Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 196 of 968 (590494)
11-08-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid
11-08-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
X, Y, and Z are slightly deleterious in your scenario. By definition, that means that there is a fitness decrease already. How did they become fixed then? Well, the negative effect on the phenotype was so small that in nature there was no recognizable fitness difference between thiose organizms that had X, Y, and Z slightly deleterious alleles and so the population frequency of those alleles increased through drift.
If the negative effects are so small as to bypass natural selection then they are not strong enough to cause the species to go extinct.
Fitness is not dependant on natural selection.
The fitness of a population is most certainly dependent on natural selection. That is the whole point. If a mutation lowers fitness then that mutation will not be passed on as often as neutral or beneficial alleles for the same gene.
Let's reduce NS too zero (or as close as possible). Let's in the lab supply an environment where there are no predators, plenty of food, and a viable climate.
No such environment exists. If it did we would be swimming in hundreds of feet of E. coli. All food supplies run out, and those who are most capable of getting that food will pass on their genes at a higher rate. This is true of E. coli on an agar plate as much as E. coli found natively in the gut.
When you grow bacteria in a lab environment they evolve to best fit those conditions. If you grew bacteria in a lab environment for many generations and then pitted them against the ancestral population that had evolved in the gut the lab grown bacteria would win out.
What your example does is have a population evolve in a different environment. They will evolve to that environment and lose adaptations to the original environment. That is what natural selection will do. You can not claim that "genetic entropy" has occurred because a population does not survive as well in an environment it did not evolve to be in.
We place them in an environment where the whole population dies except a few and then we see the bacteria thriving once again. Bacteria and viruses and the like can afford these drastic bottlenecks (they can afford the cost of selection). However when you have sexual creatures, they rarely can go through these bottlenecks with out severe genetic drift problems which show up in inbreeding depression. They also rarely see these bottleneck reductions in reality.
Why are you bringing up environmental challenges that cause genetic bottlenecks? Sanford's claim is that species will go extinct WITHOUT A CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENT OR A GENETIC BOTTLENECK.
The problem is the frequency of deleterious mutation in the population. When the frequency of deleterious mutations is high, then homozygosity of those alleles gets expressesd and NS has a hay day. When the frequency of deleterious alleles is low, then heterozygosity reigns and the population diverges, but successfully.
If an allele is deleterious enough to cause a decrease in fitness then it will be selected against before it can reach a high level of homozygosity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-08-2010 9:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 197 of 968 (590541)
11-08-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid
11-08-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
The fitness will decline relative to the ancestral population.
We don't measure fitness relative to ancestral populations, because fitness is environment-dependent and the ancestral population is dead. The comparison is a necessarly invalid one - whose environment do you use? By definition the ancestral population has greater fitness in the ancestral environment, but conversely the modern population has greater fitness in the modern environment because the ancestral population has never lived there.
Fitness is always a function of the organism's adaptation to its current environment, not to any environment in the past or future.
But the strongest have more mutations than the ancestral population.
That's what makes them more, not less fit - they've accumulated adaptational changes to the current environment that their ancestors would lack. Mutations are how a population of organisms increase in fitness.
When the frequency of deleterious mutations is high, then homozygosity of those alleles gets expressesd and NS has a hay day.
I think you mean a "field day", not a heyday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-08-2010 9:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 10:59 AM crashfrog has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 198 of 968 (590554)
11-08-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid
11-08-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Hi AOK,
Let's deal with your most serious error first:
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Fitness is not dependant on natural selection. In fact, it must be totally independant.
Fitness is the primary criteria of natural selection. Fitness and natural selection are extremely highly correlated.
You are so wrong and this is so fundamental that I can't imagine how you make sense of anything concerning evolution. You have a lot of rethinking to do.
X, Y, and Z are slightly deleterious in your scenario. By definition, that means that there is a fitness decrease already.
