Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(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
Edited by Percy, : Rerender to make mobile friendly.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 10:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 10:49 AM Percy has replied
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 12:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 259 of 1034 (692407)
03-02-2013 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
03-02-2013 3:28 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Hi Faith,
You frequently accuse others of not understanding what you say. I can only speak for myself. I work hard at understanding what you say, and I feel I have a good understanding of it.
I also think that you frequently say things that are wrong in ways that you didn't intend, and your most common defensive reaction is to claim you actually meant something else and that you can't imagine how we could have gotten such a wrong misimpression. I know you feel beset by evolutionist wolves, but the only thing I can think of to suggest that might help is to slow down, read more and write less, write more carefully, and post less often to fewer people.
I can only guess that you must be reading through my posts in a rush, because you've apparently missed the many times I've said that breeding is the same as selection. It is because breeding is the same as selection that you chose it as an illustration of your claim that evolution is just selection.
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?
You are confused, very confused in fact, if you think I or anyone else is disputing the fact that selection alone can produce subspecies. I think you must be causing a lot of your own confusion. If you think I was disputing what is indeed a fact then instead of just accusing me of it, go fetch the actual text of me disputing it, because you'll find that it doesn't exist.
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)...
You are again very confused about what people have been saying. No one denies that selection reduces genetic diversity. What everyone is telling you, each in their own way (which I concede can be a big source of confusion), is that selection by itself is insufficient for creating new species.
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.
Again, if you think I made a mistake by using the pigeon example then you should go back to the post where you think I made the mistake and quote me making the mistake, because I think if you go back to the post where I mentioned pigeons (Message 242) you'll find that there is no mistake at all. Fancy pigeons are an example of breeding producing large amounts of variety but no new species.
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.
This is the correct way to go about things, but given that the reason we think mutations occur and are responsible for speciation is because research has revealed that mutations occur and are responsible for speciation, you are unlikely to discover that mutations don't occur and are not responsible for speciation.
Again, you don't seem to be considering the implications of your idea. If breeding is very strong selection with breeders selecting the parents in every generation and yet can't create new species, how is nature with just selection combined with random mating going to create a new species?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 5:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 264 of 1034 (692413)
03-02-2013 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
03-02-2013 4:31 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
I have NOT equated "breeding" with "selection,"...
Faith, you have to stop making meaningless and pointless disputations. No one is accusing you of equating breeding with selection. No one has to equate breeding with selection because that's simply what breeding is. Breeding *is* selection. It's artificial in that the choice of parents is made by the breeder. Selection in nature is called natural selection, and it's natural in that the choice of parents is made by nature selecting what offspring survive to become adults to reproduce.
We understand that you're using breeding as an illustration of what happens in nature. You're arguing that because breeding can create unique phenotypic variants that nature can, too, and we all agree with you.
But you're also making two other arguments, both of which are false. You're arguing that selection alone can produce new species, and that is false. And you're arguing that mutations play little or no role in speciation, and that too is false.
New species arise in nature as well as in breeding...
No, Faith, new species do not arise in breeding.
Also, I thought you meant "species" as in Speciation, and I most certainly have NOT claimed that breeding leads to speciation.
And now you're flatly contradicting yourself. First you claim that new species arise in breeding, and then you deny that breeding leads to speciation.
Perhaps what is needed here is a terminological clarification which you should have thought of yourself. I try to avoid the term "species" unless I couple it with "varieties" and "breeds" and the like to get my point across. If you use only the term "species" you are muddying up the discussion.
It is important to distinguish between variants, races and breeds on the one hand, and species on the other. Variants, races and breeds are all members of the same species. Creating new variants, races or breeds does not create a new species. This is true by definition of the terms.
If you do create a new variant, race or breed that can no longer interbreed with the original species then you no longer have a variant, race or breed. You have a new species.
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.
I thought nature was supposedly turning up new "species" at a phenomenal rate according to evolutionists.
I have no idea why you think evolutionists are making this claim, and it isn't a response to what I said. What I have seen evolutionists say, in this very thread in fact, is that speciation is a slow process taking thousands and thousands of generations.
But what I said is that if selection is all that is needed to create a new species then the very strong selection of breeding should be far more successful at creating new species than nature, but it isn't.
But now you are using the term "species" ONLY to mean Speciation and again I am NOT focused on Speciation as such. But simply on new phenotypes, breeds, varieties, etc. etc. etc.
No, Faith, I did not use the term "species ONLY to mean Speciation". I used the phrase "producing new species" to mean speciation. When I use the term "species" by itself then you can be very sure I mean "species" and not "speciation."
