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 8:11 PM
158 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (5 members, 153 visitors)
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
...
1617
18
1920
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 1034 (692402)
03-02-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Tangle
03-02-2013 2:54 PM


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

I disagree.

New dog breeds are less diverse than the entire subspecies Canis lupus familiaris because breeders cull diverse offspring during breeding. Any single breed would have to be less diverse than the sub species because the sub species includes the new breed plus every other dog that has ever walked the face of the earth. For example the set of human beings with blond hair, blue eyes, and height over 6 feet tall is less diverse than the species Homo sapiens.

My statements about the dog sub species were perfectly clear and correct. In a previous post I even named the sub species. I won't pillory Faith for not following my meaning despite the fact that I used the terminology correctly, but I'm certainly not going to accept any responsibility for her error.

Who erred is beside the point anyhow.

The inescapable conclusion is that dog breeding produces neither new species or nor new subspecies. It produces only inter-fertile offspring of the same sub species. In other words, even after acknowledging her mistake and blaming me for it, Faith hasn't noticed that the argument is over. If in fact speciation is possible, something Faith has yet to dispute, dog breeding does not produce speciation.


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 251 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 2:54 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 5:20 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 1034 (692403)
03-02-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
03-02-2013 3:49 PM


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

I have NOT equated "breeding" with "selection," I have used breeding only to show that selection produces new varieties or breeds or "species" if you insist on that term, through reducing genetic diversity, but that statement that "breeding is how new species arise" is a bizarre mistatement of anything I've said.

New species arise in nature as well as in breeding so how on earth could I be saying BREEDING IS HOW THEY ARISE? That makes NO sense.

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.

Also, I thought you meant "species" as in Speciation, and I most certainly have NOT claimed that breeding leads to speciation.

It DOES of course produce BREEDS. Imagine that! Breeds, varieties, new phenotypes.

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 ujltimately but get the gterms of the argument correct first.

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.

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.

The argument has to do mostly with the PROCESSES and their TENDENCY TO REDUCE GENETIC DIVERSITY, not the end products.

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.

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.

As for nature, the main difference is that apart from Natural Selection which focuses on particular traits, the way new varieties develop is by reproductive isolation of a new gene pool all by itself, and ALL the traits in the new gene pool will form the new phenotype after a few generations, unless some are favored over others in which case they will come to dominate in the phenotype.

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.

If there is an identifiable difference that brings about species (by which I assume again you mean Speciation) in nature and not in breeding it's certainly not mutations. 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. Speciation is going to involve genetic reduction, often severe, which isn't going to happen if you're always adding genetic diversity. Really, this is obvious. Where you are getting speciation you are not getting mutations rushing in to save the day. Why you aren't getting it in breeding I don't know yet.

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.

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.

The truth is that we do understand your position.

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.

We follow what you're trying to say,

Drop the "we," the statement barely applies to you let alone others here.

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.

No, that is theory only, that is NOT what you see in nature. I've described what is seen in nature and you do not need mutations for it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


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

2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 3:49 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 6:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 258 of 1034 (692405)
03-02-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
03-02-2013 3:58 PM


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

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

There is no-one on this thread that disagrees with that. It's purely an arithmetic truth. It's been said over and over. So maybe we can stop agreeing.

It's the next step that you're all screwed up on.

You think that simply having a subset of an existing population somehow allows the smaller group to adapt to a different environment. That doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Now to be fair, in some cases this might work. If you read the 'how novel features evolve' thread you'll find the interesting case of the wall lizards. They were isolated and changed their diet from insectavore to vegitarian and developed valves in their bowel to enable the digestion of cellulose. The biologists studying them claim that this was caused by gentic mutation, but as yet, photypic plasticity can't be ruled out.

But either way, you're simply not bringing anything new to the party - you're just saying what we all know and is obvious - then adding an error.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:18 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


(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 responded

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

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 1034 (692408)
03-02-2013 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by NoNukes
03-02-2013 4:20 PM


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

I disagree.

THANK YOU!!

