Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 265 of 457 (708259)
10-07-2013 5:09 PM
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, because species are constantly evolving.
They are constantly VARYING because of the built-in genetic variability or diversity in the genome of each Species. But to impute all the genetic material to mutation is simply a matter of belief based on the ToE, something you have to believe because you can't prove it. If on the other hand all the genetic material was built in at the Creation THAT is what we'd be seeing behind all the variations in all the different Species, and the mutations that occur wouldn't be expected to contribute anything useful to that.
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.
Again, according to the ToE, a matter of belief required by the ToE. If on the other hand it was all originally built in to the genome of each Species there would still have been great changes because of the originally very great genetic diversity, but changes only in each Species. And since this is ALL we see today there is evidence for this view that you don't have for yours.
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.
Yes, that's what it's all about, and there is no reason except faith in the ToE to go on to postulate that this pool was originally developed by mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:33 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 457 (708260)
10-07-2013 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by NoNukes
10-06-2013 9:16 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
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.
I didn't intend to be imputing to Percy my own view of these things, I merely used his phrase, which I probably should have left alone if he meant something else by it than I took him to mean.
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.
Yes, I agree with everything I said there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 9:16 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 457 (708263)
10-07-2013 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by NoNukes
10-06-2013 8:07 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
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.
1. Do you mean a comparison by DNA analysis or what?
2. How would you recognize which individual in the old "species" was a mutant? Especially considering that ALL were originally mutants by ToE reckoning. So what do you mean, RECENT mutants or what? And how would you recognize THOSE out of the whole pool of supposed mutants? You say "THE" mutants as if these would be particularly recognizable. How so?
3. And why would these particular mutants be expected to show up in the new population which originated from presumably randomly chosen individuals?
The appearance will be something like Faith describes, but in reality all of the variation comes from mutation.
Not sure what "appearance" you are referring to that would be something like I've described.
If ALL variation comes from mutation you still have to explain which particular mutants you are expecting to show up in the new population and why as I've said above.
Perhaps you mean only that obviously they DID show up, by chance of course. Then what if NONE of the selected lizards was a mutant of this peculiar sort you have in mind? Are you saying you would not expect a new "species" to develop from them? I would of course, but I wouldn't call it a new species, just a new variety expectable from new allele frequencies, which is typical microevolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 8:07 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 457 (708264)
10-07-2013 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Percy
10-07-2013 5:31 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
MORE vegetation isn't going to drive a change in the lizards' ability UNLESS you have something Lamarckian in mind, which of course you don't. A dearth of insects might, but there's no hint that that was the case.
Glad to find out that the lizards reproduce so abundantly and frequently. That of course makes the development of their shared characteristics much more rapid and predictable just from their new allele frequencies.
Sorry about the finches. So what we have then with the finches is the same kind of geographic isolation as developed the new lizards with the big heads. May I assume that the range of food for finches was not appreciably different from island to island or am I required to believe that the nut crunching beaks evolved because of more nuts on that particular island? There is NO reason to assume this has to be the case. Nuts, berries, insects, whatever, could all be present on all the islands in sufficient quantity for any one of the new finches to thrive.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 10-07-2013 5:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 10-08-2013 3:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 457 (708266)
10-07-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Percy
10-07-2013 9:18 AM


Less genetic diversity, more phenotypes
Faith writes:
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.
Faith, they don't mean the same thing. If you've said it both ways many times then you've been expressing two different and mutually exclusive views.
Sometimes I get the changes in allele frequencies mixed up with the reduction in genetic diversity. While I believe it should be demonstrable that there is always a trend to reduced genetic diversity in any population split, what brings about the new phenotypes is the change in allele frequencies. So while I don't quite agree that I'm expressing two different and mutually exclusive views, I will say that I'm jumping too far ahead in the argument when I make that claim.
A population split doesn't always create reduced genetic diversity (although it certainly doesn't create an increase, that's for sure), but it does always create new allele frequencies, and that's what brings about new traits in the new population that over generations of inbreeding develop into a characteristic new trait picture for the whole population, that is, a new variety, race, "species," the wild version of a breed.
