A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument

And incomplete ... because it ignores contrary evidence that makes it wrong. Wrong. Many people have criticized your arguments as making up new meanings for words that don't really apply.For instance "phenotype" ...

quote:

---

NOUN
biology
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

---

You use it to describe a group of organisms that you claim became a new subcategory as a result of them all sharing a single new mix of alleles ... in part because you do not want to use the word "species" (because, iirc, you don't like the implication that macroevolution would be occurring). So you muddle with "sub-species" and hijack phenotype to say what biologists use "species" to say.Then you say things like: Do you know the difference between racial diversity and new babies?An easy test for you to see if you are using a word correctly is if you replace the word with the definition and it means what you think you are saying. Every science has terminology that has been developed for clarifying meanings and understanding content. Learning the "jargon" is part of learning the science so that you can discuss it properly and communicate without confusion. Except when it isn't and people ask you for clarifications because you have misused some words and dance around others (species) as if they were hot-potatoes. You don't know population genetics. You have gathered bits and pieces and assembled what you think is population genetics, but there are significant aspects that you ignore or are ignorant of. Nope. It is incomplete, and it is incomplete because it ignores or omits significant aspects of evolution in general and population genetics in particular. No, that is what makes it wrong. Your argument is like saying that bread doesn't rise because yeast doesn't exist (or that it rarely exists, and when it does it doesn't do enough to make bread rise, so it is irrelevant and can be ignored in looking at bread to see that bread does not rise). Breeding methodology is not population genetics, and I say this because you seem to think it is, hence your reliance on it to explain your version of population genetics. See? Curiously I don't think a single person replying to you is unwilling to consider what you have said, they just take the next step of looking at the evidence and they see that your argument is incomplete or outright wrong. Not "lore" Faith -- scientific theory predicts that what has been observed in one situation will be observed in similar situations, it is not an assumption it is a prediction. Correction, the things you are denying. If you were challenging them you would have evidence and would have tested your concepts. Wrong way around Faith: biologists observe increases in genetic diversity and then incorporate that observation into theory. Except that what has been observed is in fact, you know, fact. Mutations have been observed, and the increase in genetic diversity that resulted was observed. Hypothesizing that what has happened before will continue to happen is as close to "truth" as science gets, and in fact is what all science is based on.Unless you have a better explanation (one that explains all the current known facts and makes new predictions for new findings) the current explanation will continue to be accepted as the best known explanation for the facts as observed.You think you do, but your concept is full of holes, and you have no evidence that supports your concept while plenty of evidence contradicts it. You think it is better because it fits your dogma, not because it fits the facts, and that is not science, nor is it a challenge to science. No, you repeat it over and over and over because you want it to be true. ROFLOL, the irony, it huuurts ... And you complain about being personally attacked ... the irony ... Because I have studied science in general and evolution especially, from actual sources that teach the sciences rather than making up fantasies?Trying to minimize (by denigrating it) the value of information that contradicts your personal dogmatic view won't make it change. Curiously I've spent way too much time on it, and I not only understand your argument, I understand its failings. Going over it again and again won't erase those failings. No, Faith, I want you to use words the way they are defined and the way they are used in science. If that doesn't enable you to discuss your concept clearly, then you need to look at what your concept really is. But it is not your aims that govern how language is used. Language is used to communicate and so you need to use it properly to accomplish your aims. Curiously I read and follow your argument, and then I tell you what is wrong with it, what the evidence shows is wrong with it. You call it BS in order to dismiss it rather than to answer why those problems don't make your argument wrong.IE -- if it truly were BS you would be able to demonstrate why and provide evidence in support. You don't, instead you complain and complain and complain. You mean like "what are the numbers?" like "what is the evidence?" like "why can't mutations replace lost genetic diversity with new genetic diversity?" -- you know, those questions you refuse to answer? It's not your purported challenge to the theory Faith, but the way you attack the people who actually have studied the field and try to say that they don't know what they are talking about. It's the Hubris of Ignorance when you think you know more than people that have studied the fields in question, and that you can criticize them and call them ignorant. Versus the explanation that you are wrong, you have been consistently wrong, people have time and again pointed out to you why, where and when you are wrong.But go ahead and sling more insults instead of reply to the criticisms of your argument that point out the failings in it. Again, the irony ... Yep, the whole world is ganging up on you in a vast conspiracy just so they can persecute you for being a Christian ... it doesn't have anything to do with you personally being wrong. Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope.See above and see Message 49 for further clarification. Except for where you still have things to learn. Curiously I can only read what is written, using standard definitions, I cannot interpret what is in your mind, it is your responsibility to communicate that. Again with the irony. You lambaste people for not doing what you are not doing.When you have an actually valid scientific argument based on facts and proper information, instead of half-truths and misunderstandings and dogmatic preconceptions, let me know. And once again, it is NOT an issue of understanding and it is NOT an issue of getting the point, it is the issue that your argument is flawed, fatally flawed, flawed in many ways flawed.And you have no excuse for continuing to refuse to get the point. People have been telling you for 10 years ....

