Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 886 of 1034 (759523)
06-12-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 854 by RAZD
06-11-2015 11:11 AM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
If you put a hundred human beings on an isolated island where they have children and grandchildren for a couple hundred years, when you revisit them they will have acquired a look that is completely their own, and that will be based completely on the particular set of alleles shared among them, that excludes who knows how many alleles they left behind them in the human population at large. They have created their own race or subpopulation from limited genetic diversity. That HAS to happen when a population is started from a smallish group.
That is in effect what has happened with the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa and spreading in small bands to eventually cover the earth.
Yes, which is what I've said in earlier posts.
Polynesians in particular would fit that model. North American natives meeting European explorers are like the closing of a ring species, from different groups spreading around the world.
Interesting thought to ponder.
The changes in the different populations appears to be more a result of genetic drift than selection, as it would seem that eye color and shape have little to do with survival or reproduction (other than some element of sexual selection), and skin color seems to be mildly selected by latitude and UV\vitamin D effects (it doesn't prevent people of different skin color from living anywhere).
Well, I'd go with genetic drift except I keep finding out there seems to be some way I'm not getting genetic drift. I can't make sense out of the definition "random sampling." The best I can do with it is random selection which implies a random change in the look of a population over time in the direction of a homogeneous subpopulation within the population. Best I can do with the concept. But if it's anywhere in the ballpark then it's one of those "subtractive" processes like a population split that I keep saying can eventually form new races or subspecies and does so by losing alleles for traits other than those that are coming to characterize the new subpopulation.
So I'd agree that the changes aren't due to any selection pressure on the traits themselves, but due to a random favoring of some traits. But I think you are overlooking the fact that the initial dividing into small bands as they spread out in itself will bring about new allele frequencies that would already affect the look of the band over time with or without additional genetic drift.
Certainly Europeans and native Americans were reproductively isolated for many generations, evolving unique traits, but also demonstrating that reproductive isolation does not necessarily result in genetic isolation without some selective pressure to change.
How is that selective pressure "demonstrated" as you claim it is though? I don't see any need for selective pressure at all. Why wouldn't the new allele frequencies created by the initial formation of the band of migrants be enough to explain it?
Darwin's Galapagos tortoises got their own look simply by starting from a limited number of individuals that were isolated from the mainland population and working through the particular set of alleles they happened to possess for whatever number of generations they had been on Galapagos. This is really how evolution proceeds, it ALWAYS involves the loss of alleles as a specific set of allleles becomes the basis for a new population.
And even on different islands: each island has a different species of tortoise, adapted to the different ecologies.
Yes, like the finches' beaks are adapted to the foods they eat, like that large-headed lizard has adapted to a particular food its stronger jaws can handle, and so on. But the question I keep raising is how you know the creature genetically changed to adapt to the environment when striking changes can occur simply from the new allele frequencies caused by an isolated small population? In that case the creature would simply find the appropriate food or other accommodation in the environment and adapt simply by using the characteristic it already has for the task it's best suited for. One thing that makes me think this is that even on different islands the environments aren't different enough to force a genetic change. Some change over generations probably as the subspecies continues to prefer its food or other qualities of its niche, but all toward elaborating the main characteristic that was already brought out by the new alleles frequencies due only to the population split.
No, you do NOT have limitless combinations in a reproductively isolated circumscribed population, you have only the genetic material possessed by the individuals in that population. Every race or tribe of humanity developed its racial characteristics from a limited collection of genetic materials. Every subspecies of animals did too.
But there are still opportunities for mutations to provide a survival or reproductive benefit in any one habitat\ecology, and selection would favor those in each habitat\ecology, thus providing new genetic materials for every species, subspecies, variety etc. Not limitless, agreed, but not limited either.
In most cases there would already be enough variability for a great range of changes and adaptations in any of the small populations we've been talking about. Mutation is hardly ever needed for adaptations. And again I go back to the situations where a handy mutation or set of mutations would save a genetically endangered species like the cheetah and it simply doesn't happen, and yet this idea that mutation is the source of new genetic material to widen a creature's range of possibilities is always included in these scenarios, clung to as if it were reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2015 11:11 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2015 3:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 889 by Admin, posted 06-12-2015 4:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 946 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2015 9:08 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 887 of 1034 (759524)
06-12-2015 2:28 PM


