Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:32 PM
29 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, xongsmith (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,032 Year: 12,068/19,786 Month: 1,849/2,641 Week: 358/708 Day: 52/81 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 241 of 457 (708163)
10-06-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by NoNukes
10-06-2013 12:01 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
I was using Percy's phrase and I assumed he meant what happens when you get a change in allele frequencies, which you get when you have a population split.

I don't attribute population genetics to Mendel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 12:01 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 9:16 AM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18597
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 242 of 457 (708173)
10-06-2013 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by NoNukes
10-05-2013 7:27 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
NoNukes writes:

Percy writes:

And you *do* need mutations to produce a new species...

I don't think this is true. You do need mutations of course,...

Yes, of course, but then you go on:

...but mutations are not timely. At any given time, there may be small numbers of mutants in the population.

Every member of a population is a mutant. There's never a point in time when it can be declared, "This is the genome of species X," and any deviation from that genome is a mutant, because species are constantly evolving. Given how much life must have changed since its fuzzy beginnings, every allele of every gene in every cell everywhere had its beginning as a mutation.

What you're describing sounds more like the pool of variation in any genome upon which species can draw, and which was the point of Frako's Dawkins video.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2013 7:27 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 8:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 8:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:09 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 457 (708175)
10-06-2013 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
10-06-2013 6:33 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Rats. Another dupe

Edited by NoNukes, : Removed


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

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 457 (708176)
10-06-2013 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
10-06-2013 6:33 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Every member of a population is a mutant. There's never a point in time when it can be declared, "This is the genome of species X," and any deviation from that genome is a mutant,

Yes, that is true. What I meant was mutants having the a mutation that gives individuals an advantage when conditions change such that the a movement toward speciation begins.

What I am suggesting is that a comparison of the new species to the old species will show that individuals from the new species are identical to the mutants from the old species. The appearance will be something like Faith describes, but in reality all of the variation comes from mutation.

every allele of every gene in every cell everywhere had its beginning as a mutation.

Yes of course. That's pretty much required by common descent.

What you're describing sounds more like the pool of variation in any genome upon which species can draw, and which was the point of Frako's Dawkins video.

Didn't watch it.


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

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:33 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18597
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 245 of 457 (708177)
10-06-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
10-05-2013 11:33 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Faith writes:

Evolutionary change is enough for it to be about for my purposes in responding to Frako.

No, it isn't enough for your purposes, unless one of those purposes is to never admit error. I called it Frako's error, you don't need to make it your own.

But since you bring it up it seems to me that Frako got the right idea about it if the lizards can no longer interbreed with the former lizard population on the original island, which I thought was said, but maybe I'm misremembering.

You're definitely misremembering. It's right there at minute 1 in the video. They're the same species on both islands, and the definition of species is related organisms capable of interbreeding. Here's the video, take 6 seconds of your time and start listening at the 1 minute mark:

Wikipedia gives that familiar little chart that shows four different ways speciation occurs and all four of them have in common that they involve a smaller population being reproductively isolated from a larger.

The diagram can be misleading. Only one of them requires a smaller population. Don't just look at the diagram, read the descriptions: Wikipedia article on Speciation.

Then if you look up the definition of Speciation you'll find it described as two new species forming from a former single species.

The simple dictionary definition would by necessity leave out the details and say, as does Answers.com, "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, *usually* by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." But as the definition makes clear, division of a parent species into two new species is not the only way. Because reproduction is imperfect genomes are not fixed, and evolution over time is inevitable and unstoppable. Because of this species are not unchanging and cannot be unchanging, and even a population in a stable environment will still undergo evolutionary change over time and eventually become a different species genetically distinct from and incapable of breeding with their distant ancestors (who no longer exist).

But it does suggest something closer to what you keep saying, that DNA analysis shows that the new species is clearly not the same as the former species. So let me ask: where do you get this information, please supply a source.

Are you asking how we tell genetically whether or not two populations are the same species? I would have thought that knowing this would be something you'd understand you'd have to know about before making your claims about speciation. The division between species has long been known to be fuzzy. Sure, lizards and lions are different species, but are lions and tigers? Grey squirrels and red squirrels? Chihuahuas and St. Bernards? Sometimes the answer is obvious, sometimes not.

When the answer isn't obvious we often turn to DNA analysis. One simple approach is genetic distance, and from there the analyses can become more detailed and complex, comparing genomes to see which genes are present in each population, and which alleles for each gene are present in each population. And even DNA analysis can be inconclusive. For example, several DNA studies have been unable to conclusively demonstrate whether the bush elephant and the forest elephant are separate species.