Much as you might like to, you cannot ignore speciation, and this is because evolution describes how new species arise. It's part of the definition of evolution. It's why Darwin titled his book Origin of Species, because at the time evolution had not yet been applied to the concept of how new species originate.
SELECTION, all the different kinds of selection, domestic intentional selection or natural selection or geographical isolation or migration plus isolation, or anything in fact which reproductively isolates a new population -- ALL THOSE FORMS OF SELECTION produce new BREEDS, VARIETIES, PHENOTYPES, and "SPECIES" only if used in the same sense here. It CAN lead to Speciation ultimately but get the terms of the argument correct first.
I *do* have the terms of the argument correct, and selection cannot produce new species. That's because selection by itself can only produce a subspecies that has all the same genes and alleles of the original population. By definition, genetically it cannot be a new species, and certainly breeding-wise it can't be a new species because it can still breed with the original population.
I have been taking your word for it that breeding does not produce new species, though it seems to me it easily enough could because of that artificial definition of a new species that it cannot interbreed with other members of the larger population. Seems to me this condition could easily be brought about by breeding.
If you think that breeding can create new species then it should be easy for you to go off and find examples. You might want to think twice before you go off and waste your time making this effort. When you look at different species in nature, what we find is that their genes and alleles are different. The more closely related the species the more genes and alleles they will share, but even very similar and closely related species will at least have non-overlapping allele sets for some genes. Because breeding involves only selection, it is impossible for breeding to produce the same kind of differences between the original species and the bred subspecies that we see between species in nature.
If there is an identifiable difference that brings about species (by which I assume again you mean Speciation)...
Again, I used the term "producing new species." If you cannot understand that this means speciation, and if comprehension issues like this are as widespread for you as I'm beginning to suspect, then it explains why you're having so much trouble understanding other people and making yourself understood.
I'll say it again: Mutations would INTERFERE with speciation if anything. Amazing that isn't obvious to you. You can't have new phenotypes developing from reduced genetic diversity while more diversity is rushing into the gene pool.
Well, okay, you said it again, and you're dead wrong again. I already answered this objection. Just repeating this objection again and again isn't going to make it any less wrong, but I'll explain again why this is wrong, and it would be helpful if this time when you reply instead of just describing your position again, quote what I say and explain why you think it is wrong.
The increased phenotypic variation of reduced genetic diversity caused by selection is due to novel combinations of existing alleles. If greater phenotypic variation can be created by novel combinations of existing alleles, imagine how much greater the variation if novel alleles are also mixed in. The new variation will be unlike anything that could be produced by the original population which doesn't have the new alleles. It is these unique alleles and genes produced by mutation that are responsible for speciation.
Speciation is going to involve genetic reduction,...
No, Faith, speciation does not involve genetic reduction, for reasons already explained above, but I'll repeat them. A subspecies that has only genes and alleles from the original parent population will always be the same species as the parent population. It will always be able to breed with the parent population. It will not have the interfertility barrier that normally resides between most species.
Why you aren't getting it in breeding I don't know yet.
If you don't know why breeding doesn't produce new species then at least it isn't because it hasn't been explained to you many, many times. You do not get speciation from breeding because selection alone is incapable of producing new species. Speciation requires new alleles at a minimum, and of course new and deleted genes play an important role, too.
I've also explained exactly what and how you aren't getting me and for you not to acknowledge your mistakes with the water in water out nonsense and your post about pigeons is a bit devious of you.
There was nothing wrong with the bathtub analogy, Faith. Populations experience both new alleles (water flowing in) and loss of alleles (water flowing out) simultaneously all the time. The message that mentioned pigeons was also accurate. Again, if you think they were wrong then explain how they were wrong, otherwise it looks like you're just blaming others for your own comprehension issues.
Speak for yourself, most here don't get it at all. At least five of them can't distinguish the genotype from the phenotype. And I have my doubts about how well you are getting it too considering some of the posts where you clearly don't.
I've read every message in the thread, and everyone seems to understand your position pretty well. Everyone also seems to understand the difference between a genotype and a phenotype. You are the one who seems to have gaping holes in your understanding.
I've described what is seen in nature and you do not need mutations for it.
No, Faith you have not described what is seen in nature. You have described only you're own imaginings.
