Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,583 Year: 4,840/9,624 Month: 188/427 Week: 101/85 Day: 6/2 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4500
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 406 of 1034 (757772)
05-13-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Admin
05-13-2015 6:48 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Admin writes:
And you have been wrong a bazillion times. This is completely assbackwards. When you are getting new traits you are adding diversity.
Here you seem to be saying that new traits can only emerge from added diversity, but then you go on to say something more inclusive:
The processes of evolution absolutely do not require a reduction of diversity.
This seems to allow that new traits can also emerge from reduced diversity, so I'm not sure what your position is, and Faith may not be either.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. There are several different arguments going on here.
Comparing breeding with evolution can only be applied superficially and just to the selection process.
The only comparison is really artificial selection vs natural selection. The breeder selects the closest individuals to the target to mate in the next generation. Each mating is essentially a bottle neck. The primary way new traits emerge is from homozygous recessive matches. The characters that are controlled by multiple genes will be displayed distinctly to reflect homozygous dominant or heterozygous or homozygous recessive traits. There are only the 2 individuals so the number of possible new traits to be displayed in the offspring is relatively limited. Diversity is reduced and continues to be reduced each generation by the breeder. Any mutation that is displayed as a trait may be of interest to the breeder and may or may not be used in subsequent matings.
In a natural population, all of the individuals in a generation may have a chance to mate and pass on their genes plus any genes that were modified by mutation. There is no target, no ideal phenotype. Mutations that are not lethal may be passed on to subsequent generations and may possibly persist in the population for many generations. Diversity is added with each new generation through mutations and individual genes may or may not be passed to offspring depending on differential mating success and the random shuffling of genes that occurs at each mating. There is no gatekeeper allowing only certain individuals to mate. Small founder populations will have an overall genome that is a subset of the whole population but speciation seldom occurs in a single generation, but rather over many generations during which there is gene flow between the populations that is gradually reduced. Most of these founder populations fail to be viable and go extinct. The reduction of diversity may be a contributing factor. Occasionally, a founder population persists long enough to be viable as its genome becomes more diverse.
Comparing breeding and artificial selection with evolution and natural selection is only useful for showing that characters can be selected to be traits in the next generation.
That is what Darwin was showing with his breeding experiments; that traits can be selected, but he did not know about the underlying mechanisms of genes or the rules that governed their combination and expression. His leap of inspiration was that natural selection and differential breeding success could make great changes in species over time.
Breeding and Evolution are equivalent only in that superficial way; during mating they involve the combination of genes and the expression of characters. That is all there is to breeding, but evolution includes increasing diversity through mutation, and genetic drift, gene flow and selection through differential breeding success of the whole population over multiple generations.
What has been learned about genetics so far shows no evidence that genomes of individual organisms were ever frontloaded with multiple versions of each gene that have subsequently been lost. What the evidence does show is that diversity has increased in whole populations as genes are mutated to form new alleles.
ABE: Saying that there is a rule that evolution or speciation requires loss of diversity is incorrect and is not supported by reality. All we have to do is look at the millions of species that are alive on the planet right now to see that this rule is not true. Using this rule to make the claim that evolution is running down or that evolution will stop working is refuted by the reality of millions of species on the planet right now that continue to evolve in defiance of this rule
Edited by Tanypteryx, : added last paragraph
Edited by Tanypteryx, : grammer
Edited by Tanypteryx, : grammer

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 404 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 407 of 1034 (757774)
05-13-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Faith
05-13-2015 11:32 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Hi Faith,
The attribution was wrong, must have been thinking "Faith" while I was supposed to be typing "Tanypteryx", who replied in Message 406 and apparently wasn't confused by the mistake.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Faith, posted 05-13-2015 11:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 408 of 1034 (757776)
05-13-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Admin
05-13-2015 6:48 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Apparently breeding can result in speciation. At least there is one known instance, according to Wikipedia on Speciation:
New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[23]
============
Thought I'd be able to post today but my eyes are hurting, so I have to put it off again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 12:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 410 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 413 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2015 10:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 416 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 12:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 417 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 12:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 409 of 1034 (757780)
05-13-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
05-13-2015 12:08 PM