I didn't say it [genetic diversity] is considered to be the "driving force" behind speciation or anything else.

Uh, yes, you did, unless I'm not allowed to use my own words when replying to you and you're merely claiming that you didn't use the words "driving force."

I believe it may have been PaulK who made that equation somewhere back there, when he was so astonished at the idea that evolution or phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity.

Now you're misstating your own claim. Your claim is not that "phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity." Your claim is that new phenotypic types only emerge after a reduction in genetic diversity.

Allele remixing only occurs when you get a population split.

In sexual reproduction, allele remixing occurs with every reproductive event. For example, you're a remixing of the alleles from both your parents. Descent with modification involves both existing alleles combined in ways not present in either parent, and mutations which create new alleles not extant in either parent and possibly not anywhere in the population.

Descent with modification either by allele remixing or mutation, and natural selection, amounts to the processes I'm describing, that form new phenotypes by reducing genetic diversity.

Except that mutation (new alleles, genes and even chromosomes) and natural selection (pruning of alleles, genes and even chromosomes) are working in opposite directions.

Anything that selects and isolates a portion of a population has this effect: it creates new allele frequencies and if the population is small enough it creates a reduced genetic diversity, and this creates a new trait picture or phenotype that becomes population wide after some number of generations of inbreeding.

But without mutation it's still the same species. You haven't explained the origin of species. You're claims are equivalent to denying speciation.

Sure you'd need mutations if you ever really did get a new species, but most mutations are just substitutions for alleles that are part of the species genome and couldn't do anything other than vary that one trait for that species in any case.

The tiniest mutations, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP's) that simply replace one nucleotide with another, are the most common, but an SNP can turn entire sections of DNA on and off. Gene duplication happens with fair regularity. Virus's provide a source of inter-species gene transference. Mutations are a powerful transformative force in evolution.

When belief instead of fact drives understanding there will always be contradicting facts that must be ignored. Your views will have no persuasive power until they are factually inclusive instead of exclusive.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 10-05-2013 11:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 10:13 AM Percy has responded
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 4:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:28 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 457 (708178)
10-06-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
10-06-2013 12:03 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
I was using Percy's phrase and I assumed he meant what happens when you get a change in allele frequencies, which you get when you have a population split.

I don't attribute population genetics to Mendel.

Unlike what Percy says, you have claimed that new phenotypes arise when you get a change in allele frequencies. I have just had a discussion with Percy that teases his disagreement with that proposition.

For example you say in Message 181:

In all these cases you are going to get reduced genetic diversity AND the formation of new phenotypes because of the new allele/gene frequencies,

And at Message 235

And again, you don't NEED mutations to get a new "species" because the new allele frequencies are quite sufficient to accomplish that.

And this The B is an allele and the b is another allele, both for eye color which is the gene or location on the chromosome. This is the basic idea I have in mind in everything I'm saying. There is no reason to suppose any of it arises by mutation but if it occasionally does the pairings still get expressed in the same way.

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)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

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 241 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 12:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:15 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 247 of 457 (708179)
10-06-2013 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-06-2013 8:48 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Evolutionary change is enough for it to be about for my purposes in responding to Frako.

No, it isn't enough for your purposes, unless one of those purposes is to never admit error. I called it Frako's error, you don't need to make it your own.

WHAT I MEANT WAS that the video didn't have to be about speciation for me to answer Frako since I'm objecting to ALL forms of "evolution" as understood in the way Dawkins presents this, as if microevolution and macroevolution are all the same, which is the main thing I've been answering.

But since you bring it up it seems to me that Frako got the right idea about it if the lizards can no longer interbreed with the former lizard population on the original island, which I thought was said, but maybe I'm misremembering.

You're definitely misremembering. It's right there at minute 1 in the video. They're the same species on both islands, and the definition of species is related organisms capable of interbreeding. Here's the video, take 6 seconds of your time and start listening at the 1 minute mark:

WHAT I SAID WAS I might be misremembering that the new lizards were unable to interbreed with the original population. THAT's what I thought was said. I remember that it said they were the same species, because they wanted to be sure it wasn't some other lizard that happened to be on the island, but since I EXPECT it to be the same species I didn't even blink at that. Of course if speciation WERE true it wouldn't be the same species, but oddly enough I've never seen anything said on that until your remarks.