Mutations are not like the sky where one person can say, "The sky is red," and everyone else can look up and see that it is clearly blue. You can deny the role of mutations if you like, but that denial doesn't derive from anything you've actually seen in nature. The only way you can understand the role of mutations is by reading about them in biology books and reading research papers, and if you do that then you'll have an understanding of what we see concerning mutations when we look at nature. And what we see is that mutations play an essential role in speciation.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 4:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 265 of 1034 (692414)
03-02-2013 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
03-02-2013 5:33 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
Acknowledge your errors, your silly water in water out idea that produced nothing but confusion here and your misuse of the pigeon example -- yes misuse -- ...
Again, the bathtub analogy where both faucet and drain were simultaneously open was an illustration of the fact that alleles are being added to and subtracted from a population simultaneously. I'm sorry the analogy was more confusing than it was helpful, but you must concede that you are a remarkably difficult person to explain things to.
It's strange that you keep repeating that the pigeon example was "misused," yet despite my repeated requests to explain my mistake, even including a link to the post, you won't explain what was wrong. The truth is that there was nothing wrong with the pigeon example. As I explained at the time, fancy pigeons are an example of the variety of phenotypes that can be produced by breeding while never producing new species.
...and stop claiming so self righteously that you are the one being misunderstood as if only you are allowed to make that claim and maybe I'll see things differently.
I'm not claiming I'm being misunderstood. I'm responding to your complaints about everyone misunderstanding you and pointing out that it is you who is the actual source of all the misunderstandings. Stop complaining about it and I'll stop pointing it out.
But right now the misrepresentations and the misunderstandings are getting to me and I have to take another break before I explode.
You are the source of all your difficulties. If you explode it will be self-actuated.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 5:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 273 of 1034 (692436)
03-03-2013 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
03-02-2013 9:38 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
Faith writes:
But it's still possible in my mind that even this very rare characteristic was not a mutation but a very rare combination of existing alleles for perhaps more than one gene. Very rare. Yes, possible. So that you don't really "know" that it was a mutation.
Three things.
First, we know it was a mutation because research revealed that it was a mutation: The American Curl Cat, Journal of Heredity, 1989.
Second, yes mutations are rare in breeding programs because of the small populations and limited timespans, as has already been stated in this thread many times. And in the case of the American Curl, it was not the result of any breeding program to develop its unique characteristics. Rather, the mutation just popped up in a stray cat, and the people who took her in, who were only casual cat owners, became interested in the possibility of creating a new breed.
Third, this is yet another example of something that you think we don't know that we do happen to know. In fact, most of what people have been telling you in this thread are things that we do happen to know.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 9:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 281 of 1034 (692464)
03-03-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
03-03-2013 2:18 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
Funny but I haven't yet seen ANYONE recognize what I'm talking about except Percy and NoNukes and both of them go on to say things that clearly show they aren't getting it in any consistent way.
I think pretty much everyone in this thread understands your position. You're arguing that the reduction in genetic diversity often associated with isolation of a subpopulation can create a unique subspecies. Everyone agrees with you about this.
You're also arguing three other things. You're arguing that a reduction in genetic diversity can create a new species, and this is false. And you're also arguing that mutations play little or no role in speciation, and this is also false. And you're arguing that adaptation isn't a much of a factor in selection, and this too is false.
It's NOT "purely an arithmetic thing" like adding and subtracting as I've said many times already. Just that comment alone proves you don't have a clue. It is NOT water-in-water-out.
I assume by "it" you're referring to diversity? If you're not measuring diversity arithmetically then how are you measuring it? If the general population has N total alleles and the subpopulation has N-1 total alleles, can't we say that the subpopulation has less diversity than the main population. And if later the subpopulation has N-2 total alleles, can't we say that it has experienced a further decline in diversity?
Now naturally I grant that for more detailed study we might want more complex approaches to measuring diversity, but certainly to a first level of approximation we can say that if a population acquires a new allele then it has experienced an increase in diversity, and if it loses an allele then it has experienced a decrease in diversity.
And so it *is* just like water-in/water-out in a bathtub where both faucet and drain are simultaneously open. Let's say both the faucet and drain are open only very slightly. Water is dripping into the bathtub through the faucet, and water is dripping out of the bathtub through the drain. Each drop of water represents an allele, and so since our bathtub is full of many drops of water, all the water in the bathtub represents a great many alleles. When a drop of water falls into the bathtub it is like a mutation creating a new allele in a population, and the bathtub has increased diversity. And when a drop of water falls out of the bathtub it is like an allele becoming extinct from the population, and the bathtub has decreased in diversity.
