Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 256 of 851 (554967)
04-11-2010 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by RAZD
04-10-2010 11:57 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi RAZD,
You're using knowledge that Faith does not accept to reach conclusions about the distribution of alleles in a ring species. You need evidence of two adjacent species A and B where A has an allele B doesn't and B has an allele A doesn't.
--Percy

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2010 1:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 2:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 257 of 851 (554968)
04-11-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
04-10-2010 11:16 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith writes:
I'm amazed at this statement, as it says perfectly what I've been struggling to get said against endless misunderstanding...
There's no misunderstanding, Faith. ZenMonkey described your own views back to you in detail to make clear that's there's no misunderstanding on our part. He did it because you mistakenly believe we reject your views because we don't understand them. That's wrong. We understand your views and reject them because they do not describe what actually happens in the real world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 11:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 2:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 258 of 851 (554969)
04-11-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
04-10-2010 9:18 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith writes:
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.
Imagine a very simple gene whose alleles are all just a single codon. One of those alleles is TAG. This allele experiences a mutation during reproduction and becomes TCG in the offspring. It turns out to be mildly deleterious. The offspring survives and reproduces but does not thrive, meaning it contributes fewer offspring to the next generation than is average for its species.
A few generations later one of its descendants experiences a mutation in the same allele in the same gene and the TCG allele by chance becomes once again TAG. If the previous mutational change from TAG to TCG was mildly deleterious, this reverse mutational change from TCG back to TAG has to be mildly beneficial.
So now that you see that beneficial mutations *can* happen, let's take it a step further. Assume this gene has never had the TAG allele. It's had the TCG allele and some others, but never the TAG allele. There's nothing to prevent a mutation in the TCG allele from transforming it into the TAG allele, which is a beneficial mutation.
You see, Faith, beneficial mutations are possible.
--Percy

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 289 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:00 AM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 259 of 851 (554998)
04-11-2010 1:09 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.
Food for thought. The human genome differs from the chimp genome by about 2% within homologous DNA, and by about 5% when insertions and deletions are considered. According to your logic, humans are heavily diseased chimps.
Or could it be that changes in DNA lead to new phenotypes that do not cause disease, and can even be beneficial in certain circumstances. Perhaps you should think on this for a bit.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 851 (554999)
04-11-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Percy
04-11-2010 6:17 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, hybrids combine alleles
Hi Percy,
You're using knowledge that Faith does not accept to reach conclusions about the distribution of alleles in a ring species.
That appears to cover a large and growing territory. Apparently she doesn't even understand her own hypothesis, or accept all the ramifications of that hypothesis (perhaps she hasn't thought through the matter that far).
ZenMonkey Message 252: 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?
We can make predictions based on those statements and then test them against the actual observations to see how they measure up. This is essentially what I have done, although it is nice to start with ZenMonkey's list and Faith's acceptance of it:
Faith Message 253: 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.
The problem is not with misunderstanding what is said but knowing that (a) it is not always the case, and (b) that where this occurs it isn't the end of the game, because new mutations bring new alleles into the daughter populations, alleles that never existed in the parent population.
It is even quite possible, even likely, that this is or has been a cause of some species going extinct, however that does not mean that it is universal across the board for all species.
Limiting the application of the Faith Hypothesis to only the situations where it is actually observed to happen (if there are any known), does not make it an hypothesis with predictive power, just an observation that is mundanely true because we started with a condition imposed on the selection of data such that it would be true. The problem for Faith is that the sandbox that contains situations where her hypothesis can be true keeps shrinking, and applicable to less and less of the rest of the world around us.
(Faith, ibid): I wanted to prove it by proving reduced genetic diversity, which I still believe can be done.
Not realizing that she needs to prove this across the board for every living thing, while a single counter example, such as the one furnished by Bluejay, proves her concept wrong.
You need evidence of two adjacent species A and B where A has an allele B doesn't and B has an allele A doesn't.
The evidence is the existence of hybrid zones and the definition of hybrid.
Hybrid Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
Science Dictionary
hybrid (hī'brĭd)
An organism that is the offspring of two parents that differ in one or more inheritable characteristics, especially the offspring of two different varieties of the same species or the offspring of two parents belonging to different species. In agriculture and animal husbandry, hybrids of different varieties and species are bred in order to combine the favorable characteristics of the parents. Hybrids often display hybrid vigor. The mule, which is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, is an example of a hybrid. It is strong for its size and has better endurance and a longer useful lifespan than its parents. However, mules are sterile, as are many animals that are hybrids between two species.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
Copyright 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
A hybrid has some characteristics of each parent variety, species or race, especially and specifically of the hereditary traits\alleles that are not common to both parents (otherwise husbandry would not work). Some hybrids are more viable than others, and in evolutionary terms this is explained by the presence of new alleles in the daughter populations: Faith does not have that luxury.