My computer is acting up so I am going to post this and come back to the rest later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 2:14 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18597
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 248 of 457 (708182)
10-06-2013 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
10-06-2013 10:13 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Faith writes:

WHAT I MEANT WAS that the video didn't have to be about speciation for me to answer Frako since I'm objecting to ALL forms of "evolution" as understood in the way Dawkins presents this, as if microevolution and macroevolution are all the same, which is the main thing I've been answering.

The video says nothing about microevolution or macroevolution, and especially it doesn't say they're the same thing. The video is not about speciation either. It's about how surprisingly rapid the pace of evolution can be when environment changes.

WHAT I SAID WAS I might be misremembering that the new lizards were unable to interbreed with the original population.

And I confirmed for you that you were definitely misremembering. It is very uncommon (though certainly not unheard of) for populations of the same species to be unable to interbreed, and had that been the case then it would have been featured prominently since it would require explanation.

Of course if speciation WERE true it wouldn't be the same species...

Wrong again. Why ever would you think that evolution requires that phenotypic change be accompanied by species change. Have you somehow forgotten that evolution is well aware that there can be a great degree of phenotypic variation in some species? Have you forgotten the very familiar examples of dogs and pigeons? There are some significant phenotypic differences between the populations on the two islands, but these lizards are still the same species. After all, only 37 years had passed, so speciation is completely unexpected. But phenotypic change in response to environmental change is precisely what evolution expects, and there are some very familiar examples like the peppered moth, and these lizards are just another example.

You can't even remember what evolution says, no wonder you can't maintain any coherency as you attempt to disprove it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 10:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 4:20 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 249 of 457 (708187)
10-06-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
10-06-2013 2:14 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
WHAT I MEANT WAS that the video didn't have to be about speciation for me to answer Frako since I'm objecting to ALL forms of "evolution" as understood in the way Dawkins presents this, as if microevolution and macroevolution are all the same, which is the main thing I've been answering.

The video says nothing about microevolution or macroevolution,

I never said it did. It is merely a typical example of what *evolution* is considered to be, which according to Frako and just about everyone else here, makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution, the latter just naturally going on from the former, certainly without anything like reduced genetic diversity to interfere. For my purposes it is an excellent example of MICROevolution, which didn't even occur to Frako, who just accepts, as does Dawkins, that ANY "evolution" confirms the ToE.

and especially it doesn't say they're the same thing.

And again I did not say it said that. However, I meant they are same only in the sense that they are considered to be brought about by the same processes, and continuous one from the other as far as how they come about, so that my claim that variations in the phenotype tend to reduce genetic diversity, which shows how they can't be continuous, definitely opposes this common viewpoint, which has been expressed by MANY here. ("What's to stop microevolution from going right on to macroevolution").

The video is not about speciation either. It's about how surprisingly rapid the pace of evolution can be when environment changes.

Uh huh, you made your point that it's not about speciation (although there's no real reason why it couldn't be that I've seen yet), and I already commented that the rapidity is exactly what creationists would expect although it surprises Dawkins, and that's because the ToE customarily talks in terms of huge lengths of time. But breeding doesn't take all that much time, which continues to be the comparison that I find most useful; bringing about a new population with new traits from the previous population really does not take much time. All that's happened here is that we have an undeniable example of the fact that such changes within the genome of a Species do NOT require great swaths of time.

WHAT I SAID WAS I might be misremembering that the new lizards were unable to interbreed with the original population.

And I confirmed for you that you were definitely misremembering.

Excuse me but you did NOT refer to my misremembering a statement about inability to interbreed, you referred ONLY to that statement in the beginning of the video about the DNA test showing that the lizard was the same species as the original, which I remembered just fine.

It is very uncommon (though certainly not unheard of) for populations of the same species to be unable to interbreed, and had that been the case then it would have been featured prominently since it would require explanation.

Not in any discussion I've encountered about Speciation, which pretty much makes the inability to interbreed between mother and daughter populations the DEFINITION of Speciation. You seem to be trying to redefine everything from what others here have said at various times and what one normally finds on the internet about these things, AND all you are doing is asserting, not giving evidence.

Of course if speciation WERE true it wouldn't be the same species...

Wrong again. Why ever would you think that evolution requires that phenotypic change be accompanied by species change.

That's quite a nonsequitur there. Surely SPECIATION should produce something recognizably not the same species as that it evolved from, and it sure sounded like that's what YOU were saying until now too.