If more drops of water are flowing in to the bathtub than flowing out then this is akin to a population acquiring more alleles through mutation than it is losing through extinction, and as the level of water in the bathtub rises it corresponds to an increase in diversity.
If fewer drops of water are flowing in to the bathtub than are flowing out then this is akin to a population acquiring fewer alleles through mutation than it is losing through extinction, and as the level of water in the bathtub falls it corresponds to a decrease in diversity. If the level of water in the bathtub drops to zero then it corresponds to the subpopulation going extinct.
Now it's perfectly acceptable to me if you personally find this analogy confusing or ill-fitting or whatever, in which case I'll seek other ways of making my point, but it isn't wrong. If you're going to continue to claim that the analogy is wrong without explaining in what way it is wrong then I will have to continue to explain that it is not wrong.
You think that simply having a subset of an existing population somehow allows the smaller group to adapt to a different environment.
I have NOT argued for new populations "adapting to a different environment." I have SPECIFICALLY said more than once that I don't think adaptation is the driving force of the phenotypic changes.
Yes, you have, but your position is completely contradictory. You can't have selection by the environment with little or no adaptation to the environment. That's as nonsensical as if I claimed that when I select songs for my music collection it has no bearing on whether it is adapted to my taste. Until you construct an argument with some internal consistency you can't hold others to any high standards for decoding what you mean.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 5:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 284 of 1034 (692468)
03-03-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
03-03-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
Faith writes:
GOLLY GEE, TWO WHOLE CASES! An epidemic of mutation-based breeds!
Dr A's point wasn't that mutation-based breeds are common. He was merely responding to your statement that, "The American Curl may be unique in being developed from a mutation..." Your statement was incorrect.
Mutations are rare in breeding programs, and the American Curl mutation did not occur within a breeding program. Breeding programs typically have specific goals. Not only are useful mutations rare in small populations, it would be even more rare for them to produce a quality that the breeding program happened to be seeking.
And again, you don't KNOW if this was a mutation. Mutations are mostly an imaginary artifact of evolutionism, a sort of god invoked to explain every kind of novelty.
The observational and experimental evidence for mutations is undeniable. You've been pointed to some of that evidence in this very thread, for example the Wikipedia article on Mutation Rates. Denying reality is just delusional.
And here you have another EAR anomaly. TWO "mutations" in the EAR! Wow, how likely is that? Sure does seem to me to be far more likely the result of rare but normally occurring. allelic combinations
As I already described to you in Message 273 and as Dr A described to you in Message 267, we know that the American Curl is the result of a mutation because research revealed that it is the result of a mutation: The American Curl Cat, Journal of Heredity, 1989.
When you have evidence that the American Curl is not the result of a mutation then that would be the time to dispute the claim that it is the result of a mutation, but until that time you have no evidence and any doubts you express are baseless and a waste of everyone's time.
The argument is that reduced genetic diversity is the natural result of the SELECTING AND ISOLATING processes that PRODUCE new phenotypes.
But it doesn't produce new species. No one is disputing that selection can produce new phenotypes, but it doesn't produce new species, and that's what you need in order to support your claim captured in this thread's title, that evolution (which explains how new species arise) requires only a reduction in genetic diversity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 290 of 1034 (692482)
03-03-2013 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Faith
03-03-2013 5:33 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
I think pretty much everyone in this thread understands your position. You're arguing that the reduction in genetic diversity often associated with isolation of a subpopulation can create a unique subspecies. Everyone agrees with you about this.
Funny they don't say anything to prove it then. I KNOW that at least five posters on this thread got it seriously seriously wrong, confusing genotype with phenotype, and the rest are iffy at best.
Your claims about the people you're debating with have as little basis in reality as your claims about mutation, selection, adaptation and evolution in general. It's simply your habit when you have no counterarguments to claim that people who disagree with you don't understand you. The reality is that they understand your position very well.
IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SPECIATION, that is, new species defined by evolutionists as having lost the ability to interbreed with other populations of the same species, which I assume you mean, then I do believe that too CAN happen but I don't emphasize this.
Well, yes, of course you don't want to emphasize speciation, because you have no explanation for it. We have a world full of different species that science believes were produced by evolution, a process of descent with modification (mutation and allele remixing) and selection, and your position requires that all these species actually came about through just selection alone.
But it's impossible for selection alone to produce speciation because a subpopulation can only possess genes and alleles already present in the main population. In general all the different species in the world differ in their genes and alleles. This could never have come about by selection alone. If you think it could then explain how.
As I keep telling you, you're failing to consider the implications of your ideas.