A mule is a hybrid of horse and donkey, it possesses some of the traits\alleles common to horses and some of the traits\alleles common to donkeys. Neither horse nor donkey posses the traits seen in mules that belong to the other population, so only in the hybrids are these mixtures possible. Interestingly, this increase in available alleles doesn't mean that the mule is more viable than either the horse nor the donkey, rather we observe that this hybrid is normally sterile.
Curiously, the Faith Hypothesis claims that the daughter populations, horse and donkey, must have fewer alleles than their common ancestor population, and thus it predicts that combining the alleles of daughter populations in hybrids should produce an offspring similar to a member of the parent population that had such a mnixture, and that it should therefore be a viable organism capable of reproducing with either horse or donkey (reversing the process that produces the daughter populations from the parent). Sadly, for the Faith Hypothesis, this is not the case.
We see a similar result in the hybrids of Mule Deer and Whitetail Deer: they can produce offspring, the offspring combine some traits\alleles from each parent, both in appearance and behavior. Unfortunately for the hybrid the panic escape behavior of the parents differs, one runs and the other stots (bounces on all four legs like antelopes). The unfortunately, for the hybrid, it tries to do both at the same time, usually stumbling in the process.
You need evidence of two adjacent species A and B where A has an allele B doesn't and B has an allele A doesn't.
The evidence is the existence of hybrids in the hybrid zones. Let's try to explain this as simply as possible.
If a member of population A breeds with a member of population B and the offspring is indistinguishable from population A (has no traits\alleles that population A does not have), then it is a member of population A and not a hybrid. If a member of population A breeds with a member of population B and the offspring is indistinguishable from population B (has no traits\alleles that population B does not have), then it is a member of population B and not a hybrid. If and only if the offspring exhibits traits\alleles from population A that are not a part of the population B mix AND traits\alleles from population B that are not a part of the population A mix, then and only then it is a hybrid. This holds even if one trait is dominant and the other is recessive.
Consider the simple situation where population A and B are inter-fertile varieties, perhaps of peas, and the only difference between them is that the traits of one population, A, is for spherical seeds and the traits of the other population, B, is for wrinkled seeds.
Starting with purebred populations, (A=ss, B=ww) then when these two populations breed they produce offspring that have alleles for spherical seeds and alleles for wrinkled seeds (C=sw), hybrids. When these hybrids mate you have the possibility of producing both A (ss), B(ww) and C(ws) or C(sw). The existence of hybrids (ws and sw) defines the boundaries of the hybrid zone. In some species the hybrid zone can comprise the entire population zone (which is what you have for any population with a mixture of alleles for any given trait), and in some species, particularly in ring species you have hybrid zones between different variety population zones.
If we confine ourselves to the simplistic case of one gene with two alleles, then each of the variety zones would be purebred zones, and hybrids would only occur where the zones meet and breeding takes place. Thus you have a purebred zone for population A, a purebred zone for population B, and a hybrid zone for a mixed population of A, B and C, where C are the hybrids that contain an allele that is not in population A and an allele that is not in population B.
Next, if we consider that population A (for example) could actually be a population with both traits\alleles, with one trait dominant and one trait recessive, then it is (still) a hybrid population and we should (still) see examples of population A' (purebred A), population B and population C (that appears like A) throughout the population A zone AND it would be indistinguishable from the hybrid zone between population A and population B - you could not identify a hybrid zone between population A and population B. Because the hybrid zones are identified this is not the case.
Finally, if we consider a third (or fourth or more ad infinitum) trait\allele in the population that is recessive to both (all) other trait\alleles, we see that the same situation holds. We should still be able to (a) detect the allele with genetics and (b) observe the (rare) purebred occurrence in the populations, where the both alleles are the illusive recessive one.
If we take the Faith Hypothesis to it's logical conclusion, that the dominant traits\alleles are knocked out by natural selection in successive daughter populations around the ring, and that the observed new phenotypes are only due to the absence of the dominant trait\allele at each stage, then we should not see any hybrid zones, and we should reach a point where the end of the ring has only the recessive trait\alleles in their populations. Again, sadly for the Faith Hypothesis, this is not the case.
