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 12:50 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, xongsmith (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,035 Year: 12,071/19,786 Month: 1,852/2,641 Week: 361/708 Day: 55/81 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 286 of 457 (708340)
10-08-2013 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
10-08-2013 2:45 PM


WTF indeed
Think you're a tad confused there. It's evolution that invents stuff out of imagination.

Evolution is a natural process, not a thinking being, and lacks the significant amount of brain matter that is necessary for imagination.

WTF is wrong with these people?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 301 by ringo, posted 10-09-2013 12:11 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15212
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 287 of 457 (708341)
10-08-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
10-08-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
quote:

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

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

But of course they do show up because if they are passed on they do eventually pair.

The question is not whether the traits show up, but how much natural selection can help them spread. Because there is only an advantage for homozygotes they benefit less from selection, just as disadvantageous recessive alleles are less efficiently removed by selection.

quote:

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.

You assume that, but you have yet to make a decent case for it.

quote:

The problem with "neutral" alleles is that they alter another allele that may have been perfectly functional.

That isn't a problem. Especially as it is all but absolutely certain that the unaltered allele is present in other individuals in the population.

quote:

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.

A mutation can only remove an allele if there are no other copies in the population. That is so unlikely that it can be ignored.

The rest of your rant makes no sense to me. Diversity is diversity. Claiming that it isn't is just silly.

quote:

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. (As for the "failure" of Elephant seals to recover I need only point to the timescale).

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

None of it's false and I think I get it said better over time, and better many times in this thread too.

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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

We've got a long, long time. That was one of my points.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 6:14 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 9:44 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15212
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 288 of 457 (708342)
10-08-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Faith
10-08-2013 2:39 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about which words they are allowed to use
quote:

Soon as I see a word like "Triassic" in a supposed creationist's post I don't bother to read it.

And you've just demonstrated why that's a mistake.

You don't have to read what he says, but you do need to stop jumping to conclusions WITHOUT bothering to read what he says.

And to show just out of step with mainstream YEC your attitude is try this:

Mentions of "Triassic" at Answers in Genesis

quote:

Yes, this is true and something I think about from time to time. We'll have an answer for you eventually.

Mutation is the obvious answer.

Edited by PaulK, : Made the title more acurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 5:14 PM PaulK has responded

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


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 responded

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

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


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 responded

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

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


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 responded

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

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


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 responded

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

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15212
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 293 of 457 (708350)
10-08-2013 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
10-08-2013 5:14 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about which words they are allowed to use
quote:

But it doesn't matter to me how a creationist uses or misuses the word "Triassic", he's wrong to use it at all

As I've shown mainstream Creationists disagree.

But let's make some points more relevant to the thread. You made a fool of yourself by jumping to conclusions - and you didn't even have a relevant point. The only timescale relevant was the time since the Flood. And that was given as 4500 years.

So why do it at all ? If you don't know what you're talking about why risk showing it to everyone when you don't even have a point ?

Think about that.

quote:

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?

Woodmorappe says a maximum of 16,000 animals (including amphibians, birds and reptiles as well as mammals) giving us an absolute maximum of 32,000 alleles per locus between ALL such species. So that's one influential creationist opinion.

And let me add that we only need to count genetic variations to conclude that mutations have happened. (IIRC the most variable genes are in the immune system and for that reason it is very likely that many of the differences are functional).

quote:

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.

There's nothing in creationism that needs to deny that mutations happen. You don't deny it for positive reasons, but for negative ones - to protect your argument from inconvenient facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 5:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


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 responded

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

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


(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 responded

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

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


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2013 1:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 297 of 457 (708358)
10-08-2013 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Percy
10-08-2013 9:11 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
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.

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. If the lizards simply had the allele frequencies in their number to develop the larger heads that made eating plants easier, then it's more like the lizards selected the plants rather than the other way around.

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.

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. I've said this many times. This doesn't happen with pets or the animals of breeders. Pets are not normally allowed to breed, and if they are nobody is bothering to ensure reproductive isolation of the developing clan; and breeders simply don't LET their animals breed randomly among themselves.

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 295 by Percy, posted 10-08-2013 9:11 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:03 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15212
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 298 of 457 (708365)
10-09-2013 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
10-08-2013 6:14 PM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
quote:

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.

