Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 3:48 PM
197 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 191 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,540 Year: 2,577/19,786 Month: 659/1,918 Week: 247/266 Day: 19/92 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 361 of 1034 (726332)
05-08-2014 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Percy
05-08-2014 9:29 AM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Nevermind. I asked a ridiculous question.

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 358 by Percy, posted 05-08-2014 9:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 362 of 1034 (726338)
05-08-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
05-08-2014 1:56 AM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
even if it takes longer has more ups and downs before it gets there in the wild

You are going to need to quantify the ups and downs before you have an argument. But at least here you acknowledge that there are ups.

Do you think that dogs are more diverse or less diverse than wolves? I read today that dogs are the most diverse land animal. I don't know if that is true, but I think your thesis requires that dogs be less diverse than wolves. Would you care to express an opinon on that?

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 341 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 1:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19729
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 363 of 1034 (726350)
05-08-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
05-08-2014 9:29 AM


Re: And what would convince you Faith?
If the black mice occurred within the white population they were still a smaller population there, and no doubt prey while they were there.

So you just can't admit that your claim " ... These require limiting the numbers of individuals, you aren't going to get breeds or species unless you do that ... " is falsified by the black mice evolving their traits within the parent population -- without limited numbers of individuals in the parent population causing their new traits.

... breeds or species ...

A better term is variety. The black mice are a new variety that evolved from the tan mice.

Definitional arguments are just game-playing.

Curiously I prefer to think that using agreed on terms for agreed on meanings enhances communication and clarifies thought. In that light I also think that using terms as they are used in science to debate science is one way to ensure you are actually debating the science rather than just playing word games.

You have noticed speciation and nested hierarchies but you have not noticed them beyond the Kind, that part is all imagination.

Perhaps another foray into cladistics can clarify the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

quote:
A clade (from Ancient Greek κλάδος, klados, "branch") or monophylum (see monophyletic) is a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants, a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1] The ancestor may be an individual, a population or even a species (extinct or extant). Many familiar groups, rodents and insects for example, are clades; others, like lizards and monkeys, are not (lizards excludes snakes, monkeys excludes apes and humans).

Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The red and blue boxes at right and left represent clades (i.e., complete branches). The green box in the middle is not a clade, but rather represents an evolutionary grade, an incomplete group, because the blue clade at left is descended from it, but is excluded.


And as new species continue to arise from existing species, cladistics is more flexible in categorizing the new diversity of life than traditional taxonomy.

As can readily be seen from this diagram is that this is precisely (imho) how "kinds" would descend from a parent original kind. The question between creationism and evolution then becomes what and how many original kinds were involved.

Blue plus green is a clade and so is blue\green plus red. A clade located within a larger clade is said to be nested within that clade: the red clade is nested within the blue\green\red clade. The blue clade is nested within the blue\green clade.

A clade with nested clades is also called a nested hierarchy.

So is Red a kind and Blue/Green another kind or are all three one kind?

A difference in degree ... or difference in kind? How can you tell where the clades began?

And I note that you still did not answer the question: what would convince you Faith?

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 359 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 9:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1960
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


(5)
Message 364 of 1034 (726357)
05-08-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by NoNukes
05-07-2014 3:09 PM


Re: Good idea, next step
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.

The bottleneck would be much more extreme in humans. The bottleneck in Cheetahs is estimated to have occurred ~10,000 years ago. The biblical timeline implies that there would be two bottlenecks in humans. The first would be Adam and Eve ~6,000 years ago and the second ~4,300 years ago at the flood.

The humans at the time of the flood (only ~1,500 years after the A & E bottleneck) would have been much less genetically diverse than cheetahs are today. Then with a second bottleneck ~4,300 years BP, we should expect humans to be so genetically similar today that organ transplants would never suffer from rejection due to genetic differences.

On top of that, when you consider that a cheetah generation is 3-4 years (2500-3300 generations since bottleneck) and a human generation is around 20 years (215 generations since flood bottleneck) it becomes absolutely clear that any human bottleneck must have occurred long before any biblical timeline says it did and also long before the cheetah bottleneck.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


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

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1960
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


(7)
Message 365 of 1034 (726365)
05-08-2014 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
05-08-2014 1:56 AM


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

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.

