WTF is wrong with people

I was looking for technical articles about differences emerging in small populations of the same species and came across an article about herds of the Jutland breed of cattle. I'm amazed at how often persistence can bring a free copy of an article to light which it at first appears available only for a fee, which was the case with this paper, found beginning at page 75 of this link to the journal: The abstract says: The conclusion says: The article also describes the contribution of mutations. They checked for allelic stuttering (repeated sequences in a portion of allele), allele drop out, and null alleles (mutation making the gene non-functional) (page 77). Subsequent discussion drops into a level of detail that would be too time consuming for me to attempt to parse.The article focuses primarily on genetic differences. Most of the research effort seems to have been expended on genetic analysis. But the article does make clear that there a very visible phenotypic differences, for example, this from the introduction: Unfortunately the phenotypic differences are never described, so there is no way to tell if they're as significant as the head and diet changes of the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, but even without this detail I think we have to grant that the phenotypic changes in these lizards could have been due either drift, selection, mutation or, most likely, some combination.--Percy

I keep saying it because to me it is intuitively obvious and the objections to it make no sense to me, they seem to me to reflect a belief in the ToE and nothing much else.Seems to me it depends on HOW common the alleles that "define a species" were in the original population whether their frequencies will remain the same when the subpopulation is first formed. Of course the alleles that define the main Species, say Cats or Dogs or Bears or Gerbils will remain the same, if those major characteristics are governed by alleles at all, but those for the particular characteristics of the first population are very likely to change, especially in a population that has fairly high genetic diversity. The first population could be characterized by pointy ears, long noses, short tails, brown coat with black markings, but the alleles will nevertheless be present in that population for variations on all those traits, floppy ears or round ears or even pointier ears, short broad noses or longer noses, broad tails or long tails or really short tails, gray or black or tan coat with white or gray or whatever markings and so on, and in a randomly created subpopulation chances are some of those are going to be higher frequency than in the original population, while the alleles for the characteristics of the original population will be lower frequency than before -- enough to make an observable difference after some generations of inbreeding so that their phenotypes become apparent and get spread through the new population.The new allele frequencies wouldn't be apparent at the first creation of the new subpopulation, but the LOOK of the new subpopulation, that is, its phenotypic expression, would be "pretty much the same when one FIRST creates a randomly chosen subpopulation" -- my emphasis on "first." I've tried to keep this in view during the discussion, saying that you will not see the new phenotypes of a new variety or subspecies until after some number of generations of inbreeding. The first population is going to look just like the one it split off from. But the alleles possessed by the individuals may occur in much different proportions among them, and that will EVENTUALLY make a big difference in the look of the population after some generations of inbreeding. That could happen of course, and that too would have its effect on the phenotype eventually, but we're talking maybe half a dozen alleles for at least half a dozen traits, and it also could happen that some of the formerly lower frequency alleles are recessive and unexpressed in the original population though they occur in as much as 50% of the individuals, and then get passed on to become 70% in the new population, where they pair up more frequently over time and so on. [Some genes accumulate their effects over generations too, right? I'm thinking of some of the exaggerated traits in say Darwin's pigeons. I don't understand how that works, but if you keep breeding for a particular trait generation after generation you can get a really exaggerated version of that trait eventually even if it's based on only one or a few genes, though the first expression of it may be fairly modest, slightly more expansive tail feathers, etc. Something like this must sometimes