Wrong. Evolution as a whole sometimes reduces genetic diversity and sometimes increases diversity. This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each and every generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.There are many instances where mutations have added alleles and hence increased diversity. To say whether or not one dominates over the other means you need to do the numbers ... for every species (because each species will have different selection pressure, which is where the reductive pressure occurs).See Blue Jays post on beneficial mutations that resulted in new alleles.See Taqs post on hemoglobin C.Beneficial mutations have been observed adding diversity with new evolved alleles. The reason that the Cheetah is "endangered" is because of loss of habitat and low reproductive rate. But extinction of species is not necessarily an indication that evolution is failing, because new species are also observed evolving, adding to the overall biological diversity.Natural selection works on whole species as well as on individuals; replace the word "mutations" in the above graphic with "speciation" and this shows how biological diversity is increased on one hand while the extinction of some species reduces it on the other hand.And what we see when observing habitats over long periods of time is that the specific mix of species may vary, as new species move in and old species get pushed out, but the ecological load remains fairly constant. Logical (generally) as far as it goes, but wrong and incomplete -- it doesn't address all the facts. Logic based on false premises is false no matter how good the logic is.In addition, the basic argument commits the logical fallacy of the part for the whole

quote:

---

Definition

​

Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of individual members.

---

ie -- natural selection reduces genetic diversity by removing less successful alleles, thus all evolution results in loss of alleles.This is false because mutations introduce new alleles or modify existing alleles, and when the less successful alleles are removed it is because the new or modified alleles displace them by being more successful at survival and breeding. Say something new Faith.For answers to the rest of this latest post of yours see Message 49, which still awaits you. Answer the problems that have already been pointed out in your arguments, because until you do so, your arguments *ARE* refuted. By evidence.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Indeed, and the evidence given in Blue Jays post and Taqs post on beneficial mutations that resulted in new alleles shows that the answer is yes.Q.E.D.?Enjoy

Indeed. For practical purposes "species" is used for independent distinct breeding populations. When one such species divides into two species, those species each have the independent distinct characteristic of species that the parent species had.Every organism that lives or ever lived belongs to a species. The formation of nested clades is what makes macroevolution, not what we call the latest results.Enjoy.

Yeah, I read that last paper and my impression was that it was not clear that they were new alleles or previously unrecorded ones. It would be interesting to see if DNA from the 1985 studies could be compared to DNA from recent specimens from the same populations to see if there are differences.One of my thoughts on this issue is that IF Faithilution (microevolution is due to loss of alleles alone) then there should be genetic deserts where species die off and leave vacancies in the ecologies, because the neighboring near relatives would not be able to recreate the extinct species (due to their own depletions) to fill those niches.Another is that any split according to her concept would suffer depletion. IE there should be similar issues with lions and leopards as there are with cheetahs (other that loss of habitat due to human activities).Enjoy

Okay let's start with this issue: The Faith Postulate -- evolution results in loss of genetic diversity through the loss of alleles as species divide into isolated sub-populations, and eventually species are so depleted they can no longer evolve new types.Premise 1: every time a population splits for whatever reason, one population does not have all the alleles that the other population has - or that the parent population had.We'll call this the "Secondary Population" for clarity (with the parent\remaining population being the "Primary Population"). Premise 2: that this loss of alleles means that the frequency of alleles in the Secondary Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Primary Population. Conclusion 1: therefore the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first generation of the Secondary Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Primary Population. Premise 3: this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation, due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Primary Population. Premise 4: over time this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated. Conclusion 2: over time (after several generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Secondary Population, one that is distinctly different from the Primary Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but similar on the majority of traits). Premise 5: the dominance of the new "Type" will drive alleles that were previously dominant into lower and lower frequencies until they become eliminated from the phenome of the Secondary Population. Premise 6: loss of previously dominant alleles will cause the Secondary Population to become reproductively incompatible with the Primary Population. Conclusion 3: a new subspecies is formed that has less genetic diversity than the original species. Conclusion 4: as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity until the resultant subspecies become non-viable and go extinct, thus ending evolution. So, does this or does this not describe your argument?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : hidden comments

