Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 259 of 457 (708226)
10-07-2013 11:22 AM


Information for Faith
One of the good questions Faith raised was whether the evolutionary change experienced by the lizards transported to Pod Mrcaru island was genetically or environmentally driven. This National Geographic article (Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island) from 2008 asks the same question:
National Geographic writes:
What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpretedwhether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.
Clearly the scientists think it was environment:
The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said.
The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said.
The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained.
Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.
But just as clearly they haven't proved it.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Tangle, posted 10-07-2013 12:51 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 262 of 457 (708238)
10-07-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Tangle
10-07-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Information for Faith
Tangle writes:
I also don't think that it's proven that mutations caused the changes.
Given the short time period, wouldn't a significant role for mutations be unexpected?
When we looked at this in some detail in the thread below, we couldn't quite nail it - and an alternative and plausible explanation for the changes is gene plasticity.
Right, and the National Geographic article seemed to indicate that the scientists were leaning the same way. Gene plasticity measures a genome's responsiveness to environmental changes. Faith is correct when she guesses that the individual lizards chosen for the founder population will have an influence on what happens during subsequent adaptation to the different environment of the new island, but her dismissal of the role of environment and natural selection is just bizarre.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Tangle, posted 10-07-2013 12:51 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Tangle, posted 10-07-2013 2:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 4:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 267 of 457 (708262)
10-07-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
10-07-2013 4:41 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
1) "Gene plasticity" sounds something like a throwback to Lamarckianism the way you define it.
Gene plasticity is not related to Lamarckism, and I did not define it that way. You can think of it as term closely related to genetic diversity. The greater the pool of variability (genetic diversity) within a genome upon which selection can operate, the greater the gene plasticity.
The only way a gene could "respond" to environmental change is by having alleles in the population (mutant or not, ok?) that bring out traits that are useful in that environment, which we would then expect to be selected. But unless it's a drastic sort of selection in which all the maladapted individuals simply die off leaving those with the helpful alleles, that is going to take a lot of time, many generations, so the environmental pressure can't be too severe.
The best adapted individuals in the founder population contributed the most offspring to the next generation. The best adapted individuals in the next generation contributed the most offspring to the next generation. And so forth for many, many reproductive cycles, since these lizards lay many clutches of eggs every spring. This is from Podarcis siculus siculus - Southern Italian Wall Lizard:
"Females that have bred before lay up to 5 clutches of 2 - 12 eggs (typically 5 or 6) every 12 or so days."
Your next point:
2) I don't recall that the Dawkins video said anything about the environment being appreciably different...
He didn't, but a quick web search brings to light the article Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home from 2008:
"According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs."
Darwin's finches that developed a number of new populations with different capacities to eat different sorts of foods due to different beak design, were all in the same environment, all on the same island, were they not?
This will have to be the last item I comment on since I have to get going. You should consider looking up things like this before typing. It would have taken all of a minute at Wikipedia to refresh your memory that the Galapagos are a set of islands and that the birds are different from one island to the next. Recent detailed studies of these birds have revealed that they vary not only from island to island, but also year to year depending upon food and water availability.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 4:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 289 of 457 (708344)
10-08-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
10-07-2013 5:41 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
MORE vegetation isn't going to drive a change in the lizards' ability...
I again have to get going and only have time to respond to this, but this is evolution 101. Any change in environment has the potential to drive evolutionary change by influencing which individuals are best able to pass their genes on to the next generation. Breeders do this by selecting for specific qualities, such as appearance or leanness of meat or size of breast or color of flower, while nature does it through the environment. You can't get anywhere while ignoring simple facts.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 5:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 295 of 457 (708355)
10-08-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
10-08-2013 5:02 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
As I said, a DEARTH of the lizards' customary food, insects in this case, might have such selecting power, but a mere increase in the amount of vegetation wouldn't have.
Wow! One might have expected more caution in someone who has already committed so many epic errors, but no, not you, you just march boldly forward and commit yet another.
An increase in vegetation is a change in the environment, which in turn exerts selection pressures different from those that existed previously. Though no article I've seen thus far has commented, the availability and variety of insects may have changed, too, and any difference would be yet another environmental selection pressure.
The 2008 technical article can be found here: Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource. It mentions several things not mentioned in any of the summary articles, among them that the islands have the same microclimate, and that the original lizard population also consumes vegetation, but to a much lesser extent.