Re: genetic diversity
Faith writes:
Apparently breeding can result in speciation.
No one doubts this, especially given the necessarily multi-faceted definition of species. While breeding *can* result in speciation, it almost never does, even though each and every mating pair is specifically selected rather than the much more random selection of mating pairs in nature.
As Tanypteryx reminds us, and as Darwin made clear in Origins, domestic breeding provides a clear example of the power of selection. What it doesn't provide is an effective method of creating new species.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 05-13-2015 12:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 410 of 1034 (757785)
05-13-2015 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
05-13-2015 12:08 PM


Re: genetic diversity
Apparently breeding can result in speciation. At least there is one known instance ...
Interesting point. Now, looking at the great variety of domestic sheep ...
... would we really say that O. aries has less diversity than O. orientalis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 05-13-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2015 10:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 415 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 12:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 05-14-2015 2:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 411 of 1034 (757792)
05-14-2015 12:22 AM


Faith writes:
The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2015 2:43 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 05-14-2015 2:09 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 412 of 1034 (757793)
05-14-2015 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by NoNukes
05-14-2015 12:22 AM


[ Off-topic commentary hidden. --Admin ]
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2015 12:22 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 413 of 1034 (757796)
05-14-2015 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
05-13-2015 12:08 PM


response moved here
Hi Faith, hope you are feeling better. I've been in bed with a sever cold\flue\allergy (not sure which, but headaches and coughing, so I'm just catching up on these threads).
Apparently breeding can result in speciation. At least there is one known instance, according to Wikipedia on Speciation:
There are many instances of speciation known about, but that is not one of the traits that are normally considered desirable during breeding (because you may want\need to use hybridization).
I'm moving my comments from Message 204 on the If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from? thread here as they are more pertinent to this topic:
HI Faith,
I have to stop here in your voluminous post.
Yes, we both tend to get verbose. If you like we can break it up into multiple posts if length becomes a problem in covering the topics.
Selection certainly applies here as Darwin himself was doing the selecting, at times rather drastically isolating a trait of his choosing and breeding to enhance that trait until the bird was dominated by it to the exclusion of other characteristics. If there was some reason in nature for the development of the same trait you would see Natural Selection at work to the same end.
Agreed, but I would also note that the result of natural selection are individuals within a species that are adapted to survive and breed in their ecology, while human selection is for traits that appeal to humans, whether they have any survival or reproductive value, and for that reason a lot of domesticated breeds of pigeon, horses, sows, pigs, dogs and cats have traits that would be disadvantageous in the wild or even lethal without human medical interference. Different purpose → different effect.
His insight was that the selection process occurred naturally, where animals that survived and bred passed their genes (that enabled them to survive and be selected by mates for breeding) to the next generation.
Yes, this was his insight but he didn't have the knowledge that would tell him that the changes that occur through selection, natural or artificial, are limited by the fact that selection eliminates alleles in the process of developing new phenotypes. Eventually the new breed or type may be quite strikingly different from others of its kind but it will of necessity have much less genetic ability for any further evolution. ...
You've been told and shown and shown and told that this is not true, this belief of yours that no new alleles are produced. There are some examples in other replies to you.
Curiously I think Zatara had a good new example in Message 61:
Anyone who has raised identical twins has observed the dramatic effects of mutation in just one generation. Their twins may have started out with identical DNA, having come from the same zygote; however, in just nine months in utero the mutations have yielded differences noticeable to all but a casual observer.
Their DNA came from the same original single celled zygote, but during fetal development the process of cell division and duplication and selection for which aspects of their DNA is expressed becomes different as different mutations are incorporated into the development of the individual fetuses -- where did those differences come from if not mutation Faith?

