Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 226 of 968 (591006)
11-11-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dr Adequate
11-11-2010 12:52 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
And when you force a population through a small bottneck, that is exactly when real science tells us that you get genetic meltdown. Score another point for the theory of evolution.
I agree. Remember, I believe that evolution is a fact. The TOE is a fact. But neo-Darwinianian theory is false. The evidence clearly shows that these bottlenecks or founder situations that genetic meltdown can occur. But not in all. Many do just fine. Why is that?
And what about the gazillian speciation events in all of evo history. Aren't these bottlenecks and founder situations? Why didn't they genetically meltdown? So you are incorrect in saying that that is exactly what science tells us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2010 12:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 11-11-2010 6:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:10 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 227 of 968 (591015)
11-11-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Extinction is Our Responsibility
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Granny Magda writes:
Genetic entropy is not on the list.
It's not? Oh let me inform you....It most definitely is!
Then why did you post quotes related to captive breeding and in-breeding?
And why do none of the documents even mention the word entropy?
{abe}
I think you are trying to show us your fantastic new discovery.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Wounded King, posted 11-11-2010 12:18 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 228 of 968 (591030)
11-11-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Panda
11-11-2010 10:54 AM


Genetic Entropy == Mutational Meltdown
As far as I can see 'Genetic Entropy' is just the creationist term for mutational meltdown, and presumably one chosen because it dovetails so neatly with their incredibly poor understanding of how thermodynamics relates to biology.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 10:54 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 229 of 968 (591031)
11-11-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Extinction is Our Responsibility
Granny Magda writes:
competition for resources (with humanity)
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Yes, and we are winning!
No, we are losing.
Slowly, but surely, we are destroying our own habitat.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 230 of 968 (591038)
11-11-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Extinction is Our Responsibility
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOk writes:
Yes, and we are winning! Oh? is that bad? Sorry. Isn't there competition amongst all species for resources? That's what natural selection is. Do you not like your own theory? I agree, I don't like it either.
Wait, now you don't like natural selection? I thought you agreed with it. What gives?
Also, arguing that a theory about how the world operates is a model for how things should operate is called the "naturalistic fallacy."
I've used this example before. I have an ancestor who had five wives. I also have an ancestor who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. While reading this, did you interpret this as me stating that I advocate polygamy and the persecution of Black people?
No, of course you didn't: you read it as my presenting to you the facts without regard for how I felt about them, and did not immediately conclude that I advocate the implementation of the behaviors I ascribed to my ancestors.
So, why, when an evolutionist presents to you what they perceive to be the facts about the world, do you immediately conclude that they must advocate the implementation of the processes they ascribed to the natural world?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 231 of 968 (591118)
11-11-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:29 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Hi AOK,
Let's try to nail down your major claims:
  1. Claim: Large mammals are subject to reduced natural selection.
    Cited evidence: Endangered species
    Rebuttal: Endangered species are the result of human interference, and the reduced natural selection is a result of additional human interference applied as a remedy for the original human interference. Before, say, a million years ago, what caused large mammals to be subject to reduced natural selection?
  2. Claim: Slightly deleterious mutations spread, become fixed and accumulate in populations, causing a steady decline in fitness.
    Cited evidence: None
    Rebuttal: While it is possible for slightly deleterious mutations to become fixed in a population, it isn't likely. And any mutations that alone or in combination with others produce a reduction in fitness will be selected against.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:29 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 11:17 AM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 232 of 968 (591142)
11-12-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:29 AM


Your Further Blunders In Genetics
I agree. Remember, I believe that evolution is a fact. The TOE is a fact. But neo-Darwinianian theory is false. The evidence clearly shows that these bottlenecks or founder situations that genetic meltdown can occur. But not in all. Many do just fine. Why is that?
And what about the gazillian speciation events in all of evo history. Aren't these bottlenecks and founder situations? Why didn't they genetically meltdown? So you are incorrect in saying that that is exactly what science tells us.
