|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| WookieeB | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member  Posts: 19730 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Actually the right foot can only move in random directions, so it always ends up back where it started.
Yes the random motion of the right foot means that you can sometimes get to the shops in town, but that you cannot cover the Appalachian Trail where you will likely go over a cliff. This demonstrates that random foot motion overall is deleterious. Enjoy 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) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 1672 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
And then one day one of his brothers turned black. It happened for five different reasons, impacting 80 different genes, but it was just natures messy business of never being able to maintain a stable body plan that works. But this time it was great that nature is so messy, because there were black rocks nearby!! The dark grey mouse was right at home! And this my friends, is how the sloppy, unstable process of keeping body plans intact sometimes turns up a great result! Its undirected, not teleogical as you might think-its just fortunate. Because you know what, all the blue mice, and green mice, and rainbow colored mice, they weren't so lucky were they? No,no, EVERY time a rainbow colored pocket mouse shows up, he gets eaten by the owls, AND THIS is why we never see them. So you see kids, you can't have a blue colored mouse as a pet, because the owls keep eating them before we can catch them, and that is all you need to know about why evolution is so messy, so random, and so undirected and so well proven. Because some mice are grey. Why are your ears able to hear some many songs, and keep your body so balanced so perfectly, and let you understand 5 different languages, at the same time its hears the ocean, and your television. And how can your eyes read those words, and watch that television and marvel at the lack of rainbow colored mice? How can your eyes do that? Because some mice are grey. Simple really. What more proof could you possibly need that life is random!!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 16083 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
At least Faith is trying to make sense ... I think. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member  Posts: 6604 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
You have absolutely no education in the sciences but you know that your opinion is right and all of conventional science is wrong. And not just biology, you did the same with geology. You personally, with absolutely no training in either disciplines have overturned two of the most important scientific theories in natural science. Theories that have stood up to over a hundred years of testing by litererally millions of proper scientists doing proper science. And you do it all from your computer, without needing to do any actual science or provide any actual evidence. It's all been done inside Faith's head. Astonishing. Brilliant. I can't wait til you get round to big physics - don't forget that you need to change the speed of light yet. So much to be put right, so little time. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 14715 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: The problem here is that that is a relatively short part of a successful species' lifetime. We can't simply ignore the rest of it. (We can ignore unsuccessful species because evolution can certainly have some failures). And of course if your title was correct there is no reason to take an artificially constrained view that minimises the input from mutation. quote: On the face of it, it seems that it can and does. So the onus is on you to actually provide evidence that you are correct. Arrogantly declaring yourself to be right is simply not going to fly. quote: That's really confused, and besides a YEC belief not established fact. So it's not going to work as an argument. quote: Obviously the only way to offset a loss of alleles is a gain of alleles. And I have to say the narrow focus on speciation events makes it look very much as if you are the one resorting to smoke and mirrors to try to hide the scope available for mutations to increase diversity. quote: I don't think that either deserves to be called an observation. Both are just opinions and you need more than your personal opinion to convince an informed person. At this point it's still just "'cause I say so".
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
But that diversity 1) only varies the traits within the genome of the species and 2) will be eaten up by selection in the process of producing new varieties anyway.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 14715 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 1) doesn't seem to be an objection, as far as I can figure it out - I'm hardly suggesting that the genome of some OTHER species would be affected. Probably it means something else but it's horribly unclear. 2) As written, isn't even an objection - it's entirely consistent with my view of diversity as a varying dynamic equilibrium. Presumably you mean that the extra diversity will always be eaten up and more - but even that would just be an assertion.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
Oh dear, the ways one can be misunderstood are quite astonishingly diverse. What I'm arguing in this thread, yes again and ad nauseam, is that the processes that bring about new phenotypes reduce the genetic diversity for that particular variety, such that eventually a point will be reached -- at the far extremes which may or may not ever be reached in reality for a particular line, but it's always the direction of the change --, a point that is where further new phenotypes can't be formed at all, which I'm saying is the end of evolution -- for that line of variation. WHEREVER you get new varieties or phenotypes you get this phenomenon of reducing the genetic diversity and what that MEANS is that forming new "species" which one would have thought the ToE was all about, has an end point that must be the definition of the boundary of the Kind or Baramin or whatever you want to call it. I consider this to be a DEFINITION of the limits of a Kind or Baramin. THEREFORE, if all mutations do is vary the traits within the genome of that Kind or Baramin they cannot contribute to any changes BEYOND the Kind or Baramin which presumably would be necessary if the ToE is right. EVEN if you should get mutations at that point which everybody here keeps hopefully asserting, they're going to be within the boundary of the genome of the Kind. Presumably what you need is a kind of "increased diversity" that can change the structure of the genome itself if there's anything to the ToE but all you have is variations within the parameters of the genome, the Kind, the Baramin etc. etc. etc. I don't know if a mutation could produce neon violet fur in squirrels but if it could and for some reason it was good for the squirrel population all you would have is squirrels with neon violet fur, you would not have even the beginnings of a change toward a different species. And doesn't the ToE require that? You think in the supposed race between mutations and this inexorable process of genetic reduction I'm talking about as NECESSARY to the production of new varieties you're going to get a new species? Really?
