coming up roses building one upon another.
You see the diverging traits, you don't even THINK about how traits had to be left behind for these to emerge.
This does not reflect the observed facts, the observed facts are all contrary to the predictions of your assertion, ergo they are contrary to your assertion.
The "observed facts" are not what I'm predicting. Therefore they are NOT contrary to my assertion. My assertion is that you cannot tell by looking at the traits from the outside whether there is reduced genetic diversity or not, but this is what evolutionists stupidly do. And I don't mind saying "stupidly" since you are treat me like I'm stupid.
Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only)Message 44
I’ve also at times in this thread, although unfortunately not in this particular post, specified that each population be reproductively isolated from all the others, at least by geography, and specifically excluded hybrid zones, so that there won’t be gene flow to complicate the point I’m trying to make. Your example doesn’t meet the requirement.
No ring species fits your totally artificial requirement to have no hybrid zones, so either you are not talking about hybrid zones, or you are not talking about (understanding) ring species. What equivocation will you make next?
I don't give a damn about all the particulars. And there are NOT hybrid zones between each duo of populations, so hypothetically yiou could easily enough have a ring species without hybrid zones -- geographic barriers, distance of migration, whatever. The point was to streamline the hypothetical in order to make the point I want to make. It turns out your example wasn't a problem to figure out anyway even with the hybrids.
Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only)Message 44
RAZD, I don’t know where you get any of this from anything I’ve said. It’s the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying all along. I expect DIFFERENT traits to be expressed from population to population. That is what is going on in your example. Good grief, the whole point of a ring species is that each population is characterized by its own peculiar phenotype!
And its own particular genotype, as is known from the genetic data, each variety having genes that the other varieties do not have, with no gradual decrease in genetic diversity from one population to the next.
YOu mean alleles, not genes. And of COURSE each has different alleles, that's the whole point.
Different alleles in themselves says nothing whatever about genetic diversity. That has to do with FEWER alleles, not DIFFERENT alleles. You are apparently referring ONLY to the trait diversity and not to the numbers of alleles available, which is the measure of how much variation is still potential in the species. of course if you are assuming mutations instead of what is really going on, the shuffling of an original complement of alleles that are being gradually reduced in numbers from population to population, you can't see the forest for the trees.
From the description you quote of the genetics and history it sounds like the focus is entirely on the phenotype- -- plumage and songs — and not on the genotype so that the genetic diversity is very likely being assumed here and not actually known as you claim. Can you clarify this point?
Yes, curiously, the part in the genetics and history section that says that they have the genetic data and that the genetic data shows a pattern that matches the phenotype diversity:
Yes, RAZD, it SAYS that, but I'm aware that evolutionists make all kinds of assumptions about the genetic data, from looking only at the phenotype -- mostly by hallucinating nonexistent mutations to account for changes that don't require mutations -- so if you want to prove anything to me about the genetic data you're going to have to show it to me. Gene for what trait, allele for what character, heterozygous dominant or recessive or homozygous dominant or recessive and so on. Sorry, SAYING you have the genotype I KNOW does not mean you have the genotype, it's all smoke and mirrors.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The genetic data variation matches the phenotype variation, complete with gradations around the ring in plumage, songs and genes.
According to inference based on the phenotype comparing the difrerent populations as far as I can tell from the quote. Sorry, if they have this data you haven't shown it to me.
I assume by genes you mean alleles since it is alleles that are varying from population to population; genes are staying in place.
You seem to have this fantasy that phenotype is completely distinct from genotype, and now you seem to be adding a fantasy that alleles are completely distinct from genes? Fascinating.
Oh come off it. The gene is the locus on the DNA strand, the alleles are the variations of that gene. Good grief.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 6:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 247 of 851 (554908)
04-10-2010 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
04-10-2010 7:56 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
The article you cited, The greenish warbler ring species, describes the phenotypic differences but is non-specific about the genetic differences. There is no data contradicting Faith's belief that the differences are due to allele reduction.
A moment of fairness here. Wow, I'm impressed. Thank you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 04-10-2010 7:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 248 of 851 (554913)
04-10-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
04-10-2010 6:57 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
She's just repeating the same thing she's said many times, that the daughter population has the same genes as the main population, but that only a subset of the main population's alleles populate those genes. She's still denying the other possibilities, such as that new alleles and even new genes can be created.
As I've been trying to present it, I've been assuming it doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make whether the alleles are only a subset of the parent population's or are new mutations.
