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 2:09 PM
171 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,580 Year: 2,617/19,786 Month: 699/1,918 Week: 287/266 Day: 24/35 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3753
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 166 of 1034 (692137)
02-27-2013 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Coyote
02-27-2013 10:29 PM


Re: Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
Canada is doing away with their penny, you see. If you were Canadian you wouldn't have the additional two pennies that you owe us. But you are not Canadian so when may Faith and I expect our payments?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 10:29 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 11:03 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 167 of 1034 (692138)
02-27-2013 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by AZPaul3
02-27-2013 10:49 PM


Re: Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
Put it on my tab.

Seriously I'm awaiting a response to that post. It took me a while to compose it.

I'm really not expecting anything other than dogma in reply though.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2013 10:49 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

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


(1)
Message 168 of 1034 (692139)
02-28-2013 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
02-27-2013 6:05 PM


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

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.

I think you'll find there's more to it than that. But if a previously unknown heritable trait appears odds are that it is due to a mutation.

quote:

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.


Obviously you think that you are God, because otherwise there is no way you could honestly state that your opinions were reality. In actual reality there is no sign of this happening. That rapid depletion can occur and lead to problems (and often extinction) is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. And let us note that the majority of cases are a consequence of human activity.

quote:

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.

We know that there are mutations. We know that they increase diversity at the level of DNA sequences. We know that mutations can have phenotypic effects. Which is a pretty solid basis for a position. But we have more, we have all the evidence for evolution, which can't be explained by your theory. So we have much more than an article of faith, we have a quite solid position. All you have is your assumption that it can't happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 6:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 11:40 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 1034 (692141)
02-28-2013 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Coyote
02-27-2013 9:45 PM


The Fall didn't inspire the argument
For some reason you are particularly interested in getting an answer from me to this post? I'm not sure why or what answer you are looking for.

I can assure you that at no time on this thread or any time since I've been working on this argument have I imposed my beliefs on it or tried to make it fit my beliefs. Not the Creation, not the Fall, none of that. But of course I have many times tried to take the argument back to those points looking for explanations for how it would have worked. Of course I pursue the argument so determinedly because it DOES fit my beliefs, of course, but I didn't start with the belief.

I recognized that selection and isolation, considered to be processes of evolution, inevitably reduce genetic diversity and that there has to be an end point to that process beyond which evolution can't continue. It's something I recognized and I've been working it through ever since. The end point may not be reached in reality very often but it's always theoretically there as the point at which all the processes are aiming.

I couldn't have been trying to find a definition of the Kind because we've all been looking for a completely different definition, but it did seem to me that the theoretical end point I was seeing did provide a definition, different than the definition we've all been looking for, a functional definition. Where the processes of change or evolution stop on any particular path because of genetic depletion, that functionally defines the boundary of the Kind on that particular path.

I do think it's intuitively obvious that mutations are just going to be fodder for the selective processes and can't possibly prevent the eventual inevitable if theoretical arrival at the end point, and I think it ought to be recognized just from the descriptions I've given, but perhaps I'll eventually find a model that can demonstrate it. The picture that comes to mind at the moment is of a person dying of a heart attack that the doctors are trying to revive with those electric stimulators, and the heart revives for a few beats but then dies and then they revive it again for a few beats but then it dies again. That is NOT a good model, it's just what comes to mind at the moment.

If you want me to respond to Ayn Rand's comments about the Fall all I can say is I don't like Ayn Rand and think her comments about religion are ridiculous.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 163 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 9:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 1034 (692142)
02-28-2013 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Coyote
02-27-2013 9:45 PM


Re: Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
Second answer: I missed the context in the other answer, which is the prediction of more genetic disease.

I could have predicted that just because I believe mutations are predominantly deleterious, without believing in the Fall.

But yes I do believe in the Fall and deleterious mutations do fit into it, and so does my argument.


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 163 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 9:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 1034 (692144)
02-28-2013 8:33 AM


Ponderings on this argument
I do wish that I could have pursued this argument further because there are issues I still need to work out.

One of them is what HBD raised a while back about the number of alleles per gene in relation to any theory about the original genome I've been able to come up with. I may have to figure mutations in to that extent at least. Maybe take this discussion to the old thread Introduction to Genetics.

