Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 6:42 PM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ringo, WookieeB (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,343 Year: 15,379/19,786 Month: 2,102/3,058 Week: 476/404 Day: 80/63 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 16 of 131 (725691)
04-30-2014 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
04-30-2014 3:13 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
As what I wrote makes extremely clear,

It is clearly written, and clearly wrong. You continue to ignore that mutations are required for the types of differences seen between species, and that mutations increase genetic diversity.

I don't know what is happening with the mutations that do occur, but they cannot add diversity . . .

Mutations that produced fur color variations in pocket mice:

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.long

A clear example of mutations adding genetic variation and phenotypic variation followed by selection on different colored rocks and substrates.

That single paper proves you wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 04-30-2014 3:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 04-30-2014 3:59 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 131 (725692)
04-30-2014 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taq
04-30-2014 3:52 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
If mutations really did produce the fur color variations in the pocket mouse, which I dispute anyway, in order to get a POPULATION of one color of the mouse REQUIRES that the alleles for the other color be ELIMINATED from the population. This is what selection does, this is what evolution is. I believe genetic diversity is built in to all Species and that mutation adds nothing useful at all, but for the sake of argument, assuming that mutation does contribute useful change once in a while, the same situation applies: in order to get actual evolution, that is, a new race or breed or species, you HAVE to eliminate genetic material that does not contribute to the traits of that race, breed or species. It always comes back to having to reduce genetic diversity for evolution to occur.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taq, posted 04-30-2014 3:52 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 04-30-2014 5:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 04-30-2014 8:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(4)
Message 18 of 131 (725695)
04-30-2014 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
04-30-2014 3:59 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
If mutations really did produce the fur color variations in the pocket mouse, which I dispute anyway, in order to get a POPULATION of one color of the mouse REQUIRES that the alleles for the other color be ELIMINATED from the population.

False on two counts. If all evolution does is eliminate variation then you wouldn't have the new fur color to begin with. Second, the light allele still exists in the population with black fur since the black fur allele is dominant.

I believe genetic diversity is built in to all Species and that mutation adds nothing useful at all,

That is what you believe, but the evidence contradicts your beliefs. When you are ready to talk about the real world instead of your beliefs, then we can have a discussion on science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 04-30-2014 3:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 1:04 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 131 (725710)
04-30-2014 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
04-30-2014 3:59 PM


Stuff hidden
You're a pathetic cunt of an excuse for a moderator.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic crankiness hidden. Signature turned off. Notes added.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 04-30-2014 3:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 20 of 131 (725715)
05-01-2014 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
04-30-2014 5:16 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
If mutations really did produce the fur color variations in the pocket mouse, which I dispute anyway, in order to get a POPULATION of one color of the mouse REQUIRES that the alleles for the other color be ELIMINATED from the population.

False on two counts. If all evolution does is eliminate variation then you wouldn't have the new fur color to begin with.

You are having a problem with the word "evolution" and the word "variation" and also the word "eliminate." Evolution as I've been using it refers to the development of new races or breeds, period. Change. Variation. This is what requires the reduction in GENETIC VARIABILITY OR GENETIC DIVERSITY. The word "variation" suggests a confusion between this and variation in the phenotype, I'm talking about the reduction of the GENETIC stuff, the alleles, for other traits than those expressed in the phenotype of the new race or breed or subspecies.

Complete ELIMINATION is not required for a new race or breed or subspecies to develop, only reduction, ABE: And only reduction of the particular alleles that compete with those for the favored traits./ABE

All you have to do is recognize what happens in breeding. It's the same thing that happens in the development of new races or subspecies in the wild. It's a process of eliminating competing alleles for the trait selected. The black fur gets selected in the case of the pocket mouse and the light allele becomes extremely rare in that population, and vice versa, same with the famous moth example. It's standard evolution (microevolution), It's a very simple point about what actually happens in reality which the talk about mutation only serves to obscure.

Second, the light allele still exists in the population with black fur since the black fur allele is dominant.

Yes.

I believe genetic diversity is built in to all Species and that mutation adds nothing useful at all,

That is what you believe, but the evidence contradicts your beliefs. When you are ready to talk about the real world instead of your beliefs, then we can have a discussion on science.

The real world IS that the genetic material is already there, but I said that as a side note, it is not under debate. The topic is that however the genetic material is produced some of it has to be severely reduced or eliminated to get a new race or breed or subspecies.