New dog breeds are less diverse than the entire subspecies Canis lupus familiaris because breeders cull diverse offspring during breeding.

The culling contributes to the reduction of genetic diversity, certainly, but it isn't THE reason for it. The mere fact of inbreeding a small population produces reduced genetic diversity, and culling will contribute and further reduce the genetic diversity but you are getting the reduction in genetic diversity even without severe culling.

Any single breed would have to be less diverse than the sub species because the sub species includes the new breed plus every other dog that has ever walked the face of the earth.

Right. Which point I've made here more than once. Apparently Tangle can't read.

For example the set of human beings with blond hair, blue eyes, and height over 6 feet tall is less diverse than the species Homo sapiens.

Right. MUCH less.

My statements about the dog sub species were perfectly clear and correct. In a previous post I even named the sub species. I won't pillory Faith for not following my meaning despite the fact that I used the terminology correctly, but I'm certainly not going to accept any responsibility for her error.

Who erred is beside the point anyhow.

I'm willing to be the one who erred but it was a misreading and I am certainly aware that dogs are a subset of wolves and to pillory me for that as Percy is doing is grossly unfair and a distraction from the argument.

The inescapable conclusion is that dog breeding produces neither new species or nor new subspecies. It produces only inter-fertile offspring of the same sub species.

It depends on what is meant by the terms. A breed is at least analagous to a subspecies in nature. And most selection and isolation events in nature produce inter-fertile offspring as well, though they may be reproductively isolated by various natural barriers.

I'm not hanging anything on the inability to interbreed which is the artificial definition of Speciation, I'm ONLY arguing that producing new phenotypes that characterize a new population, which does happen in the wild as a result of reproductive isolation of small populations, is the same as what happens in domestic breeding as far as that goes. I think ring species demonstrate the principle I'm trying to describe here. They may be able to reproduce with the populations on either side of them but at the extremes they usually cannot interbreed. Even if they can that's not the crucial point. The point is only that the phenotypic differences among the different populations are most likely the product of simple migration and geographic isolation from each other, WHICH DECREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY FROM MOTHER POPULATION TO DAUGHTER POPULATION AROUND THE RING. IF this is how the ring develops, which I think it has to be, then the result should be decreasing genetic diversity from subpopulation to subpopulation through migration and reproductive isolation alone.

In other words, even after acknowledging her mistake and blaming me for it, Faith hasn't noticed that the argument is over. If in fact speciation is possible, something Faith has yet to dispute, dog breeding does not produce speciation.

Again you are missing the main point. SPECIATION IS NOT THE POINT, though certainly it may occur and by exactly the same processes I'm describing. But the POINT is the production of new varieties by reproductive isolation, and the varieties may continue to be able to interbreed, that's not the important part. As long as they maintain reproductive isolation for whatever reason they will maintain their particular phenotypic character. I don't care whether it leads to speciation or not, the point is that these processes that produce new varieties, breeds, "species" or phenotypes or subspecies or subsubspecies can only do so by reducing genetic diversity, and you do not get the production of new varieties, breeds, "species" or phenotypes in any other way.

No, this argument is not over at all. Since I don't think it's really been grasped by most of you, certainly by those who so loudly claim it has, it's not even really begun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 4:20 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 5:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 1034 (692409)
03-02-2013 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Percy
03-02-2013 5:07 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
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 --0 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.

But right now the misrepresentations and the misunderstandings are getting to me and I have to take another break before I explode.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 5:07 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 03-02-2013 6:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 262 of 1034 (692411)
03-02-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
03-02-2013 5:20 PM


Re: Semi-summary
Faith writes:

Right. Which point I've made here more than once. Apparently Tangle can't read.

For God's sake Faith - everyone in this thread agrees that a subset of a population has less genetic diversity that the population it came from.

If a breeder artificially selects for a trait, the resultant selection must have less genetic diversity than the population it came from. If two organisms are separated from the population their offspring will necessarily have less genetic diversity than the population.

No-one, but no-one is arguing that point.

But that is NOT evolution. That's just selection; the first artificially by people and the second naturally by isolation.