X, Y and Z are deleterious to such a slight extent that they are not subject to natural selection. That means that an organism's fitness is not affected by whether they possess X, Y and Z in any combination. Whether they possess any or all of these mutations or not makes no difference, the organisms have the same rate of survival to reproduce and are just as successful.
And if you instead argue that such slightly deleterious alleles are actually subject to natural selection, then they'll be selected against and will not spread through the population. The exception to this is in very small populations where chance plays a large role. Small populations are analogous to coin flips. You're much more likely to get a significant departure from 50/50 heads/tails with a small number of flips than with a large number.
But each generation will have more mutations that the ancestral populations. The fitness will decline relative to the ancestral population. This is a fact.
Each generation always has more mutations than previous generations, but the fitness will not decline because deleterious mutations are filtered out while beneficial mutations are retained.
I understand that you think that very slightly deleterious mutations can sneak in to a populations genome unnoticed by natural selection because they have a negligible impact on fitness, and you're not wrong about that, but as soon as these mutations accumulate in combinations where the impact on fitness is no longer negligible then natural selection will filter such combinations out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-08-2010 9:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 9:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 9:56 AM Percy has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 199 of 968 (590640)
11-09-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
11-08-2010 8:51 PM


fitness stuff
Hi AOK,
Let's deal with your most serious error first:
A serious error and a serious misunderstanding are two different things.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Fitness is not dependant on natural selection. In fact, it must be totally independant.
Fitness is the primary criteria of natural selection.
Yes this is true. That means NS is dependant on fitness. It does not mean fitness is dependant on NS.
Fitness and natural selection are extremely highly correlated.
Yes they are. But that doesn't mean that finess is dependant on NS. When you make both dependant on each other then you have circularity. Sir Karl warned about that, so scientists have remove the circularity.
I probably could have worded it better and said: "The definition of fitness is not dependant on natural selection. In fact, it must be totally independant. Now this is more specific and it is true and non circular.
You are so wrong and this is so fundamental that I can't imagine how you make sense of anything concerning evolution. You have a lot of rethinking to do.
No, I am not wrong, I am quite right. Infact your have already agreed to how right I am, because you accept that genetic drift is an important part of evolution and therefore fitness. I will make a simplified definition of fitness for you:
Fitness of a population= the sum total of the effects of random mutation plus genetic drift of those mutations plus the effect of natural selection on those mutations within a population.
Fitness of an individual in the population = the relationship of how an individual's genome/phenome stacks up relative to fitness of the population.
Wiki states it this way:
It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype. In either case, it is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype.
Notice the definition of fitness is not dependant on natural selection. This is importnat to keep the circles out of science.
Now if your thinking is circular, then you may have some rethinking to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 11-08-2010 8:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 11-09-2010 9:49 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 200 of 968 (590648)
11-09-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by AlphaOmegakid
11-09-2010 9:08 AM


Re: fitness stuff
Hi AOK,
I'm delighted for you that you've been able to convince yourself you weren't wrong, but the only reason everyone explained the relationship between fitness and natural selection to you is because you made the incredibly wrong claim that they must be "totally independent."
But the topic isn't fitness. You've neglected to address the rebuttals to your claim that it is inevitable that populations will over time accumulate deleterious genes and become more and more unfit.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Change author and add AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 9:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 201 of 968 (590649)
11-09-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
11-08-2010 8:51 PM


XYZ allele example
X, Y, and Z are slightly deleterious in your scenario. By definition, that means that there is a fitness decrease already.
X, Y and Z are deleterious to such a slight extent that they are not subject to natural selection.
No, they are subject always to selective pressure which decides if the inividual mutation is slightly deleterious, deleterious, advantageous, or slightly advantageous. But relative to the whole population, a specific slightly deleterious mutation can not be singled out relative to the other mutations in the population. Therefore, the individual phenome is not selected out, because the differentiation on fitness as a whole is insignficant.
