Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 225 (757596)
05-11-2015 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2015 9:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.
You appear to contradict yourself at every turn. One minute you're telling me that two wolves "contained enough genetic diversity to produce all the dogs we have today", the next minute you're telling me that "disease-producing alleles didn't exist then". Which? Either the ur-wolves had all the genetic diversity present today, or they didn't.
You assume mutations are the source of diversity, I believe they are instead a destructive process that destroys functioning genes and produces disease. This makes them a product of the Fall, which accumulates over time, which is why there's much more disease now than there could have been on the ark.
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 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2015 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 8:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 225 (757610)
05-11-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 10:01 AM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.
And you say you've been working on this for ten years?
A geneticist would take five seconds to answer this question.
A geneticist isn't trying to account for how extra alleles got into one gene locus on the ark.
If, as you assert, the alleles weren't there then, and if, as we know, they are then now, then by definition what has happened in between to bring them into existence is mutation. This isn't an assumption, that's just what the word "mutation" means.
Sure, I agree, if you are willing to accept that those new "alleles" are all destructive and not the stuff of valid inheritance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 2:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 3:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 150 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 3:50 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 225 (757614)
05-11-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NoNukes
05-11-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It was the mixing together by inbreeding over many generations of the new gene frequencies they shared as a group, in comparison to the population at large, that eventually resulted in their characteristic appearance.
Yeah, but just where did that diversity come from? You seem to believe that it comes from some kind of super genome rather than from diversity generated by mutations.
Perhaps you haven't followed this argument in a while. There's nothing super about the original genome that I postulate except it's a lot healthier than today's. It had a lot more functioning genes than we have because 95% of them have died since the Flood, perhaps a few before the Flood. It had much more heterozygosity for many more traits, so that a big bottleneck like the Flood didn't reduce it all to fixed loci like today's cheetah and elephant seal, but still had a lot more genetic possibilities that could be played out in microevolution. A perfectly normal genome without all the death in it we see today.
What reason is there to believe that? Is there a single bit of genetic evidence for such a thing in humans or dogs or cats?
Sadly not. Today all creatures have a lot of death in their genomes.
If evolution works as claimed in the theory of evolution, then the issue is not whether some subset of the species (like races or breeds) is less diverse than the entire set. Of course that must be true. The question is whether humans as a whole must be less diverse than the species they evolved from. Not as a subset but as a whole. Because humans of all races and hues are inter fertile there is always the possibility to reintegrate any diversity.
That is true, we don't "speciate" by the official evolutionist definition that applies to many other creatures. But as a whole species we have lost an enormous amount of genetic diversity if junk DNA is dead genes that used to be alive and if we used to have a lot more heterozygosity.
Which brings us to another of your errors. Post speciation mutations do not interfere with generating humans as you suggests. We can look at all of the variations we see among humans currently and ask, if that particular variation did indeed result from mutation, did it interfere with that particular person being a human? And the answer is no. Even if the person is no longer considered a member of a particular race, something which we would not claim for social reasons, the person still human. The mutation does not interfere with him being distinct from the pre homo sapiens species that he came from.
What an extremely weird straw man you have invented here to pretend it is an error of mine. I haven't a clue what you think you are saying.
Yes, a variation in some poodle might well prevent some pup from winning 'best in breed', but unless that variation prevents the pup from being a dog at all, then mutation does add to the variation in the dog population.
I do wish you would get this basic point: adding diversity happens, but it interferes with the formation of subspecies. That's all I'm saying, and there are conclusions to be drawn from the normal processes by which subspecies form. It takes reproductive isolation which means the avoidance of alleles that don't belong to the breed. Mutations would add such alleles that breeders don't want. It would make breeding impossible if mutations occurred frequently.
And that is sufficient variation for evolution to work on unless humans prevent the new dog from mating.
Sure if it happened as you say it could be selected. The odds are it wouldn't be but it could be, so then it would get worked into your breed over a few generations and you'd be back at square one with a slightly different breed with no further ability to evolve. I really don't think you are getting the picture here. You can increase genetic diversity, the usual way being the reintroduction of other animals to your breed, but to GET a breed you have to select the genetic material and that's the reduction of genetic diversity that HAS to happen. Of course if you don't care about breeds you can increase diversity in many ways, but if you aren't getting new subspecies you aren't getting evolution anyway.