oy
This thread is already about to drown me and here I just get started trying to catch up and already have more posts to answer.
Have mercy!
I'm going to try to resist answering the new ones until I get through the old ones but my eyes are already hurting from what I've done this morning so I'm going to have to come back later.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 888 of 1034 (759526)
06-12-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by Faith
06-12-2015 2:22 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
And again I go back to the situations where a handy mutation or set of mutations would save a genetically endangered species like the cheetah and it simply doesn't happen, and yet this idea that mutation is the source of new genetic material to widen a creature's range of possibilities is always included in these scenarios, clung to as if it were reality.
Mutations are not "handy". Beneficial mutations are both rare and random. Often they reside in the current population but are neutral because of current environmental conditions. That's why they are insufficient to save the cheetah from a relatively modern bottleneck. On the other hand, the evolution of modern humans from a chimpanzee like ancestor took millions of years. Over those time frames we might see something a lot different.
Secondly caused the bottleneck removed a lot of genetic diversity including any pre-existing, potentially useful traits from the cheetah. It might well be that some of the cheetahs that were lost did not suffer from some of the issues plaguing the modern cheetah. That problem would not exist in the case of a mutation being spread through a large viable and healthy population of animals.
You would instead have us believe that the catastrophe that caused the cheetah bottleneck also made them fast. That's a pretty laughable theory, and there is simply no reason to believe that such a thing is even possible.
Of course these explanation are so obvious I have to wonder why you did not anticipate it yourself and address it first. In any event, the theory of evolution easily addresses those facts you find confounding.
I don't see any need for selective pressure at all.
I'm sorry, but I find comments like this beyond lame and idiotic. First of all, the issue of whether or not natural selection does occur is completely off the table. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that. And, secondly, nature does not have needs, not being a person with emotions and hungers.
A five year old would understand enough about selective pressure after watching 'Lion King' a couple of times. The slowest, hardest of hearing, bad reflexes gazelles get eaten. Other animals have different strategies that keeps the lion from eating them Whether or not you like an ecology that works that way is pointless. Selective pressure is the way life is out of doors.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by Faith, posted 06-12-2015 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 893 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 1:31 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 889 of 1034 (759527)
06-12-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by Faith
06-12-2015 2:22 PM


Moderator Clarification Request
Faith writes:
How is that selective pressure "demonstrated" as you claim it is though? I don't see any need for selective pressure at all. Why wouldn't the new allele frequencies created by the initial formation of the band of migrants be enough to explain it?
This is another of your contradictory positions that I think puzzles many people. You use breeding, the epitome of selective pressures, as an example of how evolution really works, then deny that selective pressures play much of a role in evolution. Could you resolve this apparent contradiction please?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by Faith, posted 06-12-2015 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 891 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 12:29 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 890 of 1034 (759529)
06-12-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by NoNukes
06-12-2015 2:19 PM


Re: Moderator Clarification Request: speciation, mutations
NoNukes writes:
A new species can form from an existing species, but only once, and once that speciation event occurs there can be no further speciation events for either the new species or the original species.
I don't see a claim from Faith about the original species.
Yes, you're right, not explicitly, but once you start generalizing what she said (e.g., a population splits into two subpopulations that each have only a subset of the alleles of the original population, etc.) then there's no way to know which is the "original" species. I kept my statement simple and inclusive of the implications of Faith's original statement.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2015 2:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 12:55 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 891 of 1034 (759543)
06-13-2015 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 889 by Admin
06-12-2015 4:22 PM


Re: Moderator Clarification Request
This is another of your contradictory positions that I think puzzles many people. You use breeding, the epitome of selective pressures, as an example of how evolution really works, then deny that selective pressures play much of a role in evolution. Could you resolve this apparent contradiction please?
I'm not comparing breeding and microevolution in the wild on the basis of selection, but rather on the basis of the effect of a population split. There may or may not be selection involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by Admin, posted 06-12-2015 4:22 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2015 3:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 892 of 1034 (759546)
06-13-2015 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 890 by Admin
06-12-2015 4:29 PM