Evolution happens after that step. The organism adapts or dies. It can adapt either because there is sufficient variation in the organism's genome to allow for a plastic response to it or the organism has a beneficial mutation.

It's not evolution that reduces diversity, it's the mechanistic effects of isolation (and other things too messy to contemplate here). Mutation comes along afterwards and gradually builds back diversity.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 5:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 6:22 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 263 of 1034 (692412)
03-02-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Tangle
03-02-2013 5:37 PM


Re: Semi-summary
Evolution happens after that step.

Diversity can be added before and after and possibly even concurrently with selection. It can triggered either because a new mutation is immediately beneficial or because an environmental change causes a pre-existing mutation to provide a new advantage.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 5:37 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


(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 yet responded

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


(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 yet responded

    
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 266 of 1034 (692415)
03-02-2013 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
02-25-2013 2:23 PM


Re: Ring Species -- Greenish Warbler -- and Genetic Diversity
If it does, it's replacing another allele for beak type anyway you know, and surely all the possible beak types are already present in the gene pool so this "increase in diversity" is redundant and as I keep pointing out, once it gets selected the genetic diversity starts getting reduced anyway so it really amounts to nothing new in the end.

No, it is not replacing another allele for beak type. It is an addition to possible allele types.

Not all possible beak types are present. Unless you think a crow could be born with a toucan's beak?!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 2:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 9:23 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

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


(6)
Message 267 of 1034 (692418)
03-02-2013 9:04 PM


Stuff That Actually Happens
It is instructive to look at the actual formation of a new breed. Fortunately we can do this: there are breeds of animal which are younger than I am. One such is the attractive cat breed known as the American Curl because of its whimsical ears and country of origin.

The career of the American Curl was launched in 1981 when a longhaired black cat with curly ears turned up on the doorstep of Grace Ruga, a citizen of Lakewood, California. Ruga named that cat Shulamith, and when Shulamith produced a litter of kittens two of which displayed curled ears, she began to suspect that she had a new breed on her hands. Members of the "cat fancy" confirmed that this was indeed a novel trait, and the American Curl was accepted as an official breed by the International Cat Association in 1987.

Research showed that the new phenotype was caused by a single autosomal dominant allele (see Robinson, 1989. The American Curl Cat, Journal of Heredity 80 (6): 474475.) This means that the allele can't have existed much before 1981, because if it had, its carriers would all have had curly ears, and cat affectionados would have noticed all the curly-eared cats prancing around.

All American Curls are descended from Shulamith, but obviously not only from Shulamith because of cats not being capable of vegetative cloning. She and her kittens had to be outbred with non-Curl cats, the carriers of the Curl allele being retained for the breeding program; to prevent the inbreeding problems that plague many pedigree breeds, repeated outbreeding with non-Curls was carried on as a deliberate policy until 2010. Consequently, Curls are now available with short hair as well as long hair, and in every known color and pattern of fur.

To summarize:

* We know that the breed originated with a de novo mutation sometime around 1981.

* This mutation increased the genetic diversity of the cat species to the tune of one allele.

* The genetic diversity of the Curl breed increased continually between 1981 and 2010, and is clearly now much greater than when Shulamith was its sole representative.

All this is, of course, the exact opposite of what Faith thinks ought to happen. But reality seems singularly uninterested in her opinions.


Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 9:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
WarriorArchangel
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lynn MA US
Joined: 03-02-2013


Message 268 of 1034 (692419)
03-02-2013 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by vimesey
02-24-2013 4:47 AM


Re: Thanks for Acknowledgments of the Claim of Reduced Genetic Diversity
We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How did that happen? The Neanderthal ended up in the Northern Israel wilderness circa seven hundred thousand years ago. The people in the wilderness that Cain feared would kill him. But he interbred with them instead. His offspring were the first modern humans, the Cro-Magnon.

Intelligence doesn't evolve. It is inherited. Embedded in the womb and will learn to its capacity. Cain gave us the intelligence gene. In the theory of evolution there is no ape to pass on the intelligence gene.