So far none of your 'ends to evolution' seem to work.
There's only one and it does work, all that's happening is nobody is getting it. The ways it is misunderstood are zany.
It is of course possible to come up with scenarios where diversity is cut off from a population and then lost when the animals can no longer interbreed, but nothing prevents mutations from causing more diversity in either population.
Theoretically, sure, if you're willing to wait hundreds or thousands of years hoping the creature can survive that long and you have no investment in maintaining your breed or race. A "new species" is often genetically depleted like the cheetah, which for its survival potential could benefit from some new genetic diversity but so far no helpful mutations have shown up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 12:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 2:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 225 (757625)
05-11-2015 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
05-11-2015 2:10 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
That's a lot more than just health. And it's just a postulate. If you rely on that postulate without evidence then you cannot prove anything.
It's a very reasonable postulate, and what's funny is that mutation as the source of viable genetic material has NO evidence at all, is pure assumption but that doesn't bother you, only MY postulate bothers you. What is actually KNOWN about mutation is that it is responsible for thousands of diseases, that most of it doesn't affect the phenotype (so far, I consider this a very ominous fact myself), while the known useful mutations are so rare it's hardly worth mentioning.
But this brings me to something I've wondered about which is sort of an aside: why is it that the emphasis among evolutionists seems to be so predominantly on NOVEL mutations, those that occur in individuals for instance, rather than the huge shared store of genes in the genome which are generally understood to have been the product of mutation anyway? It's that genetic store in the genome from which all those traits are developed by the processes I'm describing, that you zanily deny but is such a well known process I don't know how you can. Sexual recombination makes each of us different from our parents using their own genetic stuff. If a bunch of humans get isolated from the rest of the world, over generations the multiple recombinations of their collective own genetic stuff will eventually produce a characteristic type of human being. This is so ordinary a fact your denial takes the breath away. Beneficial mutations don't occur frequently enough to contribute to these scenarios, they come from the genetic material already in the genome. Whether that was put there by mutation or was built in isn't really important when focusing on these processes. The point is that the eventual appearance of our isolated clan after generations of inbreeding will be identifiably its own, and different from other clans. Surely you don't dispute that this simple process of isolation and inbreeding is how we have Mongolians and Navajos and Icelanders and Inuit and Pygmies and Italians and Bushmen and Samoans and Arabs and Indians and Filipinos and so on and so forth? These processes I'm talking about produce all the different types. Novel mutations probably contribute something or other here and there, but most often a disease.
So what I'm focusing on really should be readily recognizable.
If, in fact, evolution is a dead end for the reasons you give, then dogs as a whole must be less diverse than the wolves specie or species that they come from. Yet they are not.
You keep saying this but it makes NO sense at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 2:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 3:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 153 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 5:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 151 of 225 (757629)
05-11-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Denisova
05-11-2015 3:50 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.
Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information but their own claims imply a gigantic and astonishingly rapid emerging of new genetic information. '
What?
I can only think you've confounded new information with the vast variety of new traits possible from mixing the existing genetic possibilities. Simple sexual recombination alone of the extant genetic possibilities in the genome can produce a staggering number of new trait combinations. Consider the dog breeds we've been discussing for instance, all nothing but different combinations of the genetic possibilities in the dog genome. New combinations of existing genetic possibilities do not produce new information.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 3:50 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 4:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 157 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 5:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 154 of 225 (757638)
05-11-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Denisova
05-11-2015 2:53 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.
*yawn* New blood, old complaint
Let's point out to your flaws.
Evolution REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity....
Here is how evolution *actually* is conceived: genetic mutations produce genetic change.
I was going to try to answer you in larger chunks but find that I need to address just about every statement you make.
"Genetic mutations produce genetic change" you say. Could I ask you first of all why "genetic change" is needed when the genome is chock full of genes that can combine in an enormous number of ways to produce an enormous variety of traits? Why is there always this idea that "change" is needed? Why the emphasis on novel mutations when according to current thinking the whole genome is supposedly composed of alleles produced by mutation anyway? Change is superfluous at best given the vast varieties possible from the existing genetic diversity whether built in or produced by mutation, yet all anyone ever focuses on is some expected novel and of course optimistically beneficial mutation. All it would do is vary an existing trait if it occurred anyway.