The existence of the hybrid zones between each variety in the Greenish Warblers is evidence that hybrids only occur in these zones, AND that they can be (and are) identified as hybrids by having a mixture of traits\alleles present in one or the other neighboring variety population zone, but not common to both neighboring variety population zones. Instead we see:
  1. P.t.viridanus
  2. a hybrid zone between P.t.viridanus & P.t.ludlowi
  3. P.t.ludlowi
  4. a hybrid zone between P.t.ludlowi & P.t.trochiloides
  5. P.t.trochiloides
  6. a hybrid zone between P.t.trochiloides & P.t.obscuratus
  7. P.t.obscuratus
  8. a hybrid zone between P.t.obscuratus & P.t.plumbeitarsus
  9. P.t.plumbeitarsus
The Faith Hypothesis of step by step reduction only of traits\alleles from one population to the next does not explain the observed evidence, specifically the existence of the hybrid zones, while evolution - with the addition of new traits\alleles through mutation - does explain the observed evidence.
The only place where the Faith Hypothesis holds up is if we start with a hybrid zone and then observe the reduction in traits\alleles to each of the neighboring variety zones. The problem for the Faith Hypothesis is that this "get out of jail free" card can only be played once, and it cannot explain the other hybrid zones.
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 256 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 261 of 851 (555002)
04-11-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
04-11-2010 6:21 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
There's no misunderstanding, Faith. ZenMonkey described your own views back to you in detail to make clear that's there's no misunderstanding on our part. He did it because you mistakenly believe we reject your views because we don't understand them. That's wrong. We understand your views and reject them because they do not describe what actually happens in the real world.
Zen Monkey did a great job of understanding me if that was his own description. You were able to show RAZD that his study didn't refute me, also showing understanding, but before that you showed none at all. Bluejay also didn't get it, even with his "bottleneck" picture. I expected we'd go there next and it would become clear that he didn't. If you can't spell out that there's a difference between the number of alleles in the population and the expression of new traits you aren't getting it. RAZD isn't getting it to say the least, isn't even getting close. And many others haven't understood either. So, sorry, I disagree.
I'm happily surprised anyone could do it but if Zen Monkey could and I could recognize it, it should have happened before and it hasn't or I would have recognized it earlier and wouldn't have kept saying nobody was getting it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 11:12 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 262 of 851 (555003)
04-11-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Percy
04-11-2010 6:17 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
You're using knowledge that Faith does not accept to reach conclusions about the distribution of alleles in a ring species. You need evidence of two adjacent species A and B where A has an allele B doesn't and B has an allele A doesn't.
That wouldn't refute a thing I've said. A could easily have an allele that B left behind in a migration, while B could have an allele that was completely removed from A in that same migration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2010 4:44 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 263 of 851 (555006)
04-11-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by ZenMonkey
04-10-2010 10:51 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Zen Monkey:
Since I thought you must have taken that list from some creationist source I accepted it as written, but if you came up with it yourself I should be sure it really says what I mean:
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.
Yes, but it's possible that there was once some sort of chemical event that produced viable alleles -- from a built-in potential set of possibilities, however -- that has since been lost to the vast majority of living things. Mutation is certainly not that, though it might be a distorted remnant of it unless it is purely a disease process.
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.
I try to avoid using the term "speciation" unless inability to interbreed has resulted from the population split, but just in the loose sense of a population having developed a new phenotype after such a split, it's true enough.
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.
Yes, and "crowded out" I suppose probably has something to do with dominant and recessive versions.
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.
Yes.
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.
Yes. Except in bacteria, possibly, if those are really random mutations and not something built into the organism that's different from many other living things. The fact that bacteria have either little or no junk DNA, and what is called a "packed" genome, suggests that they may have genetic possibilities lost to all the species that have a genome full of junk DNA.
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.
I was willing to try to make my point even WITH mutations, because the main thing is the fact that natural selection and genetic drift and other random-selection processes reduce the number of alleles in a new population and will do this to mutations as well, so that in speciation the character/phenotype of the new population as a whole will be made up of many mutations but with the usual expected many fixed loci, so that further variation is stopped, and if further change depends upon the gigantic time span expected for mutations to make a useful difference after that, evolution is as good as over at that point. Cheetah is a good example.
But yes, now I AM convinced after the discussion with Bluejay that mutations are only deleterious in one way or another.
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-11-2010 5:06 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 264 of 851 (555016)
04-11-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
04-11-2010 2:08 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, how do you get C, D and E by loss?
Hi Faith,
That wouldn't refute a thing I've said. A could easily have an allele that B left behind in a migration, while B could have an allele that was completely removed from A in that same migration.
That may work for A and B, but not for C, D and E. Do the math. You need to explain all the evidence. Now you have A' = (A-b) and B' = (B-a) populations, how do you get C, D and E?
In addition, if A is the founding parent population, and it has not migrated, and the ecology of the area has not changed while the other populations spread out, how does it lose one of the prime alpha alleles that dominates the populations and suppresses all the hidden alleles (one or more for each variety population)?