Another is how large populations of animals that DO have high genetic diversity nevertheless appear so homogeneous phenotypically. I think of the wild herds of Wildebeests and buffalo and I figure it must have been true of the wild herds of cattle from which all our domestic breeds descended. This is another question about normal genetics.

That is, I think I understand pretty well how new varieties or phenotypes develop from a small isolated population, because it's the reduction of genetic diversity that brings it about. BUT even so the new phenotype wouldn't appear for a number of generations. The first individuals to form the new population would look just like the original population. But over a few generations of inbreeding within the new group the new frequencies of alleles would start producing new combinations and bringing out new traits. So I'm picturing a phase where the former homogeneity of the orignal population is giving way to a more motley mix of different traits in different individuals because of the new mix of alleles. But eventually the population would develop a phenotype to which all the individuals conform. THAT's interesting it seems to me. It must occur through the mixng and remixing of the new gene frequencies through a number of generations until they're all thoroughly mixed together. I've figured that could take a few hundred years in some cases. But I'd still like to be able to picture it at the level of the genome, what's happening there.

Whatever is happening there is also what brought about the original homogeneity of the phenotype of the original large population with its greater genetic diversity. In such a population new traits should be showing up in every generation in every individual anyway, because of new combinations occurring, but not to enough of an extent to stand out in the crowd. It's only when the selection processes begin to favor a trait and multiply it that a whole new population begins to develop with a whole new look.

Somebody back in the thread spoke as if I ASSUME that I can just extrapolate what happens in breeding to wild populations, but really it seems to me that it's pretty obvious that the same processes have to occur. The only thing that would be different according to standard theory is that mutations would occur much more frequently in a larger population, increasing its genetic diversity. But the same arising of new traits would happen pheotypically if the new traits were in fact brought about instead by "ancestral" or built-in alleles, which is my usual assumption. You'd get an increase in genetic diversity IF mutations do produce viable alleles for new traits, yes, but it seems to me all that would do is put off the inevitable for a longer period. The inevitable is still the inevitable reduction that has to occur through the various selection processes IF new phenotypes or varieties or breeds are to develop. Mutations would vary alleles for particular genes, therefore for particular traits as defined by those genes, and it's hard to see how that would make any appreciable difference to the development of new varieties with its inevitable necessity of reducing genetic diversity. Again, it could only put off the inevitable, delay it at best.

If you look up Cattle Breeds at Wikipedia you'll find out that there are some 800 domesticated breeds. There are pictures. They vary in their coloring and markings, size of horns and body structure and also their meat and milk quality.

Simply removing and isolating relatively small populations from the original wild herd of cattle would have brought about changes through the new gene frequencies as the new populations inbred over some number of generations, but of course most of the breeds were also developed by human selection of desired traits as well, including hybridization by mixing with other breeds.

Each of these 800 populations would naturally have less genetic diversity than the original wild population, which alone is all it takes for a new peculiar phenotype to develop, same as with all domesticated animals. You don't need mutations for that. Some here have agreed that this is how it happens in domestic breeding anyway, that it's simply the small numbers inbreeding, with their severely reduced genetic diveristy compared to the population at large, that forms the separate breeds. Mutations are just not needed. So I don't see why they would be needed to create the various cattle breeds either. I guess they may occur from time to time as usual but the natural mix of genes culled from the original population is quite sufficient to bring about all the breeds.

Again I'd mention that a breed in order to "breed true" generation after generation must have much homozygosity for its peculiar traits, meaning it must have ONLY the alleles needed to form those traits, whether singly or in whatever combinations produce them, which is a very great reduction in genetic diversity, all other alleles for those traits having been left back in the mother populations. To what extent this occurs in cattle breeds I don't know. Breeding true may involve human intervention to prevent undesired cross breeding more than it involves a genetic condition like homozygosity but it would be interesting to know. I think I read that the Hereford breed, wish I kept better track of my sources, only fully developed its characteristic look reliably from generation to generation within the last century, which could mean it finally arrived at homozygosity for its characteristics, all competing alleles finally having been eliminated from the breed.

There are still wild herds, and variation of course doesn't happen as frequently among them because they manage to keep their large populations pretty intact, but as soon as there is a migration of some portion of them they will also start to vary and why shouldn't they vary according to the same principles as domestic breeds do? This also does not require mutation. It just requires a change in gene frequencies which is the natural result of isolating a portion of the original population. There may also BE mutations but they are not needed for the changes to develop.