When this change matches the environmental conditions, they will be reinforced and retained. When they are harmful, they will be weeded out due to their very disadvantageousness: they will bring lower survival and/or reproduction chances. And along with their carrier, they will die out and not be passed to the next generation.
Yes, this is the Just-So Story we get from evolutionists, but it's all headtrip with little or no reality to it. First, you don't need mutations to get adaptations, that's a matter of fit between creature and environment whatever the source of the genetic trait involved. And Natural Selection doesn't really operate this way. It usually exchanges something that's OK as it is for something that just accidentally doesn't work because of local conditions, such as the proliferation of poisonous newts brought about by the local snakes eating all the nonpoisonous ones. So the preyed-upon newt adapts to the snake by developing its poisonous genetic possibilities. But there was nothing "harmful" about its original condition, and one COULD argue that we'd be a lot better off without poisonous newts, thanks anyway Mr. Snake.
But the point I've been trying to make occurs in this situation too: however a new subspecies is evolved, in this case through the snake's appetite for newts, the loss of genetic diversity I'm talking about has to occur. The newt has evolved to create a poisonous population, losing the alleles for the nonpoisonous type. If this is a temporary situation and the snake starts getting picked off by hawks in huge numbers or the newt migrates to a snake-free environment, then the nonpoisonous newt may re-emerge. But if the poisonous type becomes fixed then it's essentially a "new species" and it has FEWER genetic possibilities than it did before. This is what I mean by evolution's requiring a reduction in genetic diversity: it's how you GET new types, breeds, races, subspecies. But most often new subspecies are created without the violence of Natural Selection: a small number of newts go off and get themselves isolated in a new location. Being a smallish number they possess their own new set of gene frequencies by comparison with their former population, more of some alleles, fewer of others, and most likely the complete loss of some, so that by inbreeding over some number of generations (it really doesn't take long, at most decades) they develop a new set of traits and look quite different from the newts they left behind. All from simple sexual recombination of a new mix of genetic possibilities. Which required the reduction of their original genetic diversity, which I'm arguing is required by evolution. Newts evolved into new type, newts lost a bunch of genetic possibilities in the process.
Of course if they didn't get isolated but instead met up with a whole other population of newts and mixed in with them they'd contribute their own mix to that population and it might change somewhat over time too, but this is an additive process that increases genetic diversity, not the subtractive process that is the route to speciation.
When the genetic variance is piling up, the subpopulations will experience genetic divergence. When this genetic divergence accumulates to the extent the two sub-genomes are genetically not compatible anymore, the subpopulations do not interbreed anymore (or interbreeding will not produce valid offspring) and genetic isolation occurred and by definition speciation took place.
Yes indeed. This is how it happens. But what you are failing to appreciate is that wherever there is the development of new subpopulations, each will have its own set of gene frequencies and if the number of individuals is small very likely the loss of some alleles as well, though those alleles remain in the other population. Each population will over generations of inbreeding develop its own characteristic appearance and possibly lose the ability to interbreed with the other populations as you say, and if this inability occurs then you are right, by arbitrary definition this is speciation. But it IS an arbitrary definitional sort of thing that is intended to suggest that the creature has arrived at a genetic platform for further evolution; but the actual fact is that it is genetically LESS capable of further evolution from this point than before because it has LESS genetic diversity to work with. This isn't usually a handicap if the original founding numbers were large enough but if further subpopulations develop from this point they will have less and less genetic diversity, therefore less ability for further evolution. My point is that the very processes that bring about new phenotypes, new traits, new subspecies, also bring about less genetic diversity which makes for less ability to evolve, which defeats the whole idea of evolution itself.
As soon as speciation happened, we will now have 2 species with different and separated genomes. And evidently each genome inevitably will be a *subset* of the original combined genome of the ancestral species.
True. Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populationsin reproductive isolation from each other.