Reduced genetic diversity comes about from the founding of a new population on a small number of individuals, which is a very common way new varieties form, and in that case it's fair to say that the new phenotypes that develop in the new population REQUIRE that reduced genetic diversity, because competing alleles are greatly reduced or even eliminated.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 10-07-2013 9:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 457 (708268)
10-07-2013 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
10-02-2013 2:20 PM


Malamutes and mutations
It appears, and I could be wrong so please correct me if so, that she [Faith]is saying that a breeder works like natural selection does.
Yes and no. I'm sure you are aware that Darwin took the inspiration for Natural Selection from domestic breeding, right? So that sort of comparison goes back a ways. But I'm not just focusing on Natural Selection, my comparison is simply that the methods of nature, -- which include Natural Selection but also migration, geographic isolation and in fact anything that reproductively isolates a new population so that it inbreeds among itself -- are the same in that particular respect as what goes on in breeding, which is ALSO the reproductive isolation of a new population which leads to the development of a new type or breed etc. In ALL these cases new allele frequencies, and more often than not (and ultimately in any case) reduced genetic diversity as well, are the basis for a brand new trait picture or variety or race or "species" or breed.
While the initial premise between the two are very similar (founder effect) in that they start from a small group of animals who have either been forcefully separated, left the original home, or isolated themselves from the parent population in some way, that is where the comparison ends.
Perhaps so but it's all that's required to make the point I want to make about the similarities.
A breeder is attempting to stem the flow of evolution. If a mutation occurs that is undesirable to maintaining the breed, whether or not this mutation is beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, the breeder will refuse to allow this animal to breed meaning that asthetics, not survival to reproduce, is the deciding factor.
That may be a difference, but often a breeder will intentionally incorporate what he considers to be a mutation into the breed. But in any case the difference isn't important to my point. As I said, all the ways a new variety, race, breed or "species" are developed involve the inbreeding of a portion of a previous population with its new allele frequencies and usually reduced genetic diversity as well, and that's ALL that matters to my point.
In a hypothetical situation; imagine a breeder is working with pure bred Alaskan Malamutes. One of the puppies is born with a mutation affecting the undercoat of the dog, making it slightly more susceptible to cold. In the wild, this dog could survive or find a new area and breed with another animal in a warmer climate. Whereas, the human breeder has instantly determined that this trait is deleterious. In one instance, there is an opportunity to continue to increase the genetic diversity of dogs with the addition of a dog the size of a malamute, but with shorter hair for warmer climates. In the other, there is a physical barrier guaranteeing the mutation will not propagate.
So, what I would ask Faith is what is the barrier that stops mutations from accumulating, as long as the creature survives, in the wild? In other words, what is the barrier that makes it similar to breeding where asthetics chooses the beneficial mutations?
I'm not expecting it to be similar to breeding except in the sense I've described above.
But isn't the expectation that deleterious mutations will eventually be eliminated from the population? That's been expressed more than once here. Not right away if the individual with it survives and reproduces, but eventually as those individuals that inherit it don't do as well as the others in reproducing or under some circumstances even surviving to reproductive age. Or maybe they'll wander to warmer territory where they'll do just fine and develop a whole new strain of Malamutes. But again this isn't relevant to the point I'm trying to keep focused on.
Also, you are stating that genetic diversity is only decreased by the founder effect, and in a sense, you are correct.
ANY reduced number of individuals will tend to reduced genetic diversity, it doesn't have to be such a drastically low number as founder effect or bottleneck.
Initially, the genetic diversity is reduced because of the smaller population size. However, after the founder population begins to propagate (say twenty pure bred malamutes are released onto a tropical island with no other dogs), the mutations will begin to accumulate, at least the neutral (a majority of mutations) and the beneficial (the minority of mutations) will accumulate, while any malamute born with a deleterious (middle of the majority and minority) mutation will be removed from the population by its inability to survive and breed.