The interbreeding of Cain puts the Almighty God in the mix.
"I am the Almighty God, and there is none else!" (HaShem)

One Almighty God negates all religions, and Gods. Not one Almighty. Allah aka Lucifer tags himself, All Mighty.....

Lucifer reached his goal of becoming like the Almighty by having his own nation, and religion, borne upon the earth...

There is a hierarchy at play on the earth. Between the Almighty, beyond the stars, and a rogue angel in the natural Creation.

The Almighty God has legions of angels. They have the knowledge of what is good, and what is evil, but live only one. Unlike us who live both. They do whatever He tells them. And He told them to put designs in the fields of the Earth.

His legions interacting in the crop markings. But we are to believe they are ALL hoaxed...search "crop circles", see the beauty in them...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by vimesey, posted 02-24-2013 4:47 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2013 10:54 PM WarriorArchangel has not yet responded
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 12:56 PM WarriorArchangel has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 1034 (692420)
03-02-2013 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by DBlevins
03-02-2013 6:56 PM


Re: Ring Species -- Greenish Warbler -- and Genetic Diversity
If it does, it's replacing another allele for beak type anyway you know, ...

No, it is not replacing another allele for beak type. It is an addition to possible allele types.

1. Allele for gene that governs beak type. (There may be more than one gene for beak type, this is just to make it simpler.)

2. Mutation occurs in this allele, in an allele that governs beak type. There is a mistake in replication and the allele is changed.

3. Sometimes such changes don't affect the phenotype, in this case the beak itself, sometimes they do. Let's say this one changes what the allele does, and therefore changes the beak type in some way.

4. The mutation has therefore replaced the allele for the other beak type with a new allele for a new beak type.

5. If the change makes a unique beak type then yes, among all the alleles for beak type in the whole gene pool it is an addition to the possible allele types and their beak types.

and surely all the possible beak types are already present in the gene pool

Not all possible beak types are present. Unless you think a crow could be born with a toucan's beak?!?

No, I meant all possible beak types for the species, not toucan type beaks or pelican type beaks etc. I'm assuming there is a limited number of variations possible and that the gene pool already has them all if it's a fairly genetically diverse gene pool.

But the potential range is probably a lot greater than we have any idea, which we might find out by breeding the birds for a particular beak type. We could very possibly get extreme beaks that way just as Darwin got such dramatic changes by determinedly breeding his pigeons for particular characteristics.

so this "increase in diversity" is redundant and as I keep pointing out, once it gets selected the genetic diversity starts getting reduced anyway so it really amounts to nothing new in the end

Get a population with a characteristic beak, lose all the alleles for the other beak types over time if the characteristic beak is favored, but it's even possible the alleles for all the other types are left behind in a migration and the new beak is truly accidental or randomly "selected" by chance.

If a mutation produced the new beak, if it is selected you still have to reduce or lose all the alleles for the other beak types, so then you'll have this population with the mutated beak and reduced genetic diversity in the loss of other alleles for the other beak types which inhibits further change, absolutely stops it cold if ALL the other alleles are lost and the new allele gets paired up with itself in all the individuals in the population, that is, if it reaches the state of fixed loci for its beak type, or total homozygosity for the population. Good luck waiting around for a new allele for a new beak type to show up by mutation, especially since the existing one wouldn't have achieved its position if it hadn't been favored, that is, selected.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by DBlevins, posted 03-02-2013 6:56 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 1034 (692421)
03-02-2013 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2013 9:04 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
The American Curl may be unique in being developed from a mutation, the "increased diversity" is to the tune of one allele as you say, and while they were breeding it with other types of COURSE it would not lose genetic diversity but in fact increase it, hybridization being one of the ways to replenish a depleted gene pool. *Duh*

But once breeding becomes a matter of inbreeding ONLY with American Curls then you'll see the loss of genetic diversity I'm talking about as alleles for all the other types of ears will be reduced and even ultimately disappear from the gene pool altogether.

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.

Sorry you find reality so much not to your liking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2013 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2013 11:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 03-03-2013 7:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
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