ABE: Of course the reason you keep arguing with this is either your theory-bound blindness or simply the recognition that if I'm right there is no such thing as macroevolution. /ABE

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 18 by Taq, posted 04-30-2014 5:16 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 4:11 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 131 (725720)
05-01-2014 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
05-01-2014 1:04 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
All you have to do is recognize what happens in breeding. It's the same thing that happens in the development of new races or subspecies in the wild. It's a process of eliminating competing alleles for the trait selected. The black fur gets selected in the case of the pocket mouse and the light allele becomes extremely rare in that population

As always, you neglect the effects of genetic drift and mutation prior to and after speciation and come up with the wrong answer. Left alone, and without speciation, the diversity of any population can increase over time through those processes. It is also the case that mutation can add alleles and not simply modify them. Those facts applies equally well to populations before and after speciation. You are of course free to deny that those processes happen, but in that case your reduced diversity argument does not address the theory of evolution actually embraced by scientists.

It is, in fact easy to construct scenarios that you are saying cannot occur. I suspect that any one of us can do it.

Here is a simple example. Imagine a mouse that undergoes a mutation that improves its ability to detect air currents with its whiskers to the extent that it can detect cats before the cats have a chance to detect the mice. Mice with that defect can survive despite having mutations that would wipe out their fellow, relatively poor hearing ancestors. That means that they have the capability of surviving despite new mutations that make them strong but slow, or with brighter colors that don't allow them to haid, or a sense of smell that detects cheese but not cats, or a more active mind that may occasionally get distracted. Mice with those same characteristics in he original population get eaten by cats. So those changes cannot drift through the population.

Now the new mice take up residence in places where there are lots of cats and people because that is also where the easy food is. The result is speciation because the sensitive whiskered mice no longer mate with their cousins. Those mice can continue to mutate in ways other than developing dull whiskers. Mice need not be identical to be considered a species.

So the new species is more diverse than its ancestor species. In fact it can be more diverse than the original population despite having no option to have poorly adapted whiskers. No that does not sound much like mere breeding, but that's because human breeders would cull out the diversity of the new population. Nature does not do that. Only the newly sensitive whiskers are vital to the new species. Other characteristics can change as long as they don't get the new mice eaten.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 1:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 4:17 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 4:39 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 131 (725721)
05-01-2014 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by NoNukes
05-01-2014 4:11 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
As always, you neglect the effects of genetic drift and mutation prior to and after speciation and come up with the wrong answer. Left alone, and without speciation, the diversity of any population can increase over time through those processes. It is also the case that mutation can add alleles and not simply modify them. Those facts applies equally well to populations before and after speciation. You are of course free to deny that those processes happen, but in that case your reduced diversity argument does not address the theory of evolution actually embraced by scientists.

I'm going to ignore all this stuff because it's irrelevant. None of it changes the fact that to GET VARIATION, NEW RACES, BREEDS, SUBSPECIES, requires the reduction of genetic diversity. Doesn't matter how much you add or where it comes from or when, the formation of new races or subspecies requires reduced genetic diversity as I very clearly argued in my very first post on this subject here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 4:11 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 4:26 AM Faith has responded
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 05-01-2014 5:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 131 (725722)
05-01-2014 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
05-01-2014 4:17 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
I very clearly argued in my very first post on this subject here.

Yes, and I've just demonstrated to anyone who cares to read that your argument is wrong; your typing in all caps or big type not withstanding.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 4:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 4:43 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 131 (725723)
05-01-2014 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by NoNukes
05-01-2014 4:11 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Oh all right *sigh*

Here is a simple example. Imagine a mouse that undergoes a mutation that improves its ability to detect air currents with its whiskers to the extent that it can detect cats before the cats have a chance to detect the mice. Mice with that defect can survive despite having mutations that would wipe out their fellow, relatively poor hearing ancestors. That means that they have the capability of surviving despite new mutations that make them strong but slow, or with brighter colors that don't allow them to haid, or a sense of smell that detects cheese but not cats, or a more active mind that may occasionally get distracted. Mice with those same characteristics in he original population get eaten by cats. So those changes cannot drift through the population.

Right, that genetic stuff is lost to the population.

Now the new mice take up residence in places where there are lots of cats and people because that is also where the easy food is. The result is speciation because the sensitive whiskered mice no longer mate with their cousins.