Greenish warblers again

... When a trait is selected its genotype is also selected, and alleles for other expressions of the same trait are soon eliminated from the population of birds from which the trait is being bred. If the selection continues generation after generation a point may be reached where ONLY the alleles for the chosen trait are present, all others having been left behind in the original population. if this goes on long enough in nature it is easy enough to see how a subpopulation could develop inability to interbreed with other populations of the same Species, from sheer genetic mismatch ...
Curiously we can actually examine this claim in more detail with the Asian greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides):: different traits in each subpopulation, traits that govern plumage variations and mating and call song variations:
quote:
Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations. All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.
Note that it is hypothesized that the original parent population that these varietals all descended from was "once confined to the southern portion of their range" ... SO: if your hypothesis were true (that varietals only arise by the loss of alleles in the descendant populations) that they would KNOW that one population was the source of the others as it would still have ALL the alleles of ALL the varietals.
Sadly (for you), the genetic evidence tells us that no one population has more alleles than the others, to say nothing of combining all of them: there isn't one population that has all the alleles of all the variants.
Further note that none of the populations are completely isolated from the others, that there are small overlapping zones between them:
So there isn't complete genetic isolation and gene flow is possible from one end to the other. This gene flow is limited by the distance the individual birds will travel from where there were born to where they nest and mate and rear young during their lives, so gene flow from one end to the other could take several generations.
Now I would expect a corollary of your hypothesis (that divergence from a parent population results in loss of alleles) to be that when the populations converge in an overlap zone and interbreed that the alleles would be recombined in the hybrid zones and tend to restore the number of alleles from the original parent population in the hybrid population.
Your problem is that there are four such zones -- (1st) between viridanus and ludlowi, (2nd) between ludlowi and trochiloides, (3rd) between trochiloides and obscuratus and (4th) between obscuratus and plumbeitarsus. Which of these is your parent population with the more complete set of alleles?
Additionally, with gene flow from each of these hybrid zones to each neighboring varietal zone, we would expect (from your hypothesis) that the intermediate varietals would be hybrids between each of their end (hybrid) zones, ie that ludlowi would be a hybrid between the 1st and 2nd zones, that trochiloides would be a hybrid between the 2nd and 3rd zones, and that obscuratus would be a hybrid between the 3rd and 4th zones, and continuing this reasoning we should see trochiloides as a hybrid between ludlowi and obscuratus, that even if trochiloides was not the original parent population posited in your hypothesis that it should, via convergence of the populations, have characteristics more like this posited parent population that the other varietals.
That we do NOT see the hybridizing restoring the full allele distribution to one of these populations means one of two things:
  1. that the posited parent population with a full mix of alleles available is not as robust and able to survive and breed as the daughter populations each with less alleles than this (which doesn't fit with your hypothesis)... or
  2. that this posited parent population with a full mix of alleles never existed, and the varietals are due to mutations along the way as they spread out, variations that spread back and forth with gene flow without being combined into one master population that would have all the alleles.
Can you explain how this evidence does not invalidate your hypothesis?
Evolution with mutations and natural selection explains these population variations without the problems your hypothesis has.

Pelycodus again

Now I want you to look at the bottom line in this graph, below where it says P.ralstoni:
Under the "P" there is a thicker line, and this designates where more of the population is found, with the thinner lines to each side designating the variation in the population to each extreme right and left. You will note that these thicker lines stagger back and forth a fair bit as you go up in the diagram to younger populations.
If I draw a vertical line from the right end of the bottom population (below "P.ralstoni) ...
  1. as I ascend to younger populations where do the new traits to the right of this line come from?
  2. when I get to P.trigonodus the whole population is to the right of P.ralstoni: where do the traits of that population come from?
Remember that the overlaps from level to level, showing more than 50% of these populations have identical traits, is an indication that they represent the same species/clade breeding population changing over time and adapting to the ecology.
Next, If I draw a vertical line from the right end of P.trigonodus I can repeat my questions:
  1. as I ascend to younger populations where do the new traits to the right of this new line come from?
  2. when I get to the group just below "N.venticolis" that whole population is to the right of P.trigonodus: where do the traits of that population come from?
This latter group is now twice removed from the base population that we started with: how do you explain their traits with your hypothesis?
Further, if I now draw a vertical line from the left end of P.jarrovii down, then according to your hypothesis that alleles are lost, then ALL the alleles expressed in the base population to the left of this line are now apparently lost in this descendant population, but extending that line up we see traits similar to the original traits returning to the point where N.nunienus seems to recapture most the original traits.
Note that the traits involved here are size related traits (size of bones, teeth, body mass, etc), and other traits (coloration, vocalization, etc) are not included so that younger populations would still not appear like the base population even though they now share size related traits.
How can you explain this with your hypothesis? Can you explain how this evidence does not invalidate your hypothesis?
Note that if you posit that traits can become hidden and then re-expressed later when conditions suit (as you have posited hidden traits that become expressed, as I expect you to claim for traits to the right of my lines - and as you have claimed for the foxes - that this invalidates your claim that the traits are lost and thus results in a death spiral of lost traits).
Evolution with mutations and natural selection easily explains these population variations without the multiple contradiction problems your hypothesis has.

