Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 5:37 PM
161 online now:
ooh-child, Tangle, Theodoric (3 members, 158 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 1034 (726271)
05-07-2014 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by NoNukes
05-07-2014 2:12 PM


Re: Good idea, next step
NoNukes writes:

Have no idea what you're talking about except that it's some kind of weird straw man.

As is normal for you, you admit forming your opinion without any understanding. So let me spell out my argument for you.

Scientists believe that humans evolved from an ancestor names Homo erectus about 2 million years ago. If that is the case, then the target "breed" would be modern humans,

What's a "target" breed?

including all of the diversity that currently exists.

It appears we have quite a bit.

That means that mutations that produce the variations that we find among the current population would not interfere with the creation of the current species.

This occurs when you have a small fairly homogeneous population, not in a huge diverse population where the norm is variety.

But put a dozen people on an island where they are the sole founders of a distinct population that arises over many generations. You'll get a very distinct set of traits after ten generations, certainly twenty, a very distinct look, probably more distinct than the groups that we are pretty able to recognize as, say, "Scandinavian" or "(east) Indian." Then mutations that kept appearing in the identifying traits would interfere with that identifiable trait picture. But this doesn't happen, what you get is really a blending of the characteristics of the original founders, some dominating because they are higher frequency, some falling out over time.

As far as strawmen go, since your stated position is that even given mutations, we cannot obtain new species,

I think what I said is tht they would interfere with existing species if they kept cropping up after a species had developed, again thinking of a fairly homogeneous population. Wildebeests, a particular species of frogs, raccoons, that sort of thing where they all look more or less alike and the individual variations don't stand out in the crowd. But although I don't believe mutations happen in anywhere near the frequency they would have to in order to fuel evolution I do try to allow for the possibility, in which case they are just one way you get variations, simple gene flow being another, but that when you are getting a species formed from a small number of individuals they would become an interference, if they actually occur, because that situation is based on mixing the existing alleles for a particular set of traits.

only a single example counter example is necessary to prove you wrong. In contrast, disproving single examples that others offer does not prove your point. You must disprove every strategy offered.

I don't get your rules. If what I'm describing is what actually occurs in the examples I'm giving then whether I can get it across to anyone or not I've made the point I'm trying to make.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote. Again suggest you avoid the editing-intensive backward quoting style.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 2:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 3:09 PM Faith has responded
 Message 336 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 9:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18257
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 332 of 1034 (726273)
05-07-2014 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Faith
05-07-2014 1:26 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith, you're still ignoring these realities:

  1. A new species cannot be created simply by selecting a subset of the alleles of an existing species. Any organism possessing only a subset of alleles of the parent species is still the same species. If this were not true then breeders would be creating new species all the time.

  2. Mutations can affect any part of the genome, and mechanisms like drift and selection control their spread through a population.

Just as in the geology discussions, as long as you ignore reality your views will remain farcically wrong.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 1:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 9:04 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 333 of 1034 (726275)
05-07-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Faith
05-07-2014 2:42 PM


Re: Good idea, next step
But put a dozen people on an island where they are the sole founders of a distinct population that arises over many generations.

Whoa! You seem to have forgotten what the dispute is about. Your claim is that evolution is impossible. You don't get to take a dozen people and show the problems that result, because none of us are claiming that you can take a dozen people and create a diverse population. That kind of bottleneck is how you get something like cheetahs.

In fact it is you silly YECs who insist that the entire current population of humans came from only 8 people, including three people who were direct descendants of two others.

Perhaps now you can understand why the burden persuasion is different for you and I. I can agree that a population of a dozen people is not enough to create the human race and still press the argument that your silly scheme does not reflect reality. Or at the very least reality allowing mutations.

simple gene flow

What do you mean by simple gene flow? Is that simply Mendelian inheritance? You cannot even get dachshunds using that alone.

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 331 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 2:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 8:25 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 364 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2014 12:54 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 1034 (726288)
05-07-2014 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by NoNukes
05-07-2014 3:09 PM


and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
But put a dozen people on an island where they are the sole founders of a distinct population that arises over many generations.

Whoa! You seem to have forgotten what the dispute is about. Your claim is that evolution is impossible. You don't get to take a dozen people and show the problems that result, because none of us are claiming that you can take a dozen people and create a diverse population. That kind of bottleneck is how you get something like cheetahs.

