Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 8:29 PM
149 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,739 Year: 2,776/19,786 Month: 858/1,918 Week: 145/301 Day: 28/35 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5927
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 241 of 1034 (692375)
03-02-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by kofh2u
03-02-2013 8:53 AM


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

kofh:
when the ape surrogate mother gave birth to the first human.

No Nu:
Say what? In what sense would that ape not have been 'real' mom?

In the sense that she was not the same soecies as the baby she was merely carrying for the next evolution.

And God, by this act of probability, would be the real father of the offspring, since this new creature would be the first born.

You truly either have absolutely no clue about the TOE(if so why are you debating it) or you are attempting to build the worlds lamest strawman.

They are the same species. When has anyone one ever told you that the TOE states that a mother could give birth to a different species.

The stupidity of your statement is astounding.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by kofh2u, posted 03-02-2013 8:53 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 242 of 1034 (692379)
03-02-2013 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
03-01-2013 6:24 PM


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

Oh fiddly foo. DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES.

This would be incorrect. Dogs (Canus lupus familiaris) are a subspecies of wolves (Canus lupus). Dogs and wolves can interbreed. They're the same species.

Reset, rethink, repost.

The important point is that reducing genetic diversity cannot produce a new species. Breeding is an illustration of selection only and for that reason cannot be used as a model for evolution, which includes both selection *and* mutation.

They all increase phenotypic variation by reducing genetic diversity.

Breeding programs can produce dramatic differences in appearance. For example, we look at wolves and they all look pretty much like this:

While dogs have a tremendous amount of variety, like this for example:

The same is true of rock pigeons. These are the kind we see on the streets in cities, and they all look pretty much like this:

But all kinds of elaborate pigeon breeds have been created:

So I understand how this looks to you. You look at the tremendous varieties of dogs and fancy pigeons and see how reduced genetic variation achieved through breeding (which is just selection) has caused incredible phenotypic variation, but the variation was already inherent in the original species, and the breeding never creates new species. All dogs are still a subspecies of wolf, and all fancy pigeons are still just variants of rock pigeons.

Evolution explains how new species arise. All you're doing is claiming, in contradiction to all evidence, that breeding is how new species arise.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 6:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 10:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 10:49 AM Percy has responded
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 12:23 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 1034 (692384)
03-02-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
03-02-2013 9:48 AM


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

Oh fiddly foo. DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES.

Percy writes:

This would be incorrect. Dogs (Canus lupus familiaris) are a subspecies of wolves (Canus lupus). Dogs and wolves can interbreed. They're the same species.

Thanks Percy, you've help me avoid posting a rather testy reply. I don't see that I'm posting anything that several other posters don't manage to post without losing their cool, so I'm going to semi-lurk mode for awhile.


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 242 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 9:48 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 10:58 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 1034 (692386)
03-02-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
03-02-2013 9:48 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
So I understand how this looks to you. You look at the tremendous varieties of dogs and fancy pigeons and see how reduced genetic variation achieved through breeding (which is just selection) has caused incredible phenotypic variation, but the variation was already inherent in the original species, and the breeding never creates new species.

YOU DO NOT "UNDERSTAND HOW THIS LOOKS TO ME" This is exactly what I'm saying and how you could think otherwise is beyond me.

All dogs are still a subspecies of wolf, and all fancy pigeons are still just variants of rock pigeons.

How you could think I'm saying anything different is beyond me. He didn't use the correct terminjology for the species and neither did I. I include wolves with dogs.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 9:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 2:44 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 1034 (692388)
03-02-2013 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by NoNukes
03-02-2013 10:34 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
I know that. If you'd said subspecies of wolvdes there would have been no copnfusion but all you said was subspecies which sounds like evolutionist subspecies of subspecies of subspecies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 10:34 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 1034 (692389)
03-02-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by AZPaul3
03-01-2013 3:50 PM


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

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.

Sexual recombination doesn't select out traits like that. If the individual is able to reproducel it will get passed on along with the entire genome.

And I'm talking about selection that spreads in a population, not a trait that merely gets passed on from parent to offspring which can happen even if the trait is deleterious. Obviously, since genetic diseases get passed on.