From this we conclude:
1. there is NO reduction in genetic diversity but DISPERSION. NOTHING of the original genetic diversity is lost, it's just PARCELLED OUT to split genomes
True, the population as a whole hasn't lost genetic diversity, only the separate subpopulations. But these are where the development of new traits is occurring, i.e. where evolution is occurring, and where speciation is ultimately expected to occur, and although each subpopulation has LESS genetic diversity somehow evolutionists still expect it to be able to go on evolving.
EVEN THEN, the reduced genetic diversity in any of the two distinct genomes is not "required" by evolution but a CONSEQUENCE. Consequences cannot be requirement, that would be just plain unsound logic.
Um, let's reconsider this. In order to GET your subpopulation's new traits / phenotypes, in order to get a new subspecies with the potential of speciation and loss of breeding with former populations, you HAD to lose the alleles/ genetic possibilities for the traits left behind in those other populations. You have a new subspecies with a new set of traits, but you ONLY get that by losing the genetic stuff for OTHER sets of traits. You have a GAIN in new traits along with a LOSS of genetic diversity. Your "consequence" of evolution in the loss of genetic diversity is indeed a requirement since you wouldn't get your new traits without it.
I think hereby the whole framework of your posts just collapsed.
Oh dear. Well, you might want to reconsider that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 2:53 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 163 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 156 of 225 (757641)
05-11-2015 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 5:19 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
*yawn* Very old blood, very old erroneous complaint. Did you even read my post to Denisova? One thing I liked very much about his(?) post was that he was talking about exactly what I'm talking about in the same terms, though he came to the wrong conclusion therefrom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:49 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 159 of 225 (757644)
05-11-2015 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 5:49 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
These contentless posts of yours are just hot air. How do you bring yourself to write so many of them?
The more I write out this argument the more solid it becomes. I really wish you would try harder to get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 6:02 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 225 (757647)
05-11-2015 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Denisova
05-11-2015 5:44 PM


Traits governed by more than one gene
I wish I had a way to keep track of my own posts.
From Exceptions to Simple Inheritance:
Polygenic Traits
Some traits are determined by the combined effect of more than one pair of genes. These are referred to as polygenic, or continuous, traits. An example of this is human stature. The combined size of all of the body parts from head to foot determines the height of an individual. There is an additive effect. The sizes of all of these body parts are, in turn, determined by numerous genes. Human skin, hair, and eye color are also polygenic traits because they are influenced by more than one allele at different loci. The result is the perception of continuous gradation in the expression of these traits.
I knew human skin color was governed by at least four genes and that was brought up earlier in the thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 5:44 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 7:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 186 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 6:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 225 (757648)
05-11-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 6:02 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I have already understood your argument. This is why I was able to explain why it's bunk. You seem to have admitted now that it's bunk yourself, since you have admitted the existence of mutations increasing genetic diversity. You're welcome.
It's a position I take for the sake of argument since the source of genetic diversity isn't important for most of this discussion, but of course even destructive mutations do produce new alleles, for all kinds of fascinating genetic diseases, if you want to call that "increasing genetic diversity."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 6:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 225 (757656)
05-11-2015 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:01 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
ABE:
Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populations in reproductive isolation from each other.
Interbreeding between populations in reproductive isolation is an oxymoron.
You apparently missed the word "INBREEDING" which refers to what was going on in each of the separate populations. You DO know the difference between "inbreeding" and "interbreeding," right?
Just what I need, another new poster who is rude and ready to find fault without thinking for even half a second. /ABE
Gosh you're confused. I'm going to have to come back to this later.
What, may I ask, is your expertise in these matters, your credentials? You speak from a very highhanded attitude.
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 163 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:01 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 6:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 190 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 168 of 225 (757659)
05-11-2015 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by NoNukes
05-11-2015 7:49 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
"Simple" not "single" although I don't know what your "wow" is all about.
And I never said ALL traits are governed by multiple genes. Were, when the genome was complete. Could be, though, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 7:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 9:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 225 (757660)
05-11-2015 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:07 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's a position I take for the sake of argument since the source of genetic diversity isn't important for most of this discussion, but of course even destructive mutations do produce new alleles, for all kinds of fascinating genetic diseases, if you want to call that "increasing genetic diversity."
