Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 9:26 AM
167 online now:
Percy (Admin), RAZD, Theodoric (3 members, 164 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,563 Year: 2,600/19,786 Month: 682/1,918 Week: 270/266 Day: 7/35 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19730
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 91 of 1034 (691867)
02-25-2013 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2013 11:42 AM


Re: Walking Requires Staying In The Same Place
As walkists admit (such as the notoriously pro-walkist Wikipedia): "In humans and other bipeds, walking is generally distinguished from running in that only one foot at a time leaves contact with the ground and there is a period of double-support."

This means that walking requires leaving the right foot fixed in one place. Because I am not very bright, I shall now insist that this means that walking requires the right foot must be fixed in one place all the time. This means that someone walking cannot move from the spot, but can only turn around in circles.

Actually the right foot can only move in random directions, so it always ends up back where it started.

On this principle, I shall assert that micro-walking (for example to the shops and back) is perfectly possible, even though this flatly contradicts what I've just said. I'm not big on logical consistency. However, macro-walking, for example hiking the Appalachian trail, is clearly impossible, because you could not do that by merely revolving on the spot, which as I've explained is all a person can ever do when walking.

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


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 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2013 11:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1673 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 92 of 1034 (691868)
02-25-2013 9:39 PM


The Amazing Pocketmouse!
There once was a mouse, he was grey and dark colored. He lived for centuries like this quite happily it is said. One day he wondered into the desert and somehow, luckily he ended up blonde colored. An adaptation to the environment you say-we say ha, it was a fortuitous accident! And he thrived because of it.

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!!


Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2013 10:54 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 02-26-2013 10:51 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 93 of 1034 (691869)
02-25-2013 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Bolder-dash
02-25-2013 9:39 PM


Re: The Amazing Pocketmouse!
That was remarkably free of meaningful content even for you.

At least Faith is trying to make sense ... I think.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-25-2013 9:39 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6604
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 94 of 1034 (691880)
02-26-2013 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
02-25-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:

Now I KNOW it can't prevent it, I know this is all just a theoretical article of faith that has no real teeth, but I don't know how to say it as sharply as it needs to be said.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 5:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 95 of 1034 (691881)
02-26-2013 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
02-25-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
A provocative title, and one that would need quite a bit of justification. On the face of it mutations WILL add to diversity.

quote:

It is hard to figure out how to get this said, but perhaps I'll eventually have a better way. I keep trying to show that whenever you have the creation of a new phenotype or breed you have the opposite of what evolution would need in order to be true, you have a situation with a built in ultimate ending point.

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:

You all keep answering: But no, there is also increase in genetic diversity through mutation, as if that is going to prevent this inexorable trend to to the ending point brought about by the selection processes.

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:

I've said that mutation only makes changes in the allele and that's part of it, since you'll never get beyond the boundary of the Kind or "baramin," beyond microevolution, with mere alleles for existing traits within the species that is evolving. All you'll get is variations on the traits that are built into the genome for that species. That is never going to lead to macro-evolution.

That's really confused, and besides a YEC belief not established fact. So it's not going to work as an argument.

quote:

And I've also said that mutation is only a source of alleles and it doesn't matter what the source is because once the selecting and isolating processes get to work on them to bring out a new phenotype you get the reduction in genetic diversity that always occurs in the formation of new phenotypes, and at the extreme there is no further evolution that is possible. Same as it does in breeding. Works the same in the wild. At the extreme you aren't going to get any mutations that could possibly save the day but you'll all claim you can and do. Sigh. It's all theoretical smoke and mirrors but you all seem content with that.

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:

Now I do think just these two observations are sufficient to show that mutation's additional genetic diversity isn't going to accomplish a thing for the ToE, and you are still going to end up with the reduced genetic diversity in the end that spells FINIS to the ToE. Perhaps I'll yet find a better way to say it, but it seems to me this really ought to be enough.

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 5:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 8:04 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 1034 (691888)
02-26-2013 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by PaulK
02-26-2013 3:50 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
A provocative title, and one that would need quite a bit of justification. On the face of it mutations WILL add to diversity.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 3:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 8:13 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 97 of 1034 (691890)
02-26-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
02-26-2013 8:04 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
quote:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 8:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 8:39 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 1034 (691894)
02-26-2013 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
02-26-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 8:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 9:07 AM Faith has responded
 Message 101 by Stile, posted 02-26-2013 9:29 AM Faith has responded
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 02-26-2013 9:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 02-26-2013 10:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 99 of 1034 (691899)
02-26-2013 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
02-26-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
quote:

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.