Curiously, I don't think you have thought this through. Part of your thesis is that after a population split some previously rare alleles will rise to dominate the phenome of the Secondary Population ... and the rarest of rare alleles would be the new mutation alleles.Tell me Faith, how would selection tell the difference between a newly mutated allele and an old rarely expressed allele? Wrong, what you would get (what we observe actually occurring) is that new mutated alleles displace some older alleles that are not as good at providing for the continued survival and breeding success of those phenotype traits. If it is healthy for the population, then it is by definition beneficial to the species and will help the species (as a whole entity) to survive and reproduce in comparison to other species. That is another aspect of evolution, having to do with the viability of the species rather than the viability of the individuals, whether it is what you want to discuss or not. Selection would be what keeps new mutations from "bloating" the population. Selection reduces the effects of less successful alleles and promotes the effects of more successful alleles, whether they are old or new. Whether those expressed genetic alleles are new or mutated old ones or just old ones. The selection is for improved survival and reproduction withing the constraints of the ecology -- the ecology defines whether traits are beneficial, neutral or deleterious.Whenever you focus on one particular aspect you ignore other aspects where your arguments are contradicted. Whether those phenotypes involve the expressed genetic alleles of new or mutated old ones or just old ones. The selection is still for improved survival and reproduction withing the constraints of the ecology -- the ecology still defines whether traits are beneficial, neutral or deleterious, and the selection process determines which traits are passed with higher frequencies or lower frequencies to the next generation. Because selection pressures will be different, which selects traits based on their fitness for improved survival and reproduction in the ecology the population inhabits. The ecology, and hence the selection, will necessarily be different for the Secondary Population, because it won't be the same as it was for the Primary Population. Curiously this is not really how population genetics works at all. What you see are beneficial traits, whether high or low frequency in any population, being selected based on their relative success at survival and reproduction within their habitat\ecology\environment\niche: those that are more successful relative to the others in the breeding population increase in frequency while those that are less successful relative to the others in the breeding population decrease in frequency. This change in frequencies has very little to do with the initial frequencies and virtually everything to do with fitness to the habitat\ecology\environment\niche. If you can't eat the food available, no matter how high your allele frequency, you will not succeed in surviving to reproduce. New collective phenomes arise due to different alleles that succeed in surviving and reproducing, whether those selected expressed genetic alleles come from new or mutated old ones or just old ones within the population. Mutations.The advantages of considering mutations as a prime cause of new species are (a) they have actually been observed to cause new beneficial traits that adapt species to their habitat\ecology\environment\niche, (b) mutations would necessarily differ between Primary Populations and Secondary Populations (no gene flow, no sharing), thus causing differences between the populations, and (c) having different alleles from the original inherited ones in each population is the only known way to drive genetic incompatibility. Selection occurs in every generation, Faith, not once in a while. Whatever mix there is in a population defines the characteristics of that population at that time (which is why it is always evolving). And again, what is selected depends on the relative success at survival and reproduction, whether those traits are new, mutated old or remaining old traits. What you lose are the traits least able to provide for success in survival and reproduction, whether those traits are new, mutated old or remaining old traits. Disagree: you have evolution whether new alleles are selected or old alleles are selected, because the selection is for success in survival and reproduction, not for change for change sake.And you have evolution when the frequency of alleles change, whether that is by selection processes or mutations adding new alleles or variations on alleles. What is observed is that identifiable species have new mutations that result in new alleles and that these new alleles undergo selection with the old alleles based on their ability to provide for success at survival and reproduction. Over time this selection plus genetic drift result in new phenotypes arising.We compare those observed changes with the difference seen between different fossil species and see that they are similar in magnitude.What we observe is that the introduction of successful new alleles into a population usually results in the displacement of less successful old alleles, resulting in anagenesis -- population change over generations. Wrong. The diversity is modified by new traits displacing old ones. Sometimes there is reduction, sometimes there is addition, and they can vary generation by generation. If you don't have mutation and selection you don't have evolution. Which can improve species fitness relative to other species to succeed at survival and reproduction as a species. Evolution is "actively happening" in every generation of every species -- each generation has new mutations and each generation undergoes selection to determine who succeeded at survival and reproduction and thus which traits are passed on to the next generation. Throw in mutations and new alleles arising from expression of the mutations into the mix, consider them the same way you consider rare old alleles, and you have a much clearer description of evolution producing new species.Throw in the fact that to get genetic incompatibility you must have different mutations in isolated population that are not compatible, that all shared alleles no matter their relative frequencies, are de facto compatible as they were compatible in the Primary Population. No Faith, new mutations, new alleles are an on-going process, just as selection of phenotype traits for fitness for survival and reproduction is an on-going process, and they both occur in every generation of every living species. Like breathing; one breath in and one breath out ... followed by ... one breath in and ... one breath out. Which it does, as can be observed. Once you raise your eyes out of the microevolutionary changes that occur within each generation, within a breeding population, you see that these changes add up to gradual changes in the breeding population phenome over time -- just as you posit for your isolated populations, generalized to all populations ... but with mutations added to the mix. As noted this is anagenesis, and it is one facet of macroevolution as defined in science. Then you are not getting the right information for your "popular presentation" ... seeMechanisms of microevolution - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Mechanisms of microevolution