My guess would be that from your initial twenty isolated on this island you are going to get a new trait picture, that is a new race or breed of Malamutes within some number of generations, say twenty years or so and maybe fewer, simply from its allele frequencies which differ from the parent population. That is, this is what you will get if there is still an appreciable level of genetic diversity in Malamutes; if there is a great deal of homozygosity for the characteristic Malamute traits you may just continue to get recognizable Malamutes. I’d guess you’d see some changes though, something recognizably different to set this new population off from its parent population.
In other words you don’t need mutations for such changes in traits or phenotypes and although you are positing lots of mutational change I’d question how much of the change had to do with the mutations as opposed to the new allele frequencies. But of course evolutionists will attribute any change to mutations, because that is ASSUMED to be the cause, it’s an article of the ToE faith.
Say we leave these malamutes to propagate in a new type of enviroment for 1,000 years.
Just from the new allele frequencies you’ll see quite a bit of change a lot sooner than a thousand years, maybe in twenty, certainly in thirty.
With their hunting abilities being closely related to wolves and the pack mentality, we could expect them to survive off wildlife (as so many dogs did when settlers reached new lands), how many mutations could have had time to accumulate within that time? Without a mechanism to stop the number of mutations from growing, there is no telling which direction these purebred dogs could go. We could end up with dogs with no undercoat, that have shorter stature, or any of a myriad of possible options,
You could end up with those characteristics just from the allele frequencies peculiar to their population that’s built on twenty individuals.
because there is no longer a breeder controlling the process, just nature allowing what works just good enough to survive and breed. Breeders have specific requirements/Evolution has just good enough to survive and breed, that is an enormous difference between the two that you are forgetting along with your lack of a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating.
First, again, I’m not focused on the QUALITY of the new races, varieties, species or breeds or whatever, I’m trying to make a point about how new characteristics arise and all of it comes down to population splits, and ultimately you get the most phenotypic change from the least genetic diversity because you force dramatic new allelic combinations that way. You can get the most dramatic new varieties just by dramatically reduced genetic diversity, and breeding ought to be a good clue to that, no matter what differences exist between breeding and the wild methods.
But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one; then it has to get passed on which may not happen right away; then it has to be favored among competing alleles which is far from guaranteed, and meanwhile there are plenty of other mutations of the deleterious and "neutral" sort that go on cropping up unhelpfully, so why would I NEED a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating? OR, this very scenario IS that mechanism.
THEN, if such a beneficial mutation should find itself among the individuals that go to make up a new daughter population, say some kind of geographic barrier occurs on that island and separates out a new subpopulation with even less genetic diversity, and if it occurs in that new population as a high-frequency allele, i.e. it occurs in greater proportion than it did in the former population, it may well contribute to the formation of a new trait picture that comes to characterize this new race or variety or "species."
But so much for the increased diversity it supposedly confers since it is now just another trait in a new constellation of traits in a pool of reduced genetic diversity ANYWAY, and if this trend of population splitting continues eventually it will reach the point beyond which further variation has become impossible because of depleted genetic diversity. So much for mutations doing anything to offset this trend.
And again, there is no reason whatever that you need any mutant alleles to bring about such phenotypic change; ALL you need is the new allele frequencies shuffling around the existing alleles, whether originally built in or mutant, it doesn't matter.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-02-2013 2:20 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:58 AM Faith has replied
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 457 (708331)
10-08-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by PaulK
10-08-2013 1:20 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale
Mindspawn apparently agrees with the geological time scale, which means that YECs would NOT agree with him.
How can you get many species from just one single pair without the bottleneck being obvious ?
I did explain that: Far greater heterozygosity the further back you go, so that even on the ark a single pair would exhibit enough heterozygosity to produce a great variety of offspring, which would also have higher heterozygosity than we see today. A bottleneck today usually produces a huge amount of homozygosity in the genome. Today's condition is due to the reduction of genetic diversity down the centuries caused by the many population splits that produced the many subspecies.