Foxes again

You say nothing about artificially induced mutations here, and there is absolutely no need for them. This change was possible because the genetic material for the chosen traits was already present in the fox genome and could be selected over several generations. This is how all breeds of animals were originally developed, by selection of the traits desired by the breeder, selection meaning basically reproductive isolation of the individuals with those traits. ...
Not quite correct Faith -- the ONLY trait selected was tameness, and this was done specifically to make the foxes easier to handle on the fox farms where they are raised for their desired black lush fur. That white spots developed is contrary to what the desired result was.
The reason is that tameness is related to adrenalin levels and adrenalin is a hormone that affects fetal development paths, including fur color, ear and tail characteristics. This is about mutations that occur during fetal development because of the different hormonal environment for the fetus. Mutations that affect the timing of development.

and Bacteria again

Bacteria don't function genetically or reproductively the way sexually reproducing animals do ...
Actually the point of bacteria is that cell division and multiplication during fetal development is the same process that bacteria use to reproduce. Thus bacteria developing new traits and fetal development changing to develop new traits (the fox fur, ears and tail traits) are the same process - adaptation to a different chemical environment with new mutations.

denial is not evidence

... and I refuse to accept such "evidence." But of course that's the best you can do to answer my obvious points, isn't it?
Curiously I think I (and others) have done more than answer your "obvious points" and raised (again) legitimate points that you have yet to answer. Sadly I expect your "answer" to be more denial rather than confronting the evidence.
There is a lot more evidence that supports evolution, evidence of mutation providing new alleles, evidence of selection and drift causing an accumulation of new traits in species over time.
There is no evidence that traits are only lost and never gained, but there is evidence of traits being gained.
Enjoy
Thought I'd be able to post today but my eyes are hurting, so I have to put it off again.
sad to hear, I have another friend with macular degeneration, it sucks.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..
Edited by RAZD, : sp

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 408 by Faith, posted 05-13-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Faith, posted 05-16-2015 1:44 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 05-16-2015 12:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 414 of 1034 (757797)
05-14-2015 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2015 6:48 PM


Re: genetic diversity
can I say "Baaa humbug" ???
One of the reasons that (I think) there is less speciation in domestic breeds versus wild variants is that breeders frequently cross-breed to (a) cure genetic diseases and (b) generate new variants, so they end up breeding for continued ability to interbreed between varieties.
Now if Faith's hypothesis were correct, it seems to me that a corollary would be that hybridizing between variations should be able to recover (or tend to recover) the original base genetics, ie you should be able to combine the genomes of O. aries to get O. orientalis ... and do it without losing traits ...
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 410 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 05-14-2015 2:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3295 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 415 of 1034 (757811)
05-14-2015 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2015 6:48 PM