Neither this statement of mine nor anything else I've said EVER stated that evolution requires that phenotypic change be accompanied by species change. All kinds of phenotypic changes occur and are merely CALLED "evolution" as in the Dawkins video, and celebrated as if they demonstrated the ToE, whereas all they demonstrate is MICROevolution which creationists and everybody else back for millennia recognize as occurring within the genome of any given Species. Darwin of course originated this error, when he called the various finch types "species" and compared Natural Selection to Domestic Selection. Evolutionists have co-opted this common variation, which is how breeds form etc., and called it "evolution" which keeps requiring Creationists to point out that it ISN'T evolution in the sense that validates the ToE.

Have you somehow forgotten that evolution is well aware that there can be a great degree of phenotypic variation in some species?

See above. Certainly t'wasn't I who made such an error.

Have you forgotten the very familiar examples of dogs and pigeons? There are some significant phenotypic differences between the populations on the two islands, but these lizards are still the same species.

Of course they are. Where did I say otherwise? The problem is only that Frako regarded it as the formation of a new species which implies Speciation (and for all I've known that is often how such a situation IS described by evolutionists) but there is no problem whatever if it is NOT intended to be an example of Speciation but ONLY an example of "evolutionary change," period. Except of course the problem that Dawkins and Frako seem to think it would surprise a Creationist to see such "evolution" in action, because for some reason they absolutely miss the point that it reflects the commonest argument of Creationists about Microevolution, which is ALL this video demonstrates. (Even if it was about Speciation that would be the case).

After all, only 37 years had passed, so speciation is completely unexpected. But phenotypic change in response to environmental change is precisely what evolution expects, and there are some very familiar examples like the peppered moth, and these lizards are just another example.

Which I've certainly not treated otherwise. You seem to be bending over backwards to find me *wrong* about something, anything, but most of it is wildly off the mark of anything I've actually said. But isn't it rather interesting that Dawkins is so surprised at how little time it took for these lizards to develop their new characteristics among themselves?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 2:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:05 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 250 of 457 (708190)
10-06-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-06-2013 8:48 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Continuing to answer the post I didn't finish earlier:

Wikipedia gives that familiar little chart that shows four different ways speciation occurs and all four of them have in common that they involve a smaller population being reproductively isolated from a larger.

The diagram can be misleading. Only one of them requires a smaller population. Don't just look at the diagram, read the descriptions: Wikipedia article on Speciation.

It really doesn't matter if the new population is appreciably smaller except that if it is then the trend to reduction of genetic diversity is more obvious, and I focus on that because it best makes my point about what happens down lines of breeding and this very common way new populations form in the wild.

But such reduction may not even occur with a fairly equal division into two populations, as both populations may have all the same alleles -- but they will have them in different proportions or allele frequencies. Any population split means new allele frequencies for each of the new populations, and that's how you get new phenotypes.

The simple dictionary definition would by necessity leave out the details and say, as does Answers.com, "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, *usually* by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." But as the definition makes clear, division of a parent species into two new species is not the only way.

The problem with this is that you are not ever going to get an actual new Species from the mere division of one population into two. You are going to get new allele frequencies in both populations and therefore also new phenotypes, and if the populations are reproductively isolated from each other and other populations, then over generations of inbreeding each will develop its own new characteristics different from each other and from all other members of that Species. BUT this is still only microevolution. There is absolutely nothing about this situation that could possibly make new Species in any real sense.

Because reproduction is imperfect genomes are not fixed, and evolution over time is inevitable and unstoppable.

Of course, there is always going to be variation. Even from one generation to another there is observable variation, this is undisputed. But calling it "evolution" to imply that it validates the ToE is tendentious in a discussion like this one, when Creationists have no problem whatever with this level of variation but expect it.

Because of this species are not unchanging and cannot be unchanging, and even a population in a stable environment will still undergo evolutionary change over time and eventually become a different species genetically distinct from and incapable of breeding with their distant ancestors (who no longer exist).

It depends on the level of genetic diversity in the population. Your description is true if the gen. diversity is high; it is not true if it's very low, and especially at the extremes such as the cheetah and the elephant seal whose gen. diversity is pretty much nil.

Again I'm going to have to stop and come back later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18597
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 251 of 457 (708196)
10-06-2013 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
10-06-2013 4:20 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Faith writes:

I never said it did.

Of course you did. You even quoted yourself saying it.

Faith, everyone can read your words. Your lack of understanding is reflected in the confusion of concepts that you present, and it isn't something you can hide. Just flatly issuing denial after denial isn't going to convince anyone. What convinces people are explanations that make sense of the facts. You don't even acknowledge most facts.