Your idea that merely selecting a subset of a population will produce unique phenotypes is contradicted by centuries of kids' pet rabbits, mice and hamsters. No breeder of cattle, cats or dogs has ever produced uniqueness just by letting his own collection interbreed on their own. Developing unique qualities requires selection.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 5:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 9:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 300 of 457 (708378)
10-09-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Faith
10-08-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
What you are calling errors are of course not errors, they reflect another way of looking at these things than evolutionists do. I cannot see how an increase in vegetation could "exert" any kind of "pressure" of any sort on a lizard population, sorry. Unless they lacked other food, as I said.
It seems that for you even the simplest concepts are difficult. Environments exert selection pressures. Environments that remain largely the same will exert consistent selection pressures that tend to keep species unchanged. Any change in the environment changes the selection pressures, and species will change in response to those different pressures. There are no types of environmental change that do not influence selection pressures. Both increases and decreases in food sources will change selection pressures.
In the case of the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, the greater availability of vegetation as a food source provided a survival and a reproductive advantage to those individuals best able to consume and digest vegetation, and they would contribute the most offspring to the next generation. Their offspring would have the same advantage, or even a greater advantage to the degree that any morphological changes better enabled them to consume and digest vegetation.
You do not have merely "another way of looking at these things." You have a way of closing your eyes to even the most obvious facts.
They have to inbreed for a number of generations in reproductive isolation to bring out their peculiar shared traits, and the larger the original number of individuals the longer it's going to take to produce a group identity as it were...Pets are not normally allowed to breed...
It seems you can't even get facts about daily life right. You do realize that many people keep hamsters or mice or gerbils for generations and generations, right? Don't you think it would have been noticed centuries ago that if you breed a small group for generations that they become different? Don't you think that if all one had to do to get unique phenotypes was buy a couple hamsters at the pet shop and breed them for 20 generations without selection that it would be one of the most common science fair experiments out there? Don't you think that if what you claim were what really happens that it would be a popular family activity to buy a couple gerbils when the kids are young and see how different the descendants become by the time the kids graduate college?
But no one ever observes anything like you claim.
...and breeders simply don't LET their animals breed randomly among themselves.
That's right, because it doesn't work. Breeders use selection because long before we knew anything at all about genetics the secrets of how to breed effectively were already known: mate pairs who most possess the qualities desired. If isolating a small population were all it really took to generate new phenotypes then breeders would have discovered it long ago, and in the hope of generating new and useful phenotypes they would allocate a portion of their efforts in this direction.
But breeders don't do that. Because the world doesn't work that way.
Faith, buy a couple gerbils and prove this to yourself. They breed once a month, it won't take long.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 9:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 307 of 457 (708416)
10-09-2013 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
10-09-2013 5:08 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Hi Faith,
The denials are getting longer and more detailed while making less and less sense. There seems no position so ridiculous that you won't adopt and defend it. Responding doesn't seem to help when you're in this mode, so I won't waste my time.
The more interesting question is why you're doing this. Your views are not only unsupported by any evidence, they don't even make sense. It doesn't seem to matter to you that you're not convincing anyone, not even your fellow creationists. It looks like some combination of desperation and delusion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 308 of 457 (708417)
10-09-2013 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
10-09-2013 5:08 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Hi Faith,
This thread is more about the mindset of people who are in denial about reality than it is about evolution, so maybe it would be helpful to take discussion back in that direction. This picture was posted to the humor thread:
Does it make sense to you that T. rex was a vegetarian? Is it evidence that convinces you or something else?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 310 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 311 of 457 (708421)
10-09-2013 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Faith
10-09-2013 8:56 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
I try to stick to concepts I've thought about and feel I understand well enough to argue them...
Well, as Ringo keeps asking, since the only person you're willing to listen to is you, how do you tell when you're wrong? So far the only person here who thinks you understand anything is you. Even worse, you have a wildly irrational way of supporting your views that involves denying or ignoring the real evidence while speculating that if people tested your claims they would validate them, despite that some of the evidence you're ignoring is that your claims have already been tested and found wrong.
I think it ought to be considered on topic to try to answer the accusation that macroevolution is continuous with microevolution.
I'm not moderating this thread, just expressing an opinion. Talk about anything you like.
And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.
