Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 9:37 PM
161 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, marc9000, Tanypteryx (4 members, 157 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,741 Year: 2,778/19,786 Month: 860/1,918 Week: 147/301 Day: 30/35 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14717
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 106 of 1034 (691906)
02-26-2013 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
02-26-2013 9:35 AM


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

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.

But that isn't the limit we're looking for. It isn't a limit on what mutations are possible. It's just an expression of the fact that aggressive selection and inbreeding can rapidly deplete genetic diversity.

quote:

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.

Actually my dynamic equilibrium is necessary to evolution. It just contradicts your limited within-baramin idea of evolution which is why you don't like it. And I don't dislike bottlenecks as such, but I do dislike the idea of presenting them as the normal outcome of evolution because none of the current ones ARE.

quote:

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.


It isn't. You have yet to give any convincing reason why genetic diversity can't recover between speciation events. It IS obvious that it will to an extent. So why not to a level that prevents your inexorable decline in diversity ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 9:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 107 of 1034 (691907)
02-26-2013 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
02-26-2013 9:35 AM


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

Those limits are not applicable to evolution scenarios. We don't know of any limits to change that can accumulate in large populations.

First of all, the breeding you are describing is not speciation. When people breed dogs they get a new breed of dog that is of the same species and in fact, the same sub species. Invariably the new dogs are capable of interbreeding with the essentially all other dogs. There may be some physical obstacles due to size, but essentially all breeds are interfertile. In fact, the primary task involved with keeping dog breeds pure is keeping mutts out of the kennel. And yes, for the most part, the new breeds do come from variations within the dog species, but there are exceptions. One such exception is those funky dachshund legs. We know that those legs come from a mutation and we know exactly what mutation causes them.

On the other hand, common descent requires much more input from mutation than that. If the theory of evolution is correct, then species evolved from a common ancestor that did not contain all of the traits of modern species. Mutation is kinda slow, but on the other hand, the claim is that evolution has occurred over eons.

All you are really doing in this thread is asserting that for one reason or another, that common descent and the evolution is wrong. I have no doubt that you are absolutely convinced of that, but you are not offering any argument that it is wrong, you simply assert that evolution plays no role. In essence this is simply a Bible thread hiding in a science forum.

But back to the comparison of evolution with breeding programs and the plight of the cheetah. Problems with breeding programs come from many sources, but a primary one is the reinforcement of recessive harmful genes due to interbreeding in a population that has too few individuals. If the population is too small, then such reinforcements cause problems regardless of the rate of mutation. None of that demonstrates that evolution or common descent cannot work when the populations are large enough. Proponents of evolution do not believe that the cheetah can evolve its way out of its problem.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 9:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-26-2013 2:13 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3372
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 108 of 1034 (691909)
02-26-2013 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
02-26-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Good idea, next step
Faith writes:

If you're sincere...

I'm sincere, but I won't be very helpful in the particulars. Genetics isn't my cup of tea, I don't know very much about it.
I am, however, good at finding objective ways to show the reality of a situation.

Genetic diversity can be shown in some cases by the percentage of homozygosity in the genome. The more homozygosity the less genetic diversity.

I don't know what homozygosity is. I barely know what a genome is.
But I can tell you that phrases like "some cases" or even "more" and "less" are not very helpful in convincing others.

Is there any way you can find a method of concretely measuring it so that you can end up with things like "a 58 on the scale of genetic diversity"?

And then you might be able to explain something like "the scale of genetic diversity goes from 0 to 100. 0 would be absolutely no diversity possible ever again and 100 would be infinite diversity available forever."

If you could have a scale similar to that (no need to be exactly like that, it's just an example), and show quantified comparisons before and after speciation and also during a stasis period... it would be very helpful. Then, if you could test a few different animals, and show these values decreasing as the animals went through speciation events... your idea would gain a lot of weight. Then, if other people could use your scale to measure genetic diversity in the same way, and test some more animals, and find more decreasing values... then your idea would become extremely convincing and popular.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 9:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 10:24 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 1034 (691911)
02-26-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Stile
02-26-2013 10:08 AM


Re: Good idea, next step
Thank you very much for your sincerity, and again thank the Lord.

Thanks also for your mention of your lack of familiarity with the terminology. I know that can be a problem and all I know about genetics myself I've learned in pursuing this argument over the last few years.

I use the terminology of course to avoid having to explain more than I have to explain as it is, in the hope that it will at least make sense to some. And I have to avoid absolutizing because reality just isn't all that absolute and I'll get called on that faster than anything else.