But it is the kind of situation I've been describing all along that is the basis for breeds and subspecies. These require limiting the numbers of individuals, you aren't going to get breeds or species unless you do that and the result is always new traits with less genetic diversity. So of course I'm going to use this kind of example, it's the one I've been using all along. The numbers don't have to be so drastically limited, but they do have to be changed from the parent population so you get the new allele frequencies that bring out the new traits.

In fact it is you silly YECs who insist that the entire current population of humans came from only 8 people, including three people who were direct descendants of two others.

But we also assume much greater genetic diversity back then, my version of this being that all of them and all the animals as well were heterozygous for all or almost all traits, along with having many more functioning genes for each trait. This goes along with what I've also said about how I think there was no junk DNA then, that junk DNA is first of all the evidence of the bottleneck of the Flood, but also the result of the death of genes over the last few thousand years due to the loss of genetic diversity I keep saying is inevitable with the formation of new species or subspecies. These days if you limit numbers drastically the new population is threatened, back then it wasn't, it had sufficient genetic diversity to form all the subspecies/species we see today from only the people and the animals on the ark. But I'd also add that before the Fall a creature that did arrive at complete genetic depletion, like the cheetah, wouldn't have been threatened either.

Perhaps now you can understand why the burden persuasion is different for you and I. I can agree that a population of a dozen people is not enough to create the human race and still press the argument that your silly scheme does not reflect reality. Or at the very least reality allowing mutations.

Sorry, you aren't persuading ME. I still don't think you get what I've been arguing.

simple gene flow

What do you mean by simple gene flow? Is that simply Mendelian inheritance? You cannot even get dachshunds using that alone

You don't get any kind of breed from gene flow or mutations. All they do is provide the genetic material that then has to be subjected to selection which is what brings out the new traits along with reducing the genetic diversity.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 3:09 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 9:24 PM Faith has responded
 Message 338 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2014 9:34 PM Faith has responded
 Message 339 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 10:52 PM Faith has responded
 Message 340 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2014 1:20 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 335 of 1034 (726289)
05-07-2014 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Percy
05-07-2014 2:59 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith, you're still ignoring these realities:
1.A new species cannot be created simply by selecting a subset of the alleles of an existing species. Any organism possessing only a subset of alleles of the parent species is still the same species. If this were not true then breeders would be creating new species all the time.

Well of course, I don't believe you'll get anything BUT the same species, I just use the word because you all do when you get a new population that doesn't breed with the former population, and I'm saying there is no other way you get any of this anyway, your new "species" or any of it.

Breeding always starts with selecting an animal or small number of animals for desired traits and breeding them for those traits, this IS how breeding is done. You are favoring traits and their alleles while aggressively leaving out traits and their alleles you don't want. Again the term "species" is artificial, so theoretically you could even get a breed that could no longer produce offspring with others of the same Species.

2.Mutations can affect any part of the genome, and mechanisms like drift and selection control their spread through a population.

And the reality is that they only very rarely affect the germ cells and only rarely in any way that produces a viable new allele. And drift and selection are both processes that bring out new traits while reducing genetic diversity.

Just as in the geology discussions, as long as you ignore reality your views will remain farcically wrong.

It's your bizarre straw man versions of my arguments that are farcically wrong. You have been doing a truly amazing job of getting it wrong for some time now. Let's see, the last one I answered was the idea that I CHOOSE sexual recombination as the basis for creating new traits over the novel mutations, or something like that. Oh well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Percy, posted 05-07-2014 2:59 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Percy, posted 05-08-2014 9:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 336 of 1034 (726290)
05-07-2014 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Faith
05-07-2014 2:42 PM


Re: Good idea, next step
You'll get a very distinct set of traits after ten generations, certainly twenty, a very distinct look, probably more distinct than the groups that we are pretty able to recognize as, say, "Scandinavian"

Let's address this one head on. Scandinavian's have common features because they look like the most successful (at propagating) of their ancestors and not because of some limit on how they can evolve. What Scandinavian's look like after just a few hundred or even 1000 years puts no limits on evolution. This argument is just point blank silly.


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 331 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 2:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 337 of 1034 (726291)
05-07-2014 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-07-2014 8:25 PM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
But it is the kind of situation I've been describing all along that is the basis for breeds and subspecies.