Well of course you think you did a good job, but it's already been firmly established that your beliefs have no rational foundation. You do have a good imagination, though, since I never in any way proposed name calling. Faith, find some facts, figure out what they mean, and argue that. Stop making things up.
The only thing I would add to it is that among the reasons I wouldn't expect people to be interested in experimenting to demonstrate how population splits bring about new varieties is that most people believe that change in nature takes a very very long time, which they've all learned from the ToE.
Are you daft? Have you given this even a moment's thought? Reductions in genetic diversity happen all the time, both naturally and artificially, no one has ever observed new phenotypes emerging in the absence of selection pressures, and this doesn't even give you pause. You just continue blithely on repeating your claims over and over and over again. What is wrong with you?
The way to convince someone is to provide enough data so that if they come over to your side they can defend their new position. What you've provided so far is just an invitation to ridicule.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:26 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 320 of 457 (708442)
10-10-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:26 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
"All the time?" What ARE you talking about? By what means? Seems to me there is only one way this is brought about and that is the reproductive isolation of a small subpopulation from a larger one, which includes bottlenecks. "All the time?" What ARE you talking about? I think you're just blowing hot air now.
No, Faith, I'm not blowing hot air. This is just you demonstrating your inability to think things through, or apparently even remember what's just been said about raising gerbils, hamsters and mice in the home. There are plenty of people who have raised gerbils for 20 and 30 years, yet no conversation like this has ever happened: "What the heck are these?" "Gerbils." "I've never seen any gerbils that looked like that before." "Well, we bought a pair 20 years ago, just let them mate on their own, gave the excess away, and this is what they look like now after a 100 generations."
Add to that all the recent human-caused reductions in habitat that are causing population declines in many species along with unavoidable reductions in genetic diversity, yet we don't see new phenotypes springing up all around the world.
You have an undemonstrated hypothesis that you're promoting as an accurate description of reality, despite that it's never been observed and isn't consistent with what is currently known within biology.
And selection hasn't exactly been "observed" either, as I pointed out with respect to the lizard example, it's ASSUMED.
Selection observed in the Pod Mrcaru lizards? No, of course not, there was a war going on. But selection itself, has been observed, verified, studied, analyzed, dissected and deconstructed. It's a known process. New phenotypes from reductions of genetic diversity have never been observed and are not consistent with what is currently known within biology.
Selection is only one of the ways reproductive isolation is brought about.
Boy, another whopper. I guess no Faith message is complete without one.
Selection does not cause reproductive isolation. Selection operates on all populations everywhere all the time. After reproductive isolation occurs then unless the environments of the two populations are somehow identical, the selection pressures will be different and the genetic and morphological makeup of the two populations will begin to diverge.
So what on earth do you mean that NOBODY HAS EVER OBSERVED new phenotypes emerging except under selection pressure?
Since I never said this, I have no idea what it means. What I did say is that no one has ever observed reductions in genetic diversity causing new phenotypes to emerge except under selection pressures. For example, experiments with bacteria frequently begin with a very small initial population (a great reduction in genetic diversity), yet unless the environment is modified (i.e., change the selection pressures) the bacteria don't change.
Speaking of bacteria, some common types reproduce every few hours, like some strains of E. coli. You say you're too old to conduct lengthy experiments, but experiments with bacteria could be completed in just a few short weeks. Place a few bacteria on 10 or 20 separate but identical substrates and see how different the populations are after a month. I'm betting you'll get 10 or 20 separate but pretty much identical populations.
But you could just save yourself a lot of time by accepting the fact that despite all the millions of bacterial experiments that have been conducted over the years, no one has ever observed anything that would confirm your hypothesis about new phenotypes emerging as a result of reduced genetic diversity alone. Change requires selection. (Drift can cause change, but because of it's undirected and random nature would take much longer.)
About those Berkeley webpages you referenced, they're pretty poor (incredibly poor, actually, and the explanation of mutations, migration and drift unbelievably bad) and only seem to be increasing your confusion. I encourage others here to take a look at this page in particular and comment about how Berkeley could have produced something so awful:
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:26 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 9:25 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 321 of 457 (708445)
10-10-2013 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Tangle
10-10-2013 4:53 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Tangle writes:
Over time the two population's genetic make up will change - by drift and mutation.
I wasn't quite sure how to interpret this.