happen in the wild too]. While other relatively low frequency alleles also become more high frequency and others even more low frequency and even drop out altogether. All the different ways they can be sorted and matched up are going to create a new trait picture in the new subpopulation. But the subpopulation is often of much smaller numbers than the original, therefore a whole new set of allele frequencies is VERY likely. Even if the subpopulation is much larger the chances of getting the same proportions, in a genetically diverse species anyway, defies the odds. You'd have to have near 100% of alleles in the former population for that to occur, and in that case you must have a pretty depleted genetic diversity there already. The cheetah for instance is never going to produce a subpopulation with different allele frequencies, but a more genetically diverse population, that is a population that contains many alleles for many traits, although only a certain percentage of them are expressed in the dominant phenotype, would divide into subpopulations with very different frequencies. And again, the first individuals in the new subpopulation aren't going to look any different from the mother population; but after generations of inbreeding their peculiar new mix of alleles is going to combine in new ways and begin to express itself, first in new traits in individuals, then in an overall look for that population. First in an equal split I would expect BOTH populations to have different allele frequencies and therefore change observably over time, neither looking exactly like the original population after many generations.Seems to me even with such a high original frequency of the one allele there is going to be some difference, maybe 99% in one of the populations and 92% in the other which could be enough over MANY generations (it would take a great many generations if the population split is about equal) to alter the look of that particular trait.But at the same time there are many alleles for many other traits that are also going to be sorted into new frequencies in both populations, and even if the 95% high frequency allele continues more or less the same in both, other alleles for other traits originally in lower frequencies are going to be shuffled into new proportions TOO, and they are certainly going to contribute to the new trait picture for both new populations. After many generations I would expect both those subpopulations to have diverged greatly from each other and also from the original population (I hope plenty of pictures were taken of the original), all without any other cause than the new allele frequencies in each. Sure, if the mere change in allele frequencies doesn't work as I'm supposing it does, and the environment is offering no new pressures, then mutations would be the only source of change. (Seems to me that for particular mutations to come to characterize the new populations would take at least as long as Drift, since they'd have to be selected at least by reproductive advantage and so on but anyway.) Yes I've got that paper saved. The problem here for me is that mutations are so often assumed by people who subscribe to the ToE to be the cause of changes either in the DNA or in phenotypic traits, that I have to suspect that they are being assumed in any particular case where the real cause of the changes may be something entirely different. They observe changes in the DNA sequence and CALL those mutations just because that's what the ToE requires. Aside from the problems I would expect to have trying to understand a highly technical paper I don't see how I'm going to get past this suspicion. Those who believe in evolution are very good at recognizing confirmation bias in creationists, but it operates wherever there is a strong prior commitment to a way of explaining phenomena and that includes a commitment to the ToE. If that occurred then yes to the conclusion. All I can say is I think you are drastically underestimating the effect of changed allele frequencies, first the inevitability of such changed frequencies in the formation of any new subpopulations, then the great effects they would have to bring about.Again the the smaller the numbers of founders, which describes the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, the greater the differences should be, and working these through the new population really should not take more than a few decades. As you reported, those lizards produce many offspring very frequently and if they all freely interbreed with one another it shouldn't take long at all to work the new allele frequencies through to a new look for that population.That's my argument anyway.