So according to the Wikipedia article on the Wildebeest/gnu there are two main varieties or "species" of this animal that are geographically isolated from one another, and both exist in large populations and apparently do quite well. One is the black type and the other is the blue type. They think they diverged from each other some ten thousand years ago but if you think about how long it would take to work the new gene frequencies through a herd that started out as maybe a few hundred individuals that migrated away from the mother population which was maybe as numerous as hundreds of thousands or even a million why should it take more than a few hundred years?

For everyone who keeps wanting "evidence" why isn't the logic of this argument sufficient to make the point? At least as an alternate theory, an alternate model? The only way I can think of to prove any of this or provide evidence is by DNA sampling. If the blue Wildebeest migrated from the black in sppreciably smaller numbers (and I don't know) then it should show fewer alleles for its pecular traits even to homozygosity for those traits as compared to the black type.

Same with the domestic breeds of cattle. If there's any way to know anything about the original populations from which they developed you could look for the DNA evidence there too.

Could do the same for all those ring species out there. As well as domestic breeds of dogs.

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.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18249
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 172 of 1034 (692145)
02-28-2013 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by NoNukes
02-27-2013 8:06 PM


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

But it is equally a mistake to discuss breeding programs as if they involved all of the mechanics involved in common descent.

Exactly. Breeding is an illustration of the power of selection, in other words, of only one half of the evolutionary process.

Diversity is like a bathtub with the faucet and drain both open. Whether the bathtub fills or empties is dependent upon which flow is greater. Faith hasn't yet enabled us to understand why she believes that diversity is under all circumstances diminished faster than it is augmented.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2013 8:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:08 AM Percy has responded
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2013 9:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 1034 (692146)
02-28-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
02-28-2013 8:46 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Diversity is like a bathtub with the faucet and drain both open. Whether the bathtub fills or empties is dependent upon which flow is greater. Faith hasn't yet enabled us understand why she believes that diversity is under all circumstances diminished faster than it is augmented.

Well, would you agree that if the faucet and drain are both open you aren't getting evolution? That is, you aren't getting the development of new varieties/species/breeds?

If you are getting more increase in diversity than you are selection events you also aren't getting evolution, the development of new varieties/species/breeds. {ABE: As a matter of fact you can't have both faucet and drain operating at the same time. The "drain" is supposed to stand for the selection/isolation processes but those bring about new phenotypes FROM the genetic pool. Must be more like add THEN subtract, add THEN subtract in reality} What you are getting is perhaps new traits appearing here and there in individuals within the population. But for evolution to occur, that is the development of a new population with new characteristics, a new "species," you MUST have reproductive isolation/selection.

Doesn't that seem true to you?

This analogy really doesn't work though because this isn't a simple addition/subtraction issue and I wish I had a model for what it really is. If mutation is involved it could maybe be described as something like two steps forward, one step back. Add some diversity, knock it back with selection, add some more diversity, knock it back again.

You HAVE to knock it back, that is, you HAVE to reduce the genetic diversity to get a new phenotype, breed, variety, species, in the wild as well as in domestic breeding, though the most accessible example is what happens in domestic breeding. If mutation really is involved it could only be a start-stop sort of thing along the lines I'm describing here, the continual adding of mutations merely delaying the inevitable.

If it's built-in alleles providing the diversity for selection to work on rather than mutations then the process is more direct: you've got your gene pool whole and complete as is and selection and isolation then shape that gene pool through new gene frequencies.

Mutations would keep changing the gene pool which sets back the selection effects, but it can't keep them from occurring IF you're going to get new "species." If all you get is balance or stasis, water in water out, again you aren't getting the production of new species, you aren't getting evolution.

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 172 by Percy, posted 02-28-2013 8:46 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 02-28-2013 9:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2013 9:25 AM Faith has responded
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2013 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18249
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 174 of 1034 (692147)
02-28-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
02-28-2013 9:08 AM


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

Well, would you agree that if the faucet and drain are both open you aren't getting evolution? That is, you aren't getting the development of new varieties/species/breeds?

But of course you're "getting evolution." That's the whole point of the analogy.