When a small group founds a colony it expands. To induce genetic meltdown you have to keep the population small. If two individuals colonized an island which only had resources for an breeding population of ten, then you would get a genetic meltdown. If two individuals colonized an island with resources for a thousand, then you wouldn't. Because in a few years there would be a thousand (if the founding family escaped non-genetic environmental hazards).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:29 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 9:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 233 of 968 (591171)
11-12-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 1:10 AM


Re: Your Further Blunders In Genetics
When a small group founds a colony it expands.
Yes, you are correct if it doesn't have inbreeding depression. If it does have inbreeding depression it may not expand significantly. But any small group inbreeds.
To induce genetic meltdown you have to keep the population small.
Well I don't know who "you" is in your comments. But you are correct, that nature ( through natural selection) may keep the population small. And this most likely will lead to genetic (mutational) meltdown and extinction.
If two individuals colonized an island which only had resources for an breeding population of ten, then you would get a genetic meltdown.
Now here is where you are beginning to make your mistake. You are asumming that the genetic (mutational) meltdown comes from the environmental constraints. It doesn't at all. It comes from the genetic constraints. That is why it is called mutational meltdown. In other words, the small population in this scenario is experienceing inbreeding depression which causes the population to stay small.
If two individuals colonized an island with resources for a thousand, then you wouldn't.
Again, genetic meltdown is not caused by environmental resourses, it is caused by inbreeding depression which is genetic issues that severely effect the fitness of the population.
Now you clearly realize that small populations can inbreed, yet still grow/expand an survive quite well. The only question then is why some can, and some cannot. Why do some small populations experience inbreeding depression, and why do some not?
Because in a few years there would be a thousand (if the founding family escaped non-genetic environmental hazards).
Then why would they call it mutational (genetic) meltdown if the meltdown is coming from environmental constraints?
Let me help you here:
Mutational meltdown refers to the process by which a small population accumulates deleterious mutations, which leads to loss of fitness and decline of the population size, which may lead to further accumulation of deleterious mutations due to inbreeding depression. A population experiencing mutational meltdown is trapped in a downward spiral and will go extinct if the phenomenon lasts for some time. Usually, the deleterious mutations would simply be selected away, but during mutational meltdown, the number of individuals thus suffering an early death is too large relative to overall population size so that mortality exceeds the birth rate.
Now let me use an example. We have three equal islands with two dogs each on them. Male and female. All one species. All chosen from an effective population of about 10000 dogs. ( a healthy population).
Island A has two golden retrievers on it.
Island B has one golden retriever on it and one mongrel.
Island C has two very different mongrels on it.
Now assuming the environment is the same on each island, then which island dogs have the greatest probability of sustaining a future healthy population? And which island has the greatest probability fo the dogs going extinct relatively soon?
Now any "uneducated", "ignorant", ole farmer, anywhere in the world can answer this question accurately. They don't need a scientific study. So what is your answer. And why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 10:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 11:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 234 of 968 (591183)
11-12-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2010 9:13 AM


Re: Your Further Blunders In Genetics
Now you clearly realize that small populations can inbreed, yet still grow/expand an survive quite well. The only question then is why some can, and some cannot. Why do some small populations experience inbreeding depression, and why do some not?
What about Parthenogenesis some lice get pregnat while they are still in the womb of the momma louse the males develope faster and have sex whit every female louse in there then they die and the females awaken eat trough the momma louse and the cycle restarts. Why do they not experience genetic meltdown in essence every female is inpregnated by her brother and still no meltdown.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 9:13 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 12:00 PM frako has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 235 of 968 (591187)
11-12-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Percy
11-11-2010 6:28 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Hi AOK,
Let's try to nail down your major claims:
Claim: Large mammals are subject to reduced natural selection.
Cited evidence: Endangered species
Rebuttal: Endangered species are the result of human interference, and the reduced natural selection is a result of additional human interference applied as a remedy for the original human interference. Before, say, a million years ago, what caused large mammals to be subject to reduced natural selection?
C'mon Percy, this is a complete strawman. You cannot cite anywhere that I have claimed anything close to this.
What I have said is a couple of things in regards to large mammals.