Message 263: Yes, and "crowded out" I suppose probably has something to do with dominant and recessive versions.
How do the prime alpha alleles keep the appearance of individuals homogeneous in (any one of) the hidden alleles from appearing? Mendellian genetics does not provide you with the answer.
Message 263: Zen Monkey:
Since I thought you must have taken that list from some creationist source I accepted it as written, but if you came up with it yourself I should be sure it really says what I mean:
So do you want to continue the Great Debate with ZenMonkey (if he's willing)?

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 262 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 265 of 851 (555018)
04-11-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
04-11-2010 2:35 PM


Dominant and recessive and so forth.
Hi Faith,
No, those points didn't come from a website, creationist or otherwise. I just wanted, as Percy suggested, to be sure that I understood your position correctly. I'm glad that you agree that it's substantially correct.
Let's walk through a simple but realistic hypothetical model to see how your proposal plays out. How about rabbits?
Faith writes:
it's possible that there was once some sort of chemical event that produced viable alleles -- from a built-in potential set of possibilities, however -- that has since been lost to the vast majority of living things.
So regardless of whether or not this event took place at Creation or at some later date, the end result is that there will only ever be a set, defined number of alleles for any given gene in any given population. If that is so, then for rabbits, we can take any given gene locus, say the one that codes for fur color, and determine that there are only a limited, defined number of alleles for that gene. There will be alleles for brown fur, black fur, grey fur, and so on, but no alleles that would produce green fur or purple fur. (This is highly simplified, since many genes can contribute to any given observable trait. Nevertheless, I believe that there are also plenty of traits that are determined by a single gene. And even if traits are complex enough that there are always more than just one gene involved in shaping them - say for example, a whole suite of genes involved in determining body size - that doesn't substantially change things. We can still realistically focus on the contribution of a single gene to that suite.)
Back to the rabbits. Rabbits are diploid, just like most living things that we're familiar with. Under normal circumstances, each parent will contribute one allele for any given gene. Alleles are considered dominant or recessive based on how they manifest in the phenotype, that is, what the organism looks like.
Faith writes:
Yes, and "crowded out" I suppose probably has something to do with dominant and recessive versions.
This is not really correct. Dominance describes the relationship between two alleles for a single gene.
quote:
It is critical to understand that dominance is a genotypic relationship between alleles, as manifested in the phenotype. It is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, e.g., whether it is regarded as ‘normal or abnormal,’ ‘standard or nonstandard,’ ‘healthy or diseased,’ ‘stronger or weaker,’ or ‘more or less’ extreme.
For our rabbits, each parent would contribute one allele for fur color to its offspring. So if grey fur (G) were dominant with respect to black fur (B), then the possible combinations are:
GG: a rabbit with grey fur
GB: a rabbit with grey fur
BG: a rabbit with grey fur
BB: a rabbit with black fur
Again, this has nothing to do with how desirable it is to have grey fur or black fur. This is simply how genetics plays out. (We're still dealing with a simple system of complete dominance, but the principle remains the same for more complex situations.)
Here it should be obvious that the possibilities are limited. Under ordinary circumstances, an organism will at most have two alleles for any given gene, and no more. There is no place for additional alleles to hide. There may be an allele that is recessive to all the others, and so can be passed to generation to generation but only manifesting in the rare circumstances in which both parents pass on the recessive version. Nevertheless, if it exists at all, it will have to appear from time to time, however infrequently. In other words, if there is an allele for tan fur that is recessive to all the others, it will still manifest when two parents, say a BT father (who would be black) and a GT mother (who would be grey), produce a TT offspring (who would be tan).
One more time. If an allele is "normal" it will always appear in a breeding population from time to time, even if it doesn't do so very often.
Faith writes:
I try to avoid using the term "speciation" unless inability to interbreed has resulted from the population split, but just in the loose sense of a population having developed a new phenotype after such a split, it's true enough.
So under your model, if a population splits off, whether by isolation or natural selection or some other mechanism, in such a way that certain alleles are lost, the frequency with which a given allele may manifest might change, but no new alleles will be created. Thus if we have a population of rabbits in which the allele for black fur has been lost, we may see a lot more tan rabbits than formerly, but we still won't suddenly start seeing red rabbits if there were no red rabbits before. What looks like an apparent increase in diversity (more tan rabbits) is an actual loss of diversity (no more black rabbits).