"Fragmentation" I assume refers to the formation of the many small segregated herds?That there was "rapid differentiation" is very interesting, which is what my theory predicts of course: all that's required is restricted or absent gene flow, that is, reproductive isolation of each new subpopulation, and you should get rapid differentiation from the other herds.In fact this is a very interesting study for my purposes. But of course they don't even consider that each new subpopulation would have new allele frequencies from the mere fact of its BEING a new subpopulation apparently randomly created. In a way this does surprise me since I didn't know I was working with a concept that is apparently so unusual, I really thought I got it from evolutionist writings on the subject, and that being the case I'd expect it to figure in such a study.At first I wasn't sure how to assess their explanation that genetic drift was the cause of the changes when the merely changed allele frequencies is sufficient cause, but then it occurred to me that the two are really quite compatible. That is, genetic drift is just the expectable working-through of the new frequencies down some number of generations to create the new phenotypes. Genetic drift brings about changes over generations, and that's what I'd expect too, new phenotypes showing up and eventually a particular new look or trait picture coming to characterize the whole herd. The difference is that the study isn't considering the initial new allele frequencies as the stuff the drift is working through. But genetic drift does describe the same thing I'm saying about how generations of inbreeding eventually produce a new trait picture for the whole herd from emerging new phenotypes down the generations. Yes, same as what I've been saying, now that I understand genetic drift as the effect of inbreeding over generations, although they aren't considering the impact or even the existence of the new allele frequencies at the founding of each new herd. Well, the mutations identified here, allelic stuttering, null alleles, hardly seem to be of a kind that would produce anything useful to the animal, which of course I would also expect, so claiming they make a "contribution" to the herd in any positive sense seems highly questionable to say the least. Do they really mean to say that such changes are anything but deleterious? The new phenotypes that are emerging in each herd could hardly be based on such mutations. I would take their word for it myself, that the phenotypic differences were considerable or at least readily recognizable. As I keep arguing, the mere division into many small herds is enough to bring about such changes based on the new allele frequencies for each new herd. 1) Drift. Although I'd never put the concepts together before, as suggested above I'm coming to think that "drift" describes the working-through of the new allele frequencies I keep claiming are the main cause of changes in new subpopulations, so I'm thinking this study confirms my expectations in that regard rather than contradicting them.2) There is nothing in this study about selection, at least as far as you've presented it, and although I can agree that selection COULD have an effect, I still disagree that there's any reason to think so in the case of the Pod Mrcaru lizards, and even less reason to think so in the case of the Jutland cattle.3) The mutations described above seem hardly of any use to the animal at all, simply showing the usual destructive effects I expect of mutations, nothing that could be passed on to any benefit to the new herd. And again, useful mutations seem to be merely an article of faith based on commitment to the ToE, something assumed to be the cause of new traits rather than actually in most cases shown to be. Perhaps they say more that could qualify this conclusion?4) Some "combination" -- well maybe sort of sometimes -- but nothing in this study or the lizard video leads me to think ANYTHING more than the mere new allele frequencies is needed to produce a new variety or subspecies. There COULD be such influences but I don't see any evidence for it as presented above anyway.I really LIKE this study of the Jutland cattle, though, since it describes the RAPID formation of MANY separate phenotypically different herds, which is EXACTLY what I'd expect.Again, I really don't understand why changed allele frequencies aren't ALWAYS recognized as resulting from population splits and as producing great effects over time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Found myself pondering genetic drift. I've had only a vague idea about drift, although I've thought of it as one of the ways new phenotypes can emerge while genetic diversity is reduced in a small population. I've looked it up many times over the years, but the definition "random sampling" just doesn't convey much to me; sampling sounds like something the scientist might do to analyze the DNA of the population, but it hits me as a strange word for the effects of random breeding. Which I now understand it to be.As I've been thinking about what happens after a new subpopulation with new allele frequencies gets started, I've been picturing random breeding over many generations working through the new frequencies until they underlie a new trait picture for the whole new population.The fact that this random reproductive pattern would itself affect the allele frequencies, as genetic drift does, didn't occur to me.Now I'm wondering if genetic drift only operates observably where you do have these new allele frequencies in the new subpopulation or it would operate to produce new phenotypes in any case. This raises the question whether it was still observably operating in the greater original population of Jutland cattle and if not why not. If it wasn't, that is, if it wasn't bringing out new phenotypes as it is apparently now doing in the new smaller herds, my guess would be that a stable population HAS somehow "worked through" its various different genetic possibilities and arrived at a point where new phenotypes aren't cropping up all the time as they obviously do in the new subpopulations. This thought has occurred to me many times in this overall discussion but there was never any reason to mention it before. It has seemed to me that a population can be genetically stable in this way whether it has high or low genetic diversity.Not sure the question makes sense yet.Anyway, I was reading the Wikipedia article on Genetic Drift and I think they made an error. Look down at the example of the marbles in the jars. This must be incorrect unless any given individual has only one generation in which to reproduce, but I'm not aware of any animal that can't reproduce over many generations or many reproductive seasons. That is, the Wikipedia writer only seems to be thinking of a particular generation reproducing among itself alone, forgetting that earlier generations may continue to reproduce for many seasons, also with members of other generations depending on the creature. So even if in one generation a particular allele is completely lost, it's lost only from that generation, not "permanently," and it could reappear in the next generation as the first generation with the equal number of both alleles is presumably still living and still able to reproduce.Yes?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sigh.