1. They have high mutation rates which clearly are vastly more deleterious than advantageous. Most mammals have this.
2. Large mammals have low fecundity. Meaning they usually produce 1-2 offspring at a time, and the have realtively long generational times. Therefore, each individual in these generations receives their load of mutations. But we know, that they cannot afford a very high cost of selection and still maintain the population size. So most of the survivors do not have their negative mutations selected out. They are still the fittest in their generation, but they have a higher load of negative mutations relative to their predacessors. And this continues generation after generation.
3. If these large mammals have increased selection to remove the mutations, then the population size becomes smaller, and yes, there are plenty of species in this category. They are endangered.
4. Humans may be responsible for some of the increased natural selection that has caused population decreases with these species. Humans are also responsible for the relaxed natural selection with some of these species. Either way, we are loosing. Smaller populations are bad, because of inbreeding depression (genetic entropy) is happening with the relaxed natural selection. If we allow more natural selction, they can't afford the cost, because that's what gave the smaller populations in the first place. Much evidence has already been provided here.
So your rebuttal is a meaningless strawman rebuttal.
Claim: Slightly deleterious mutations spread, become fixed and accumulate in populations, causing a steady decline in fitness.
Cited evidence: None
Rebuttal: While it is possible for slightly deleterious mutations to become fixed in a population, it isn't likely. And any mutations that alone or in combination with others produce a reduction in fitness will be selected against.
This claim is closer, but not exact. It doesn't matter is the mutations are fixed or not. It just matters that their frequency is increasing over time. That alone cause a decrease in overall population fitness. So let me correct you slightly here:
Claim: Slightly deleterious mutations spread, and accumulate in populations, and increase in frequency, causing a steady decline in fitness. This claim is made only for sexually producing creatures, it does not appy to non Mendelian organisms.
The first and primary evidence of this is Mendel's accountant. Which models sexually producing populations according to the laws of Mendelian genetics, and the theory of evolution. Whether you like it or not, it is evidence.
Secondly, I think endangered species is also clear evidence of this.
Thirdly, the most genetically studied species (humans) offers clear evidence of this.
Haldane was the first to realize this when he discovered that there is a cost of natural selection. That cost limits the powers of natural selection. Natural selection is not powerful enough to remove all the negative mutations and leave the good ones.
Kimura realized this also. Therefore He postulated the neutral theory of evolution to explain all the changes that really are in our genome. They couldn't have come from natural selection alone. They must have drifted.
Muller of Muller's ratchet realized this. In Our load of Mutations he writes:
it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of
children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1. If, to make matters worse, ut should be anything like as high as 0.5, a possibility that cannot yet be ignored, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
We have big problems if our mutation rate is anything like as high as 0.5. Wow, wait till he finds our our real mutation rate!
Neel also realized this. His calculation of our muation rate was 30! This is what he said about it...
The implications of mutation rates of this magnitude for
population genetics and evolutionary theory are profound.
He realized this is way too high for geological time and natural selection to deal with.
Then in 1995 Kondrashov realized this;
Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over?
Abstract
It is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below 1/4Ne, where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G< s< 1/4Ne. Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne 104, while G 10xe9, so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10−6, an average individual carries 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies to high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
Just look at the title of his paper! His conclusions are obvious. We should be extinct 100 times over is the mutation rate is this high!
Then later Kondraskov calculated the human mutation rate at about 100 per person per generation. That's way too high to not avoid problems. He said:
analysis of human variability suggests that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles.
Then Nachman and Crowell did the same:
The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 ; WALLACE 1981 ; CROW 1993 ; KONDRASHOV 1995 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 ). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (WALLACE 1991 ) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
So there ya go Percy. What do you want to beleive? Could it be possible that humans have 40 zygotes to compensate for our high load of mutations with most of them being selected out? Or could the geological time table of the evos be incorrect?
And I could cite other papers as well. We clearly have a high mutation rate and that rate is paradoxical to us having diverged some millions of years ago. Those mutations are accumulating. Genetic diseases are becoming well known, and our natural selection is truly reduced.
