Message 196 of 1034 (692254) 03-01-2013 12:26 PM

Reply to: Message 195 by Faith 03-01-2013 11:40 AM

quote:

---

According to my model on the other hand, I would say that the odds favor its having been latent in the gene pool and then brought to expression in a combination that's rare for that gene pool through mere sexual recombination.

---

I'd say that your model is wrong, but I suspect that it's more likely that you don't really have a model, only an assumption. If it's previously unknown then the combination is rare and unlikely to be passed on to the next generation with anything like the probability we'd see with a mutation. So, it wouldn't really be heritable.

quote:

---

Yes I understand that the argument I'm facing here involves the claim that breeding methods don't model evolution in the wild, but it IS my argument that the principles are the same no matter who or what is doing the selecting.

---

It's not the principles. It isn't even just the differences in application - it's also the results. Species are not breeds.

quote:

---

Since it has been acknowledged by at least a few here that developing new breeds does involve reducing genetic diversity through mere selection of particular traits, and it's not an unreasonable idea that selection processes in the wild would operate in the same way, then the same kinds of processes would have to tend to the same conclusion, and they do, as exampled I believe in speciation events. Except of course in the wild the selection processes can be quite random such as migration and geographical isolation of a new gene pool which is not usually as small as those used in breeding, rather than caused by anything as actively selective as Natural Selection, though that may operate as well in some situations.

---

That there is a strong similarity is not being disputed. The argument is more about what is going on at OTHER times.

quote:

---

You all assume (without proof) that the traits chosen for breeding are created by mutation and there really isn't any way I can prove you wrong, but I don't see how you could claim that when the same trait is selected generation after generation with the effect that the chosen trait becomes strikingly large and elaborate, that mutations for each of those expansions and elaborations were the cause in each generation. Not if mutation is truly random you can't. The more reasonable explanation is that there is something in the genetic design itself that is capable of such elaborations.

---

If you paid attention you'd note that I consider mutation to be a relatively small influence in the case of selective breeding, larger in the case of speciation (likely often a cause of reproductive incompatibilities) but ultimately more significant over the whole lifetime of a species.

quote:

---

IF you are really observing a mutation and not confusing it with a normally occurring latent allele. But what KIND of diversity is NOT known in all cases. What is best known is the mutations that cause genetic diseases.

---

The fact that mutations happen on a regularly basis is beyond question. So is the fact that the vast majority are neutral, having little or no effect.

quote:

---

Yes and no. You are all more or less willing to accept ANY kind of change as valid in supporting your position, including deleterious changes. That isn't impressive to someone who thinks evolution has to produce changes that can be useful to the organism, no matter how cleverly you rationalize the possibility of a disease process sort of becoming useful in various contexts. Which as far as what is actually known is concerned is a very rare occurrence and the only one I can think of at the moment is the fact that sickle cell anemia protects against malaria. Not a hopeful situation for evolution it seems to me but then who am I to have an opinion?

---

Just because it's hard to gather direct evidence - especially for the hyper-critical enemies of science like you - doesn't mean that the critics must be assumed to be correct. If you want to assume that beneficial mutations can't happen, be my guest, but don't expect me to believe it without reason.

quote:

---

You aren't listing your evidence here but as I've encountered it most of the actual evidence that IS evidence is just as good evidence for creation as it is for evolution, often better, but besides that your evidence often amounts to wild interpretations, as of the fossil record, which creationists rightly laugh at. Or finding that since the octopus has an eye most similar to a human eye that proves that the human eye evolved even though there is no known genetic path, or even theoretical genetic path, that could have brought that about. And that sort of nonsense is treated as "evidence." Chortle.

---

And yet the real experts and the real scientists working in the field unanimously disagree. All you have is a relative handful of religious apologists with a well-deserved reputation for dishonesty. That's the reality of it.

quote:

---

Not an assumption, this is really and truly what I recognized had to be true as I was following out arguments on this subject. Certainly no assumption. It was a very exciting discovery as a matter of fact. But of course proving it is an uphill battle, especially with all the evolutionists trying to throw me over the cliff. Good thing I bounce well.

---

I't's not a discovery. Which is why you haven't even managed a coherent argument for it yet. It's an assumption, and that's all it it.