Re: Moderator Clarification Request: speciation, mutations
A new species can form from an existing species, but only once, and once that speciation event occurs there can be no further speciation events for either the new species or the original species.
I'm answering a recent post even though I said I intended to resist it, and apparently this comment from you should have been answered before this one.
I've never said there could be no further events for the original species. The only reason variation or microevolution stops for a smaller population is running out of genetic diversity/variability but that wouldn't be the case in a very large population. I haven't discussed it at any length as I recall but I know I've mentioned it in passing and always have it in mind that if the original population is large enough there could be many lines of microevolution of daughter populations from it. The only reason the evolution stops for a smaller population is running out of genetic diversity/variability but that wouldn't be the case in a very large population.
In fact I suppose most of the domesticated animals started from a large wild pool from which smaller populations were taken and domesticated. Herd animals for instance. There are over 800 breeds of cattle from the original cattle herd, which all represent the daughter populations I'm talking about, that would have changed over time in domestication in reproductive insolation to varying degrees due to their new allele frequencies. Some would change randomly but others would have been bred or selected: The process is the same: isolation of a small gene pool.
I don't see a claim from Faith about the original species.
Yes, you're right, not explicitly, but once you start generalizing what she said (e.g., a population splits into two subpopulations that each have only a subset of the alleles of the original population, etc.) then there's no way to know which is the "original" species. I kept my statement simple and inclusive of the implications of Faith's original statement.
Population splits come in many sizes. If they start from a very large population many splits are possible, and any of the splits could form a population as large as half the size of the original, so you'd have two populations of the same size and both populations would then change due to new allele frequencies. The allele frequencies won't change much if at all in very large populations when a small number splits off, but will change even in two equal populations since there's no reason to think the alleles would have been evenly distributed in the original larger population. But the effect shows up clearest, or at least fastest, in a small daughter population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by Admin, posted 06-12-2015 4:29 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 893 of 1034 (759548)
06-13-2015 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by NoNukes
06-12-2015 3:46 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
And again I go back to the situations where a handy mutation or set of mutations would save a genetically endangered species like the cheetah and it simply doesn't happen, and yet this idea that mutation is the source of new genetic material to widen a creature's range of possibilities is always included in these scenarios, clung to as if it were reality.
Mutations are not "handy". Beneficial mutations are both rare and random. Often they reside in the current population but are neutral because of current environmental conditions. That's why they are insufficient to save the cheetah from a relatively modern bottleneck. On the other hand, the evolution of modern humans from a chimpanzee like ancestor took millions of years. Over those time frames we might see something a lot different.
The problem I'm responding to is the often-stated idea that mutations are the cause of adaptations. In the case of the large-headed lizard of the Croatian island it had had only thirty years to evolve that large head, having been planted on that island by human beings that many years earlier. Another example was given on that same thread I believe of the rapid evolution of four different populations of Jutland sheep from one original population in a very short period of time. Millions of years are not needed and there is every reason to believe the whole scenario is a delusion, including the reason that I'm giving: that the processes of evolution do eventually lead to genetic depletion. In a lot less than millions of years, though we can perhaps hope yet for a few more thousand.
Secondly caused the bottleneck removed a lot of genetic diversity including any pre-existing, potentially useful traits from the cheetah. It might well be that some of the cheetahs that were lost did not suffer from some of the issues plaguing the modern cheetah. That problem would not exist in the case of a mutation being spread through a large viable and healthy population of animals.
If such mutations ever do exist.
You would instead have us believe that the catastrophe that caused the cheetah bottleneck also made them fast. That's a pretty laughable theory, and there is simply no reason to believe that such a thing is even possible.
Not at all. The cheetah is merely an extreme example of my entire argument, which is that microevolution, the formation of new phenotypes, starts from a new set of allele frequencies that, in a relatively small daughter population, is a reduction in genetic diversity or variability from the previous populations. In fact you are likely to get the most dramatic new phenotypes from the smallest subpopulations and a bottleneck is one of the smallest. You all underestimate how radically a change in allele frequencies affects the character of a breeding population, although if you took the example of domestic breeding more seriously you might get a clue. There's no reason such a drastic bottleneck shouldn't have created the cheetah from the subset of alleles that remained to it from the previous population.
Of course these explanation are so obvious I have to wonder why you did not anticipate it yourself and address it first. In any event, the theory of evolution easily addresses those facts you find confounding.
I don't find them confounding at all. The ToE fails to address any of it adequately.
I don't see any need for selective pressure at all.
I'm sorry, but I find comments like this beyond lame and idiotic. First of all, the issue of whether or not natural selection does occur is completely off the table. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that. And, secondly, nature does not have needs, not being a person with emotions and hungers.
One can't speak of a given outcome's "needing" a particular precondition? Funny, I would have thought there was plenty of room in the English language for such statements.
Wasn't I talking about a particular situation in which RAZD had just said he didn't see selection pressure operating in that case? I think it was about the racial characteristics of northern Europeans? I agreed with him and then gave my scenario to explain it.
In general, although I believe selection does operate in some cases, showing how it isn't needed to form new phenotypes or bring about adaptations is a major point of my argument.
A five year old would understand enough about selective pressure after watching 'Lion King' a couple of times. The slowest, hardest of hearing, bad reflexes gazelles get eaten.
They get eaten in my scenario too, but that doesn't make their getting eaten the cause of the herd's adaptation to its niche.
Other animals have different strategies that keeps the lion from eating them Whether or not you like an ecology that works that way is pointless. Selective pressure is the way life is out of doors.
Uh huh, so I've heard for the last sixty or so years. And surely there is SOME effect I suppose, but I'm sticking to my argument that the MAIN cause of microevolution is usually-random population splits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2015 3:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 901 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2015 7:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 902 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2015 7:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 894 of 1034 (759549)
06-13-2015 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by NoNukes
06-12-2015 2:16 PM