All other things being equal, if fur color doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to a rabbit's' ability to produce more rabbits, then the frequency of a given allele in a population should be determined by whether it is dominant or recessive to the other alleles for that gene. However, if fur color does matter, then the frequency of alleles will be affected by the environment. So even if the allele for tan fur is recessive to all the others, if having tan fur starts to provide a reproductive advantage, then its presence in a population will increase and you'll start seeing more tan rabbits than before. Remember, dominance is only a relationship between alleles. It has nothing to do with whether or not it codes for a "desirable" trait or is a "strong" or "weak" allele. If tan fur is an advantage, then you will inevitably see more tan rabbits than black rabbits, since tan rabbits will reproduce more often.
That's Natural Selection. In this regard, your model appears to be in agreement with the standard biological model. Alleles that produce traits that confer a reproductive advantage will become more prevalent, and alleles that produce traits that are disadvantageous will become less prevalent or even vanish.
If your model is correct, and there is no mechanism for producing new alleles, then you are right - genetic diversity can only decline and never increase. There is no source for new alleles to emerge, only for existing ones to either thrive or fail.
I'll pause here once again to see if I'm misrepresenting your position in any way, or if you disagree with any new material that I've presented.

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 263 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 2:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 5:51 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 12:23 AM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 281 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 7:48 AM ZenMonkey has replied

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


Message 266 of 851 (555019)
04-11-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by RAZD
04-11-2010 4:44 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, how do you get C, D and E by loss?
That wouldn't refute a thing I've said. A could easily have an allele that B left behind in a migration, while B could have an allele that was completely removed from A in that same migration.
That may work for A and B, but not for C, D and E. Do the math. You need to explain all the evidence. Now you have A' = (A-b) and B' = (B-a) populations, how do you get C, D and E?
I assume you mean by C, D and E the population C that migrates away from B, D from C, and E from D?
I don't know what this is meant to describe:
A' = (A-b) and B' = (B-a) populations
Certainly there are many genes, even many for the same trait, and most likely more than two alleles for each gene, in the original population. Even if in some strangely limited scenario the allele left in A and the allele taken over into B were the only alleles for a particular gene in the original population, there would be other genes and other alleles for B to build its new phenotype from, and from that B mix enough for C to take away some to build a new peculiar phenotype for a new population and so on.
If in the original population there were quite a few alleles for a given gene, and B failed to take any A1s but took all the A2s away from that parent population, there could still very likely be A3s, A4s and A5s on out to A-n etc for that same gene that you haven't taken into account, that could have stayed in A or gone to B or most likely split between the two in various proportions. And there could be dominant-recessive relationships among these that would determine which got expressed and so on, so that I'm quite aware that the situation can get very complicated. And this is only for one gene.
Something like plumage and bird song are probably determined by more than one gene (?), and the original population could have had many alleles for each, in various conditions of dominance and recessiveness and so on.
(You'd have to tell me if there are other factors than dominance and recessiveness that determine what gets expressed, but just with those there must be quite a large variety of possibilities in such a scenario as I'm spelling out.)
And plenty of genetic diversity to pass on through a number of migrations forming new populations, up until a true speciation occurs -- which may not even happen depending on the original genetic diversity in the species -- but if speciation occurs, then my prediction is that the genetic diversity has been so reduced further variation is not possible.
In addition, if A is the founding parent population, and it has not migrated, and the ecology of the area has not changed while the other populations spread out, how does it lose one of the prime alpha alleles that dominates the populations and suppresses all the hidden alleles (one or more for each variety population)?
If by "prime alpha allele" you mean an allele that is dominating some trait of the phenotype of the orignal population, wouldn't one assume there are lots of those spread among the members of the population, so that it wouldn't be that particular allele that went completely over to population B, but some other less numerous alllele. Some copies of the prime alpha allele, if I get what you mean, would go to B but if A is much larger than B, population A will continue to be characterized by the same mix of alleles it started with. If the migration is large or the split equal, then population A will also change over time due to new gene frequencies just as B will. It's still possible in that case for a relatively less numerous allele to be left behind in A and a relatively less numerous other allele to be completely taken into B.
Message 263: Yes, and "crowded out" I suppose probably has something to do with dominant and recessive versions.
How do the prime alpha alleles keep the appearance of individuals homogeneous in (any one of) the hidden alleles from appearing? Mendellian genetics does not provide you with the answer.
Seems to me it does as I say above. But in a highly various large population some of the recessive alleles will appear anyway, not enough to change the "look" of the population overall, but when you get to the populations after the split, especially a smaller one, then traits will start to appear in new combinations and through inbreeding a new "look" will emerge from the new combinations. New plumage, new birdsong or whatever.
If there is something other than Mendelian genetics that can account for this let me know. I can tell you right now that mutations can't, and I can lay that out for you: What are the odds that ONE mutation, changing the plumage, say, is even going to work its way through the entire population in a short enough time to come to characterize it, let alone all the other mutations you have to postulate showing up to create the other differences in combination?