But I'm probably going to have to change that, which makes my job easier anyway, because there is absolutely NO proof of mutations ANYWHERE, they are all assumed and when actually studied in the DNA turn out to be ALL variations on the theme of uselessness to disease-producing. You are not going to get interesting new variations in your populations around the ring from that pathetic excuse for an allele factory.
Faith somehow is failing to grasp the significance of the evidence you presented, I'm not sure why, but hopefully if we continue focusing on it the point will eventually get across.
I've read a lot about ring species. I'm sort of fond of ring species. He misrepresented what I said.
Clearly Faith passionately believes that beneficial mutations are impossible, and I guess this allows her to ignore your evidence that there is no progression of diminishing alleles as one traverses around a ring species, in any direction.
His evidence isn't evidence of what I'm claiming, and I thank you for discovering that yourself in your last post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 04-10-2010 6:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 04-10-2010 9:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 249 of 851 (554918)
04-10-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
04-10-2010 8:25 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith replying to RAZD in Message 246 writes:
You mean alleles, not genes. And of COURSE each has different alleles, that's the whole point.
No, he meant genes. For example, consider two adjacent species in a ring, call them A and B. RAZD believes that A has genes B doesn't have, and B has genes A doesn't have. This would be impossible if your views about allele reduction being the only cause of speciation were correct. RAZD hasn't presented the underlying evidence yet, so stay tuned.
But I'm probably going to have to change that, which makes my job easier anyway, because there is absolutely NO proof of mutations ANYWHERE...
I don't understand what you're trying to say. In many posts you have argued there are only deleterious mutations, but now you're claiming there are no mutations at all? Please clarify.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 8:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 9:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 851 (554920)
04-10-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Percy
04-10-2010 9:13 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
He's going to have to show how whole genes are removed from or added by the thousands of nucleotides into the DNA strand. Alleles simply insert themselves into the locus already there.
Just one of those unfinished thoughts. No mutations that make real alleles. Wherever there is a real allele it's been there from the beginning. Mutations only make disease and junk, that's my conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 04-10-2010 9:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by bluescat48, posted 04-10-2010 10:28 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 252 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-10-2010 10:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 259 by Taq, posted 04-11-2010 1:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 1:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 251 of 851 (554929)
04-10-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
04-10-2010 9:18 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Mutations only make disease and junk, that's my conclusion
So a bacterium that through, mutations, is able to form an enzyme that digests nylon is diseased or is junk? That through mutations some ancient fish was able to change from getting rid of nitrogen by ammonia to getting rid of nitrogen through urea which enabled them to eventually live away from water is junk?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 9:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 252 of 851 (554941)
04-10-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
04-10-2010 9:18 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith writes:
Wherever there is a real allele it's been there from the beginning. Mutations only make disease and junk, that's my conclusion.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here. Let's start with the issue of alleles.
From Wikipedia:
quote:
Alleles are now understood to be alternative DNA sequences at the same physical locus, which may or may not result in different phenotypic traits.
Here's your argument, as I understand it.
1. Every species has been Created with a set number of alleles for each of its genes. No more can ever be created than are already there.
2. Apparent speciation events occur when a daughter population splits off from its parent and, for whatever reason, starts to express traits that have been dormant in the parent. The alleles for that trait were there all along, but had not yet been expressed.
3. The daughter population will have fewer alleles for some genes than the parent does. One of the reasons that these apparently new traits were not expressed in the parent population was because they were being "crowded out", so to speak, by other alleles. With fewer alleles in the daughter population, these other, heretofore unseen traits will now have a chance to be expressed.
4. Thus what looks like greater diversity in the new population is actually a reduction in diversity, since nothing really new has been expressed in the new daughter population, and the daughter population has fewer alleles for some genes than the parent does.
5. Mutations are the result of genetic damage. Mutations cannot create new alleles. It can only damage them, creating disease or other disability. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.
6. Thus many of the fundamental principles of the Theory of Evolution are incorrect. Mutation cannot be a source of new variation. Natural selection will therefore only decrease, rather than increase, genetic variation.
So far as I can tell, this is the substance of your argument. Before I go on, would you let me know if I'm not representing it correctly?

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 9:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 11:16 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 2:35 PM ZenMonkey has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 851 (554947)
04-10-2010 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by ZenMonkey
04-10-2010 10:51 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Yes, where DID you find that? I looked all over the creationist sites for this argument and found only partial versions of it. I did finally find a good one, but it uses the idea of "information" instead of genetic diversity and I didn't want to confuse things by switching terms so I haven't quoted from them.
But yes, that does outline what I believe and says it better than I've said it as I've had to struggle to get it said and I wasn't totally convinced that mutations are completely a disease process until the exchange with Bluejay.