Well, if anybody wanted to bother to check I suspect that most of what has been said on this thread by everybody is nothing more than an assertion anyway. I think I've answered your point about this one above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 14715 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Yes, we know you assert that, but that isn't a REASON why the extra diversity doesn't count. quote: Pretty obviously the theory of evolution has to do rather more than this if it is to explain common ancestry from the earliest single-celled organisms to the more complex life forms found today. So it seems rather clear to me that you are talking about a Creationist theory of evolution, and not the one usually discussed in this group. quote: Given that we don't know of any such limits I hardly think you're in a position to claim that they not only exist but are so restrictive that they actually cause a problem. quote: I'm not sure that we do to deal with ordinary speciation, although there is evidence of structural changes from gene duplication up to whole genome duplication. quote: Which should tell you that you are thinking on rather too simplistic a level. If you look at the well-known transitional sequences you will see multiple changes between known fossils - and while they may have developed over a series of speciations - it's pretty clear that if evolutionary theory is correct your argument has to be wrong. And one thing you don't apparently know - it's very hard to work out the effect of a gene in most cases. The example of fur colour in pocket mice is chosen because it is relatively easy to relate the gene to the effect. And then there are the effects of regulatory sequences. The whole thing is really very, very complicated. quote: I can't really make sense of this. quote: That seems pretty much an admission that your argument hasn't got past "'cause I say so".
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
The point as I think I've said is that mutations DON'T interfere with breeding programs, or the maintenance of homogeneous populations in the wild either. What changes populations is selection and isolation of the alleles/traits (Hey, how about "ISOLECTION" for a new term. Oh well), not their existence in the population even if mutation produces them. They'll just get passed around here and there if they aren't selected. but I can see that this was a point I probably should have avoided because it takes me away from my main argument.
It has to be selected to have any effect on the characteristic phenotype of the species. Otherwise as I say above it just occurs here and there within the population.
Which is irrelevant to this argument. New traits are not necessarily brought about by mutation, but can have been latent in the gene pool until some sequence of recombination events brings them to expression. And if they are selected for the breed, so what? They become part of the breed. And we're talking an occasional effect after a breed is established not a bunch of mutations showing up to blur the characteristics of the breed, which was my point.
Sure enough, it covers all kinds of internal and hidden things too, subtle changes etc etc etc.
But not a diversity that makes any real difference. It's selection that makes the difference, and selection, or reproductive isolation/selection, and that's what reduces the genetic diversity, and it does have the last word. That's the part that's hard to get said convincingly but it does have the last word.
But they only MAKE the difference when they are selected. Just existing the population doesn't make the difference.
True, long long times of stability without evolution happen too.
True it's slower but it's the same process of creating a new phenotype by reducing the competing alleles which for that new variety is genetic reduction.