An excellent example of creation "science" -- willing to believe anything that even remotely supports the bible, but only a "vague idea" about the evidence to the contrary.And a certainty that anything that contradicts the bible is wrong.Coupled with an unwillingness to even examine that evidence that the bible is wrong.Along with a fingers-in-the-ears "I can't hear you" approach to that evidence.And a very mistaken belief that creation "science" has some relationship to real science, when in reality they are diametrically opposed.

Considering that drift hadn't come up until now, what's the problem with my admitting I had a problem getting a clear idea of it? It wasn't for lack of reading up on it, and now that it has become an issue I now have a decent grasp of it.And nothing else you wrote even remotely describes me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Show me where I was wrong?

I'm well aware of the arguments against the Bible, far from being unwilling to examine them. I've studied them from the beginning. It's discussed all the time in Christian contexts I follow. I disagree with the arguments, I don't ignore them, there IS a difference.And I've said nothing in this thread either about the Bible or about Creation science to back up my argument which is all about the biological issues, which of course YOU are not addressing as you prefer to insinuate other things about me instead.And I've been answer the "evidence," not ignoring it. Either answering it or showing that it supports MY point of view.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but anyone who is a non-creationist can see that you've failed miserably.You just make up things to suit your beliefs, and cherry pick anything you can from the scientific literature, even when the articles you cite contradict what you claim!You may be adept at religious apologetics, but you are not so good at science.And you might just heed the words of Saint Augustine, from The Literal Meaning of Genesis, below:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Timothy 1.7]

Emphasis added. (He got your number, and he was writing 1600 years ago!)

Evolution is not science, it's an unevidenced speculation that has acquired ironclad status despite its unprovability.I have not referred to the Bible to prove anything in this thread.

.....and...... .....and..... The problem here Faith is that you have absolutely no idea what evolution is, you've never studied it, when you google away at it you consistently get it wrong because you're trying to force it into some preconceived model in your head and when we try to explain it to you you refuse to listen.Instead of learning what millions of scientists have fought to discover over 150 years, you try to invent your own explanations from a few random and barely understood facts. You don't even see that admitting that you don't know what genetic drift is after years of discussion, then telling us that it's wrong anyway isn't just foolish, it's downright laughable.How do you have the balls to do that?

Yea its just that every new field of science that even touches evolution lends support to evolution.What do you know about retro viral insertions?Its when a virus like say HIV embeds itself in the genome of say an egg cell that is later fertilised the dna of the virus stays fixed in the genome of the offspring, the offspring then passes it on to his offspring ....It would make no seance to find retro viral insertions in the same place of the genome of different species unless they where related. And yet that is what we find and they conform PERFECTLY to the evolutionary tree of life The only explanation for this is common descent or evolutionIf you want to falsify this then go and find some retrovirus insertions in the same location in other spices so that they do not fall in such a neat line of common descent. Like say the HERV-K insertions in dogs.Edited by frako, : Provided example of falsifiability

Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me, or in Frako's case a completely new topic; no comment on any of my argument.Clearly there's no point in my continuing here, but I do have at least another post I want to make. And I have to correct you that I did not say genetic drift is "wrong anyway," I've made use of it in my understanding of the Jutland cattle study, correctly I believe.And I can assure you that I understand evolution as well as the average person who has ever thought about evolution. We have been bombarded with it all our lives and many have taken time to think about it at least occasionally -- which I did quite a bit when I still believed in it before I became a Christian.And I'll also say again since I haven't said it in a while that the science that is done in the name of evolution is often good science, but what it supports is always microevolution and never macroevolution.I do like that Jutland cattle study, it really does support my own theory here, very nicely.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

After you've demonstrated yourself to be clueless at the level you've managed here, why should anyone care about your argument? You've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that you don't understand the terms used to describe evolution while posting for years on the subject. You have admitted being utterly incapable of reading any scientific paper on the subject, but that does not keep you from insisting that evolution is not science. Years of dicussion and you still cannot state ideas from Origin of Species correctly?I don't know what's wrong with you, but whatever it is causes you to start thread after thread on a subject you know nothing about, and on which you could not possibly post anything like an evidence based attack or rebuttal. I don't see any reason to respect anything you post on the subject of evolution.My question is what is wrong with posters who expect you to learn anything about evolution after the demonstration you've put on over the last few years."Drift just now came up". Seriously? You talked about the impossibility of mutations adding to diversity and you didn't feel the need to address drift? What kind of advocacy is that?