That really doesn't address the fallacy in your argument. It tries to replace it be a completely different argument. It certainly doesn't establish that speciation is only changes in the frequency of existing alleles. As I've said before there are reasons to think otherwise. If establishing reproductive isolation is an important part of speciation and if significantly reduced interfertility is a part of that (as it often seems to be) then it's rather more likely to be due to mutations than a simple redistribution of existing alleles.

quote:

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.

No, reduced genetic diversity often occurs - but most often as the result of human activity. Your idea of evolution alone producing a continuous loss of diversity has never been found.

quote:

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.

Faith you can't establish facts be decree. You aren't God.

Evidence and reason say that mutations DO work to restore diversity, as I've argued. You haven't been able to refute my arguments or support your assertion. So why should I believe you ?

quote:

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.

If you think that I've made the claim that the lizards in the video lost a significant amount of genetic diversity and had it restored then you are very much mistaken. I haven't mentioned that case at all before now.

quote:

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.

You've claimed it. You haven't given us any reason to believe it.

quote:

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.

What makes it the "most likely" scenario ? What is your evidence ?

quote:

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.

Finding out the basis for the failure to interbreed would seem to be rather important before jumping to conclusions about how it happened. Have you done that ? What did you find ?

quote:

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).

So basically your point here is that if we don't assume that you're right we won't conclude that you're right. Please let me know how you came to your conclusions before simply telling me to accept them because you call them "facts". I prefer evidence and reason to opinions no matter how forcefully asserted.

quote:

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?

"Species" is both singular and plural and the term "ring species" tends to suggest a single species rather than multiple species as you understand it. Really this is just another example of life being too complex to fit into neat categories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 6:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15212
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 299 of 457 (708366)
10-09-2013 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
10-08-2013 9:44 PM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
quote:

Where did I say anything about a large population being some kind of barrier?

I didn't say that you did. I said that you thought that a large population was needed as if that was a significant problem, It isn't.


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;

Message 271

quote:

I've said that if mutations increase diversity that would interfere with the processes of selection that form varieties / "species"

And it's still a silly claim - as shown by the fact that even you can't explain how it makes sense.

quote:

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.

And we know why that is, and it isn't relevant to the point.

The point is really very simple. You say that we need large populations - but we have every reason to expect large populations. So it isn't a problem.

quote:

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.

This is completely false. I neither assume that the elephant seals DO have thousands or millions of years nor would any such assumption be based on the theory of evolution.

quote:

Sorry if I confused you with the word "selection," although it fits just fine if you think about it.

You didn't confuse me at all. You just made a mistake. And you're wrong again - natural selection is called natural selection because it has a selective element. Migration and isolation don't have a similar selective element - they don't "choose" based on traits.

quote:

They are all examples of processes that lead to reproductive isolation of a subpopulation.

Clearly you're confused. We don't label processes purely by their outcomes - we also use the nature of the processes in question and it is this that disqualifies geographic isolation and migration.

quote:

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.

I'm afraid that your egotism is showing here. Not only do you label your opinion a "fact" when you have failed to show that it is one, you also try to write off an important distinction without even considering the real reason for making it. Instead it all has to be about your ideas. Well it isn't. A process that selects based on phenotypical traits is far more efficient at perpetuating "desirable" traits and elimination "undesirable" traits (if they are heritable) then a process that perpetuates or eliminates traits based on chance alone.

quote:

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.

Actually you seem to be postulating that the rate at which mutation replaces lost diversity is much SLOWER. And you haven't established anything about rates of loss with the lizards or ring species so you haven't even explained that. So not only are you defending the wrong claim, you're defending it with assumptions rather than facts.

quote:

The time factor is a big one. You don't have TIME for the changes you impute to mutations.

That's a moot point. For the purposes of this argument you should be allowing us the timescales established by science - because the timescales you prefer already rule out evolution. If your argument can't stand without your timescales then it is simply not worth making.

quote:

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.

That you refuse to accept scientifically established facts - on completely false grounds is telling. That you expect us to accept your opinions as facts just because you say that they are is telling too. Well I guess you're contributing to the topic again. Although maybe you should explain WHY you take these attitudes.

quote:

That isn't a "point," that's a raw artifact of the ToE, pure fantasy

It's scientific fact. And the main evidence supporting it is completely independent of the theory of evolution. Really, why say these things when any reasonably informed person knows that they are completely untrue ?

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 9:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


(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 responded

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

    
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
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