Human beings today have been found to have 6.7% heterozygosity, which is probably similar to that of the animals that descended from those on the ark. The idea is that it would have been more on the ark and more than that at the Creation. No way to estimate that I know of but a guess might be 15% on the ark and 50 to 80% at the Creation. I'm guessing not 100% because I think the most permanent characteristics of each Species would have to be homozygous.
If today's percentage produces all the variety we see today, 15% on the ark could easily have produced all the variety since then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 2:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 457 (708336)
10-08-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by PaulK
10-08-2013 1:58 AM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
I’m trying to make a point about how new characteristics arise and all of it comes down to population splits, and ultimately you get the most phenotypic change from the least genetic diversity because you force dramatic new allelic combinations that way. You can get the most dramatic new varieties just by dramatically reduced genetic diversity, and breeding ought to be a good clue to that, no matter what differences exist between breeding and the wild methods.
Maybe it is possible to maximise phenotypic change by reducing genetic diversity, but why should that be relevant ? There's no drive to maximise differences in phenotype, the only drive is to maximise fitness through selection
I am not claiming there's a natural drive in this direction, but it is a very common occurrence nevertheless. I emphasize it because it is best for demonstrating the trend to reduced genetic diversity which is more obvious in these situations. Sometimes the new population isn't particularly small so all the same alleles are present as in the former population and you get new phenotypes from the new allele frequencies and there is no obvious trend to reduced genetic diversity. There are two "species" of wildebeest, one called the Blue Wildebeest, and although I don't know their genetic condition it's possible it was a very large number that migrated to form the Blue type or vice versa, in which case both populations would have evolved new traits from their new allele frequencies but maintained fairly high gen. diversity. One would exhibit less genetic diversity from the other population if it was formed from a small number. The populations founded on large numbers aren't evolving to genetic depletion, but those founded on smaller numbers are, and as I said this is a very common situation, probably the most common.
And one important difference between natural selection and breeders is that while breeders can choose to strongly select for recessive genes without any great difficulty, recessive alleles are much less affected by natural selection than dominant alleles. This is why genetic diseases are recessive.
But of course they do show up because if they are passed on they do eventually pair. But again I'm only interested in the situation involving new phenotypes developing from reduced numbers because of the reduced genetic diversity which ultimately leads to inability to evolve further. Often at the point so wishfully called "Speciation" too.
But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one; then it has to get passed on which may not happen right away; then it has to be favored among competing alleles which is far from guaranteed, and meanwhile there are plenty of other mutations of the deleterious and "neutral" sort that go on cropping up unhelpfully, so why would I NEED a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating? OR, this very scenario IS that mechanism.
As I've pointed out again and again we don't need beneficial mutations to restore genetic diversity, neutral mutations are fine. Two distinct alleles are still distinct even if neither confers a selective advantage over the other. This should be obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the concept of "diversity".
The problem with "neutral" alleles is that they alter another allele that may have been perfectly functional. You are all so mutation-happy you assume if you aren't getting a disease-producing mutation all is well. And for the most part the neutral changes don't change the function of the allele either as I understand it. But all of them destroy SOMETHING that was already there, and since enormous variety is quite possible just from the existing alleles by shuffling their frequencies through population splits, you aren't getting any real improvement in diversity by substituting something else for them. You THINK you are because the ToE SAYS you must, but there is no evidence for this. The next changes in those same sequences are far more likely just to destroy the allele altogether and make Junk of it rather than produce something viable.
The large population isn't an issue either - successful species will have large populations (that's what you miss by only looking at speciation).
I'm trying to make a point about how changes come about and that includes all kinds of varieties, not just speciation. You can get a very large population from a totally genetically depleted creature such as the elephant seal too. It shows the animal is healthy enough, or "successful" as you put it, but it also has no ability to vary beyond its current genetic condition, so that it is at the end of evolution for its line of variation. That's "success" in one sense, but not in the sense that it gives you any kind of platform for further evolution, just the opposite.