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.

Of course. If the INDIVIDUAL is not selected, which means does not reproduce, yes of course.

Traits are not individually selected for or against. Only the full genome of an individual can be subject to selection.

Of course.

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.

Which is sometimes called being selected out but have it your way.

Nothing you've said here has any implications for anything I'm saying but I'm sure you think so anyway,.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by AZPaul3, posted 03-01-2013 3:50 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 1034 (692390)
03-02-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by NoNukes
03-01-2013 5:06 PM


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

Faith writes:
How could I possibly know and why does it matter?

You are the one who introduced grizzly bears into the discussion.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NATURE MAKES HOMOGENEOUS POPULATIONS OR SUBSPECIES WITH THEIR OWN CHARACTERISTICS. Which could not occur if mutations kept cropping to interfere.

I'm trying to demonstrate that diversity in the genetic makeup of grizzly bears compared to humans is irrelevant. It seems you agree.

OF COURSE I AGREE. I have no idea how you got any idea it would be relevant.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 5:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 03-04-2013 2:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 1034 (692393)
03-02-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
03-02-2013 9:48 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Evolution explains how new species arise. All you're doing is claiming, in contradiction to all evidence, that breeding is how new species arise.

No, I am not claiming this and I have no idea how you are getting this ridiculous idea.

I'm using breeding simply as the most accessible example of how selection leads to reduction of genetic diversity. That's ALL I'm using it for that I'm aware of, and again where you are getting any other idea I cannot begin to fathom.

I did mention Darwin's pigeon breeds because he used his breeding experience as the basis for his theory of natural selection, and i'm basically following him in arguing that selection is what brings about new varieties in the wild. As I use it selection is much broader than Natural Selection, is in fact anything that isolates a new population with its own new gene frequencies, but all the forms of selection that bring about new phenotypes also reduce genetic diversity just as the intentional selection of domestic breeding does.l

Theoretically, if speciation is the formation of a subspecies that can no longer interbreed with former populations then this COULD happen in breeding.

But we KNOW it happens in the wild.

And what I'm claiming is that in the wild you must get reduced genetic diversity just as you do in breeding because all the selection processes that are what bring about new phenotypes or breeds always bring about such a reduction in genetic diversity.

"Selection" in nature describes all the different ways that traits become isolated into their own separated gene pools. This happens by design in breeding but it happens mostly at random in nature, brought about by migration of a portion of a larger population to a new locale where it no longer interbreeds with the former population, or to a new locale where a geographic barrier of some sort prevents the interbreeding and any other situation that isolates a population reproductively. Reproductive isolation of a new population is all you need to get the working through of new gene frequencies brought about by a reduction in the number of individuals that form the new population in relation to the numbers in the mother population. The new traits aren't "selected" except in an accidental sense, and in the wild the entire array of new traits based on the new gene frequencies is what will form the new phenotype of the new population.

Yes I keep saying this but so far I don't have the impression anybody gets it, and when you start arguing with me using my own points things are getting really crazy.

The point about the pigeons is that you get dramatic new breeds from reducing genetic diversity. Instead of merely agreeing with me about that you think I'm making some other kind of point and think you are arguing with me by saying exactly the same thing. This is frustrating in the extreme. You did the same thing to me a few years ago when I said that tectonic distortion of strata occurs after the strata are laid down and you produced pictures of exactly what I meant but used them as if they argued against me. I don't know how to explain this but it's extremely frustrating.

Anyway I don't think anybody here understands my argument yet. Which may be my fault in some way I can't recognize -- I'm sure I misspeak from time to time --, but I have to think a lot of it is due to people just not reading and thinking through what I'm saying

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 9:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2013 2:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 2:54 PM Faith has responded
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 3:49 PM Faith has responded

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


(2)
Message 249 of 1034 (692394)
03-02-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-02-2013 12:23 PM


Questions
You get dramatic new breeds from reducing genetic diversity.

So, just to be clear: if we start off with this:

and end up with this:

... that represents a decrease in genetic diversity, yes? 'Cos obviously looking at the two pictures, the question that comes to mind is: "Damn, where did all the diversity go?"