Who cares. It is wrong. Evolution is not limited explaining what happens to teeny-tiny populations. You've wasted ten years.

ABE:

Perhaps that's too blunt. The phenomenon of genetic drift, something Faith always ignores, means that a genetic characteristic might occupy a substantial portion of the original population before circumstances arise which allow that trait to present a selection advantage. And only then does the opportunity for speciation occur. Because of that, we don't need to postulate that we must isolate tiny numbers of individuals, nor do we need to assume that the mutation arrives just in the nick of time.

I don't expect to ever convince you Faith. I am just providing logical reasons why you are failing to convince us.

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 334 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 8:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 2:11 AM NoNukes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 338 of 1034 (726292)
05-07-2014 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-07-2014 8:25 PM


And what would convince you Faith?
Sorry, you aren't persuading ME.

And what would convince you Faith?

For instance ...

(was subtitle): Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible

Macroevolution is speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies.

This has been observed.

This means that your saying that "(macro) evolution is impossible" cannot be true.

... These require limiting the numbers of individuals, you aren't going to get breeds or species unless you do that ...

Black pocket mice. Twice.

Again your claim cannot be true.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 8:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 5:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 339 of 1034 (726293)
05-07-2014 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-07-2014 8:25 PM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
You don't get any kind of breed from gene flow or mutations. All they do is provide the genetic material that then has to be subjected to selection which is what brings out the new traits along with reducing the genetic diversity.

Which part of that long description is "gene flow"? What physically happens when genes flow? So far you have not said anything that allows me to rule out that you mean Mendelian genetics when you say 'normal gene flow'.

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 334 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 8:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 1:56 AM NoNukes has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 340 of 1034 (726295)
05-08-2014 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-07-2014 8:25 PM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
quote:

But it is the kind of situation I've been describing all along that is the basis for breeds and subspecies. These require limiting the numbers of individuals, you aren't going to get breeds or species unless you do that and the result is always new traits with less genetic diversity. So of course I'm going to use this kind of example, it's the one I've been using all along. The numbers don't have to be so drastically limited, but they do have to be changed from the parent population so you get the new allele frequencies that bring out the new traits.

But if you care about the truth you must accept the fact that the situations you choose are exaggerated and represent only a small fraction of the lifetime of a successful species. You cannot simply assume that nothing else matters.

But I guess that pretending that your argument is good is more important to you than being honest. How else could you continue such an obvious pretense for years ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-07-2014 8:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 2:04 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 341 of 1034 (726296)
05-08-2014 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by NoNukes
05-07-2014 10:52 PM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
Good grief, NN, gene flow IS a standard term you should find in any description of population genetics, it simply describes the keeping up of genetic communication between populations so that there isn't complete reproductive isolation for any of them, so the population isn't totally confined to its own gene pool.

When I describe my favorite scenario I avoid the common situations where there is continued gene flow or reintroduction of formerly split-off populations, or hybrid zones and all that because all that confuses the basic fact of developing traits with reduced genetic diversity. This occurs in all those situations too, the continued supply of new genes just making the process more drawn out and harder to describe. Mutations too would just act as more gene flow which makes the processes I'm describing follow a more complicated path.

To get a clearcut new population in the wild the same as you would a new breed, you have to have isolation of the selected traits, whether randomly or naturally selected doesn't matter, and this process is always accompanied by reduced genetic diversity, even if it takes longer has more ups and downs before it gets there in the wild.

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 339 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 10:52 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2014 10:27 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 365 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2014 3:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 342 of 1034 (726297)
05-08-2014 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by PaulK
05-08-2014 1:20 AM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
But it is the kind of situation I've been describing all along that is the basis for breeds and subspecies. These require limiting the numbers of individuals, you aren't going to get breeds or species unless you do that and the result is always new traits with less genetic diversity. So of course I'm going to use this kind of example, it's the one I've been using all along. The numbers don't have to be so drastically limited, but they do have to be changed from the parent population so you get the new allele frequencies that bring out the new traits.

But if you care about the truth you must accept the fact that the situations you choose are exaggerated and represent only a small fraction of the lifetime of a successful species. You cannot simply assume that nothing else matters.