So, we have a large population, a long period of time and neutral mutations ARE helpful. It seems that you DO need a mechanism to stop mutations from increasing genetic diversity - because in this scenario it WILL happen.
As soon as you get any kind of Selection, whether Natural Selection or geographic isolation or migration or so on, you are going to see the supposedly increased diversity start to cut down as particular traits are selected for the new variety. This can happen even WITHIN a population if there is some kind of reproductive selection going on among individuals. The evolving population will lose the alleles that compete with its own traits, thus reducing its genetic diversity.
So we're back again to the hole in your argument that has been obvious from the beginning. You've spent years trying to patch it and you still haven't come up with a working answer. Isn't it time to retire the argument until you actually have an answer that isn't obviously false ?
None of it's false and I think I get it said better over time, and better many times in this thread too. The telling situation IS when you get a new population from small numbers. That's when it's obvious that mutations make no difference whatever, assuming they are involved at all of course; they either underlie the traits of the new population or they don't figure in the new population at all, and the new population has reduced genetic diversity even with whatever mutations there might be. If you are expecting mutations to come along THEN of course, you're going to be waiting a long long time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 457 (708337)
10-08-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by PaulK
10-08-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale
Soon as I see a word like "Triassic" in a supposed creationist's post I don't bother to read it.
But humans also have genes with many more than the 10 alleles allowed by the usual interpretation of the Ark story.
Yes, this is true and something I think about from time to time. We'll have an answer for you eventually.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 2:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Tangle, posted 10-08-2013 2:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 288 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 457 (708339)
10-08-2013 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Tangle
10-08-2013 2:44 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale (But not here!)
Think you're a tad confused there. It's evolution that invents stuff out of imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Tangle, posted 10-08-2013 2:44 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 3:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 290 of 457 (708346)
10-08-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2013 3:07 PM


Re: WTF indeed
Aw, I can't personalize "evolution" I have to say "evolutionists" huh? Gee, the pedantry can be awful thick and suffocating around here.
You imagine into existence great eras of time that cannot be proved; you imagine into existence genetic descent among dead things that cannot be proved; you imagine into existence mutations as responsible for creating all the alleles that underlie all traits, which cannot be proved; you are free to interpret anything at all in accordance with the ToE because any particular such interpretation cannot be disproved; mere interpretations are imagined into fact on a regular basis if they are crammable into the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2013 12:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 291 of 457 (708348)
10-08-2013 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Percy
10-08-2013 3:54 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.
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. Why would it if there was similar vegetation on the previous island, though not as abundant? They would have developed that capacity THERE if that's how these things really work. A famine of insects on the other hand would drive the lizards to eat other sorts of food which would favor any with improved capacity for that adaptation.
But there is no real reason to believe the environment had anything to do with this variation in the new lizard population beyond providing enough vegetation for them to eat. Again, ALL you need is the new allele frequencies and in this case it appears that a larger head and jaw was based on higher frequency alleles than the smaller head. If those alleles had not been present in a higher frequency or proportion among the individuals, then of course no larger head would have evolved at all, and they might not have been present if a different set of ten individuals had been randomly selected for the island, with completely different allele frequencies, even different alleles altogether since it is such a small number, and therefore the arising of different traits among the lizards' offspring.
I have no doubt that Natural Selection operates in some cases, I just doubt that it happens anywhere near as often as the theory says it does, and most such claims are simply assumed on the basis of the theory. Of course we're all capable of learning THAT from Evolution 101, but some of us don't believe everything we're taught.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 10-08-2013 3:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 10-08-2013 9:11 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 457 (708349)
10-08-2013 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by PaulK
10-08-2013 3:22 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about which words they are allowed to use
But it doesn't matter to me how a creationist uses or misuses the word "Triassic", he's wrong to use it at all.
Mutation is the obvious answer
...to the question of how there can be more alleles per gene today than could have existed on the ark.