One thing I'll clarify: My comment about populations of the same species not being able to interbreed was made in the context of genetic analysis being the criteria for identifying species, not interbreeding. This is like a chihuahua and a Saint Bernard, which was one of the examples I mentioned in another context, being the same species yet not being able to interbreed naturally. I also said it was not very common, but we have to accept the world as it is, not as we wish it would be so that our definitions didn't have to have qualifiers.

The fundamental point is that if you think you already understand evolution when you obviously don't, how are you ever going to understand it? And if you don't understand evolution, how are you going to disprove it? Disproving things evolution doesn't say is a waste of time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 4:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 10-06-2013 11:36 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 252 of 457 (708205)
10-06-2013 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
10-06-2013 6:05 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
deleted

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:05 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 253 of 457 (708208)
10-07-2013 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-06-2013 8:48 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
When the answer isn't obvious we often turn to DNA analysis.

I asked for a source not a generalization.

Certainly in the case of the lizards the answer isn't obvious as in the case of lions versus Chihuahuas.

One simple approach is genetic distance, and from there the analyses can become more detailed and complex, comparing genomes to see which genes are present in each population, and which alleles for each gene are present in each population.

What I wanted to know was whether cases of Speciation have been tested in this fashion and if you have a source of that particular specific information. Obviously you don't, you don't have any real evidence of whether Speciation produces a recognizable new Species or not.

And even DNA analysis can be inconclusive. For example, several DNA studies have been unable to conclusively demonstrate whether the bush elephant and the forest elephant are separate species.

That being the case one would expect it to be far from conclusive concerning the lizards, which are obviously the same species by your first criteria of judging by appearance anyway. If that one isn't considered Speciation there are plenty of similar cases of what are obviously to the naked eye the same Species that are called Speciation nevertheless. The whole thing about Speciation is a gigantic delusion. What you have is merely a variation of the same Species that has stopped being able to interbreed with its former population.


I believe it may have been PaulK who made that equation somewhere back there, when he was so astonished at the idea that evolution or phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity.

Now you're misstating your own claim. Your claim is not that "phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity." Your claim is that new phenotypic types only emerge after a reduction in genetic diversity

I've said it both ways many times.

In sexual reproduction, allele remixing occurs with every reproductive event.

That is correct. But I was thinking population level genetics.

But without mutation it's still the same species. You haven't explained the origin of species. You're claims are equivalent to denying speciation.

Even WITH mutation it's still the same species. It's nothing but BELIEF that says otherwise. Yes indeed I AM denying speciation. It does not happen. What is called speciation is just normal variation that has produced a variety that can no longer interbreed with the parent population. And since the vast majority of such cases, even most likely all of them, are going to be characterized by reduced genetic diversity there is no way you are ever going to get another "speciation" event from that same population. End of evolution for that line of variation.

Again, all you have is the article of faith that mutations EVER make enough of the right kind of difference to power any aspect of the ToE at all.

When belief instead of fact drives understanding there will always be contradicting facts that must be ignored. Your views will have no persuasive power until they are factually inclusive instead of exclusive.

Exactly. So where is your actual evidence as opposed to mere belief, that speciation has ever occurred at all, by DNA analysis which is what you claimed, and that mutations do what you say they do?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:50 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 10-07-2013 9:18 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 254 of 457 (708209)
10-07-2013 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
10-07-2013 5:28 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Oh and one other piece of evolutionist lore is the idea that the lizards in the Dawkins video developed their big heads and jaws as an adaptation to their new environment, but not one word was said about the environment being different from the previous environment. This is just the usual evo creed. The most likely explanation for their developing their larger heads and jaws is just that they had the new allele frequencies that over generations of inbreeding brought out that trait picture. And since they HAD the ability to eat vegetable matter they did so. The very same kind of vegetable matter that was on the previous island where their ancestors didn't happen to have the larger heads so they preferred insects.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32157
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 255 of 457 (708210)
10-07-2013 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by frako
10-01-2013 10:12 AM


Back to Frako's claims for speciation
Since speciation has become the topic of the moment here's Frako's list from Message 86:

1. Observed instances of new species forming
Observed beneficial mutations and speciation in Anolis lizards
Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse
Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.
A new species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas
Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella
A new species of mosquito in London Culex pipiens
Finch speciation in the Galapagos

Darwin's Galapagos finches are clearly nothing but variations that happened to get isolated from each other that led each new population to a new kind of food that its beak was best adapted for.. They are not new Species, they are varieties (the wild equivalent of breeds) of Finches.

The same is no doubt the case for most of the rest on the list. Any proof otherwise? Or just an article of belief and definitional word magic that it's speciation etc etc etc.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 10:12 AM frako has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019