Mutations flow in through the faucet, adding diversity. Alleles and genes flow out through the drain, subtracting diversity. With all this flowing in and out of alleles and genes, their mix in the bathtub is undergoing continuous change, which is the basis for phenotypic change. Whether diversity remains constant or increases or decreases, the mix of alleles and genes will be always changing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:28 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 175 of 1034 (692148)
02-28-2013 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
02-28-2013 9:08 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Well, would you agree that if the faucet and drain are both open you aren't getting evolution? That is, you aren't getting the development of new varieties/species/breeds?

No one would agree with that.

If the big change that makes a new species is fur color, is an individual with a mutation that makes the individual resistant to swine flu not part of that new species?

Look at the current level of diversity in humans. Does that diversity prevent them from being of the same species? This idea of yours borders on the inane. Every human possesses genetic code that neither of his/her parents had. This fact alone ought to answer your question.

Speciation is a completely different thing than making a new breed of dog. When breeding, in the rare case when a visible mutation showed up, the breeder would kick that dog out of the gene pool even if the mutation were genetically beneficial. That is not at all how natural selection works.

Added by edit:

I see you are continuing to argue this idea. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. The view you are attacking is not what anyone believes.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 173 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:44 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 1034 (692149)
02-28-2013 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
02-28-2013 9:20 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Well, would you agree that if the faucet and drain are both open you aren't getting evolution? That is, you aren't getting the development of new varieties/species/breeds?

But of course you're "getting evolution." That's the whole point of the analogy.

Not if evolution is the production of new species/varieties/breeds. All you get from the addition of mutations is more traits that COULD be the basis of a new species, but as long as they aren't being selected, no, you aren't getting evolution. You are getting lots of new traits here and there within the existing population. That is not evolution.

Mutations flow in through the faucet, adding diversity. Alleles and genes flow out through the drain, subtracting diversity.

No, it isn't a simple addition-subtraction thing. If alleles are flowing in you get stasis. If alleles are flowing OUT you are getting new phenotypes or varieties or breeds or species. Really they are two separate processes.

With all this flowing in and out of alleles and genes, their mix in the bathtub is undergoing continuous change, which is the basis for phenotypic change.

It is the BASIS for phenotypic change, because the gene pool IS the basis for phenotypic change, but you aren't GETTING phenotypic change until you get reproductive isolation and selection.

Whether diversity remains constant or increases or decreases, the mix of alleles and genes will be always changing.

But that isn't evolution if evolution is the production of new species, which is brought about by the selection and isolation of a portion of the gene pool. All mutation does is add to the gene pool and that is not evolution, that's as you say the BASIS for phenotypic change but if selection does not act on it you do not have phenotypic change and do not have evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 02-28-2013 9:20 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 02-28-2013 10:02 AM Faith has responded
 Message 180 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-28-2013 10:19 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 10:58 AM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 1034 (692151)
02-28-2013 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
02-28-2013 8:46 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith hasn't yet enabled us to understand why she believes that diversity is under all circumstances diminished faster than it is augmented.

Yes she has.


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 172 by Percy, posted 02-28-2013 8:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 1034 (692152)
02-28-2013 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by NoNukes
02-28-2013 9:25 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Well, would you agree that if the faucet and drain are both open you aren't getting evolution? That is, you aren't getting the development of new varieties/species/breeds?

No one would agree with that.

Then you aren't really thinking about the reality of the situation which is not simple water in water out. "Water in" builds up the gene pool. That is NOT evolution if by evolution is meant the production of species. You DO agree that evolution IS the production of new species, don't you? Or is that now changed as well. The production of new species which is the "water out" part is brought about ONLY by the selection and isolating processes. You can have a ton of genetic diversity in the gene pool and the population not be evolving. If it is going to evolve into new species selection and isolation have to shape the gene pool.

If the big change that makes a new species is fur color, is an individual with a mutation that makes the individual resistant to swine flu not part of that new species?

Anything can be the fodder for evolution. But if it's just a mutation for a trait in an individual that is not being selected you are not getting evolution. Mutations add diversity but only in separate individuals within the population but it just sits there unless selection is acting on it and if it acts on it THEN you are getting evolution and not before. "Water in" is NOT evolution.

Look at the current level of diversity in humans. Does that diversity prevent them from being of the same species?