OK, let's say Mutation IS the answer. It's a possibility. What we need to know, then, is what all the different alleles DO, what traits they bring about. We have x number of alleles beyond those that could have existed on the ark. Might it be possible to establish that the number on the ark are clearly functioning alleles for definable traits? (Maybe not if mutations simply destroy functioning alleles as I think is most often the case). Are x number or at least some of them duds perhaps, mutations that didn't really alter a previously existing allele's function? I mean do you KNOW what all the various alleles actually do or not, or are you just counting differences in he DNA sequence without assessing their function?
Or is there possibly a valid role for mutations that accords with the principles of creationism? I also ponder this, but it would be awfully hard to sort out the valid ones from the majority which are invalid, meaning mistakes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 5:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 302 by ringo, posted 10-09-2013 12:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 457 (708352)
10-08-2013 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by PaulK
10-08-2013 3:09 PM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
am not claiming there's a natural drive in this direction, but it is a very common occurrence nevertheless. I emphasize it because it is best for demonstrating the trend to reduced genetic diversity which is more obvious in these situations
That's a fallacious argument. Even if it is a fact that reducing genetic diversity is good for making phenotypic changes it doesn't follow that phenotypic change is generally caused by reducing genetic diversity.
The general rule for creating phenotypic change is population splits which bring about new allele frequencies in the new populations. I'm guessing that a majority of the daughter populations are going to be founded by a smaller number of individuals by comparison with the population left behind, but I suppose I could be wrong about that. In any case, some are not going to be so small and some splits may even be about equal. But if reproductively isolated for enough generations all will create a new variety from their new allele frequencies.
The populations founded on large numbers aren't evolving to genetic depletion, but those founded on smaller numbers are, and as I said this is a very common situation, probably the most common.
So why can't you find a single species that is evolving to genetic depletion ? Something that is common should be common, not vanishingly rare.
I don't think it could possibly be rare. It happens in nature often enough to require intervention from conservationists. If the lizards on Pod Mrcaru should produce a new daughter population from some small number of individuals that new population would have even further reduced genetic diversity than its parent population.
And of course here you are going to assume mutations save the day again, and all I'm going to say to that is that as a matter of fact they simply do NOT. Especially in such a short time frame as it took the large headed lizards to emerge, and there's no reason to suppose the daughter population is going to need much more time to develop its own characteristics as well. One thing evolutionists do seem to agree on is that evolution by mutation takes a LOT of time. But evolution from mere change in allele frequencies does not.
I've many times pointed to ring species as an example of a species evolving toward genetic depletion. These are generally misinterpreted by evolutionists to be formed by mutational changes from one population to the next, and great lengths of time are usually assumed for each to develop.
But the most likely explanation requires no more time for each than the lizards needed. A small number of individuals migrates from a former population and inbreeds over some number of generations, producing its new trait picture from its own set of allele frequencies, and then after some time, a matter of years or decades at most probably, a small number of individuals migrates away from THAT population and the same thing happens some miles down the road as it were: the new numbers inbreed among themselves and produce their own new trait picture from their own set of allele frequencies, and so on. Sometimes there are hybrid zones in between of course, so that the reproductive isolation isn't perfect but still you get a new recognizable phenotypic variation from the new allele frequencies.
These different populations migrate around some sort of geographic barrier, chipmunks around a mountain range, seagulls around an ocean, salamanders around a desert, greenish warblers around I-forget-what-barrier, etc., until the last population may actually bump into the first, and at that point the usual situation is that the two different populations cannot interbreed with each other.
If you explain this entirely from mutations you are going to completely miss the fact that all this is possible from built-in alleles, and that each new population with its own particular characteristics is founded on increasingly reduced genetic diversity from one daughter population to the next, so that the last population in the series most likely develops its inability to interbreed with the original (which may also have evolved, however), strictly from genetic incompatibility due to severely reduced genetic diversity (which most likely means great homozygosity for its characteristic traits as compared with a greater heterozygosity as you go back around the ring).
Back later.