Message 197 of 1034 (692255) 03-01-2013 12:31 PM

Reply to: Message 195 by Faith 03-01-2013 11:40 AM

How is your model supported by the evidence?

Of course, because they are easy to find. This is a confirmation bias. We spend billions of dollars studying genetic diseases, but only a tiny bit of money finding mutations that are currently occuring that produce beneficial adaptations.

More to the point, can you show that the mutations that have occurred in humans over the last 100 years are all detrimental or neutral? We are talking about billions of mutations, and I doubt that you have checked them all.

Are the phenotypic differences between chimps and humans beneficial to both chimps and humans?

Are those differences in phenotypes due to differences in DNA sequence?

The conclusion seems obvious to me. Changes in DNA sequence can and do result in beneficial phenotypes. Mutations are observed to change DNA sequence.

Message 198 of 1034 (692256) 03-01-2013 12:33 PM

Reply to: Message 195 by Faith 03-01-2013 11:40 AM

I recall you saying that your knowledge of genetics is rudimentary. I would have to take the above as a mere statement of belief and not an argument or any kind of informed statement of opinion.

Let's consider your proposition for a bit, because it seems that distinguishing between breeding and speciation is the single issue here. Perhaps you can at least appreciate why others are reasonable in giving your idea fairly short shrift.

A border collie breeder is going to reject offspring that doesn't fit a very tight description of what constitutes a border collie. We would expect that when the breeder is successful, the resultant pups would not possess any visible or behavioral variant traits that don't meet the border collie specification. And yet even the rejected dogs are of the same subspecies Canis lupus familiaris as the acceptable collies.

By contrast, natural selection doesn't act on traits that don't affect survival to sire/bear/rear puppies. This means that the end product of evolution can produce a population having tremendous variation. Any mutation that does not affect survival will not be selected against. There is no end goal to make a dog having any exact specification.

Evolution over hundreds of thousands of generations or more is what produced almost all of the variation in the animals that constitute the single sub species that we call dog. Note that the dog sub species includes huge variation.

Yet in just a few generations, a breeder can produce a tight specification like a border collie. Surely that's ample evidence that evolution and breeding do not work the same at least in the way relevant for this discussion.

Absent a showing or argument that different selection methods employing different selection criteria and operating over vastly different time scales produce the exactly the same result, the idea that breeding and evolution processes operate the same is unreasonable.

In particular, over and expanded period of time, we can anticipate generating some beneficial mutations randomly. In the time period over which man breeds animals, we would not expect that to happen.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 199 of 1034 (692259) 03-01-2013 1:02 PM

Reply to: Message 181 by NoNukes 02-28-2013 10:22 AM

Obviously, but Percy's "water in water out" model seems to be implying not only that they can be but are. My argument is first of all that mutation has nothing to do with increasing diversity since the only diversity it really increases is destructive, but that even IF it increases beneficial diversity then it can't be always coming along to undo the processes of selection and isolation or you'll never get new varieties. But the fact of the matter is that we DO get new varieties, both in breeding and in the wild, in the wild most of it brought about by random factors that isolate portions of a larger gene pool, a form of "selection" I'd say but random, not the intentional selection we see in breeding. The effect is nevertheless very similar: you get a new breed or variety or species or phenotype merely by the mixing of a new set of gene frequencies. That's all it takes to get new breeds, that's all it takes to get all the different breeds or varieties or "species" in a ring species, for instance, simple reproductive isolation of a new set of genes out of the larger gene pool, in the case of ring species most probably due to some members of the former population having migrated to a new location and by inbreeding bringing out traits that differ from their former population.

By "survival dominance" you mean natural selection? I think speciation can be brought about simply by a series of migrations of some numbers of individuals from former populations, each migration producing a new variety with new traits by comparison with the previous population, from a reduced number of genetic possibilities because of the reduced numbers. If this kind of selection and isolation occurs over many migrations you can eventually get speciation from the highly reduced genetic diversity of the latest new population which can even lead to inability to interbreed with former populations. It can't "evolve" new traits any further because it's reached the end of the genetic line, probably because of a very high proportion of homozygous genes for its characteristic traits, or "fixed loci" which also happens in founder effect and bottleneck although in this case it happend by mere migration and isolation and inbreeding over many generations. It's not a new species in the evolutionist sense, only by that artificial definition that inability to breed with other populations makes for a new species, which is considered to be a stepping stone to further efvolution. But as a matter of fact it couldn't possibly lead to further evolution because to get where it is required severe genetic depletion. This is what I have to suspect many supposed speciation events lead to in reality.