Now how about you responding with something more than your words and claims, and citing some evidence in your posts for a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 11-11-2010 6:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Blue Jay, posted 11-12-2010 11:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 239 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 12:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 11-12-2010 2:48 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 236 of 968 (591190)
11-12-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2010 11:17 AM


The generation gap
Hi, AOk.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
They are still the fittest in their generation, but they have a higher load of negative mutations relative to their predacessors. And this continues generation after generation.
I need to point out an obvious problem with this. Generations are not discreet for large mammals: they overlap regularly.
For example, I have an uncle who is almost two years younger than I, despite being part of a generation before me in terms of genetics. And, to make it more interesting, both of our wives just had babies this year. This means that individuals from two different generations are going to grow up together!
In fact, most mammals (particularly large ones) get many chances to reproduce, over many years, which often means that old individuals can still be reproducing when later generations are reproducing.
So organisms do not only compete with individuals from their own generation, so defining fitness relative to one's own generation alone is not going to provide any sort of meaningful commentary on large mammals.
Now, insects, on the other hand, regularly have discreet generations. Maybe you could try to apply your model there. But, their populations are almost universally absurdly large, so genetic meltdown is extremely unlikely.
Edited by Bluejay, : I wanted a new subtitle

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 11:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 237 of 968 (591192)
11-12-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2010 9:13 AM


Your Even Further Blunders In Genetics
I thought when I read your previous post that you might be confusing inbreeding depression with genetic meltdown, and now I am sure of it.
Inbreeding depression is what you get if you have a breeding population of close relatives. Being closely related, they are more likely to share alleles. This, of course, includes alleles which are harmful in a double dose. This means that their children are statistically likely to be less healthy than if they had outbred.
This can lead to a population crash in extreme cases. Imagine a brother and sister marooned on an island, sharing (let's say) five lethal recessives. Then only ~24% of their children will survive, and we may well suppose that the colony would fail before it could get started.
However, it need not do so. The population can putter along being genetically inferior to the rest of the species, but still managing to scrape by, just with more deaf people with hare-lips than would be ideal.
Note also that unlike genetic meltdown this only happens in species which do in fact reproduce sexually.
Genetic meltdown is the progressive accumulation and fixation of harmful genes in a population.
How can this happen? you may ask. Doesn't the very fact that the mutations are harmful mean that so far from becoming fixed in the population, their ultimate fate will be to be weeded out.
Well, besides selection, there's the random component known as genetic drift. As Ecclesiastes says, the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong; by dumb luck, a bad gene might persist in individuals who are simply lucky. The only thing that selection is guaranteed to wipe out are alleles for being completely sterile or for dying before puberty.
Every other allele has a chance. But how much of a chance?
Well, that depends on the population size. Bad alleles have much smaller odds to overcome in order to achieve fixation in small populations.
Here's a graph showing this. I produced it by averaging the results of multiple computer simulations. It shows the chances of a newly arisen mutation going on to achieve fixation as a function of its selective advantage.
As you can see, slightly harmful mutations are much more likely to be fixed in the smaller population.
---
Got that?
---
You may now understand my original point about genetic meltdown. Have a look at the following graph, another of my computer simulations. It follows the (average) fate of populations of different fixed sizes under the assumption that bad mutations are four times as likely as good ones.
Now, you can see that the population of 5 is doing badly. If it stays at 5 for a long time, so that fitness keeps on declining, then after a certain point this is going to start hitting the actual viability of the population, which will reduce the population, which will speed the meltdown, which will speed the reduction of population, culminating ultimately in extinction.
But this will happen only if the population size stays at 5 for a long time. Imagine instead that the 5 are the founder population of a population with ample resources. Then before the meltdown effect has done much damage, the population size will have climbed above the break-even point (which looks to be about 50) and whatever meltdown has taken place will then be reversed.
Now this is what we see in the lab. If you start with a population of just one bacterium on a Petri dish, and let the population grow unchecked, you don't see extinction. If, on the other hand, you continuously cull the population to keep it at a size of about 50 individuals, you eventually drive the population extinct by genetic meltdown.