A human can be fat and less fit than a slim trim muscular human relative to survival. But that fat human may have other positive fitness traits like intelligence, which allows him to survive equally well with the apparently more fit individual. So the dumber human and the fat human both pass on their genes. Both traits may be slightly deleterious.
That means that an organism's fitness is not affected by whether they possess X, Y and Z in any combination.
Yes, indeed their fitness is affected by these alleles. You have already agreed that they are slightly deleterious. You have agreed that they are fixed in the population.
Whether they possess any or all of these mutations or not makes no difference, the organisms have the same rate of survival to reproduce and are just as successful.
Well it does make a difference. Not only slightly deleterious mutations can be fixed in a population via drift, but deleterious mutations can as well. Remember the wiki article on drift?
Yes, within that generation they have the same rate of survival, but not the same rate of fitness. The entire population does not have the same fitness level. Your thinking is off here.
And if you instead argue that such slightly deleterious alleles are actually subject to natural selection, then they'll be selected against and will not spread through the population.
Ahhh, but that is your circular thinking rearing its ugly head. That is only true if fitness is dependant on natural selection which it is not. Drift and random mutation also play a vital part in this picture. Drift, as you have already agreed can allow these slightly deleterious and even deleterious mutations to fix in a population.
But each generation will have more mutations that the ancestral populations. The fitness will decline relative to the ancestral population. This is a fact.
Each generation always has more mutations than previous generations, but the fitness will not decline because deleterious mutations are filtered out while beneficial mutations are retained.
If the mutation rate is small, and the ratio of advantageous to deleterious is large, and the fecundity rate is high, then this is possible.
But the reality is, in large mammals, the mutation rate is high, the fecudity is low, and the ratio of advantageous to deleterious is very very low. It is not possible here, and that is what MA shows.
I understand that you think that very slightly deleterious mutations can sneak in to a populations genome unnoticed by natural selection because they have a negligible impact on fitness, and you're not wrong about that, but as soon as these mutations accumulate in combinations where the impact on fitness is no longer negligible then natural selection will filter such combinations out.
I agree with you here. But you need to think about what you just said. Remember, you said X,Y,and Z drifted and fixed in the population. That means all of the organisms have them. When the load does become too high then natural selection will begin selecting them out. Since all of the organisms have them and each generation they keep getting more, then extinction is inevitable. There is a lot of literature on this. Sandford is not the only one!
You are realizing this, in your statements as you progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 11-08-2010 8:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 11-09-2010 1:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 11-09-2010 5:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 202 of 968 (590659)
11-09-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by crashfrog
11-08-2010 5:54 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
We don't measure fitness relative to ancestral populations, because fitness is environment-dependent and the ancestral population is dead. The comparison is a necessarly invalid one - whose environment do you use? By definition the ancestral population has greater fitness in the ancestral environment, but conversely the modern population has greater fitness in the modern environment because the ancestral population has never lived there.
Fitness is always a function of the organism's adaptation to its current environment, not to any environment in the past or future.
I don't know who "we" is, but if it refers to scientists in the field of genetics, then you are glaringly ignorant and certainly not apart of the "we".
Relative Fitness
Relative fitness is quantified as the average number of surviving progeny of a particular genotype compared with average number of surviving progeny of competing genotypes after a single generation, i.e. one genotype is normalized at w = 1 and the fitnesses of other genotypes are measured with respect to that genotype. Relative fitness can therefore take any nonnegative value, including 0.
It's done all the time by the "we"'s who really are the "we"'s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 5:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Larni, posted 11-09-2010 12:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2010 7:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 203 of 968 (590684)
11-09-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid
11-09-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Relative fitness is quantified as the average number of surviving progeny of a particular genotype compared with average number of surviving progeny of competing genotypes after a single generation, i.e. one genotype is normalized at w = 1 and the fitnesses of other genotypes are measured with respect to that genotype. Relative fitness can therefore take any nonnegative value, including 0.