Re: genetic diversity
Interesting point. Now, looking at the great variety of domestic sheep
would we really say that O. aries has less diversity than O. orientalis?
Let's go back to the very core of evolution theory.
Basically, evolution needs a gain in biodiversity otherwise it can't explain the emergence of, say, multicellular life out of unicellular life or the vast diversification in all kingdoms of life into the taxes we see today or for that matter in any past era of the natural history of the earth.
This gain in biodiversity evidently also implies an increase in genetic diversification. The mere fact that there may be examples of speciation accompanied by a decrease in genetic diversity does not detract anything from this basic understanding.
Breeding by humans is just application of evolutionary mechanisms: selection acting on genetic variation. The most important difference between breeding and nature is the type of selective criteria - in breeding it's things like the looks, hunting traits or meatiness, in nature it's survival and/or reproduction chances.
Now O. aries indeed has more genetic diversity than O. orientalis. The variety in phenotype in your picture tells the story.
And sheep indeed perfectly show how it works: first more genetic diversity emerges, reflecting the selective criteria.
Of course there's also genetic drift which occurs irrespective of any selective pressure. Genetic drift can conduce to speciation by allowing the accumulation of non-adaptive mutations that can facilitate population subdivision. Genetic drift may contribute to speciation, if after a genetic bottleneck the resulting small group does survive.
That being said, I refocus on adaptive processes.
What your picture of the variety in O. aries shows is that the elementary requirement of evolution theory has been met: genetic diversity has been added. When one of the breeds would continue to diverge genetically from the other breeds or from O. orientalis to the extent genetic isolation occurs, we have speciation.
Of course the definition of "species" is multi-layered. I suggest that we THEREFORE should confine ourselves to the definition of genetic isolation. I don't think excluding other aspects or criteria for speciation does not jeopardize or blur the essence of the debate.
"It's only all about sexual recombination of existing traits since Adam and Eve"
Now here starts one of the major disagreements with Faith. She says that there is NO genetic INNOVATION occurring in sheep in the first place. Faith contends it's only all about reshuffling existing alleles through sexual recombination (thus basically Mendelian genetics) that were present from the very beginning (Adam and Eve). So, you can show her all kinds of pictures of sheep breeds - she just won't be much impressed.
Now to my opinion her flaws here are:
  • if you count the maximum number of alleles possible in Adam and Eve per gene, it would be 4. In that case, without any genetic innovation - and that's exactly Faith's position - there also would be no more than 4 alleles per genes maximally present in Noah's crew. And, as no genetic innovation is allowed in her scenario, today we would stuck with a maximum of 4 alleles per gene as well. But there is a bunch of genes in the current human genome having far more than 4 alleles.
  • So, plain observation learns that alleles must have been added since the days of Adam and Eve. The mere fact that some traits are related to more than one gene does not change anything to this simple observation.
  • In sexual recombination nothing not a single allele is altered. Alleles in sexual combination do not blend but are sorted out intact. In Faith's scenario the increase from 4 alleles per gene (Adam and Eve) up to 59 ones per some genes in the extant human genome cannot be explained in Faith's scenario.
  • I tried to investigate the possibility of those added alleles to emerge from junk DNA. But that's only possible when the DNA sequence of the pseudogenes is altered. Again that would imply mutations but that again is excluded from Faith's equations.
  • Faith says that mutations are only neutral or deleterious causing the initial genetic diversity to shrink to its current 5%. Which is an incorrect figure but even when it differs, there is still junk DNA and the exact figure needs not to be discussed here to discuss the principle points. Her contention implies that most of the genes and or alleles form the initial genome mus have been rendered into pseudogenes.
  • First of all, LESS genetic diversity is not what we observe as the number of alleles increased in many genes as indicated above. What we actually need is a gain in genetic diversity. But Faith is proclaiming an - enormous - LOSS instead.
  • When such a major parts of the genes and alleles had been lost and turned into junk DNA, I was wondering what all the traits were those genes were coding for.
  • Any claim needs to be backed up by empirical evidence. I offered some solutions to provide such evidence, like the genome sequences of ancient hominids that are known (H. Denisova, H. Neanderthalis, H. sapiens, H. Heidelbergensis). Those provide some means to compare among each other as well as with the extant human genome. Such comparisons have been performed, by Pbo and others. Until Faith does not come up with empirical evidence, to me only this counts: a lack of empirical evidence does not need evidence.
  • The impossibility for genetic mutations to produce genetic change that brings more fitness, is directly demonstrated by me by Lenski's E. coli experiment. As I understood, more examples are provided by others here. In other words: genetic innovation is proved in the lab. That also does not need further evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Faith, posted 05-14-2015 3:55 PM Denisova has replied
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 05-14-2015 4:22 PM Denisova has not replied
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 05-14-2015 7:44 PM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3295 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 416 of 1034 (757813)
05-14-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
05-13-2015 12:08 PM