I'll think and pray about your suggestions and thanks again.

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 108 by Stile, posted 02-26-2013 10:08 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 110 of 1034 (691913)
02-26-2013 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Bolder-dash
02-25-2013 9:39 PM


Re: The Amazing Pocketmouse!
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.

Given that both the light colored mice and the dark colored mice are doing fine in nature it would appear that nature can find body plans that work.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 111 of 1034 (691915)
02-26-2013 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
02-26-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
WHEREVER you get new varieties or phenotypes you get this phenomenon of reducing the genetic diversity . . .

I guess down is up in creationist circles.

You have phenotype A. A mutation occurs. You now have phenotype A and B. You have two phenotypes where you used to have one. You are claiming that going from one phenotype to two is a reduction in genetic diversity? If so, I think you should look up the definition of "reduction".

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.

Nowhere have you shown that this point exists. Nowhere.

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.

Evidence please.

Presumably what you need is a kind of "increased diversity" that can change the structure of the genome itself . . .

I would assume that you think that humans and chimps are in separate baramins. Can you please show us how their genomes are different structurally. Can you also please show us which differences between humans and chimps can not be produced by the observed processes of mutation. Please show us the mutations you claim can not occur.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 112 of 1034 (691916)
02-26-2013 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
02-26-2013 9:16 AM


Re: mutations
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.

We also know that new traits do appear through mutation, such as the double muscling of the Belgian Blue bovine breed:

These mutations add to the genetic diversity of any population, not reduce it.

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.

How can selection have the last word when every generation is born with new mutations?

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.

What about creating a new phenotype by mutation?


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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 1034 (691927)
02-26-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
02-22-2013 6:14 PM


Have you considered plants at all? People have been breeding them too. Look what we did with maize becoming corn. That wasn't a loss of genetic diversity. Or how about all the amazing flowers that have been made? There's no way all that stems from some super flower genome that gets chipped away into all the breeds we have today.

And crazily enough, all the plant developments fit perfectly with the Theory of Evolution's mutations and selection mechanism.

It really is correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 02-22-2013 6:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 1034 (691936)
02-26-2013 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2013 12:21 PM


Plant Breeding
Have you considered plants at all? People have been breeding them too. Look what we did with maize becoming corn. That wasn't a loss of genetic diversity.

In order to GET corn the plant genome had to lose the genetic atuff that produced maize instead. That's what loss of genetic diversity means as I'm using it. The alleles for corn had to be favored in the population while the alleles for maize had to be suppressed and perhaps even completely eliminated in some strains. Just as in breeding animals you have to lose the competing alleles for other breeds. They may still be present but if you want the breed to "breed true" it usually requires that you have nothing but the alleles for the desired traits, and they pair up homozygously, all the other alleles staying back in the former population, staying back in the maize populations in this case.

In other words I'm sure plants behave genetically in much the same way animals do.

Or how about all the amazing flowers that have been made? There's no way all that stems from some super flower genome that gets chipped away into all the breeds we have today.

If you keep breeding for a particular trait you will keep favoring the alleles that produce that trait, maybe for multiple genes even, and the more you favor the more that trait is emphasized. AND at the same time the more you lose the alleles for other kinds of flowers that you DON'T want. If you don't keep at it they may revert to their wild state, but that would usuailly be by the reintroduction of the original genes by combination with those earlier types. it may be possible just as with animals to produce a reliable "pure breed" that simply no longer possesses the alleles that don't support the variety you want. In animals that certainly can occur, and I don't see why not with plants although I gather their genetic situation is different in some important ways. Since people keep thinking I'm talking about extinction or death, no, the wild types continue in the wild just as always.

And crazily enough, all the plant developments fit perfectly with the Theory of Evolution's mutations and selection mechanism.

They also fit very well with my scenario as I'm describing it here, either mutation or built-in genetic diversity supplying the material for selection to work on, and selection bringing about the desired form which also requires the loss of the genetic material for the undesired forms.

Elementary my dear Watson.

ABE: Maybe this will make it a bit clearer:

The WILD type from which breeders develop all the variations of flowers and corn and all the other plant forms we prefer, contains ALL the genetic diversity for ALL the variations that are developed from them. It's when the variations are being bred for a particular desired trait that the alleles for the undesired forms get eliminated from the breed. Again, they are ALL THERE in the original, every variation on a plant that you might want to try to develop is there, but then the genetic stuff for those you don't want in your chosen form get reduced and even lost as you favor the type you want from generation to generation. THAT's what I mean by the loss of genetic diversity.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2013 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2013 1:01 PM Faith has responded
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 02-26-2013 1:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 1034 (691937)
02-26-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-26-2013 12:53 PM


In order to GET corn the plant genome had to lose the genetic atuff that produced maize instead.