So nothing to do with ancestral populations then; which I think was Crash's point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 10:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 204 of 968 (590696)
11-09-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
11-09-2010 9:56 AM


Re: XYZ allele example
AlphaOmegaKid writes:
Well it does make a difference. Not only slightly deleterious mutations can be fixed in a population via drift, but deleterious mutations can as well. Remember the wiki article on drift?
Yes, I do remember the Wikipedia article about genetic drift. You provided a lengthy excerpt in your Message 151 that you somehow misinterpreted as supporting your views, and evidently you're still misinterpreting it. Again, please explain how it supports your view that deleterious mutations commonly propagate through populations and become fixed.
Yes, within that generation they have the same rate of survival, but not the same rate of fitness. The entire population does not have the same fitness level. Your thinking is off here.
How in the world are you measuring fitness? We can be certain that it's not by any measure that makes sense. If we consider two organisms, one with a so-called deleterious mutation and one without, and they both have the same probability of surviving to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation, then by what criteria are you deeming the mutation deleterious? By what measure is one organism less fit than the other?
What you're claiming is contradictory. Your thinking is still married to the fallacy that fitness is independent of selection. It is not independent of selection, and claiming that it is is akin to saying that two people with different amounts of money have equal buying power.
That is only true if fitness is dependant on natural selection...
I don't know what you mean by this, and I don't think you do, either. Fitness is by far the largest component of natural selection. You can't ignore it. If a deleterious mutation has a negative effect on fitness, then that diminished fitness will be operated on by natural selection.
But the reality is, in large mammals, the mutation rate is high...
The mutation rate for large mammals is about the same as for all other mammals. If a mammal has ten or so mutations in a genome of a billion nucleotides then the mutation rate is around 10-8. That's not a high mutation rate.
... and the ratio of advantageous to deleterious is very very low.
It is probably roughly the same for all mammals regardless of size.
You're making things up as you go along.
Remember, you said X,Y,and Z drifted and fixed in the population. That means all of the organisms have them. When the load does become too high then natural selection will begin selecting them out.
This is another point that you're missing. Any mutation that in combination with pre-existing mutations causes a situation where "the load does become too high" and so is acted upon by natural selection will not likely become fixated in a population. If X's effect on fitness is too slight to be operated on by natural selection, then it could possibly fixate in the population - it's probabilistic, of course. Any subsequent mutations who's added impact is still too slight to be operated on by natural selection might possibly also fixate in the population. But the first mutation to come along who's added impact is sufficient to be operated on by natural selection because it causes a sufficient reduction in fitness is unlikely to become fixated.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 9:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 205 of 968 (590731)
11-09-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
11-09-2010 9:56 AM


Re: XYZ allele example
No, they are subject always to selective pressure which decides if the inividual mutation is slightly deleterious, deleterious, advantageous, or slightly advantageous. But relative to the whole population, a specific slightly deleterious mutation can not be singled out relative to the other mutations in the population.
This would only be true if these mutations did not affect fitness. You are saying that these mutations cause organisms to be so unfit that they are unable to reproduce. Natural selection could easily sort this mutation away from the others.
A human can be fat and less fit than a slim trim muscular human relative to survival. But that fat human may have other positive fitness traits like intelligence, which allows him to survive equally well with the apparently more fit individual. So the dumber human and the fat human both pass on their genes. Both traits may be slightly deleterious.
If we are using fat vs. slim as alleles and smart vs. dumb as alleles then those with both the slim and smart alleles would outcompete everyone and cause the fat and dumb alleles to remain low and would not reach fixation.
Not only slightly deleterious mutations can be fixed in a population via drift, but deleterious mutations can as well.
If that were so then hemoglobin S would have reached fixation. Instead, it is strongly correlated with selective pressures in areas with endemic malaria. Reality demonstrates that you are wrong.
That is only true if fitness is dependant on natural selection which it is not. Drift and random mutation also play a vital part in this picture.
Drift only applies to mutations which do not affect fitness. Mutations that produce non-viable organisms, as your genetic entropy hypothesis suggests, would not reach fixation through drift. How could they when the non-viable organisms in which these mutations occur do not produce offspring?