ABE: Perhaps it would be useful to point out to Percy here that "ring species" are called "SPECIES" although most of the different populations have not lost their ability to interbreed with the others, especially those nearest in the chain. Creationists did not name them "species." So are these separate populations considered examples of Speciation or not, and if not, why not?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2013 1:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 296 of 457 (708357)
10-08-2013 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by PaulK
10-08-2013 3:09 PM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
I'm trying to make a point about how changes come about and that includes all kinds of varieties, not just speciation. You can get a very large population from a totally genetically depleted creature such as the elephant seal too. It shows the animal is healthy enough, or "successful" as you put it, but it also has no ability to vary beyond its current genetic condition, so that it is at the end of evolution for its line of variation. That's "success" in one sense, but not in the sense that it gives you any kind of platform for further evolution, just the opposite.
Which supports my point that attaining a large population is not the major barrier that you claim to be.
Where did I say anything about a large population being some kind of barrier? I've said that if mutations increase diversity that would interfere with the processes of selection that form varieties / "species" but that has nothing to do with the size of the population. The elephant seals have just about no genetic diversity though a very large population. It's the nil genetic diversity that makes further variation, or evolution, impossible, not the size of the population.
(As for the "failure" of Elephant seals to recover I need only point to the timescale).
And in so doing you are merely pointing to an assumption, an artifact of the ToE, as if the elephant seals HAVE thousands or millions of years in which to recover.
Maybe they don't need to recover either, maybe they are fine as they are, simply unable to vary any further.
As soon as you get any kind of Selection, whether Natural Selection or geographic isolation or migration or so on, you are going to see the supposedly increased diversity start to cut down as particular traits are selected for the new variety. This can happen even WITHIN a population if there is some kind of reproductive selection going on among individuals. The evolving population will lose the alleles that compete with its own traits, thus reducing its genetic diversity.
Neither geographic isolation nor migration are examples of selection.
Sorry if I confused you with the word "selection," although it fits just fine if you think about it. They are all examples of processes that lead to reproductive isolation of a subpopulation. They all operate the same way, by isolating a portion of a population, which leads to new allele frequencies which leads to new phenotypes etc etc etc.. It is this particular similarity I keep insisting on because evolutionists make all these distinctions that only obscure the simple fact that ALL varieties arise as a result of population splits and there are many different ways of splitting a population. Natural Selection may do it by actually killing off some unadapted individuals. or just by favoring the adapted ones to the near exclusion of the others. In all cases you get a new population with new allele frequencies, in the case of Natural Selection favoring a particular selected trait but otherwise everything else is the same.
And again you are making assumptions about rate that need to be supported by evidence. I've pointed out this error time and again but apparently you can't stop making it.
I'm POSTULATING that the rate is much much faster than evolutionists assume, and the lizard example is one confirmation of that, and ring species don't need any more time than the lizards did to develop population after population. No error, different theory. As usual.
Your whole attempt to avoid counting neutral mutations in your measure of diversity is obviously false. And the main "improvement" you have made in this version is dropping the silly idea of trying to exclude increases of diversity on the obviously spurious grounds that they would "blur" the new species. Not that you have come up with anything significantly better to replace it.
The time factor is a big one. You don't have TIME for the changes you impute to mutations.
The telling situation IS when you get a new population from small numbers. That's when it's obvious that mutations make no difference whatever, assuming they are involved at all of course;
In fact it isn't "telling". What is telling is that you refuse to consider 99% or more of a species lifespan.
You mean I refuse to accept the pure assumptions that are designed to confirm the ToE, that have no evidence for them. In other words, what is "telling" is that I refuse to be an evolutionist. Imagine that.
xthey either underlie the traits of the new population or they don't figure in the new population at all, and the new population has reduced genetic diversity even with whatever mutations there might be. If you are expecting mutations to come along THEN of course, you're going to be waiting a long long time /qs
We've got a long, long time. That was one of my points.
That isn't a "point," that's a raw artifact of the ToE, pure fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2013 1:49 AM 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