---
Any questions?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 9:13 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 12:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 238 of 968 (591195)
11-12-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by frako
11-12-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Your Further Blunders In Genetics
The answer is rather obvious isn't it. Do they have high fecundity or low fecundity? Can they afford for alot of the lice to die, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 10:57 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 12:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 239 of 968 (591196)
11-12-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2010 11:17 AM


Do You Ever Think About The Stuff You Write?
The first and primary evidence of this is Mendel's accountant. Which models sexually producing populations according to the laws of Mendelian genetics, and the theory of evolution ...
... and made-up assumptions contrary to reality.
Secondly, I think endangered species is also clear evidence of this.
Why do you think that?
Thirdly, the most genetically studied species (humans) offers clear evidence of this.
In what way?
We have big problems if our mutation rate is anything like as high as 0.5. Wow, wait till he finds our our real mutation rate!
Neel also realized this. His calculation of our muation rate was 30!
It's higher than that. Guess what, most of 'em are neutral. This is why you, personally, are not dead.
Then in 1995 Kondrashov realized this;
Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over?
You might have read the bit of the paper you actually quoted. Especially the bit where he says: "Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.".
Just look at the title of his paper! His conclusions are obvious. We should be extinct 100 times over is the mutation rate is this high!
Er ... we aren't. Therefore, any assumptions which lead to this conclusion are wrong.
Then Nachman and Crowell did the same:
And again, you managed to ignore what they wrote even though you quoted it.
How do you do that?
We are not all dead. They propose: "This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis [...] the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 11:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 240 of 968 (591197)
11-12-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Extinction is Our Responsibility
Hi AOk,
Why are you gobsmacked?
Well, lots of reasons I guess but mainly it's your trivialisation of the environmental disaster going on about us and your attempt to hijack that for your religious apologetics. That and your apparent lack of any sympathy. Little things, y'know.
Aren't humans 100% natural?
Certainly. But to attempt to colour all human activity as natural somewhat defeats the point of having the word "artificial". But I suppose that you could call the current mass extinction event natural selection if you liked, but you could equally call it artificial. Calling it natural without any further refinement of meaning is simply disingenuous though.
Isn't this all just part of nature.
No. It's an artificial situation.
From here on, you repeat the same fallacy several times, and the same childish rhetoric too, so I'll only respond to it the once. Pay attention, because this is astonishingly simple and I'm rather surprised that you could miss it in the first place;
Just because I know that evolution is real, does not mean that I approve of it on a moral or aesthetic level.
Okay? Super.
Also, you know perfectly well that the current extinction event is far more serious and much, much faster than any normal natural process, such as locusts or (of all things ) plate tectonics. Your insistence on playing dumb here is only serving to make you look like a callous and infantile ass. Come on. You are not this stupid.
As for your linked articles, you have either failed to understand them or you are trying to pull a fast one. The last addresses animals in captivity and is thus completely irrelevant. The others deal with the effects of population depletion. This is also irrelevant.
The papers deal with populations that have been severely depleted by human activity. They are under genetic pressure because most of the individuals carrying the variant alleles have been wiped out. This is a far cry from the kind of "genetic entropy" that you have been pushing throughout this thread. Your version of genetic entropy would, according to your scenario, inevitably affect any population, regardless of size. These papers only deal with artificially depleted populations. they do nothing to back up your premise.
Species are going extinct , and we may not be able to do anything about it.
Strangely, the experts in the filed disagree with you, with the latest red list report highlighting the positive effects of conservation efforts. I have seen these effects first hand. Conservation works.
Or could it be the Christians that are telling you the truth about genetic entropy,
I know a number of Christians who volunteer their time for my local Wildlife Trust. None of them have seen fit to blather on about genetic entropy or how conservation is a waste of time. In fact, the only Christian who has ever mentioned genetic entropy to me is you.
I greatly respect those Christians who give up their time to help wildlife. It strikes me as being a good way of living up to the best of Christian principles. Sitting at a computer typing out silly falsehoods about biology over the internet strikes me as rather less emblematic of Christian altruism.
The evolutionist principle is in direct opposition to preservation. It is altrusitic! And it is contradictory for the origin of species.....
Are you really so dumb that you think the ToE is proscriptive? That it is a moral guide for life? Wow. No wonder you're struggling to understand it.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:08 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