Yes, we know you assert that, but that isn't a REASON why the extra diversity doesn't count.

quote:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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'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:

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?

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:

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?

I can't really make sense of this.

quote:

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.

That seems pretty much an admission that your argument hasn't got past "'cause I say so".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 8:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 9:35 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 1034 (691900)
02-26-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
02-25-2013 3:18 PM


Re: mutations
If the diversity increases to any great extent you are going to lose your variety or breed

Is this based on your idea that selection is trying to create a "perfect" animal ? I'm still waiting to see an explanation of how that could work.

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.

However, to return to the views of science, if a trait varies within a species then that variation is part of the makeup of the species. If a new variation were to arise the same would be said of that. It's just not an issue.

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.

Breeders aren't always having to contend with new traits after a breed is established

Well we have had a couple of examples of new traits incorporated by breeders,

[/qs]

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.

and as I said we can't expect good records of discarded traits so this really doesn't tell us much. Not to mention the fact that genetic diversity covers rather more than gross morphology.

Sure enough, it covers all kinds of internal and hidden things too, subtle changes etc etc etc.


New traits do appear in individuals in the wild in large populations but they don't do anything to change the basic phenotype unless selected

But so long as it is present it contributes to diversity. That's the point.

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 even if they are mutations they still have to be selected to make a difference and when alleles are selected others are reduced and for a phenotype to become fixed as at speciationj they have to be eliminated altogehter.

Well no, to make a difference to diversity they have to exist in the population without taking it over.

But they only MAKE the difference when they are selected. Just existing the population doesn't make the difference.

And even if they are selected they can do that for quite a time.

True, long long times of stability without evolution happen too.

If they are neutral then it's all down to drift which is even slower, especially in large populations.

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.

So, what we should expect is a dynamic equilibrium that fluctuates according to the strength of selection. When selection is strong, the equilibrium is at a lower level, when it is weaker the level goes up.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2013 3:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 9:49 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 02-26-2013 11:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3367
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 101 of 1034 (691901)
02-26-2013 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
02-26-2013 8:39 AM


Good idea, next step
Faith writes:

WHEREVER you get new varieties or phenotypes you get this phenomenon of reducing the genetic diversity...

I think you actually have a solid idea here.
This statement is the foundation of possibly overturning evolution.
All you have to do is complete the work. You need to find a way to actually test your idea instead of simply thinking/writing about what may or may not happen because of it.

How about this:

Can we develop a way to objectively quantify whatever it is you mean by "genetic diversity"?
Once we have that, we can quantify genetic diversity before a speciation event, and then quantify genetic diversity after the speciation event again.
This way we can objectively determine whether or not your idea is actually taking place in living organisms. Once we confirm the idea in this manner, we will also have objective data to show to other people so that they cannot argue with the results.

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.
But quantifying and obtaining real results... that really is very convincing. Would you be interested in this route of showing your idea to be valid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 8:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 9:38 AM Stile has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 1034 (691902)
02-26-2013 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
02-26-2013 9:07 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
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.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 9:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 10:03 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2013 10:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18248
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 103 of 1034 (691903)
02-26-2013 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
02-26-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:

Oh dear, the ways one can be misunderstood are quite astonishingly diverse.

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:

Faith writes:

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?

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.

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.

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:

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?

Do even you know what this means?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 8:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 10:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 1034 (691904)
02-26-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Stile
02-26-2013 9:29 AM


Re: Good idea, next step
If you're sincere, thank you and thank the Lord.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Stile, posted 02-26-2013 9:29 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 02-26-2013 10:08 AM Faith has responded
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2014 10:47 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 105 of 1034 (691905)
02-26-2013 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
02-26-2013 9:16 AM


Re: mutations
quote:

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'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:

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.

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:

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.

Let us note that that is your opinion and one that is not generally accepted.

quote:

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.

Which only adds up to breeders doing their job - not an absence of mutations.

quote:

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.

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:

But they only MAKE the difference when they are selected. Just existing the population doesn't make the difference.

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:

True, long long times of stability without evolution happen too.

Long periods where there is little noticeable phenotypic evolution, but where genetic diversity is increasing.

quote:

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

But the slowness is the point. Because of that slowness we get diversity.

quote:

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

I think you'll find that my views are in line with the standard science.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 9:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
69NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019