Replaced from other thread to here
The snark was because you didn't answer the reasonable questions and produced some 101 genetic information not asked for.
And yet, you STILL didn't answer the main questions.
THAN, not "then." [THAN the current genomes of extant humans."] This is a HORRIBLE grammatical error people are making these days.
Why this snark?
You are not my language teacher.
BTW. it is "diversity" and not "diversithy".
People are making a lot of awful spelling errors these days indeed.
Moreover, English is not my native language so now and then I will make some mistake. Get used to it.
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.
Very well then, so may I have the empirical evidence for it?
Where in the scientific literature can we find evidence for the claim that the original genomes had more genetic diversity than today?
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.
The bible does not comply to any criterion of scientific methodology and epistemology. You might as well had referred to the Rig Veda or any other random Bronze age mythology book. I asked you for empirical evidence. That is, observational evidence. We are on a scientific forum here.
Neither did I ask for your reasonable guesses but for observational, empirical evidence. Even reasonable guesses are just assertions.
So, that leaves only this part of your contention intact:
....and also observations about both mutations and the loss of genetic diversity in evolutionary processes.
Yes, that's exactly what I asked for.
Now, where may we find those observations in the genetic literature?
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.
Dates??????
WHERE did I mention dates??????
I neatly pointed you out to the all kinds of ancient genetic information we have in hominid specimens as possible sources for your evidence.
We are not discussing dating but your claim that genomes have lost genetic diversity. Stay tuned please.
And I didn't meant "do your homework" to denigrate you, I just asked "do your homework", which, as a non-native speaker of English, I thought it is also to be understood just as a saying "May I recommend that you cut to the chase and present your argument for this now" (which were YOUR words).
So, let's use your wording if that feels better: "May I recommend that you cut to the chase and present your evidence now"?
You've got all you're getting, my good reasoning. If you object then go argue with someone else.
I DO object your reasoning when I consider it to be incorrect, that's part of normal debating. In this case it makes no sense to start a new discussion line when the initial points are not resolved. It makes no sense to start to discuss causes of loss in genetic diversity when we do not even agree on WHETHER it occurred and HOW precisely.
AND I was not only asking for good reasoning but also for empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 05-13-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 05-18-2015 8:09 PM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3295 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 417 of 1034 (757814)
05-14-2015 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
05-13-2015 12:08 PM


Replaced from other thread to 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.
Now let me clarify.
The *topic* here was your claim that evolution theory requires a gain in genetic diversity and that subpopulations split into new species have less genetic diversity.
I answered this is a misinterpretation of evolution theory, which obliges me to shortly explain it.
Then you started to discuss the WHOLE of evolution theory in all its aspects. But the topic here is not the validity of evolution theory. The topic here is your claim. EVEN when you later manage to prove evolution theory to be incorrect on all those OTHER aspects, STILL you have to represent its contentions CORRECTLY in debate.
So it makes no sense to discuss the whole of evolution theory when ONLY your representation on genetic diversity is subject of this debate.
Otherwise the debate hives off in 100 directions and mostly this ends up in nothing.
That's all and that's why I wrote "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".
Which you utterly failed to demonstrate in your last post although you declared victory.
Well indeed it's the subject here!
what's wrong to emphasize one's assessment?
Just to be clear, does "variance" mean "diversity?"
Well I try to avoid repetitive use of the same words in the same sentence or paragraph. So yes they are used as synonyms here.
Sorry, I just proved that it is.
Not that I know.
I am still awaiting your response on the points I made:
1. there is no overall loss in genetic diversity, it's only parcelled out in two isolated genomes - the evolutionary requirement for initial gain in genetic diversity is met.
2. the fact that after the split into two genetically isolated genomes, both of those sub-genomes take away only a subset of the original, total genome DOES NOT detract ANYTHING of the simple fact that there was an initial gain in genetic diversity BEFORE the split, which is what evolution theory ACTUALLY requires.
3. evolution theory DOES NOT require each of the subset genomes AFTER the split to retain all the initial genetic diversity at the moment of the split. As a matter of fact, evolution theory predicts those two sub-genomes to be SPECIALISED due to different environmental conditions. And specialization implies the reinforcement of some traits, mostly at the expense of other ones. If you think otherwise, show me the papers by evolutionists who say so. So your rendition of evolution theory on this is flawed.
5. In other words, the evolutionary requirement for a gain in genetic diversity has been met. A POSSIBLE loss of genetic diversity in any of the sub-genomes AFTER the split is NOT an evolutionary requirement. MORE THAN THAT, it is the thing for evolution theory TO EXPLAIN ("speciation", which is a split into two genetically isolated sub-genomes). Hence, it is the CONSEQUENCE of the evolutionary processes as conceived. And you CAN'T take the consequence of a process as its own requirement.
The OBJECT of evolution theory is to explain speciation. When speciation occurs, there MUST be an initial gain in genetic diversity. >>>This requirement has been met<<<. There also MIGHT be a SUBSEQUENT loss in genetic diversity in any of the diverted sub-genomes AFTER THE SPLIT but that's a CONSEQUENCE of and the THING TO BE EXPLAINED by evolution theory.
I hope you acknowledge that you cannot take THE THING TO BE EXPLAINED as a REQUIREMENT for a scientific theory. That would be circular reasoning.
6. MOREOVER, I EVEN hardly doubt any of the resulting sub-genomes after the split ACTUALLY to have smaller genetic diversity than the original overall genome before the split, as I tried to explain in the elaborated example in my post #163.
None of these points but #1. were addressed by you.
Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 05-13-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-18-2015 8:41 PM Denisova has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 418 of 1034 (757829)
05-14-2015 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2015 6:48 PM