I'm focused on the ACTIVELY EVOLVING part of a species' life, whatever else matters isn't what I'm talking about. To get a NEW species is what I'm describing. That is when we see the reduced genetic diversity. And since creating new species one would think was THE main thing for (macro) evolution it's obviously the place to focus.

What I'm describing is streamlined, reality can be a lot messier, but that's why I keep pointing back to domestic breeding where the same processes aren't so messy because they can be controlled. In the wild complete reproductive isolation CAN occur but it often doesn't, and so the situation is messier and harder to track, but the same principles must apply there too.

But I guess that pretending that your argument is good is more important to you than being honest. How else could you continue such an obvious pretense for years ?

No pretense at all, I'm totally committed to this argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2014 1:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2014 2:25 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 1034 (726298)
05-08-2014 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by NoNukes
05-07-2014 9:24 PM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
Perhaps that's too blunt. The phenomenon of genetic drift, something Faith always ignores, means that a genetic characteristic might occupy a substantial portion of the original population before circumstances arise which allow that trait to present a selection advantage. And only then does the opportunity for speciation occur. Because of that, we don't need to postulate that we must isolate tiny numbers of individuals, nor do we need to assume that the mutation arrives just in the nick of time.

I don't expect to ever convince you Faith. I am just providing logical reasons why you are failing to convince us.

I don't ignore genetic drift and have described it many times in this very discussion or the same discussion on the other thread about the Grants. It's how you get the same situation I'm describing occurring within a larger population. I focus on the situation that normally occurs in a separate geographically isolated population, but due to other factors it also occurs within a larger population by some kind of random selection factors. I've mentioned this a number of times just in the discussion here over the last few days so to claim I'm ignoring it is a total misrepresentation.

It may take the physical isolation for speciation to occur, but that isn't going to change anything in the argument I've been making here, it should simply illustrate it further.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 9:24 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2014 2:56 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 344 of 1034 (726299)
05-08-2014 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
05-08-2014 2:04 AM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
quote:

I'm focused on the ACTIVELY EVOLVING part of a species' life, whatever else matters isn't what I'm talking about.

Then you claim that not only do you not have an argument against evolution you never tried to produce one ? That you never argued that evolution must run out of variation and end ?

Because if you DID try to create such an argument you can't honestly ignore major factors that matter to that argument. Not looking at those factors is not a defence of such an argument, it's an indictment of it, and admission of a fatal and intentional flaw.

quote:

No pretense at all, I'm totally committed to this argument.

You're "totally committed" to an argument you won't even make a proper go of ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 2:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 5:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 345 of 1034 (726300)
05-08-2014 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2013 11:42 AM


Re: Walking Requires Staying In The Same Place
As walkists admit (such as the notoriously pro-walkist Wikipedia): "In humans and other bipeds, walking is generally distinguished from running in that only one foot at a time leaves contact with the ground and there is a period of double-support."

This means that walking requires leaving the right foot fixed in one place. Because I am not very bright, I shall now insist that this means that walking requires the right foot must be fixed in one place all the time. This means that someone walking cannot move from the spot, but can only turn around in circles.

On this principle, I shall assert that micro-walking (for example to the shops and back) is perfectly possible, even though this flatly contradicts what I've just said. I'm not big on logical consistency. However, macro-walking, for example hiking the Appalachian trail, is clearly impossible, because you could not do that by merely revolving on the spot, which as I've explained is all a person can ever do when walking.

Now, I know that some of you will point out that walking also involves moving the right foot, and that micro-walking, the existence of which I admit, definitely involves moving the right foot and indeed allows one to travel from place to place. How do I know that you will say that? Because it's what you said last time I raised this damnfool argument, and the time before that.

However, I'm sure I can ignore these obvious facts for the rest of this thread, and also for the duration of the other thread I'll start in another couple of months to say exactly the same thing. Instead I shall repeatedly assert that the process of walking requires the right foot to remain stationary, focusing obsessively on this one aspect of the process of walking and ignoring everything else about it, as though this somehow proved my point.

What I lack in intelligence, I make up for in the tenacity with which I can maintain an argument the deep unfathomable stupidity of which is completely obvious to every single person I try it out on.

What makes this analogy so apposite is that Faith is herself going round in tiny circles and making no progress.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2013 11:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 5:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
69NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019