Is it therefore true that if the process had gone the other way --- if we'd started off with all those dog breeds and ended up with two wolves on some sort of a magic boat --- we'd have increased genetic diversity?

Now the other question I'd like answered (I've asked this before, perhaps you were busy) is whether there are any theoretical limits to what this reduction in diversity can achieve. If it can produce all these nondiverse dog breeds from a common ancestor, could not an even greater loss of diversity have produced (for example) all mammals from a common ancestor? If not, why not? If you started off with this:

... and ended up with this ...

... wouldn't that just represent an even greater loss of diversity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 12:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 7:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


(1)
Message 250 of 1034 (692395)
03-02-2013 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Faith
03-02-2013 10:49 AM


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

YOU DO NOT "UNDERSTAND HOW THIS LOOKS TO ME" This is exactly what I'm saying and how you could think otherwise is beyond me.

You're saying two contradictory things here. The part in capitals declares that what you quoted from me indicates the I do not understand how things look to you. The rest of it says that what you quoted from me is exactly how things look to you. This contradictory combination isn't open to easy interpretation.

Whatever it is you were actually trying to say here, I do understand your viewpoint. You believe that selection alone is sufficient to produce first new subspecies and eventually new species using only a subset of the alleles of the original population. You also believe that mutation is not only unnecessary for speciation, but that it gets in the way of speciation by interfering with the reduction of genetic diversity that can create new phenotypes.

The only part of this that is correct is that selection alone is sufficient to produce a subspecies. And concerning mutations, if mixing alleles in novel combinations can create novel phenotypes, then just imaging how much greater the scope of novelty is if you can mix in completely new alleles through mutation.

And about your concern that introducing mutations will interfere with maintaining a species identity, you are exactly correct. Mutations cause species to change in more dramatic ways then just allele remixing, and they are necessary to the creation of new species.

All dogs are still a subspecies of wolf, and all fancy pigeons are still just variants of rock pigeons.

How you could think I'm saying anything different is beyond me.

I thought that you were saying that dogs were a species because when NoNukes spoke about dogs as a subspecies:

NoNukes writes:

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.

You replied by saying in no uncertain terms that dogs were a species:

Faith writes:

Oh fiddly foo. DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES.

So naturally when you said, "DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES," I thought you were saying that dogs are a species, not a subspecies.

I include wolves with dogs.

Wolves are a species. Dogs are a subspecies of wolves.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 10:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:28 PM Percy has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6616
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 251 of 1034 (692396)
03-02-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-02-2013 12:23 PM


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

Yes I keep saying this but so far I don't have the impression anybody gets it, and when you start arguing with me using my own points things are getting really crazy.

Of course we get it. We completley understand what you're saying because it's really simple. And sadly, really wrong.

Like Percy said a million posts ago, of course a subset of a population will be less diverse than the total population.

If 2 animals get washed onto an island in a storm and completely seperated from the total population of 98, then the offspring of those two animals will obviously contain less genetic diversity that the offspring of the other 98.

But you're missing the next step. The 2 seperated animal will almost certainly die. There's a minimum size population needed to realistically survive. But if they do survive, they will adapt to their new environment and develop increasing diversity of their own. If the two environments are different it's possible, like the Finches, that they'll eventually become a species. But genticists will be able to see the bottleneck in the sepearted species for millenia. This is how biologists can 'age' species.

You don't get new breeds by reducing genetic diversity, reduced gentic diversity is a result of genetic isolation.

We're not struggling to understand you, we're struggling to get you to see that what you are saying is wrong headed.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 12:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:58 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 4:20 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 1034 (692397)
03-02-2013 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Percy
03-02-2013 2:44 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
YOU DO NOT "UNDERSTAND HOW THIS LOOKS TO ME" This is exactly what I'm saying and how you could think otherwise is beyond me.

You're saying two contradictory things here. The part in capitals declares that what you quoted from me indicates the I do not understand how things look to you. The rest of it says that what you quoted from me is exactly how things look to you. This contradictory combination isn't open to easy interpretation.