By Mendelian genetics it shouldn't take more than a few generations for a new population to develop a distinctive character. By mutationism it would take forever and in fact it can't happen anyway. AND it's unneeded as pre-existing alleles in great numbers should be present in a large population that hasn't undergone many migrations or selection events and enough for each new population for quite a few in a series as well.
Message 263: Zen Monkey:
Since I thought you must have taken that list from some creationist source I accepted it as written, but if you came up with it yourself I should be sure it really says what I mean:
So do you want to continue the Great Debate with ZenMonkey (if he's willing)?
I thought Bluejay was a great opponent/debater/discussant -- polite, patient, thoughtful and knowledgeable. I'm sorry he got so frustrated with my creationist views, which had to come out at that point. I think that should be expected by any evolutionist debater myself but I understand the frustration as I feel it myself when evolutionists make their flat-out pronouncements.
He also chose to debate me and initiated the debate, explaining these qualifications so I could choose whether or not to accept.
That's also how I'd prefer it be done if there is to be a next round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2010 4:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2010 8:05 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 267 of 851 (555020)
04-11-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ZenMonkey
04-11-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
Wow, I'm worn out from answering RAZD so I'm going to have to save your post until later, but since you did get what I have in mind I'm glad you responded.
More later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-11-2010 5:06 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 268 of 851 (555025)
04-11-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
04-11-2010 5:44 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, how do you get C, D and E by loss?
Hi Faith.
I assume you mean by C, D and E the population C that migrates away from B, D from C, and E from D?
You have five variety populations and four hybrid zones to explain. Each of the hybrid zones has more alleles than either side population, because they have hybrids.
I don't know what this is meant to describe:
A' is the original A population that has mysteriously lost the b allele after b left, when it is the second most dominant allele, and
B' is the original B population that has lost the a allele by somehow leaving the most dominant allele behind ...
If in the original population there were quite a few alleles for a given gene, and B failed to take any A1s but took all the A2s away ...
Sorry, but at this point it is evident to me that you have not laid out how your supposed system works, because you don't already have a nomenclature for it. Can I suggest that you take the time to do this?
Perhaps this relates to your inability to concisely communicate what you are talking about, but rather seem to be waving your hands vaguely about as you make up stuff.
Even if in some strangely limited scenario the allele left in A and the allele taken over into B were the only alleles for a particular gene in the original population, there would be other genes and other alleles for B to build its new phenotype from, and from that B mix enough for C to take away some to build a new peculiar phenotype for a new population and so on.
Lol. So suddenly, for some inexplicable reason, one gene stops working and another section of DNA inexplicably leaps into action ... across the whole population. Curiously, when you talk about inactivation of one section of DNA and activation of a new section of DNA, what you are talking about is mutation, although when evolutionists talk about it they also talk about how this gets spread through the population, rather than invoke miracles.
If there is something other than Mendelian genetics that can account for this let me know. I can tell you right now that mutations can't, and I can lay that out for you: What are the odds that ONE mutation, changing the plumage, say, is even going to work its way through the entire population in a short enough time to come to characterize it, let alone all the other mutations you have to postulate showing up to create the other differences in combination?
I can tell you right now that mutations can, and I can lay it out for you: there are mutations in every individual in every generation, what are the odds that none of them will ever affect the alleles? Given hundreds of generations genetic drift alone can cause the whole population to change over time as each allele undergoes small incremental modifications. These changes are not noticable in any one generation, but only after several generations. As this drift occurs the population will adjust to the change/s in plumage and song during mating because the variation will be within the variation of the population as a whole.
When all you have is assertion based on incredulity, then you do not have an argument.
I thought Bluejay was a great opponent/debater/discussant -- polite, patient, thoughtful and knowledgeable. I'm sorry he got so frustrated with my creationist views, which had to come out at that point. I think that should be expected by any evolutionist debater myself but I understand the frustration as I feel it myself when evolutionists make their flat-out pronouncements.
He showed you evidence after evidence, all of which you ignored or waved away or changed your restrictions of what you would talk about. Not once have you presented evidence for your position.
I assume you mean by C, D and E the population C that migrates away from B, D from C, and E from D?
Do the math Faith, lay it out in a diagram and show us how you get 5 variations and 4 hybrid zones that fits your hypothesis.
Show how the phenotypes develop within each population.
Do something more than argue from incredulity, incomplete knowledge and opinion.
That's also how I'd prefer it be done if there is to be a next round.
Perhaps ZenMonkey will help you lay out your hypothesis formally, and look at what it predicts and what it doesn't predict.