And you're also arguing that mutations play little or no role in speciation, and this is also false.
You assert this over and over but have not proved it. Analogies like water in and water out are certainly not evidence.
As I also keep telling you, most of the misunderstandings are coming from you, and this is yet another example. The bathtub analogy had nothing to do with speciation. You had claimed that mutation and selection could not occur simultaneously in a population, and the bathtub analogy was an illustration of how this does occur. In any population new alleles are being constantly produced through the imperfection of genetic copying during reproduction, and old alleles are constantly being selected out.
Mutation is invoked as the answer to reduced genetic diversity's being necessary to evolution...
Mutation is essential to evolution in order to produce speciation, something that you're trying to, as you said earlier, deemphasize. The theory of evolution was developed to explain how the huge diversity of species observed around the world originated, and here you are you're trying to ignore the theory of evolution's very raison d'tre.
All you have is an explanation for new phenotypes of an existing species, and it's the same explanation evolution already had. What you're missing is an explanation for the origin of species.
Anything that increases gene flow such as hybridization, cross breeding, etc., will interfere with these processes, and can actually completely destroy the characteristics of a formerly established population by mixing it with others and increasing its genetic diversity.
Well, yes, this is true, but it has nothing to do with mutation. Gene flow between populations will make the populations less diverse overall because the populations will come to share alleles that they didn't previously share, but mutation contributes novel alleles which increase diversity.
And you're arguing that adaptation isn't a much of a factor in selection, and this too is false.
So says the ToE, and all you are doing is asserting the theory,...
No, Faith, I am not just asserting the theory. I have explained why selection produces adaptation several times, and I'll do so again. Environments perform selection by determining which individuals survive to contribute their genes to the next generation. That's why mammals in cold climates have thicker fur than those in warm climates. It's why white fur is seen in arctic environments and not forest environments. It's why the fur color of pocket mice changes according to their environment. This is just basic, fundamental biology that we know is true of nature because it is precisely what we observe when we study nature.
Actually the adaptation argument is not essential to my main argument here, I merely think it is true.
Most people who come to think something is true have some basis for it, but not you. You just think something is so, and that's good enough for you.
But there is something DYNAMIC and not merely arithmetical about the effect on the population that selection and isolation have as opposed to increases in gene flow, mutations or whatnot that add to the genetic diversity. Selection and isolation are not merely subtraction, but something dynamic. It's hard to get it expressed.
If you can't find any reasons for thinking something then it's probably because it's not true, but you don't need to keep telling us what you think. We know what you think, and we keep explaining to you with facts and analysis why what you think is wrong, and the best you can do is tell us you're going to continue to think it anyway but can't tell us why. Figure out what it is that we know about reality that convinces you of your point of view and explain what it is.
Ask yourself what is not dynamic about water flowing in and out of a bathtub at the same time and at possibly varying rates. When you find an answer, let us know.
but certainly to a first level of approximation we can say that if a population acquires a new allele then it has experienced an increase in diversity,
Yes but the fact is trivial in context
and if it loses an allele then it has experienced a decrease in diversity.
Also trivial...
Well, if my analogy is an illustration of what is trivially true, Faith, then I guess there was nothing wrong with it, was there. Just as there was nothing wrong with the pigeon example, either. Your claims of being misunderstood and of the analogies and examples being wrong is just what you always say when you have no answer.
Increases in genetic diversity most commonly show up as separate traits in individuals that just meander around in the population,...
If the number of alleles in a population does not increase, how can you get an increase in genetic diversity? The question is rhetorical, of course, and the rest of the paragraph looks like you couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.
That's as nonsensical as if I claimed that when I select songs for my music collection it has no bearing on whether it is adapted to my taste.
Nature has no specific taste the way human beings have. Seems YOU are now the one confusing domestic breeding with natural causes of the development of new subspecies.
Is there no fact so obvious you won't deny it, Faith? It was a simple analogy. Nature has a variety of "tastes". Nature is hot, cold, wet, dry, windy, calm, high altitude, low altitude, etc. and so forth and on and on. And the life that develops in any environment must be suited (adapted) to the "taste" of that environment, i.e., the specific environmental conditions, else they will be selected against. Just as I will select against music that doesn't suit my own personal taste. Could you please stop with the knee jerk "no that's wrong" responses and put just a little thought into things first?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 5:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 294 of 1034 (692497)
03-04-2013 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
03-03-2013 9:29 PM


Re: Questions
Faith writes:
Sure, eventually but not before the awesome diversity of the morganucodons has been whittled down to the nondiversity displayed by such relatively homogeneous creatures as the elephant, the giraffe, the weasel, the whale, the bat ...