Well perhaps I should be clearer: I'm DISPUTING that idea of evolution. I don't think fitness plays a part in the majority of cases where new varieties develop, I think the mere recombination of genes by inbreeding in a new population of reduced numbers of individuals is all it takes to produce new breeds in nature, or varieties or "species." Mere changed gene frequencies is all it takes, and another thing I'm pointing out that isn't normally taken into account is that changed gene frequencies that are brought about by isolation of a smaller number of individuals from a larger population always involve reduced genetic diversity in ORDER to bring out the new phenotype or variety or species or breed.

OK, that is the classic statement of how evolution works, supposedly all fitness-driven, but my argument is that while fitness and adaptation can certainly be seen in nature, it's just as likely or even more likely that the characteristics of the variety lead to the adaptation by finding whatever in the environment supports its traits rather than that its traits are developed to conform to the environmental conditions. That is, all those different finches are insect eaters or seed eaters or I forget the other things they do because new gene frequencies brought about different beak types that made them suited to certain kinds of food, although ALL the environments they encounter have ALL those kinds of food available so it isn't that the environment chose them, it's that their particular beaks chose the particular offerings in all the environments. Yes they are certainly adapted to their food source but not because the environment required it of them. Now of course there ARE such situations where the environment does the selecting, where a certain kind of food simply is not available so the creature must adapt over generations whatever trait does best with the kind of food that is available. Or migration to a colder or warmer climate would cause the best adapted types to develop there too. Of course. I just don't think this is the predominant way such adaptations come about.

I don't get the point here. So what?

Yes, getting blended does imply a form of selection, so you're right, in reality any mutation is just going to remain one among many traits scattered through the population that maintain the same proportion down the generations if they neither enhance nor threaten reproductive ability.

I agree.

True, I was wrong about the blending. But I would say here 1) that mere migration or mating preference can isolate a population and develop a new "species," fitness is not necessarily the selecting factor, and 2) that two separate inbreeding populatons would be genetically reduced WITH RESPECT TO EACH OTHER, each having a different set of alleles to the other and NOT having the alleles that are peculiar to the other or they would not have their own particular characteristics.

What "diversity" are you talking about? I'm focusing on GENETIC diversity but when someone takes off the "genetic" part of the phrase I'm sure you aren't talking about the same thing. But in this case my point had to do with the homogeneity of the PHENOTYPE, the visible animal, in all those populations of the wild. Humans don't have that much phenotypic homogeneity. But also those are breeds or varieties I'm talking about in the wild so that the overall population of the species, if all taken into account, the grizzlies with the polar bears and all the other types of bears as one species, would have lots of GENETIC diversity all together. It's the breeds or varieties that lose genetic diversity with respect to the mother population and with respect to each other, and not always to any kind of threatening extent. I've never claimed that although some here think I have -- it's only at the extremes that happens and since it's the extremes that demonstrate how evolution comes to an end I do bring it up as part of the argument, but the actual situation of most species in the wild doesn't involve genetic depletion. The grizzlies, although genetically reduced with respect to the overall bear Species and to other bear subspecies, may have quite a bit of genetic diversity nevertheless, so that they could be the progenitors of many new subspecies themselves, but there's no way to tell from outward observation.

Sure it can be slow but the whole idea of evolution is that it produces new species, ultimately getting new Species with a capital S. I'm sure you want to include all the other things that go on in nature under the title "evolution" but that just confuses things. The point is that you get new species, because if you didn't you could never get new Species with a capital S if you get my point.

Message 200 of 1034 (692261) 03-01-2013 1:28 PM

Reply to: Message 199 by Faith 03-01-2013 1:02 PM

The new diversity need not be of the same kind that is being subject to selection to create the species. For example if evolution were creating a dog species, mutation could produce in the population of dogs any of the variations that currently exist in the sub species we currently call dogs without undermining the process of creating a species That is one distinction between evolution and breeding.

In my opinion, Percy's analogy has the potential to cloud the issue. The stream of water coming in represents a torrent of mutations of various types. Correcting the analogy to drive home that point would probably make it more confusing. But Percy was right about the particulars he discussed with the analogy.