This is one of key flaws in your argument. There is no such thing as a clear-cut new population in the wild. The characteristics that define a population new or old, large or small, never fit into a neat, uniform package. There is always a range of genetic diversity and also a range in the phenotypic characters seen and unseen that biologists use to describe a population or a species. We know this is true from studies performed by biologists in the field. They are often depicted measuring various characters on tv nature shows and I have done the same kind of studies in the field myself. The characters almost always fall into a Gaussian distribution, but when the distribution is skewed, that is a clue that there is selection of that character.

Every time individuals in the population mate they pass on some of their own mutated alleles and their offspring acquire their own new unique new set of mutated alleles.

If the population thrives, diversity increases with each succeeding generation.

If the population thrives, any loss in genetic diversity resulting from separation from the parent population, is overwhelmed by newly added mutations.

If the loss of genetic diversity is too great, and/or selective pressure is too extreme then the population will go extinct.

Observations of populations that thrive after population splits show that your reduced genetic diversity argument does not describe reality.

Populations that thrive absolutely falsify your argument.

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

Your continued comparisons of artificial breeding and wild populations is another key flaw in your argument. Artificial breeding leads to a situation that is completely different from what is found in wild populations. Breeds are characterized by a limited number of visible phenotypic traits with ever narrowing distribution of variation in each succeeding generation.

The end goal of a breeder is a purebreed that has no variation for each different character at all. Every new variation is thrown out of the breeding plan completely or if the breeder thinks it is interesting then it may become part of beginning of a new breeding plan.

In wild populations the only goal is survival and reproduction. There is no breeder directing the population toward a uniform set of characters. There is a continuum of variation in every trait and it is continuous flux from generation to generation.

There is no ideal population description in wild populations, only a varying set traits.

There is no such thing as a purebred population in the wild.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 1:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1960
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


(2)
Message 366 of 1034 (726367)
05-08-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by RAZD
05-08-2014 8:51 AM


Re: And what would convince you Faith?
And yet, curiously, different people get the same results. And the results from morphological analysis and genetic analysis agree. Why does this happen if it is subjective Faith?

And genetic analysis of both nuclear and mitochondrial agree.

Faith writes:

Nested hierarchies beyond the known genetically related groups are pure mental constructs, ...

I'm sure she will never believe it but cladograms show nested hierarchies far beyond the species or breeding population level.

Reality trumps belief every time.

RAZD writes:

Why don't you lay out your purported laboratory experiment rather than make mysterious allusions to it.

I think she must be referring sitting and thinking about it really, really hard. She often tells everyone that if we think about it hard it will be obvious she is right.

Every time she says that I have this mental image of an old lady straining to think with sweat pouring off her as if she were straining to lift a 500 pound weight.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2014 8:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1639 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(2)
Message 367 of 1034 (727448)
05-18-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
02-24-2013 4:10 AM


No 'new functions'
Faith writes:

If the mutation occurs in a fur color gene it will only affect fur color. You are not going to get anything really new, a new function for instance, through mutation.

So fur colour can change, but we shouldn't expect any new functions--like, say, the ability to sneak up on prey unobserved (polar bears, tigers)?

How about fur stiffness? Can that change, too? Or would the change get too newly functional (hedgehogs)?

If hair shafts can change shape, how about skeletal features?

You postulate a natural boundary where ongoing small mutations must suddenly stop happening. Why must they stop? Where may a geneticist look for this border?


Archer O

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 02-24-2013 4:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 11:22 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 368 of 1034 (727451)
05-18-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Archer Opteryx
05-18-2014 11:15 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
Faith writes:
If the mutation occurs in a fur color gene it will only affect fur color. You are not going to get anything really new, a new function for instance, through mutation.

So fur colour can change, but we shouldn't expect any new functions--like, say, the ability to sneak up on prey unobserved (polar bears, tigers)?

Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.

How about fur stiffness? Can that change, too? Or would the change get too newly functional (hedgehogs)?

Not from the gene for fur color, perhaps from the gene for fur stiffness depending on the range possible for that gene.

If hair shafts can change shape, how about skeletal features?

Only if the genome provides the basis for such variation. That's my point. You aren't going to get changes that aren't built into the genome.

You postulate a natural boundary where ongoing small mutations must suddenly stop happening. Why must they stop? Where may a geneticist look for this border?