Whew! Must say that the imaginative fantastical wishfulness of the evolutionist takes the breath away. How could one fight such castles in the air? There are always many more where those came from.
Dr Adequate was describing your own theory back to you. Your description of your theory, "Castles in the air," seems quite apt.
Poor Dr A. What's the point of ridicule if the target can't even recognize which way the barbs are directed?
You are always only getting dogs from dogs (and here I do think of the wolf as just the original Dog anyway), cats from cats, elephants from elephants and so on.
This is new, at least in this thread. So you're not even trying to propose a theory that can produce new species. You think that all existing species have always existed. This is obviously false. We can just look at the fossil record and know that modern species have not always existed.
I wish you'd said this a long time ago. I was under the impression that you were attempting to describe an alternative theory for the origin of species. I see now that you've actually got two theories, one of which you're talking about in this thread to explain the origin of subspecies and about which we all pretty much agree, and another theory that you haven't been talking about that explains the origin of species and which I assume is just the standard creationist "God did it."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 9:29 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 11:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 298 of 1034 (692540)
03-04-2013 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by NoNukes
03-04-2013 11:04 AM


Re: Some answers...
NoNukes writes:
I wish you'd said this a long time ago.
I think she actually did imply this a long time ago.
I went back and reread her OP and you're right. When I first read her OP I found it too long and fragmented (it was composed of cut-n-pastes from other messages) to get a clear idea of what she was saying, so I asked her to rewrite it, but I also included a summary of what I thought she was saying and said that if my summary was close enough for her purposes that I could just promote the thread and she wouldn't have to do a rewrite. She said it was fine, so I promoted the thread, but if you go back and read my summary (Message 3) you'll see that I definitely believed she was including speciation.
Initially Faith said that evolution was exactly like breeding. Later she acknowledged that evolution was only analogous to breeding. That's failure one. You cannot prove anything by arguing from analogy. Such arguments always break.
I actually don't have any problem with an analogy between selection in breeding and selection in nature. Darwin used the same analogy. My problem was Faith's claim that breeding was analogous to evolution because evolution was really only capable of selection, which is of course false.
...the argument that breeds represent some loss of diversity from the species is also demonstrably wrong.
I do think that breeding for specific traits reduces diversity. Fixing certain traits by eliminating competing alleles is one of the goals of breeding.
Here's another analogy. I watched the Bruins/Canadiens hockey game yesterday, and the Canadiens were guilty of a few flops (overreacting to contact in order to gain a penalty). Both Faith and Bolder-dash seemed to have left in huffs that bear a strong resemblance to flops.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 11:04 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 6:48 PM Percy has replied
 Message 304 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 7:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 305 of 1034 (692550)
03-04-2013 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by nwr
03-04-2013 6:06 PM


Re: Faith is done with this thread ???
Hi nwr,
Thanks for the link - very interesting. Faith included this chart from Wikipedia's article on Peripatric Speciation as evidence that reduced genetic variation leads to speciation:
She doesn't seem to realize that the four types of speciation listed across the top, allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric, all require mutation. The line that says "Evolution of reproductive isolation" is where mutations, allele remixing and selection occur. She would have realized that if she were using the proper definition of evolution when interpreting the chart.
Unfortunately Faith wants to be right more than she wants to understand what is true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by nwr, posted 03-04-2013 6:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by nwr, posted 03-04-2013 10:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 306 of 1034 (692551)
03-04-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by NoNukes
03-04-2013 7:43 PM


Re: Some answers...
NoNukes writes:
Bolder is in a permanent huffy state. I have no idea how he feels about Faith's arguments.
He defended her over at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') (see Message 696), saying that, "Her theory is no less scientifically verified than is the great theory you proselytize."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 7:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 9:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 307 of 1034 (692552)
03-04-2013 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by NoNukes
03-04-2013 6:48 PM


Re: Some answers...
NoNukes writes:
Yes, a breed does have less diversity than the rest of the species. But breeding does not create species or lower the diversity in the species.
The more I think about it the more I realize that she was being very careful in any replies to me to never mention that she didn't think there's any such thing as speciation. And no matter who she was replying to, she never came out with a non-ambiguous declaration of this belief until the very end with her "dogs are always dogs" comment. Apparently she was trying to sell her ideas in small pieces, I guess hoping they would be more palatable that way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 6:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 10:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024