Then we can return to discussing the Greenish Warblers and other evidence.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : completed a thought

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 266 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 5:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 10:21 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 269 of 851 (555032)
04-11-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
04-11-2010 8:05 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different, how do you get C, D and E by loss?
I assume you mean by C, D and E the population C that migrates away from B, D from C, and E from D?
You have five variety populations and four hybrid zones to explain. Each of the hybrid zones has more alleles than either side population, because they have hybrids.
The hybrids are a mix of the alleles of the two side populations, I don't understand why you think this is a problem for my "hypothesis." There's nothing to explain, it's just a section where there is gene flow between two of the populations. I leave these out of my hypothetical model because the model applies to what happens under the reducing processes, and doesn't happen where there is gene flow. Alongside the hybrid zones, the populations continue to lose diversity around the ring.
I don't know what this is meant to describe:
A' is the original A population that has mysteriously lost the b allele after b left, when it is the second most dominant allele, and
B' is the original B population that has lost the a allele by somehow leaving the most dominant allele behind ...
I have no idea why you are focusing on the most dominant allele since I wasn't, and I just now explained that it would be a less frequent allele that would be left behind in A and a less frequent allele that would be completely removed from A.
If in the original population there were quite a few alleles for a given gene, and B failed to take any A1s but took all the A2s away ...
Sorry, but at this point it is evident to me that you have not laid out how your supposed system works, because you don't already have a nomenclature for it. Can I suggest that you take the time to do this?
Perhaps this relates to your inability to concisely communicate what you are talking about, but rather seem to be waving your hands vaguely about as you make up stuff.
I'm sure I am not saying it as precisely as I should but I'm also sure that you are having trouble hearing it because it's not a direction you would normally think in.
As I reread it, it makes sense to me, and the point was to answer what looked to me like your unwarranted restriction of alleles to, first the most dominant, and second only two, which is a restriction I never made. You keep getting very strange ideas about what I'm saying and I'm just trying to correct them.
Even if in some strangely limited scenario the allele left in A and the allele taken over into B were the only alleles for a particular gene in the original population, there would be other genes and other alleles for B to build its new phenotype from, and from that B mix enough for C to take away some to build a new peculiar phenotype for a new population and so on.
Lol. So suddenly, for some inexplicable reason, one gene stops working and another section of DNA inexplicably leaps into action ...
WHAT? "stops working?" "leaps into action?" I haven't said or implied one thing about changes in sections of DNA. RAZD, you aren't getting the first thing about what I'm saying. I don't understand what the problem is but it appears to be impossible to say anything to you about any of this.
I'm trying to describe something I think is pretty simple -- the movement of members of one population to form another, with the particular complement of alleles they happen to have, which establishes new frequencies in the new population compared to the old. The alleles are carried in individuals migrating from the parent population to a new geographic area. These alleles can occur in all kinds of possible numbers and frequencies. If you're talking about the "prime" allele, of course it's going to go with the migration AND stay behind in the parent population in great numbers. If you're talking about alleles that occur less frequently in the parent population, which was the example I thought you were giving, they could easily completely be left behind in population A and have no part in the new population B at all, or they could all completely be taken to the new population where they would become part of a striking new phenotype, and population A wouldn't miss them if the population was large and they had occurred there in very low frequency.
across the whole population. Curiously, when you talk about inactivation of one section of DNA and activation of a new section of DNA, what you are talking about is mutation, although when evolutionists talk about it they also talk about how this gets spread through the population, rather than invoke miracles.
I'm not saying one thing about activation or deactivation of DNA and I have no idea where you're getting this. I'm talking only about the movement of a small portion of the members of a large population to form a new population in a new area, that then develops its own peculiar phenotype over a few generations and grows in population numbers with fewer alleles than the parent population had.
If there is something other than Mendelian genetics that can account for this let me know. I can tell you right now that mutations can't, and I can lay that out for you: What are the odds that ONE mutation, changing the plumage, say, is even going to work its way through the entire population in a short enough time to come to characterize it, let alone all the other mutations you have to postulate showing up to create the other differences in combination?
I can tell you right now that mutations can, and I can lay it out for you: there are mutations in every individual in every generation, what are the odds that none of them will ever affect the alleles?
It doesn't matter: 1) A large enough population that hasn't gone through many population splits doesn't NEED mutations, it already has plenty of alleles for a variety of traits and all mutation could do is displace some perfectly viable alleles; 2) Assuming you EVER get a viable allele from a mutation, the most that would ever get selected is very few, even one is optimistic, and then it just acts like all the other alleles and is subject to the same reducing, selecting and isolating processes I'm talking about that ultimately lead to speciation and genetic depletion -- new trait or newly-emerged old trait it doesn't matter. 3) The only place it really matters is when the genetic diversity of a population is very low, and then evolutionists predict a very long period of time before even one single helpful allele can be expected to show up. That being the case, why do you keep expecting them to occur at a more helpful rate in other circumstances?