No, the genome had to gain the genetic stuff that produced corn. It still has all the genes to make maize, but now it has the additional genes that turn the maize into corn.

If you keep breeding for a particular trait you will keep favoring the alleles that produce that trait, maybe for multiple genes even, and the more you favor the more that trait is emphasized. AND at the same time the more you lose the alleles for other kinds of flowers that you DON'T want.

No, you just keep building more and more into the genome, without loosing much if anything.

They also fit very well with my scenario as I'm describing it here, either mutation or built-in genetic diversity supplying the material for selection to work on, and selection bringing about the desired form which also requires the loss of the genetic material for the undesired forms.

No, you don't have to loose the genetic material for the undesired forms. Corn is just like maize, except it has extra genes to make the kernels bigger. There is no keep-the-kernels-small gene that has to be lost.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 12:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 1:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-26-2013 1:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 1034 (691940)
02-26-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2013 1:01 PM


Plant Breeding
In order to GET corn the plant genome had to lose the genetic atuff that produced maize instead.

No, the genome had to gain the genetic stuff that produced corn. It still has all the genes to make maize, but now it has the additional genes that turn the maize into corn.

Nope, it always had the genetic capacity to produce corn but that capacity had to be brought out by selection.

If you keep breeding for a particular trait you will keep favoring the alleles that produce that trait, maybe for multiple genes even, and the more you favor the more that trait is emphasized. AND at the same time the more you lose the alleles for other kinds of flowers that you DON'T want.

No, you just keep building more and more into the genome, without loosing much if anything.

I've been accepting that mutation could create the material for selection to work on, but whether it does or it's already built in, it's still just material for selection to work on and when selection works on it then you get the forms you desire.

Actually the mutation idea doesn't make much sense. They made broccoli, cauilflower, and a few other edible plants from one rather scrawny plant. They chose plants with the largest flowers and kept breeding for that trait from generation to generation until they got this gigantic flower that is cauliflower. They did the same with whatever part finally developed into broccoli. It was all from the same scrawny little plant, simply favoring the part they wanted to become more desirable, big etc.

You think by simply choosing plants with the biggest flowers you are going to get a mutation for even bigger flowers? Don't think so. I think the favoring of the flowers simply selects the alleles/genes for the flower part of the plant and if you keep favoring them and selecting them and breeding them that's all it takes to make them into big cauliflower heads. Where does mutation play into that scenario?

Same with flowers. You find pretty but small and undistinguished flowers in the wild, and you breed them by favoring those that are bigger and prettier generation after generation, always breeding only the ones you like the best and leaving the others behind, until you get a big gorgeous multi-petaled flower or something like that, all from merely favoring the best versions of the previous flowers.

Where does mutation enter into that? The genes/alleles for the big beautiful flower were already there but in the wild they weren't being favored so they never developed.

They also fit very well with my scenario as I'm describing it here, either mutation or built-in genetic diversity supplying the material for selection to work on, and selection bringing about the desired form which also requires the loss of the genetic material for the undesired forms.

No, you don't have to loose the genetic material for the undesired forms. Corn is just like maize, except it has extra genes to make the kernels bigger. There is no keep-the-kernels-small gene that has to be lost.

If extra genes are involved, those are what keep getting favored by the selection of the best looking plants, of the biggest kernels and so on. You ALWAYS lose the undesired genes/alleles by doing that. That's the way it happens in dog breeds and cattle breeds, I see no reason it isn't how it would happen in plants as well.

All I'm doing is emphsizing a ppart of the known processes of breeding that doesn't usually get emphasized although it's central to its working. It's crucial for the question of the validity of evolution.

{By the way, God made us human beings caretakers of His animals and plants, to be cultivators and "husbandmen" and to improve the originals. This is what we are seeing in breeding, taking a plant or an animal and breeding it for some trait we happen to like or that is useful to us. The stuff for the improvement is already there, built in, it's our job to bring it out and give it expression.}

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2013 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2013 2:09 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 02-26-2013 2:14 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Taq, posted 02-26-2013 2:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 117 of 1034 (691942)
02-26-2013 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-26-2013 12:53 PM


In order to GET corn the plant genome had to lose the genetic atuff that produced maize instead.