Re: genetic diversity
... would we really say that O. aries has less diversity than O. orientalis?
Which is a misrepresentation of my argument again.
I usually start back at the Flood to point out that there had to be enormous genetic diversity in the few representatives of each species on the ark to explain how such a great variety of subspecies of each representative emerged since then.
The explanation for the many different kinds of domestic sheep is just that: there was enough genetic diversity in the original subpopulation of domestic sheep to allow the development of all the different breeds.
Nevertheless none of those breeds or subspecies could have developed unless it developed in reproductive isolation from the rest of the sheep, and developed out of the new gene frequencies, which usually involves a loss of some alleles, or the loss of genetic diversity in its collective genome. Not always, depends mostly on how many individuals form the new population.
Because, again, my argument is that you only get new breeds or phenotypes by losing the genetic material for other breeds and phenotypes. I'd be SO happy if you actually GOT the argument and had a really GOOD objection to it instead of these typical straw man objections.
Even now in any of the separate breeds of domestic sheep there may still be quite a bit of genetic diversity, enough for further population splits developing their own new phenotypes. The process I'm trying to keep up front is a TREND, a population doesn't usually reach absolute genetic depletion from any given diversification, it depends on how much genetic diversity it started out with, but if the trend continues through many more population splits it could reach that point of complete genetic depletion.
PLEASE address my actual argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 3:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 429 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2015 9:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 419 of 1034 (757832)
05-14-2015 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by NoNukes
05-14-2015 12:22 AM


Faith writes:
The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses.
You like my colorful description of junk DNA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2015 12:22 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 420 of 1034 (757837)
05-14-2015 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by RAZD
05-14-2015 10:28 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Hello RAZD,
I'm skipping over your long post again but just temporarily. My eyes are still in bad shape after three days and I may yet have to take more time off. My own fault I'm sure, pushed the envelope too far as they say. It's hard to read through sunglasses but at least the pain is gone for now. Sorry you've been sick. Do you do vegetable juices?
can I say "Baaa humbug" ???
One of the reasons that (I think) there is less speciation in domestic breeds versus wild variants is that breeders frequently cross-breed to (a) cure genetic diseases and (b) generate new variants, so they end up breeding for continued ability to interbreed between varieties.
Yes, but this is a fairly new trend, not sure if it holds up for the earlier methods.
Now if Faith's hypothesis were correct, it seems to me that a corollary would be that hybridizing between variations should be able to recover (or tend to recover) the original base genetics, ie you should be able to combine the genomes of O. aries to get O. orientalis ... and do it without losing traits ...
I think that would depend on how far the processes of evolution have gone, because after a time of inbreeding of a new subpopulation its genome would have changed, developing its own gene frequencies, losing alleles that don't get passed on, increasing others and so on, so that even if hybridization is still possible it probably won't recover the original genetic situation exactly. But quite a bit should be recovered nevertheless. If not, it will develop a new breed anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2015 10:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by jar, posted 05-14-2015 2:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024