1. the source of the genetic diversification is CRUCIAL for the ongoing debate because it was your contention that genetic mutations cannot account for that.
If you'd just read carefully IN CONTEXT, you might have noticed that I said it isn't important "for most of this discussion" meaning where the topic is the mechanics of recombination etc. Of course it's important in other contexts.
2. your ASSUMPTION that genetic mutations only result in deteriorations like genetic disease will very soon be made minced meat by me because it is blatant denial of a abundant series of genetic studies.
Well go for it. But it isn't just an assumption, it's based on all kinds of references to thousands of genetic diseases, descriptions of mutations as predominantly neutral, otherwise producing thousands of diseases, plus an amazing scarcity of examples of true beneficial mutations.
But go for it.
As for minced meat, I did answer your cocky claim to have destroyed my argument that separate subpopulations do indeed require reduced genetic diversity.
But go for it.
But, as I said, the principles first so we speak of the SAME evolution theory as it is conceived last 150 years.
Go for it.
Any hope you could maybe tone down the attitude a notch? Makes for more willingness in the opponent to take you seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:07 PM Denisova has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 225 (757661)
05-11-2015 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:38 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
Some traits are determined by the combined effect of more than one pair of genes. These are referred to as polygenic, or continuous, traits. An example of this is human stature. The combined size of all of the body parts from head to foot determines the height of an individual. There is an additive effect. The sizes of all of these body parts are, in turn, determined by numerous genes. Human skin, hair, and eye color are also polygenic traits because they are influenced by more than one allele at different loci. The result is the perception of continuous gradation in the expression of these traits.
Yes. this well known 101 genetics indeed.
What's with the snark? You asked for a description of what I meant about traits having more than one gene, I gave you the description, very straightforward description of what I meant.
However, the original questions though were:
1. That the ORIGINAL genome had many more genes per trait isn't quite clear enough. From a genetic point of view for many reasons it is even highly unlikely. I think it is your ASSUMPTION which needs evidence.
When you think you already addressed this issue, I would appreciate when you would point me out to the particular posts because for obvious reason it is impossible to (re)read the whole thread.
As a new debater not having read the complete thread here I need to be careful, though.
I may interpret your contention in two ways:
2. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
3. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.
None of these are answered by your response above. When you refer to the "original" genome having MORE genes per trait, i assume you mean "then the current genomes of extant humans". In other words, you imply a loss of genes and genetic diversity in the human genome since Adam and Eve.
THAN, not "then." [THAN the current genomes of extant humans."] This is a HORRIBLE grammatical error people are making these days.
OK, yes, that is what I meant. I think the original genome could have had more genes per trait, meaning five or six where now there are three or four. Yes I believe there has been a great loss of genes and genetic diversithy in human AND ANIMAL genomes since Adam and Eve, but more since the huge bottleneck of the Flood that wiped out most living creatures, which I suggest is most likely the source of junk DNA. And more genes per trait is one way the earlier genome was probably fuller than it is now.
This is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence.
It's a reasoned guess that fits the biblical facts and also observations about both mutations and the loss of genetic diversity in evolutionary processes.
Without any evidence, you might as well contend the exact opposite.
The exact opposite wouldn't fit either the observed facts or the biblical facts.
Now, WHERE can I find the evidence for that?
And you will not find this answer by explaining how skin colour in extant humans (of whom we know the genome) is related to 4 genes.
We do not have the gene sequence of Adam and Eve.
But we DO have the gene sequence of Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Denisovia and Homo Heidelbergensis. And the genome sequence of many specimens of archaic Homo sapiens as well.
Or we may retrieve information from DNA of old human remains and compare them to modern human DNA. Or just look for genetic evidence in the extant human genome by smart comparison.
It's all there.
Since you are bound to get the dates wrong there's really little point in arguing as you suggest above. And forget mitochondrial DNA if that's part of your argument.
The only thing I ask is to provide empirical evidence for your claim.
In science we say "A lack of evidence does not need firther evidence".
It speaks for itself.
So do your homework.
I'm sorry, you are not my professor.