Uh huh, and the sensitive ones have formed through the LOSS of the alleles for the dull whiskers. That's how you GET a new subspecies as I am saying. Reduced genetic diversity, LESS genetic stuff so that a new trait can become the characteristic of this population.

Those mice can continue to mutate in ways other than developing dull whiskers. Mice need not be identical to be considered a species.

Yeah yeah yeah, I'm only talking about WHERE YOU ARE GETTING A NEW BREED OR RACE OR SUBSPECIES. If all you get is different traits here and there in the population you are not getting this microevolution of a whole population with its own trait picture, but whenever that happens it is due to the reduction and sometimes elimination of the alleles for the traits that are NOT part of the new trait picture.

So the new species is more diverse than its ancestor species. In fact it can be more diverse than the original population despite having no option to have poorly adapted whiskers. No that does not sound much like mere breeding, but that's because human breeders would cull out the diversity of the new population. Nature does not do that. Only the newly sensitive whiskers are vital to the new species. Other characteristics can change as long as they don't get the new mice eaten.

Yes of course, but I am NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DIVERSITY OF PHENOTYPES, I am ONLY talking about GENETIC DIVERSITY, what happens when you get an identifiable new subspecies. I am only talking about the development of new traits. However, since this happens in a small population you are also going to get other traits being favored while other versions of those traits disappear from the population. I am talking ONLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN ORDER TO GET A NEW SUBSPECIES WITH ITS OWN RANGE OF TRAITS PECULIAR TO ITSELF -- THAT COMES ABOUT ONLY THROUGH THE REDUCTION OR LOSS OF THE ALLELES FOR COMPETING VERSIONS OF THOSE SAME TRAITS. So to get a population of sensitive whiskered mice you eliminate the alleles for the dull whiskered ones; same with all the other traits that dominate in any new population and there will no doubt be a range of them in any new population based on a small number of founders -- the competing versions are eliminated from the population or at least suppressed, (but when you do get an actual "true breed" either in nature or in the wild it will be where the characteristic traits are homozygous throughout the population.).

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 4:11 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 5:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 25 of 131 (725724)
05-01-2014 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
05-01-2014 4:26 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
You have to THINK ABOUT what I'm saying which you are NOT doing. You are raising a whole bunch of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. Look, this is NOT an easy concept to grasp, stop treating it as if it is. You confuse phenotype with genotype, you forget the context of microevolution and bring in mutation which is irrelevant to how microevolution comes about and so on.

Go back to the original paragraph and THINK for a change. Stop claiming victory on the basis of your straw man.

Oh well, you have no MOTIVE to understand this but certainly a motive not to. That's what it comes down to in the end.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 4:26 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 5:03 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 26 of 131 (725725)
05-01-2014 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
05-01-2014 4:39 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Right, that genetic stuff is lost to the population.

Wrong. That material could not propagate in the original population, but it can thrive in the new population because mice with sensitive whiskers can tolerate more diversity.

f all you get is different traits here and there in the population you are not getting this microevolution of a whole population with its own trait picture, but whenever that happens it is due to the reduction and sometimes elimination of the alleles for the traits that are NOT part of the new trait picture.

Wrong. In the original population, mice with dull whiskers cannot also have bright colors. Those mice are removed by cats and don't have mice babies. If that trait ever existed it is gone now.

Not so in the new population. If some of those mice mutate, then both colorful and non-colored mice survive.

es of course, but I am NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DIVERSITY OF PHENOTYPES, I am ONLY talking about GENETIC DIVERSITY

Yes, and in the example I gave you, the diversity of phenotypes was produced genetic variation introduced by new mutations which would prevent survival in the original population. However, mice with and without those variations thrive in the new population because the whiskers gives all of them a sufficient survival advantage of detecting cats.

Not that it is impossible, but could you tell me how you think you are getting phenotype differences without genetic differences? You have denied this before, but it appears to me that you believe in some Mendelian version of diversity where diversity comes merely from new combinations of existing genes. That is not the theory of evolution.

Both phenotype and genetic diversity are on a population basis. As long as individual mice have differences, then the population is diverse.


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

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 4:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 131 (725726)
05-01-2014 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
05-01-2014 4:43 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Go back to the original paragraph and THINK for a change.

I understand exactly what you are claiming. But what you describe is not how scientist believe evolution works. So it is not an argument against the theory of evolution, but is instead an argument against something else.