This is a ridiculous question it seems to me, that has nothing to do with anything I've said, so I assume you still don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Humans and domestic animals are different from wild species in that respect though. We do have an enormous range of recognizable diversity in PHENOTYPE that doesn't occur in wild animals. Grizzly bears all look like grizzly bears, chickadees all look like chickadees, starlings like starlings, lions like lions, Siberian tigers like Siberian tigers, blue wildebeests like blue wildebeests, a particular species of greenish warblers all look like each other and so on. There is variation in individuals in those populations too, but it isn't as dramatic as it is in humans and domestic breeds. Perhaps because our gene pool could never get that thoroughly mixed together as it does in wild animals.

This idea of yours borders on the inane.

Thank you.

Every human possesses genetic code that neither of his/her parents had. This fact alone ought to answer your question.

I am aware of all that.

Speciation is a completely different thing than making a new breed of dog.

No it isn't.

When breeding, in the rare case when a visible mutation showed up, the breeder would kick that dog out of the gene pool.

Yes, but in the wild it would get blended in through the next generations which would form whatever phenotype or breed is going to form. Wild populations are not selected as breeds are but they are selected in the sense that they are nothing more than the mixing of an isolated gene pool with its own gene frequencies and that's the same thing as happens in breeding only the selecting forces are more random in the wild.

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 175 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2013 9:25 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2013 10:22 AM Faith has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18249
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 179 of 1034 (692153)
02-28-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
02-28-2013 9:28 AM


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

Not if evolution is the production of new species/varieties/breeds. All you get from the addition of mutations is more traits that COULD be the basis of a new species, but as long as they aren't being selected, no, you aren't getting evolution.

They *are* being selected. The drain is selection in this analogy. (You can't take the analogy much further - it was intended only as an illustration of how diversity is being added and taken away at the same time through the simultaneous processes of mutation and seleciton.)

You are getting lots of new traits here and there within the existing population. That is not evolution.

Yes it is evolution. New traits are a result of evolution. The discovery of new species does not happen as often today as it used to, but it still happens with regularity, and new traits is what marks a new species. New species of mushrooms were just discovered, identifiable as new because of unique differences in their spores (Two New Species of Mushroom Found in the Iberian Peninsula, Spain). And when paleontologists discover a fossil with previously unknown traits they announce the discovery of a new species.

You do not get a new species with new traits simply by reducing diversity such as happens with breeding. That's why breeders do not create new species.

No, it isn't a simple addition-subtraction thing. If alleles are flowing in you get stasis. If alleles are flowing OUT you are getting new phenotypes or varieties or breeds or species. Really they are two separate processes.

Yes, of course they are separate processes. The faucet is analogous to mutation, and the drain is analogous to selection. And the alleles and genes flowing in are not the same alleles and genes flowing out. It isn't stasis.

It is the BASIS for phenotypic change, because the gene pool IS the basis for phenotypic change, but you aren't GETTING phenotypic change until you get reproductive isolation and selection.

Without mutation you cannot get phenotypic change into a new species because the population will only have alleles and genes already possessed by the main population.

And selection occurs all the time regardless of reproductive isolation. Main populations are evolving, too, and possibly at a faster rate since they can draw upon a much larger inflow of new mutations.

But that isn't evolution if evolution is the production of new species, which is brought about by the selection and isolation of a portion of the gene pool.

Again, isolation and selection are not sufficient to form a new species. Without mutations all you have is the same alleles and genes as the original population.

All mutation does is add to the gene pool and that is not evolution,...

Yes, mutations are part of evolution, and for the creation of novel traits they are the essential part.

All mutation does is add to the gene pool and that is not evolution, that's as you say the BASIS for phenotypic change but if selection does not act on it you do not have phenotypic change and do not have evolution.

Of course selection operates upon mutation. Always, constantly, all the time. How could it not? Selection operates on all expressed parts of the genome, whether newly arisen through mutation or part of the original genome.

That mutation and selection are always active is why both faucet and drain were open at the same time in the bathtub analogy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 11:00 AM Percy has responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 402
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 180 of 1034 (692154)
02-28-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
02-28-2013 9:28 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Perhaps Faith would understand the analogy better if we were to say that the water flowing into the tub was tinted with different colored dye from time to time and that the porcelain of the tub could be differentially stained because the glaze was worn off to varying degrees. Some dyes are more readily absorbed by different areas of the porcelain (selection), so the pattern of the color of the tub itself (the phenotype) would change over time. The water in the tub at any given moment might be a swirling mix of different colors while the color pattern of the tub itself slowly evolved.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 02-28-2013 9:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
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