Re: Moderator Clarification Request: speciation, mutations
My argument is that the new species thus formed can't be the basis for further evolution because it lacks sufficient genetic diversity.
And your reason why new diversity cannot be added to the newly formed species is what exactly?
Repeating it a few dozen times doesn't do it, eh, just rolls off your hard head?
Tell us in quantitative or qualitative terms how much diversity a population must have and then how much must be lost via speciation so that we can see that the final diversity is insufficient. And then explain why new mutations cannot overcome the problem. Provide arguments/evidence and not just assertions.
It has nothing to do with quantity, it has nothing to do with "how much" diversity. It's all in the fact that when a smallish daughter population is actively evolving, that is, acquiring new phenotypes due to the new allele frequencies brought about by a population split, it loses genetic diversity in the split. And it MUST lose genetic diversity to bring out a new subspecies from the new phenotypes. That's what I'm saying microevolution IS, It REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity to produce the new subspecies or species.
SO, if you get an increase in genetic diversity at any point by any means, whether the reintegration of formerly isolated populations, resumed gene flow, or mutation, the evolutionary processes, meaning the "subtractive" or "selective" processes I'm talking about, are slowed down or stop altogether. You may get a whole new collection of interesting phenotypes but scattered in the population, not forming a collective look toward a new subspecies. That takes removing alleles so the new traits can emerge as a coherent set of group characteristics.
Increase in diversity of any amount impedes (micro)evolution; (micro) evolution REQUIRES the culling of genetic diversity,like pruning a hedge to give it a shape. The mutations themselves may be part of the new shape, they don't necessarily get lost; what gets lost is whatever genetic stuff isn't part of the new shape.
Because without that, what you are calling argument is mere assertion and thus cannot be said to demonstrate anything other than your belief.
And then perhaps this thread can given a mercy killing.
Sorry to tell you this, NN, but the problem with just about all your posts is that you don't get my argument at all, keep answering bizarre straw man arguments of your own invention, and yet have enormous confidence in your own errors.
I doubt that mutations contribute much in the way of functioning alleles, but IF THEY DO, which is the concession I always try to make here, then they are NOT "any less able to cause significant phenotypic change than new allele combinations of existing alleles" -- the effect should be the same.
I'll be using this admission to check your work.
Without Getting It as usua. Sigh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2015 2:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2015 3:01 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 895 of 1034 (759554)
06-13-2015 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 894 by Faith
06-13-2015 1:54 AM