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

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 4:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 5:05 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 5:39 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 28 of 131 (725727)
05-01-2014 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
05-01-2014 5:03 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Then they need to be shown that this IS how it works whatever they think otherwise. This IS how you get new breeds or subspecies, period. It's all in that paragraph.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 5:03 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 131 (725729)
05-01-2014 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
05-01-2014 5:03 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
understand exactly what you are claiming. But what you describe is not how scientist believe evolution works. So it is not an argument against the theory of evolution, but is instead an argument against something else.

Second Answer to this: Of COURSE it is not how they believe evolution works, they haven't NOTICED that there is a genetic cost to evolution, I AM TRYING TO POINT THIS OUT. Dawkins makes his little model of "evolution" in which these little figures just keep changing and changing and changing as if there were no end to it. The language in which evolution is described pictures an ever-upward process of change. NOBODY IS THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS REQUIRES A GENETIC COST. "Oh but there is nothing to keep microevolution from becoming macroevolution." OH BUT THERE IS! You have to become aware of it. It is absolutely inevitable that phenotypic change is accompanied by genetic reduction -- evolution, that is, the formation of new races or subspecies, depends on it.

Since they don't take this into account their versions of evolution are severely flawed.

So this certainly IS an argument against the Theory of Evolution, the TRUE evolution, what REALLY happens in evolution, which ought to be recognizable with a little work. Not to mention honesty.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 5:03 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 9:05 AM Faith has responded
 Message 37 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-01-2014 3:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 131 (725730)
05-01-2014 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Omnivorous
04-30-2014 7:06 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Your thoughts on genetic reduction as the engine of evolution are bizarre. The development of new breeds of dog (since you chose the breeding analogy) increases that species genetic variability: the mating of two dogs could produce anything from a pocket rocket pooch to a man-killing mastiff.

No it couldn't, it can only produce whatever is in the combined genetics of the two animals. There is not that much genetic diversity in any species to produce that much of a range of possibilities in the offspring any more, though I think it was originally a possibility.

How do you explain that with a reducing mechanism?

First I explain it as a fiction, as above. Then I point out that a breeding program would have selected the two dogs to mate, exactly for the traits that they want to breed. They KNOW they aren't going to get "anything from a pocket rocket pooch [whatever that is] to a man-killing mastiff. They KNOW they are going to get offspring that are some sort of combination of the parents' traits, and hopefully with the particularly desired traits in evidence.

ABE: And the very SELECTION of breeding mates is a selection of very limited genetic potentials leaving all the OTHER genetic potentials in the greater population. The new breed builds on the new limited genetic possibilities, without the interference of competing genetic possibilities. And this is the same whether the breeding pair were consciously selected or randomly paired in the wild.

Even once the species boundary is crossed, and the two species can no longer interbreed, the parent species remains. How does 1 + 1 = less than 1?

You are confusing the genetic level with the phenotypic level. I am always talking only about the newly forming subspecies, THAT is what requires the reduction of genetic diversity. There will most often always be a remaining parent species that can also vary in many other ways. The point I'm making is that WHEN you get a subspecies, usually formed from a reproductively isolated smaller population, (which includes the acceptable population of animals from which breeding animals are chosen in that case) THAT SUBSPECIES is formed from a reduced genetic diversity FOR ITS CHARACTERISTIC TRAITS, and this MUST happen or you will not GET a new subspecies. You must eliminate the "unwanted" traits. In nature since this is often a random matter the new subspecies is simply eliminating whatever doesn't contribute to its particular randomly "selected" trait picture. The randomly eliminated traits stay behind in the parent population.

Also note that animal (and plant) breeders watch closely for new valuable traits and try to preserve them. Mutation--another demonstrable phenomenon you must deny--provides them.

Of course but that has nothing to do with what happens when a trait is SELECTED AND BRED FOR. As that particular trait is favored, all competing versions of it must be eliminated from the new subspecies. (Usually this is going inadvertently to involve other traits as well just because you are limiting the numbers of individuals you are breeding, so there are more traits losing more diversity along with the chosen trait or traits. I'm focusing ONLY on the creation of a subspecies and ONLY on the traits that characterize it. )

You claim to have approached the data with open eyes, but your ideas fail to cohere at even the commonsense level. You turn your back on matters firmly established; you spin unevidenced could-bes to fill gaps in your own position and call it thinking.

If you had the slightest grasp of what I'm talking about you might make more sense.

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 11 by Omnivorous, posted 04-30-2014 7:06 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2014 8:03 AM Faith has responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019