I wanted to prove it by proving reduced genetic diversity, which I still believe can be done.
I'm amazed at this statement, as it says perfectly what I've been struggling to get said against endless misunderstanding:
4. Thus what looks like greater diversity in the new population is actually a reduction in diversity, since nothing really new has been expressed in the new daughter population, and the daughter population has fewer alleles for some genes than the parent does.
If you found it on an evolutionist site I suppose objections will follow. I may or may not be up to continuing the debate at this point though. I need a break for a while at least.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-10-2010 10:51 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:21 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 851 (554954)
04-10-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
04-10-2010 7:56 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi Percy,
I see I need to clarify somewhat to keep people from playing nit-picky-pete to avoid the issue.
Greenish warblers
quote:
Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations.
The genetic data shows that the genomes for viridanus and plumbeitarsus are distinctly different, and the degree of difference is mirrored in the phenotypes in the populations (or vice versa).
The genetic data also shows that there is a gradation in genetic characteristics through the other varieties around the ring. Thus the genomes for the other varieties are distinct one from the next.
In other words you can identify each of the varieties by their genomes alone, by their song alone, or by their plumage alone, and you would end up with the same classifications. The phenotypes are reflected in the genotypes and vice versa.
Without some outside effect that changes the way genes are expressed during growth, the development of phenotypes from genotypes will follow the same pattern within a species. This is why all humans look like humans, and have for thousands of years. The differences in the varieties of humans is not due to environmental effects during development that alter the development of the phenotype, but are instead due to the different genomes of the individual people and the populations that interbreed.
There is no reason I can see for assuming that phenotypic development within any of these variation populations is significantly different enough from the others to produce different phenotypes from the same genotypes, and thus that the phenotypes seen would not be reflections of the distinct genotypes for these populations. The two end populations are just too similar in their development for this to be the case, nor is any variation in phenotype development observed within any one population.
The variation observed cannot be due to having the same alleles in each population and then only playing with the frequencies of the alleles from one population to the next, because then they would not be genetically distinct populations.
Nor can the observed variation be due to only deleting alleles from one group to the next, because if this were the case then one population would be a subset of the other rather than a genetically distinct population.
Instead we see that each variety populates a specific area, and within that area they maintain distinct genomes, plumage and song. The only places these are mixed are in the hybrid zones. Thus from each of the hybrid zones you can derive the neighboring varieties by deleting alleles, but this only works for the immediate neighbors. By the time you get to the next hybrid zone around the ring you need to add alleles to account for the differences, and this happens no matter which way you turn, no matter where you start.
You cannot start with a single population and derive all the other populations by deleting alleles, because if this were the case there would be no hybrid zones.
quote:
All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.
Evolving differences as they moved north (a) west around the Tibetan plateau to form viridanus and (b) east around the plateau to form plumbeitarsus. This means the genetic data is consistent with the changes in frequencies of alleles, new or old, specific to those two populations. Evolution doesn't care if an allele is new or old, just whether it is adaptive or counter-adaptive.
There is no data contradicting Faith's belief that the differences are due to allele reduction.
If we take Faith's hypothesis as valid, then there should be one population somewhere on the ring that would combine all the alleles of the all the different variations. According to the above quote, this would have to be one of the southern populations (such as P.t.trochiloides), and that you could derive the neighbors by deleting alleles.
Sadly, the Faith Hypothesis does not explain the existence of hybrid zones where the alleles of the two neighboring populations are mixed: you can't mix some of the alleles with all of the alleles and have a hybrid, as it would be the same as one of the original population.
If we start with one of the hybrid zones as the parent population, say between P.t.ludlowi and P.t.trochiloides, or between P.t.trochiloides and P.t.obscuratus, then we are flummoxed by the next hybrid zone around the ring, in either one direction or the other. The maximum number of hybrid zones that can be accommodated by the Faith Hypothesis thus is one (1) and only one (1) zone
For Faith's hypothesis to work there cannot be multiple hybrid zones. Sadly, for Faith, there are four (4) currently existing thriving hybrid zones and an additional two (2) that appear to have disappeared.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 245 by Percy, posted 04-10-2010 7:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 12:14 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:17 AM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 255 of 851 (554956)
04-11-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by RAZD
04-10-2010 11:57 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
No, there is no reason in my hypothesis why there has to be a population anywhere in the ring that combines all the alleles of all the populations.
And there is also nothing about hybrid zones that is a problem for my hypothesis, it merely adds gene flow and is unnecessary to the point I'm trying to make.
But you addressed this to Percy and I'd really like to see what he has to say in answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 11:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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