Where is your argument...
Apparently what you posted was some kind of response.
It has nothing to do with quantity, it has nothing to do with "how much" diversity. It's all in the fact that when a smallish daughter population is actively evolving, that is, acquiring new phenotypes due to the new allele frequencies brought about by a population split, it loses genetic diversity in the split.
And after the active evolving stops, what then happens as diversity is gained?
In fact,your entire statement is idiotic. Genetic diversity is lost. Genetic diversity is gained. You cannot explain why the diversity that is gained will not allow speciation even after admitting that the gained diversity is exactly the same as diversity from different combinations of existing alleles, which is the diversity lost via isolation.
In fact there is no explanation. Your argument is a sham.
Without Getting It as usua. Sigh.
There is nothing to get. You are spouting nonsense.
Faith writes:
SO, if you get an increase in genetic diversity at any point by any means, whether the reintegration of formerly isolated populations, resumed gene flow, or mutation, the evolutionary processes, meaning the "subtractive" or "selective" processes I'm talking about, are slowed down or stop altogether. You may get a whole new collection of interesting phenotypes but scattered in the population, not forming a collective look toward a new subspecies. That takes removing alleles so the new traits can emerge as a coherent set of group characteristics.
I provided you with an opportunity to explain yourself. What I get is nothing but a repeat of your assertions all of which are ridiculous on their face. Why would the selective processes necessarily slow down regardless of the source of diversity? Selection is an external force that works on phenotypes. Gazelles don't all of a sudden get slower just because the cheetah is evolving or because the cheetah has finished evolving.
coherent set of group characteristics.
There is no requirement that such a thing be obtained during speciation. If such a thing gets interrupted during evolution, so what?
And as you've indicated there is no difference between the loss of genetic diversity and the gain from mutations. Yet you would have us believe that variety gained cannot enable speciation. You have no explanation other than repeating over and over without actually doing any explaining.
Dogs have evolved from wolves through microevolution. Do dogs now lack diversity in a way that makes it impossible to make new breeds? Do we now have to breed in wolves to make a new breed? Of course not.
Repeating it a few dozen times doesn't do it, eh, just rolls off your hard head?
Apparently the kid gloves are off here.
No, Faith. Repeating assertions is not helpful. I want your explanation. Do you have something reasonable? Something that is not instantly revealed as an assertion that you cannot demonstrate?
I didn't think so.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 1:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 3:12 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 896 of 1034 (759557)
06-13-2015 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 895 by NoNukes
06-13-2015 3:01 AM


Re: Where is your argument...
Ah well, you can't get blood out of a turnip or sense out of a diehard evolutionist.
But I'll make the usual futile attempt again probably tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2015 3:01 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2015 3:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 897 of 1034 (759559)
06-13-2015 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by Faith
06-13-2015 3:12 AM


Re: Where is your argument...
You cannot get any sense out of a zealot. It is my own insanity that causes me to try.
I will be happy to read your response tomorrow. It ought to be clear where you are failing to make your point. Why not try explaining those issues rather than just calling others stupid. Or do both! But the explanation is what is lacking.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 3:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 898 of 1034 (759560)
06-13-2015 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 891 by Faith
06-13-2015 12:29 AM