Excuse me but what you were saying as I read it is that you understand how things look to me BUT, big BUT there, BUT the REALITY is...

and then you went on to describe EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.

IF the above is what were saying then there is no contradiction, but if all you were doing is repeating what I've been saying all along without meaning to argue with me then there was no point in saying it at all.

No, clearly you think I am misunderstanding the pigeon example when in fact the way you described it is exactly what I've been saying all along. though obviously you think I meant something else.

Whatever it is you were actually trying to say here, I do understand your viewpoint. You believe that selection alone is sufficient to produce first new subspecies and eventually new species using only a subset of the alleles of the original population.

And each subsequent population.

You also believe that mutation is not only unnecessary for speciation, but that it gets in the way of speciation by interfering with the reduction of genetic diversity that can create new phenotypes.

The only part of this that is correct is that selection alone is sufficient to produce a subspecies. -

That's a HUGE part of the argument, it's the main part, so why are you disputing it above? Why are you carrying on above about pigeons as if you are disputing the idea, as if there is no similarity between breeding and selection in the wild at all? And not even noticing that I've been making the same argument you think proves me wrong?

And concerning mutations, if mixing alleles in novel combinations can create novel phenotypes, then just imaging how much greater the scope of novelty is if you can mix in completely new alleles through mutation.

Now you are changing the subject back to mutations again. Fine, I think mutations are the only argument you guys have, and if the main part of my argument is recognized and acknowedged (which it hasn't been by most here) I'm fine with focusing on mutations alone.

I'll just STATE it again even though NOW you sound like you agree, though you really should acknowledge your misuse of the pigeon example.

You don't NEED a greater scope of novelty than the "ancestral" genome supplies. NOTHING in nature demonstrates such a need either, or that it has ever occurred in reality; mere sexual recombination within an inbreeding isolated gene pool is ALL it takes.

And about your concern that introducing mutations will interfere with maintaining a species identity, you are exactly correct. Mutations cause species to change in more dramatic ways then just allele remixing, and they are necessary to the creation of new species.

Then I'm going to need to find a way to prove that this is absolutely not necessary, doesn't happen, can't happen.

Then you would not get the homogeneous populations that we in fact see in nature, you would get constant change. No grizzly bears with their characteristic appearance, coloring, behavior etc., but some kind of motley breed of bear with many different traits, no recognizable chickadees but a blurry bird that has many chickadee characteristics but so much variation it is not like what we actually see. And so on. Nature MAKES homogenous populations, subspecies etc.

All dogs are still a subspecies of wolf, and all fancy pigeons are still just variants of rock pigeons.

How you could think I'm saying anything different is beyond me.

I thought that you were saying that dogs were a species because when NoNukes spoke about dogs as a subspecies:

NoNukes writes:
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.

I misunderstood him, didn't I make that clear? Just referring to "dogs" as a "subspecies" to my mind implied the whole ToE. If he'd said "subspecies of wolves" or if I'd been taking my time more carefully I might not have misread him that way, but he was saying so many things that misrepresented my argument I just wanted to get through it.

OF COURSE I KNOW THAT DOGS ARE A SUBSPECIES OF WOLVES, and it seems to me if any of you here had the slightest willingness to think about my argument and the slightest willingness to overlook obvious misspeaking nobody would be making an issue of such a misstatement. Good grief.

You replied by saying in no uncertain terms that dogs were a species:

Faith writes:
Oh fiddly foo. DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES.

So naturally when you said, "DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES," I thought you were saying that dogs are a species, not a subspecies.

I include wolves with dogs.

Wolves are a species. Dogs are a subspecies of wolves.

Oh good grief.

See above.

I'm trying to deal with half a dozen rabid evolutionist wolves on this thread as it is, and when you pounce on something like this and even continue it as you do here even after I corrected it you are making things a lot more difficult than they have to be.

But maybe that's your objuective.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 2:44 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 5:07 PM Faith has responded

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


(1)
Message 253 of 1034 (692399)
03-02-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-02-2013 12:23 PM


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

Evolution explains how new species arise. All you're doing is claiming, in contradiction to all evidence, that breeding is how new species arise.