Sounds like this is YOUR theory, and I think you may need to phrase it more sharply, but my answer would be that dynamic equilibrium ain't gonna get you EVOLUTION. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stile Member  Posts: 3367 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
I think you actually have a solid idea here. How about this: Can we develop a way to objectively quantify whatever it is you mean by "genetic diversity"? We can quantify the genetic diversity while a species is not being pressured into a speciation event as well. Showing that this is kept "stable" would add a lot of credit to your idea. Just thinking/writing about the logical results isn't very convincing to others.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
Oh but we DO know of such limits. They occur all the time when breeding programs are too aggressive, when you have too few individuals from which you are breeding, or even when you've pursued a rigorous program of selection with a breed that isn't that genetically depleted. Eventually you run into genetic problems that make further breeding dangerous for the breed. That's one kind of end point. Breeders have learned that they must incorporate some "alien" genes if they want to keep their breed viable, which of course means compromising the perfection they are seeking but then they just look for a new standard. In the wild you get bottlenecks and founder effect with all their problems just the same as you do with domestic breeding. Conservationists run into this problem ALL THE TIME and are always trying to come up with ways to avoid it. Yes I know your answer is BUT THESE AREN"T NORMAL, and normally you get MUTATIONS that save the breed from such depletion, but my answer to that is that in that case YOU AREN"T GETTING EVOLUTION EITHER. What I'm focused on is what brings about the NEW VARIETIES that presumably are the route to EVOLUTION. Bottlenecks DO bring about new varieties, you just don't like them because they demonstrate the end point of evolution so well in themselves. You keep thinking mutations are going to save them and all the others from the genetic deficiencies that prevent further evolution. All it COULD do is establish your "dynamic equilibrium" and that is not evolution. And the reason I llike ring species for the purpose of my argument is that if small populations keep breaking off from previous populations you have to be reducing the genetic possibilities with each split just as would happen if breeders kept removing small numbers from established breeds to create new breeds and kept doing that with each new breed they create. Eventually they're going to run out of genetic fuel for variation. This would take DNA testing to prove it but the last population in such a ring must have a lot less genetic diversity than the original population (which probably no longer exists in its original form but in some cases may have maintained a fair degree of genetic diversity) Again if you put new alleles back into the breed, whether by mutation or reintroducing other gene sources into it, all you're going to get is that "dynamic equilibrium" you aren't going to get EVOLUTION. Evolution, the production of new phenotypes, the production of new varieties, same as the production of new breeds, REQUIRES the reduction of the genetic diversity to keep the genes for the breed free from competition. I really do think this is obvious.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18246 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
It isn't that you're misunderstood. It's that you're speaking nonsense. It's being explained precisely how it is nonsense, but you can't accept that, so you claim, repeatedly, that you were misunderstood, and then you repeat all the nonsense from scratch. For example:
It is apparently your view that a new species can more likely form from existing variation than from novel variation. Does that really make sense to you? If a subpopulation only has alleles that the main population already has, how can it be a new species? You can reduce and reduce the number of alleles in the subpopulation, but it will still consist only of alleles already in the main population and therefore can only be the same species. If what you said had any truth whatsoever then breeders would be producing new species right and left, since breeding programs can take an organized approach to reducing diversity. But breeders aren't producing new species right and left, and that's because speciation to a great extent is dependent upon the novel variation contributed by mutation.
You're the only one here throwing around unsupported assertions, and they're contradicted not only by reality but even simple logic. And then there's stuff like this:
Do even you know what this means? --Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
Genetic diversity can be shown in some cases by the percentage of homozygosity in the genome. The more homozygosity the less genetic diversity. Breeds, in order to "breed true" have homozygous genes particularly for the traits that define the breed. This must also be the case in the wild. Obviously wherever you get extreme homozygosity, or "fixed loci" for a great number of genes you get the inability to further evolve. That's the case with the cheetah and probably with the elephant seal. Yes they were created by bottlenecks but the ultimate effect of breeding programs or many selection/isolation events the wild has to be the same. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 14715 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It's hard to see how mutations could interfere with breeding programs. If they turn up they're either ignored, kept, or removed. Really, even there, you're arguing from ignorance - you have no idea of how many mutations turned up or what happened to them. And let's be clear about wild populations - there's plenty of variation in them - with rare exceptions due to major bottlenecks. Why should additional variation be a problem ? quote: I don't think this is much of an argument: 1) There is plenty of variation outside the "characteristic phenotype" 2 a) If the "characteristic phenotype" is based on describing the species as it is, then it is certainly possible for a new variation in a key trait to affect that as it is. 2 b) If the "characteristic phenotype" is not a description of the species as it is, how is it relevant ? quote: Let us note that that is your opinion and one that is not generally accepted. quote: Which only adds up to breeders doing their job - not an absence of mutations. quote: Why doesn't the diversity make a difference ? On what basis do you claim that the forces reducing diversity always get the last word ? quote: That's really not making a lot of sense. Just existing in the population is EXACTLY what they need to do to contribute to diversity. quote: Long periods where there is little noticeable phenotypic evolution, but where genetic diversity is increasing. quote: But the slowness is the point. Because of that slowness we get diversity. quote: I think you'll find that my views are in line with the standard science. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
(1)
