Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 1034 (691841)
02-25-2013 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
02-25-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Ring Species -- Greenish Warbler -- and Genetic Diversity
Once it appears, the genetic diversity has increased, has it not?
Yes but you keep trying to make this equal to the effect of the reduction through the selection and isolation processes and I don't think it is by a long shot.
If you had a bottleneck of three or four individuals that included the most recent mutations you'd have drastically reduced genetic diversity after just a few generations of inbreeding, with homozygosity made up of those mutant alleles.
You think at that point you're going to get further beneficial mutations that just increase the diversity again but as a matter of fact it hasn't happened with the cheetah, and what they worry about is that they're only going to get deleterious mutations anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 2:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 3:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2013 4:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 1034 (691852)
02-25-2013 5:44 PM


Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
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.
I barely get that fully laid out, certainly don't get it fully understood judging by the bizarre straw man arguments I've been hearing back, but then I'm barraged with all these objections about mutations as well:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just wanted to get that stated in a more formal sort of way. So carry on with your smoke and mirrors and your swashbuckling ridicule.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 5:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2013 7:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 02-25-2013 9:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2013 3:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2013 3:50 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 1034 (692027)
02-27-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by NoNukes
02-26-2013 9:52 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
And while of course the Bible underlies my interest in pursuing this line of reasoning, I'm using ONLY what I've learned from EVOLUTIONIST SCIENCE in the actual argument itself. Change in gene frequencies, effect of reproductive isolation, effect of small population isolation. Also other scientific facts such as how the mere selection of desired traits by breeders generation after generation leads to new breeds with or without mutation.
ABE Edited to remove heated remarks.
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 137 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2013 9:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 12:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 02-27-2013 1:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2013 5:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 216 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 6:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 1034 (692040)
02-27-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by ringo
02-27-2013 1:22 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Because I interpret the facts from within a different explanatory system. Paradigm clash.
Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong.
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 140 by ringo, posted 02-27-2013 1:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 3:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 4:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 02-28-2013 11:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 1034 (692068)
02-27-2013 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AZPaul3
02-27-2013 3:35 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 3:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 4:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 149 of 1034 (692099)
02-27-2013 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by AZPaul3
02-27-2013 4:58 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
None of that has been SHOWN by the biologists, it's all BELIEVED ON FAITH and accepted on authority. Whenever a new trait emerges they call it a mutation. In most cases they don't KNOW that it's a mutation, it's just that their theory tells them it is.
What actually happens in reality is that the processes of evolution come to an end by running out of genetic possibilities.
In REALITY. This is demonstrated in breeding and it is demonstrated all the time in the wild where conservationists are concerned about species endangered by genetic depletion.
You CLAIM that mutations keep adding diversity so that this doesn't normally happen but you do not KNOW that. You know that there ARE mutations but you don't know what they actually DO in the population. Again it's an article of faith based on your theory telling you that's what has to happen.
The other paradigm is that the existing genotype is quite sufficient to provide all the diversity needed for new phenotypes to emerge through many population splits, each new reduction in numbers reducing the genetic diversity until eventually if the splitting keeps continuing you arrive at speciation and inability to further evolve new varieties.
The only way I can think of that my paradigm could be proved is if the DNA could be sampled from a sequence of populations to show this reduced diversity.
Meanwhile you have no proof for your paradigm either, all you have is a consensus of belief.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 4:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 7:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 7:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2013 8:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2013 1:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 152 of 1034 (692112)
02-27-2013 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AZPaul3
02-27-2013 7:07 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
I regret my heated words and am taking them back. Forgive me.
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 151 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 7:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 7:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 156 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 7:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024