No, I am not claiming this and I have no idea how you are getting this ridiculous idea.

I'm getting this ridiculous idea from you. Breeding is just selection, and you are claiming that selection alone is how new species arise.

If your idea were true then breeding should be far more successful than nature at producing new species. After all, breeders can choose both parents for each and every offspring in each and every generation, while nature is far more random.

Like a chess player who looks no more than one move ahead, you're failing to consider the implications of your idea, as here:

Theoretically, if speciation is the formation of a subspecies that can no longer interbreed with former populations then this COULD happen in breeding.

But we KNOW it happens in the wild.

So breeding, where the selection pressures can be so much greater and more precise than nature, cannot produce new species, but nature can. What this implies, and what you're ignoring, is that there must be a factor in nature that is missing in breeding. That missing factor that you're ignoring is mutations, which occur in much greater numbers in the larger populations and longer timespans of nature.

The other mistake you keep making is to think that if we don't agree with you that it must be because we don't understand you, and so instead of engaging the rebuttals you explain your position again. And again and again.

The truth is that we do understand your position. We follow what you're trying to say, and it's wrong for the simple reason that it's contradicted by what we observe when we look at nature, which is that both mutation and selection are necessary for speciation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 12:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 4:31 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 1034 (692400)
03-02-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Tangle
03-02-2013 2:54 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Apparently the point I'm making is just so far over your biased heads if I have any hope of anyone ever getting it that will be an extremely rare individual with an unusual ability to think outside the box and an unusual honesty. And someone who doesn't just sling the stupid accusations around.

Faith writes:
Yes I keep saying this but so far I don't have the impression anybody gets it, and when you start arguing with me using my own points things are getting really crazy.

Of course we get it.

YOU are the one here who gets it the LEAST.

If I could throw people out of my thread for contributing nothing to the argument you'd be number one to go.

We completley understand what you're saying because it's really simple. And sadly, really wrong.

Yes it is quite simple, but apparently beyond the likes of you. And it is most certainly right, but your evo blinders get in the way of seeing it.

Like Percy said a million posts ago, of course a subset of a population will be less diverse than the total population.

A million posts ago he only said that in relation to breeding and denied it in relation to variation in the wild. And then he said that stupid thing about water in and water out and actually defended it and I don't remember you or anyone else here pointing out how stupid that idea is. Except finally NoNukes acknowledged it.

If 2 animals get washed onto an island in a storm and completely seperated from the total population of 98, then the offspring of those two animals will obviously contain less genetic diversity that the offspring of the other 98.

Oh my, what a revelation!

But you're missing the next step. The 2 seperated animal will almost certainly die.

How STUPID of you to think I missed that "next step." You haven't understood one word I've written to say such a thing so get off your crazed claim that you get the argument. You don't.

There's a minimum size population needed to realistically survive.

Oh dooooooo tell.

But if they do survive, they will adapt to their new environment and develop increasing diversity of their own.

NO THEY WILL NOT, and that IS my argument even if I haven't yet proved it to the likes of you.

If the two environments are different it's possible, like the Finches, that they'll eventually become a species.

It does not take environmental pressure to produce a species, all it takes is reproductive isolation of a small population and it's running out of genetic diversity that brings about speciation, or the point beyond which interbreeding is no longer possible.

All you are doing is repeating the Party Line.

But genticists will be able to see the bottleneck in the sepearted species for millenia. This is how biologists can 'age' species.

So what?

You don't get new breeds by reducing genetic diversity, reduced gentic diversity is a result of genetic isolation.

Genetic isolation is what brings about reduced genetic diversity and in fact with small populations is almost synonymous with reduced genetic diversity.

We're not struggling to understand you, we're struggling to get you to see that what you are saying is wrong headed.

Oh my gosh, I NEVER would have guessed!

Tell you what, please stay off my thread. You are contributing absolutely nothing here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 2:54 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2013 4:06 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 258 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 4:36 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14717
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 255 of 1034 (692401)
03-02-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
03-02-2013 3:58 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Well I'm trying to understand your argument but you really need to explain it.

Please try answering Message 237 for a start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
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