If by "genetic makeup" you mean the original set of genes and their alleles, then changes in the members of that set can take place through both mutation (introduction of the new alleles or new genes or even new chromosomes) or selection (removal of alleles, genes and even chromosomes) from the population).
If by "genetic makeup" you mean the original allele frequencies, then change can take place through mutation, through allele and gene shuffling during reproduction, through selection, and through drift.
I agree with you that Faith's rejection of selection seems unnecessary for maintaining her creationist viewpoints.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 4:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2013 8:55 AM Percy has replied
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 9:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 324 of 457 (708452)
10-10-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by NoNukes
10-10-2013 8:55 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
The specifics of Faith's denial of selection is that she only accepts selection on the basis of shortage. For example, she accepts that a reduction of the availability of insects as a food source could be a selection pressure on the lizards of Pod Mrcaru. But she rejects that the plentiful availability of vegetation as a food source could be a selection pressure.
She also doesn't seem to understand is that even an unchanging environment exerts selection pressures.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2013 8:55 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 353 of 457 (708567)
10-11-2013 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Tangle
10-10-2013 9:46 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Tangle writes:
I simply mean that both population's genotypes - the mother population and the split population - will change in the normal ways through drift and mutation but they will do so independently of each other.
I think selection must be included. Its effect is far greater and more immediate than drift.
My money though is not on mutation to create the jaw and digestive tract changes - including the ability trap bacteria to break down cellulose - it seems far more likely to be a genetic trait from an earlier population has popped back up because the environment suits it.
Right. Most species have a huge reservoir of variation upon which to draw.
...there needs to be a mechanic for a change which, as we know is drift or mutation and a mechanic to direct the change, which we know is selection.
Your use of the word "mechanic" may be throwing me off, but I think I understand this well enough. I'm not sure Faith would understand this, though, and we can see that she's becoming more and more confused. Incredibly and unbelievably confused, in fact. I can't believe that after a decade here Faith still forgets the definition of evolution (I say "forgets" because sometimes it does seem that she knows the definition), but anyway, for Faith's sake let me take my own stab at describing drift and mutation's role in evolution.
There are two main components to evolution. One of them is descent with modification. It includes allele and gene reshuffling (part of the reproductive process), and it includes mutation. Descent with modification means that offspring are slightly different from their parents.
The other main component of evolution is selection. Selection is imposed upon species by the environment. It controls which individuals are best able to pass on their genes to the next generation, and it is most responsible for changing allele frequency. Drift is simply variation that is insufficiently positive or negative to be operated on by selection.
Selection operating on variation within a population (both inherent variation and new variation from mutation) produces adaptation. This is why when a lizard's diet evolves from mainly insects to mainly vegetation when moved to an island rich in vegetation that we suspect selection at work. Had the lizards somehow adapted to something not on the island we definitely would have suspected something other than selection at work.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 9:46 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2013 8:15 AM Percy has replied
 Message 360 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2013 9:15 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 354 of 457 (708568)
10-11-2013 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:50 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
Why the idea that change comes about from changed allele frequencies is daft is beyond me.
That wasn't what Tangle was calling daft. What's daft is your idea that merely isolating a subpopulation will produce changes in allele frequencies sufficient for producing phenotypic change. As has been pointed out to you, if this were the case then we would see it happening in both captive and natural subpopulations over and over and over again, but we do not.
Any randomly selected subpopulation will have allele frequencies that pretty much mirror the general population. They'll just be missing many of the less common alleles, which accounts for the reduction in genetic diversity. In the absence of different selection pressures they'll continue to have allele frequencies that mirror the general population.
But if selection pressures change then the subpopulation will have less variation to draw upon than the general population and will be less well equipped to adapt.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 1:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 355 of 457 (708571)
10-11-2013 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
10-10-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
Why the idea that change comes about from changed allele frequencies is daft is beyond me.
Selection has always been by far the biggest factor controlling allele frequencies in populations.
There may be other hidden assumptions and expectations I need to find out about as well.
There's nothing hidden about selection, Faith. It's right there in the full title of Darwin's book: On the The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and it's been the most prominent feature of the theory from its beginning right up until today.
The one key fact that emerges from you questioning selection's role in evolution is that if one explains anything to Faith she'll just become more confused. Forgetting the significant role of selection in evolution is like forgetting that light is a key component of seeing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 3:59 PM Faith has 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