SOON I will explain that AS FAR AS loss in the genetic diversity is observed in the human genome, it is very well understood (near extinction events, migration patterns).
May I recommend that you cut to the chase and present your argument for this now, because I can tell I'm going to have very little patience with your basic approach and especially your attitude and indeed probably your whole interpretive system. Try it and see but I don't hold out much hope for this discussion. I was happy that you stuck to the terms in your first post about subpopulations since that's what I focus on. Too bad it's all gone downhill since then.
But FIRST the evidence for your claim please.
You've got all you're getting, my good reasoning. If you object then go argue with someone else.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:38 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 5:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 192 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 172 of 225 (757663)
05-11-2015 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Denisova
05-11-2015 7:01 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Could I ask you first of all why "genetic change" is needed when the genome is chock full of genes that can combine in an enormous number of ways to produce an enormous variety of traits?
I don't think I will go to explain the whole of biology and genetics to you. I don't think this suits the purpose of this forum here.
The question can't possibly require more than a brief answer. If you just want to drive me off this thread with your attitude, say so and I'll go or just ignore your posts.
The only relevant point I made here was your ERROR about reduced genetic variance. There is no reduced genetic variance.
Which you utterly failed to demonstrate in your last post although you declared victory.
Unfortunately, now it seems, you ALSO have no idea about OTHER parts of it as well but as I said we can't summarize 101 of all biology and genetics here. SURE ENOUGH I will come back to these points though.
Because the empirical evidence on all the separate mechanisms of evolution is abundant. I promise you hard times.
Your attitude alone is hard times enough. Get any harder and I just write you off.
So, if you don't mind, for the same reason I skip the next two elaborations as well and I will immediately jump to the relevant part, the reduced variance. First the PRINCIPLES right.
Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populations in reproductive isolation from each other.
Interbreeding between populations in reproductive isolation is an oxymoron.
As I already pointed out, I said INBREEDING.
True, the population as a whole hasn't lost genetic diversity, only the separate subpopulations. But these are where the development of new traits is occurring, i.e. where evolution is occurring, and where speciation is ultimately expected to occur, and although each subpopulation has LESS genetic diversity somehow evolutionists still expect it to be able to go on evolving.
Glad you recognize that there is no loss in genetic variation but dispersion and parcelling out in two isolated genomes. I should also have said: and every genome is now also specialized.
Because of this specialization, each distinct genome has less genetic variance.
Just to be clear, does "variance" mean "diversity?"
And that is no problem NOR A REQUIREMENT for evolution.
Sorry, I just proved that it is.
I predict that we are going to have lots of terminological difficulties.
It is a CONSEQUENCE. And I guarantee you that you will find not a single paper on evolution where this was claimed or even implied.
Oh I'm sure that even *I* could guarantee that much.
Evolution theory predicts a gain in genetic variance and so it happens.
Oh this is claimed all the time. Do you think you are informing me of something I didn't know? It absolutely cannot happen and I'm quite sure you will only use obfuscating terminology to make sure there's no way to understand your argument anyway. I hope I'm wrong.
the fact that this variance is parcelled out in different isolated genomes is exactly the central point of evolution: speciation.
Sounds like some kind of word magic coming up. You can't get REAL speciation from reduced genetic variance/diversity. I see such a miserable mess of verbal flimflam on the horizon I can't even say "go for it" any more.
'
Um, let's reconsider this. In order to GET your subpopulation's new traits / phenotypes, in order to get a new subspecies with the potential of speciation and loss of breeding with former populations, you HAD to lose the alleles/ genetic possibilities for the traits left behind in those other populations. You have a new subspecies with a new set of traits, but you ONLY get that by losing the genetic stuff for OTHER sets of traits. You have a GAIN in new traits along with a LOSS of genetic diversity. Your "consequence" of evolution in the loss of genetic diversity is indeed a requirement since you wouldn't get your new traits without it.
The GAIN in genetic variance HAS occurred.
Only by some kind of definitional word games could this possibly be true.
See above.
Oy.
I just read through the rest of your post which is something like having my brain removed piece by piece with scalpel and tweezers, so I'm going to try to answer that part separately.
Oy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 7:01 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2015 7:09 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 191 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 7:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024