Like I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are using random drift to fix slightly deleterious mutations in the genome then you can not turn around and claim that these same mutations result in non-viable species.
But the reality is, in large mammals, the mutation rate is high, the fecudity is low, and the ratio of advantageous to deleterious is very very low. It is not possible here, and that is what MA shows.
MA shows that ALL rabbits should have died off ages ago. They haven't. MA is wrong.
The Map is not the Territory.
Remember, you said X,Y,and Z drifted and fixed in the population. That means all of the organisms have them. When the load does become too high then natural selection will begin selecting them out. Since all of the organisms have them and each generation they keep getting more, then extinction is inevitable.
Again, you are making a fundamental error. Natural selection will select against the new mutations, in addition to X, Y, and Z, AS SOON AS THEY HAPPEN. The fourth and lethal mutation can not reach fixation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 9:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 206 of 968 (590751)
11-09-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid
11-09-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
I don't know who "we" is, but if it refers to scientists in the field of genetics, then you are glaringly ignorant and certainly not apart of the "we".
Absolutely incorrect. As your citation proves, neither scientists nor anybody else measure fitness as relative to ancestral populations.
quote:
Relative fitness is quantified as the average number of surviving progeny of a particular genotype compared with average number of surviving progeny of competing genotypes after a single generation
See? Competing genotypes. Individuals don't compete with their distant ancestors because the distant ancestors are all long dead, and the dead don't win any fitness competitions.
In addition to your profound ignorance of population genetics, you're also displaying an utter inability to read statements written in plain English. Why is that? Are you hoping that if you spew enough bullshit, we'll all be baffled and simply surrender?
Sorry, friend, I've seen far better bullshit. You'll have to try a lot harder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-09-2010 10:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Wounded King, posted 11-10-2010 3:00 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 208 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2010 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 207 of 968 (590833)
11-10-2010 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by crashfrog
11-09-2010 7:13 PM


No competition with ancestral lines.
See? Competing genotypes. Individuals don't compete with their distant ancestors because the distant ancestors are all long dead, and the dead don't win any fitness competitions
Technically this isn't true. Many evolutionary experiments using 'simpler' organisms such as fungi, bacteria and nematodes can actually freeze down stocks from populations at various times allowing them to be subsequently revived mixed with derived lines from later generations and competition to be observed.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2010 7:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 208 of 968 (590875)
11-10-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by crashfrog
11-09-2010 7:13 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
I don't know who "we" is, but if it refers to scientists in the field of genetics, then you are glaringly ignorant and certainly not apart of the "we".
Absolutely incorrect. As your citation proves, neither scientists nor anybody else measure fitness as relative to ancestral populations.
Oh mercy ignorance abounds. Ok, time for a little education. But as I used to tell my kids, I can teach you, but I can't make you learn.
In population genetics, fitness is almost always measured against ancestral populations. The ancestral population is given a fitness value of one (1.0) and the progeny generations are compared to it.
Here is an example paper in Science disscussing the captive breeding of trout and how thier fitness is decreasing genetically. the Fitness charts included show exactly the relative fitness of the ancestral populations, that I have been referring to, and apparently that the "educated" EVC'ers are ignorant of.
Now the comments of this paper are inportant to our discussion:
The evolutionary mechanism causing the
fitness decline remains unknown. We suspect
that unintentional domestication selection and
relaxation of natural selection, due to artificially
modified and well-protected rearing environments
for hatchery fish, are probably occurring
(SOM text). Considering the mating scheme for
C[CxW] and the generation time for the fitness
decline, however, inbreeding depression
and accumulation of new mutations should not
affect these results. Regardless, our data demonstrate
how strong the effects can be and how
quickly they accumulate.
To supplement declining
wild populations, therefore, repeat use of
captive-reared organisms for reproduction of
captive-reared progenies should be carefully
reconsidered.