It also had to add the genetic stuff that makes corn instead of teosinte. That's what an increase in genetic diversity means as I'm using it.

If you keep breeding for a particular trait you will keep favoring the alleles that produce that trait, maybe for multiple genes even, and the more you favor the more that trait is emphasized. AND at the same time the more you lose the alleles for other kinds of flowers that you DON'T want.

First, you need the traits to select for, and for corn this required an increase in genetic diversity since the ancestral teosinte gene pool did not have the genetic diversity that included the traits found in modern corn.

They also fit very well with my scenario as I'm describing it here, either mutation or built-in genetic diversity supplying the material for selection to work on,

Mutations producing a new phenotype is an increase in genetic diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18261
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 118 of 1034 (691944)
02-26-2013 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2013 1:01 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

No, the genome had to gain the genetic stuff that produced corn. It still has all the genes to make maize, but now it has the additional genes that turn the maize into corn.

Reading up on this a bit, maybe corn isn't the best example for making the point that mutations are a significant contributor to variation. It seems that hybridization is believed to be the most significant factor leading to modern corn. Genes would have been both added and deleted, and new alleles would have been introduced and removed, but mostly not through mutations. I couldn't find much detail about corn mutations, though there's one theory that involves a significant mutation some thousands of years and ago, and sweet corn is apparently the result of a commonly occurring mutation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2013 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2013 2:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 1034 (691946)
02-26-2013 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
02-26-2013 1:21 PM


Re: Plant Breeding
Nope, it always had the genetic capacity to produce corn but that capacity had to be brought out by selection.

No, it did not have the capacity to produce corn until it gained the proper mutations to its genome, which increased its diversity.

You think by simply choosing plants with the biggest flowers you are going to get a mutation for even bigger flowers? Don't think so. I think the favoring of the flowers simply selects the alleles/genes for the flower part of the plant and if you keep favoring them and selecting them and breeding them that's all it takes to make them into big cauliflower heads. Where does mutation play into that scenario?

Not all the plants have the exact same flower size. Mutations to the gene that causes the flower size makes some of them bigger and some of them smaller. When you pick the largest of the flowers, you are selecting for the mutated genes that cause larger flowers. Those larger flowers are going to have more mutations that make their flowers both bigger and smaller. When you pick the biggest of the largest flowers, you are selecting for the mutated genes that cause the big large flower. Those bigger larger flowers are going to have more mutation that make some of their flowers smaller and some of their flowers even more bigger and larger. When you pick the even more bigger and larger flower, you are selecting for the mutated genes that cause the even more bigger and larger flowers. Each of these steps is increasing the genetic diversity by including more and more mutated genes that cause bigger and bigger flowers and you don't have to loose any genes because there weren't any that keep the flowers smaller in the first place. Some genes might be replaced by the new ones, but they don't all have to.

Where does mutation enter into that? The genes/alleles for the big beautiful flower were already there but in the wild they weren't being favored so they never developed.

No, if the genes for the even bigger and larger flowers were already in there, then the flowers would already be even bigger and larger. It wasn't until after the mutation occured that they became a part of the genome.

If extra genes are involved, those are what keep getting favored by the selection of the best looking plants, of the biggest kernels and so on. You ALWAYS lose the undesired genes/alleles by doing that. That's the way it happens in dog breeds and cattle breeds, I see no reason it isn't how it would happen in plants as well.

The way it happens in dog and cattle breeds is a tiny subset of all the ways that evolution can happen. It does not represent the totality of evolution.

As an analogy, you're saying that because ceviche is cooked with lemon juice instead of heat, then you have no reason to think that any food is cooked with heat.

All I'm doing is emphsizing a ppart of the known processes of breeding that doesn't usually get emphasized although it's central to its working. It's crucial for the question of the validity of evolution.

Domestic breeding is actually a special case of evolution. It still fits within the model of the Theory of Evolution, but it does not represent how things work outside of domestic breeding. In fact, the the wiki page on breeds has this to say:

quote:
Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry, no scientifically accepted definition of the term exists. A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.

There's no reason to think that breeding results in ONLY the loss of genetic material. In fact, there's plenty of reason to doubt it. The wolf does not have some super genome with the genes to make its skull both the tiny size of a chihuahua and also huge size of a mastiff. Those skulls were the result of mutations to the wolfs genome that added to its genetic diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 1:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 120 of 1034 (691947)
02-26-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
02-26-2013 1:48 PM


Well thanks, but I wasn't under the impression that we were going to let facts get in the way of this discussion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-26-2013 1:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
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