Re: Moderator Clarification Request
quote:
I'm not comparing breeding and microevolution in the wild on the basis of selection, but rather on the basis of the effect of a population split. There may or may not be selection involved.
Then it seems that you are attributing too much to the population split and not enough to selection. Breeders do not take a random pair and simply let their descendants breed randomly. Selection is a vital part of the process from the very start. While you may see some recessive traits come out without selection it should be slower, less likely to show the degree of difference seen in artificially bred populations and less certain.
Also we note that, excepting the more extreme differences of size, to the best of my knowledge, reproductive isolation must still be artificially maintained in every domestic breed of animal. If even the extreme case of artificial selection does not produce populations unable to interbreed how can we be sure that it will happen in nature without some other factor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 12:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
mikechell
Inactive Member


Message 899 of 1034 (759568)
06-13-2015 9:17 AM


might be off topic, but I have a question for Faith
If the stories of the bible are true, as they all have to be in order to believe any of them ...
How did all the species of flora and fauna on the planet today make it through the flood? Was Noah's ark some kind of "Dr. Who tardis?
Was EVERY single breed of insect, mammal, reptile and bird somehow housed on one boat?
Was the flood created with fresh water, or salt water and how did the fish which live in the "other kind" live through the flood?
Even within the stories of the bible, evolution MUST be fact. All the fauna on the planet today must have branched out from those that survived your flood by sanctuary on the boat. All the flora must have evolved from ... an olive tree?
You keep saying that evolution cannot take place ... so how, then, can the bible be true?

evidence over faith ... observation over theory

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by Faith, posted 06-13-2015 10:19 AM mikechell has not replied
 Message 912 by Admin, posted 06-14-2015 8:40 AM mikechell has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 900 of 1034 (759578)
06-13-2015 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 899 by mikechell
06-13-2015 9:17 AM


Re: might be off topic, but I have a question for Faith
That really is off topic and it's been discussed on many threads here already, but I'll give a brief answer:
If the stories of the bible are true, as they all have to be in order to believe any of them ...
That's very true, thank you. It's frustrating and disappointing to find so many Christians, if they really are Christians, denying parts of the Bible that don't square with their opinions. If it's God's word you'd think it's, well, God's word, but only part of it according to some,.
How did all the species of flora and fauna on the planet today make it through the flood? Was Noah's ark some kind of "Dr. Who tardis?
Was EVERY single breed of insect, mammal, reptile and bird somehow housed on one boat?
No, probably not all living things, though mammals, reptiles and birds would have been on the ark. Many others no doubt survived in other ways, as, for instance, what was left of sea life had to survive in the oceans. Otherwise,all the subspecies of the various Kinds or Species that exist today descended from those two or seven on the ark, a fact that underlies the argument I'm pursuing on this thread. There had to have been great genetic diversity in those few representatives of each Kind for so much variation to have come from their genomes, which I've suggested involved much greater heterozygosity than we have today. That genetic diversity has been seriously decreased since then and yet some creatures still have a lot of variability left.
Was the flood created with fresh water, or salt water and how did the fish which live in the "other kind" live through the flood?
There are various theories, I'm not up on them, but one, I think, is that the oceans weren't anywhere near as salty as they are today.
Even within the stories of the bible, evolution MUST be fact. All the fauna on the planet today must have branched out from those that survived your flood by sanctuary on the boat.
Certainly. See above.
All the flora must have evolved from ... an olive tree?
There were no doubt plenty of plants on the ark, at least seeds, but yes, the survival of that olive tree suggests other trees also survived through the Flood.
You keep saying that evolution cannot take place ... so how, then, can the bible be true?
What I'm saying is that evolution is only microevolution, variation built into the genetic stuff of each Kind, which was enough to evolve all the different races of each Species we have today. My argument here is that the processes that bring about this microevolution necessarily also reduce genetic diversity, (including diversity that is added at any stage in the evolving process by mutation or resumed gene flow etc.) so that after many population splits there wouldn't be enough variability left for further evolution, thus bringing evolutionary processes to an end before "macroevolution" could even get started.
ABE: These are all separate lines of microevolution, keep in mind. Even if one should exhaust its genetic variability after many series of subpopulation, there are many other subpopulations of all Species left.
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 899 by mikechell, posted 06-13-2015 9:17 AM mikechell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2015 9:52 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