Speciation can occur without any new mutation events, but mutation is the source of the variety in the ancestor populations. Any suggestion by proponents of evolution that the mutations occur on time is mistaken. However an existing neutral mutation can become a beneficial if environmental conditions change.

Yes, but that's because we consider variations to be things like new fur color and new ear shapes, which might well be produced by simply partitioning off the various genes that control fur color. That's not really speciation.

Let's also recall that species is not a perfect classification. Some separately named species are separated on fairly dubious grounds. There are people who would label the different races as different sub species despite the fact that race itself is a dubious characteristic. Let's instead consider speciation that truly represents evolutionary distinctions.

Not necessarily.

The loss of ability to interbreed is not directly related to reduced genetic diversity. For example, the Chinese population is much more homogeneous that the US population. Yet we know of no lack of fertility between any of the races present here and the Chinese population. We also know that dogs breeds are inter-fertile.

The loss of ability to interbreed generally comes from new variations in separated populations. I'd suggest that those variations are generally mutations, but I haven't actually thought that proposition through.

That's fine. In fact, that's great. Disputing an old idea is what produces an interesting start to a thread. Now bring some arguments that might convince the less stubborn among us.

Sorry. I didn't explicitly state the conclusion. The point is that we could easily produce a distinct result in a relatively small number of generations through eugenics. Breeding is not the same as evolution.

Message 201 of 1034 (692263) 03-01-2013 1:37 PM

Reply to: Message 199 by Faith 03-01-2013 1:02 PM

I'm afraid I'm just wizzing straight to the bottom of your posts now because all you're doing is repeating the things that you've made up, have no evidence for and are wrong about - despite the patient attempts of all here to explain the actual science to you.

But that stuff above in your last sentence just demonstrates your ignorance of the entire process.

It is not the 'purpose' of evolution to produce new species. (Amusingly, species names are always in lower case, genus has the qudos of the capital letter - as in Homo sapiens.) Evolution merely allows organisms to develop in different environments and occasionally survive when their environment changes.

Species only exist in our taxonomy - they're a human construct. They're plastic and are changeing from one thing to another over vast periods of time - the snapshot of life that we call an bear - Ursus arctos - was something different a thousand years ago and will be slightly different in another thousand. In truth there's no such thing a species, it's just an organism that breeds with other organisms for a period of time. Just a temporary gene carrying vehicle.

Evolution doesn't give a hoot what a species is, it's simply our name for a differentiated bag of gene carriers that we currently recognise as a bear.

You're trying to jam home learned, childishly understood and incredibly partial knowledge into your 4,000 year model and it simply doesn't fit.

Message 202 of 1034 (692264) 03-01-2013 1:39 PM

Reply to: Message 199 by Faith 03-01-2013 1:02 PM

You can pick the measure. Is the set of inter-fertile bears more or less diverse than the set of currently existing inter-fertile humans? Are grizzly bears more or less diverse than some sub grouping of humans I might elect?

Message 203 of 1034 (692268) 03-01-2013 2:19 PM

Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes 03-01-2013 1:39 PM

My model, which you doubt I possess, but anyway, my model says that you get reduced GENETIC diversity with the formation of new phenotypes. The formation of new phenotypes could be said to be an increase in PHENOTYPIC diversity of course, with respect to the former population and the total population of bears or humans, whichever you are talking about.

Grizzlies would have reduced genetic diversity with respect to the entire population of bears in the world and with respect to the previous population from which it diverged.

But whenever there is a divergence of subspecies you get an increase in phenotypes with respect to the total bear population. Increase in phenotypic diversity goes more or less along with decrease in genetic diversity.

How could I possibly know and why does it matter?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : typo

Message 204 of 1034 (692270) 03-01-2013 2:30 PM

Reply to: Message 203 by Faith 03-01-2013 2:19 PM

The current human population is around 7 billion. It was around 4 billion when I was a kid. So let's say that the last generation had 3 billion kids. We also know that each human is born with between 50 and 100 mutations specific to them.

So that is 200 to 400 billion mutations in just one generation of humans. How is this not an increase in genetic diversity?

Message 205 of 1034 (692272) 03-01-2013 2:33 PM

Reply to: Message 183 by Taq 02-28-2013 10:53 AM

You do not know in the majority of the cases that they ARE mutations rather than rare but normally occurring genetic combinations. Since you guys call every kind of "novelty" you identify in genome or in phenotypic traits a "mutation" there is no way to be sure you know what you are talking about.