Percy et al should take note of the "relaxation of natural selection" part.
This fitness decline took place in just 12 years. Oh My! with no inbreeding depression. Oh my! Could it be genetic entropy? Oh my! No. A creationist cannot be right.
In addition to your profound ignorance of population genetics, you're also displaying an utter inability to read statements written in plain English. Why is that? Are you hoping that if you spew enough bullshit, we'll all be baffled and simply surrender?
Sorry, friend, I've seen far better bullshit. You'll have to try a lot harder.
Well you can call the Science article BS if you want. You can call Sanford's research BS if you want. However, I suspect that some will continue to swim in their "far better BS" which says "neither scientists nor anybody else measure fitness as relative to ancestral populations."
LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2010 7:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Taq, posted 11-10-2010 12:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 210 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2010 12:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 11-10-2010 12:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 209 of 968 (590894)
11-10-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
In population genetics, fitness is almost always measured against ancestral populations.
How does one do this? Do we dig them up and reanimate them?
Here is an example paper in Science disscussing the captive breeding of trout and how thier fitness is decreasing genetically.
Decreasing compared to what? To other MODERN populations of fish? And what environment are they measuring this fitness in? In the hatchery environment where the hatchery fish have been selected for or in other environments where the other modern population has been evolving?
This fitness decline took place in just 12 years. Oh My! with no inbreeding depression. Oh my! Could it be genetic entropy? Oh my! No. A creationist cannot be right.
Fitness decline in which environment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2010 10:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2010 1:05 PM Taq has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 210 of 968 (590901)
11-10-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Look at all those words you spelled correctly, Alpha! Too bad the spelling is the only part of your post you got right.
But as I used to tell my kids, I can teach you, but I can't make you learn.
If you're teaching your kids that fitness comparisons are universally made against long-dead ancestors, then you're lying to your kids just as you're lying to me.
In population genetics, fitness is almost always measured against ancestral populations.
Absolutely wrong. In population genetics, fitness is measured against the current population. There's no way to measure fitness against the ancestral population because it is dead, and the dead do not win fitness competitions as a rule.
Here is an example paper in Science disscussing the captive breeding of trout and how thier fitness is decreasing genetically.
Relative to current, existing populations of wild trout. Not relative to their long-dead ancestors.
How does that work, in your mind? Consider my great-grandfather, dead these 20 years or so. According to you, I'm somehow in competition with him - and losing, since you assert that fitness decreases over time with no exceptions. Funny - I just ate a meal, and I didn't have to fight off my great-grandfather, who has not left his grave. I've been a sexually active human being for some time now, yet not a single one of my mates or potential mates has ever even asked after my great-grandfather, and I've never had to chase him out of my wife's bedroom, since he's not left his grave. I'm not in competition with him for territory; I have a two-bedroom apartment and he occupies a two-by-eight plot in another state. Children? Well, all his children are dead, and I've never had any - I guess that's a tie. Of course, children might still be in my future; dead men sire children only infrequently.
Indeed I'm at a complete loss to envision even a single instance where I'm genuinely in competition with my great-grandfather, much less an instance where I'm losing, as you insist.
So, I'm forced to continue to conclude that you are entirely full of shit, and unable to read even the most simple sentences in English, much less between the pages of Science. My recommendation to you would be to stay clear of the scientific journals until you've mastered more appropriate reading, such as:
Percy et al should take note of the "relaxation of natural selection" part.
This refers to captive breeding of trout by humans, a situation where we've all already agreed that a species can be insulated from some degree of selection pressure by man's intervention.
You proposed that it occurs automatically, by nature. Captive breeding of trout can't be an example of that because they're being bred in captivity. You've yet to provide even a single piece of evidence in support of your assertion that natural selection cuts a poor species a break all by itself.
Well you can call the Science article BS if you want.
The Science article is clearly one you were unable to read. Sanford's "research" has long been known to be bullshit. This latest post of yours only continues the pattern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2010 10:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024