The natural boundary has nothing to do with mutations, only with the reduction in genetic diversity, whatever its source, by the processes of selection. You have to read my argument to understand how it works.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-18-2014 11:15 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 12:12 PM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 369 of 1034 (727615)
05-19-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
05-18-2014 11:22 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.

A bear differing in no way from other bears other than having gained white fur is automatically better suited for stalking prey in snowy areas.

In other words, fur color is functional. In addition to enhancing hiding and/or sneakiness, fur color may provide respiratory advantages in some environments. Fur length and fur density are also functional. So are silly looking minor things like the ability to move one's outer ears.

Perhaps a better way of distinguishing the mutations you believe are possible from the ones you believe are not would be useful here. But shucking and jiving about the definition of functional is going to cost you even more of your credibility.

Or maybe a loss of credibility on the topic is simply not possible for you.


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 368 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 11:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 12:28 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 370 of 1034 (727620)
05-19-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 12:12 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.

A bear differing in no way from other bears other than having gained white fur is automatically better suited for stalking prey in snowy areas.

In other words, fur color is functional. In addition to enhancing hiding and/or sneakiness, fur color may provide respiratory advantages in some environments. Fur length and fur density are also functional. So are silly looking minor things like the ability to move one's outer ears.

You are missing the context, which is "new" functions, "new" being the operative word. If it's in the genome, an allele or options for any combination of genes already available in the bear population, it's not a NEW function, it's simply a normally occurring variation that will be selected if it is advantageous.

Perhaps a better way of distinguishing the mutations you believe are possible from the ones you believe are not would be useful here.

I don't believe mutations contribute anything at all to normal variation/microevolution, except possibly the very rare fluke when a mistake in replication happens to reproduce a sequence that revives a formerly lost function. But normal variation is the result of normal sexual recombination of built-in genetic possibilities. I know it's hard to think along these lines if you are used to thinking in terms of mutations, but this is the way it used to be understood and they were right.

But shucking and jiving about the definition of functional is going to cost you even more of your credibility.

No, what costs me credibility is nothing more than having to do battle with ingrained bias.

Or maybe a loss of credibility on the topic is simply not possible for you.

Not with myself, but otherwise would that it were so.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 12:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 12:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 374 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 2:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 384 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 1:33 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.9


Message 371 of 1034 (727627)
05-19-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
05-19-2014 12:28 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
I don't believe mutations contribute anything at all to normal variation/microevolution, except possibly the very rare fluke when a mistake in replication happens to reproduce a sequence that revives a formerly lost function. But normal variation is the result of normal sexual recombination of built-in genetic possibilities. I know it's hard to think along these lines if you are used to thinking in terms of mutations, but this is the way it used to be understood and they were right.

But it must have been brought to your attention --- repeatedly --- that direct observation shows this to be untrue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 12:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 372 of 1034 (727634)
05-19-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2014 12:59 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
It has been ASSERTED and CLAIMED, not exactly "brought to my attention" and I've never seen anything that holds up except maybe three or four iffy examples..
This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 12:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 1:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.9


Message 373 of 1034 (727638)
05-19-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
05-19-2014 1:14 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
So if you've seen it, it's been shown rather than "ASSERTED and CLAIMED" and if you've seen "three or four", then one would suffice to overturn your general claim.

What you mean by "iffy" is known only to yourself and, if he exists, the god whom you claim to serve.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 1:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 1034 (727649)
05-19-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
05-19-2014 12:28 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
You are missing the context, which is "new" functions, "new" being the operative word. If it's in the genome, an allele or options for any combination of genes already available in the bear population, it's not a NEW function, it's simply a normally occurring variation that will be selected if it is advantageous.

I'm not doing any such thing. You are simply denying the premise that white fur can be a mutation, or an addition to the genome. Well that's completely wrong.


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 370 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 12:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 10:18 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 375 of 1034 (727711)
05-20-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 2:37 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
Yes I am denying that that is how white fur shows up in any species, by a mutation, except the possible extremely rare fluke as I keep saying. It is a normally occurring variation for the genes that govern fur color that is brought out by the normal processes of sexual recombination. Mutation is not needed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 2:37 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-20-2014 10:51 AM Faith has responded
 Message 381 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2014 12:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
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