Message 206 of 1034 (692274) 03-01-2013 2:40 PM

Reply to: Message 204 by Taq 03-01-2013 2:30 PM

If you KNOW they are mutations and not just normal variations thrown up by sexual recombination then it would be enormous truly novel diversity, but if they are mutations I'd still have to be convinced they aren't all either deleterious or "neutral" on the way to accumulating to something deleterious.

But since mutations are not needed to bring out new traits it's all redundant anyway. Each individual born has his own unique combination of traits, and is DRASTICALLY genetically reduced with respect to the entire population of human beings. Of course. The individual in a way could be said to be the model for my theory except that of course I'm talking about populations and species. But any reduced NUMBER of individuals is genetically reduced with respect to the total population and with respect to the previous population from which it diverged. If you take a few individuals with their small genetic diversity and stick them on an isolated island you may get a large population of genetically reduced individuals who all look similar but not identical since I think the human genome has a great deal of diversity left in it.

Message 207 of 1034 (692276) 03-01-2013 2:48 PM

Reply to: Message 184 by Taq 02-28-2013 10:58 AM

OK I need to be more precise. I know that the production of a new trait is phenotypic change in an individual, but I've been using the idea of phenotypic change in relation only to whole populations. So again, in order for a new population to get a new phenotype that characterizes all its members so that it can be called a new breed or variety or species or subspecies that trait has to be selected and worked through an entire reproductively isolated population by inbreeding for some number of generations. THAT's what produces a new phenotype characteristic of a new breed or variety or subspecies etc eetc, and in order to get it you always get reduced genetic diversity in that same new gene pool.

If the new trait occurs only in the individual and is not selected it may stay in the population and be passed on to other individuals but it will not contribute to the formation of new species.

Message 208 of 1034 (692278) 03-01-2013 2:56 PM

Reply to: Message 206 by Faith 03-01-2013 2:40 PM

We do know this. We have sequenced the genomes of parents and their children. The children have mutations in their genome that are not found in either parent.

quote:

---

Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived. Most strikingly, in one family, we observed that 92% of germline DNMs were from the paternal germline, whereas, in contrast, in the other family, 64% of DNMs were from the maternal germline.
http://www.nature.com/...f/ng.862.pdf%3FWT.ec_id%3DNG-201107

---

quote:

---

We analyzed the whole genome sequences of a family of four, consisting of two siblings and their parents. Family-based sequencing allowed us to delineate recombination sites precisely, identify 70% of the sequencing errors, and identify very rare SNVs. We also directly estimated a human intergeneration mutation rate of ∼1.1×10-8 per position per haploid genome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037280/

---

There is no reason to think that these families are the exception. There is every expectation that every child is born with mutations. So yes, we do know that these numbers are about right. In the very large current human population we are getting hundreds of billions of mutations per generation that did not exist in the generation before them. Every person is born with a human genome that has never existed before in the history of the universe (excluding identical twins, of course).

Message 209 of 1034 (692279) 03-01-2013 3:03 PM

Reply to: Message 207 by Faith 03-01-2013 2:48 PM

Then you have been using it wrong. What you are looking at for the population is a change in how common one allele is compared to another. The phenotypic change has already occurred. It is a question of how common this mutation becomes in the population over time.

The change was already present in the population before selection even got started. It got there by mutation. Selection can only eliminate or spread a phenotypic change through the population.

So you are saying that if a mutation is selected for it can lead to a new species?

Message 210 of 1034 (692284) 03-01-2013 3:50 PM

Reply to: Message 207 by Faith 03-01-2013 2:48 PM

If a new trait (allele) occurs only in the individual (which, of course, it must) and is not selected for then it cannot stay in the population since it cannot be passed on. That is what "selected" means ... getting passed on to the next generation. Selection works only on the whole individual, the entire genome. If the individual is not selected for then none of its genes get passed on, no unique new allele or any other allele.

Traits are not individually selected for or against. Only the full genome of an individual can be subject to selection. On a population basis alleles will increase or decrease their numbers in the greater genome of the whole population and over time some will disappear from the population. This is not because they were "selected against" but because their reproductive advantage was weaker than the others.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Will I ever learn to proof read first?