Given hundreds of generations genetic drift alone can cause the whole population to change over time as each allele undergoes small incremental modifications.
What's happening in genetic drift is merely that a pre-existing allele -- or really, a member of a population that carries a number of alleles for its peculiar character -- has for some reason been randomly selected through a number of generations and comes to develop a sort of population within a population with its own different character. And it doesn't take hundreds of generations, a dozen will already make a huge difference. With mutations, on the other hand, the rate at which evolutionists expect them to appear, say in the cheetah, WOULD take hundreds of generations at least.
These changes are not noticable in any one generation, but only after several generations. As this drift occurs the population will adjust to the change/s in plumage and song during mating because the variation will be within the variation of the population as a whole.
Yes, but genetic drift is not likely to be what happens in ring species. In ring species you have the population splitting into geographically separated subpopulations and that alone will bring out new traits because of the new mix of alleles, and especially the loss of some which allows others to become expressed. All it takes for this kind of change to occur is to isolate a relatively small number of members of a population from the rest. Genetic drift can do that and quite dramatically if it's just a few members that are forming the new population, but ring species appear to have been caused by a series of geographic moves.
When all you have is assertion based on incredulity, then you do not have an argument.
Indeed.
I thought Bluejay was a great opponent/debater/discussant -- polite, patient, thoughtful and knowledgeable. I'm sorry he got so frustrated with my creationist views, which had to come out at that point. I think that should be expected by any evolutionist debater myself but I understand the frustration as I feel it myself when evolutionists make their flat-out pronouncements.
He showed you evidence after evidence, all of which you ignored or waved away or changed your restrictions of what you would talk about.
Once I did change my view of things and I was apologetic about it. The rest of the time I was dealing with what he proposed honestly.
Not once have you presented evidence for your position.
Sure I have. The very existence of a variety of alleles in any population is evidence for my claim. The very fact that when you breed animals you drastically reduce the numbers to only those with the characteristics you desire is evidence for my claim that speciation requires genetic depletion, but we never got to that part of the argument unfortunately.
I assume you mean by C, D and E the population C that migrates away from B, D from C, and E from D?
Do the math Faith, lay it out in a diagram and show us how you get 5 variations and 4 hybrid zones that fits your hypothesis.
Show how the phenotypes develop within each population.
Do something more than argue from incredulity, incomplete knowledge and opinion.
I'll try to come up with a useful diagram.
But you haven't understood a word I've said and I haven't been all that bad at expressing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2010 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2010 9:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 270 of 851 (555039)
04-11-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
04-11-2010 2:05 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi Faith!
Rest assured that everyone understands what you're proposing. It isn't complicated. Your scenario is not impossible, it could really happen, but it is an unlikely scenario among many with much higher probability, most of which include mutations, including beneficial ones. That's why everyone has been trying to help you understand the reality of beneficial mutations. See, for example, my so far unremarked upon Message 258.
Finding beneficial mutations in higher organisms is extremely difficult. The larger the impact of a mutation the less likely it is to be beneficial, because the likelihood of a positive effect goes down the more widespread the changes. Beneficial mutations usually have a very tiny, indetectable impact, indetectable because higher organisms are the result of complex interactions between many different cell types. Finding beneficial mutations in humans shortly after they happen is especially difficult because not only are we complex, we have long generation times (coincidentally, just as long as the experimenters ) and experimentation on humans is frowned upon.
Consider the elite athlete. For all we know some elite athletes may owe their abilities to beneficial mutations, but the kind of experimentation that might uncover such possibilities can't be done on people. But it has been done on other animals. For example, the whippet was found to have experienced a mutation that increased muscle mass and therefore speed (e.g., Why athletes should look to the whippet).
Many genetic studies use bacteria because of their very short generation times, as short as 20 minutes in some cases. BlueJay provided a couple examples of beneficial mutations in E. coli in the other thread:
The eventual product of DNA is proteins. A random genetic change can affect the resulting protein. In multicellular organisms that protein is released by the cell and travels throughout the rest of the body where it may or may not have a modified effect. Any modified effect could be deleterious or beneficial. It can be deleterious because at worst the protein's ability to function could be destroyed. And it could be beneficial because proteins are unlikely to be optimal, plus changing environmental conditions can turn previously satisfactory proteins into underperformers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 04-11-2010 2:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 6:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 7:53 AM Percy 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