​

There are a few basic ways in which microevolutionary change happens. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are all processes that can directly affect gene frequencies in a population.

---

What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

What is macroevolution?

​

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

​

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

---

In other words the microevolutionary processes cause macroevolution to occur over a span of generations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Wrong. To enhance the frequencies of traits that are more beneficial and downplay the frequencies of traits that are less beneficial. Wrong. Adding alleles changes the frequencies of the alleles, which is a major part of evolution, by definition.Adding alleles means there is more variety available for selection to operate on, and thus improved ability in enhancing the frequencies of traits that are more beneficial and downplay the frequencies of traits that are less beneficial, because there is a larger pool to select from.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : cleaned up

Similar to an organism with a greater genetic diversity will be under less selection stress in a changing ecology Similar to an organism with less genetic diversity will be under greater selection stress from changes in the ecology. The species as a whole is better fit to adapt to changing situations. Indeed, and the "micro"evolution processes that occur in a species population are the same as the processes that occur in an ecological web of species -- more successful phenomes (whole species) will survive better and breed more than less successful phenomes, and the frequency of the organisms within all the species changes over time with the response to these "micro"evolutionary processes.This is "macro"evolution -- changes within species populations via anagenesis, emergence of new species populations via cladogenesis, selection of whole species for survival and breeding based on their fitness within the ecology, including the selection pressure from other species and their relative fitness.Enjoy

So how about an answer to Understanding Faith's argument, Message 128?Please make any corrections if I have it wrong.Enjoy

Okay, it needs a lot of cleanup, so you might want to start over when you can. In particular I think you need to reconsider your initial reaction\response to my question regarding differentiation between mutations and rare alleles: Part of your thesis is that the rare alleles rise to dominate the split isolated population, and if there is no way that rare alleles are differentiated from mutation alleles, then those mutation alleles can just as easily rise to dominate the split isolated population.So calling the question silly does not answer why this would not be a severe problem for your argument. Instead it is conflict avoidance behavior of the kind (it seems to me) Percy wants to see exchanged for one that treats the question seriously and respond to it with a reasoned answer.However, be that as it may, I am much more interested in a response to Understanding Faith's argument, - Message 128 at this point. Because if we can establish that your argument is actually understood, then we can discuss intelligently why there are problems with it, without being accused of not understanding the argument.It seems premature to me for you to be responding to my later posts without answering that one.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..

This is actually what I said, not Faith. Apparently she pasted in my post and was adding her comments when the INTERNET TECNICIAN came.This also explains what dwise1 noted in Message 157.So please cut her some slack, let Faith return with her technician fixed internet and after the 48 hr suspension (can you make it 24? I'd really like an answer to Message 128), and let her clean up that post (or delete it and replace it).Thanks.Enjoy

Link?My first impression is one of confusion, possibly caused by words used.The evolution of the mammal ear is not, strictly speaking, from reptile ears but from common ancestors of mammals and reptiles -- with the "non-mammalian amniote" or "early synapsid" denotation intended for an intermediate between the common ancestor with reptiles and the beginning of the mammal ear evolution. These early amniote synapsids still had the ancestral ear linked bone structure.

quote:

---

Synapsids (Greek, 'fused arch'), synonymous with theropsids (Greek, 'beast-face'), are a group of animals that includes mammals and every animal more closely related to mammals than to other living amniotes. ... Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes; the other is the sauropsids, a group that includes modern reptiles and birds. ...

---

So the ancestors of mammals (synapsids) diverged from the ancestors of (true?) reptiles (sauropsids) before ears evolved from the jaw-bone linked structure in either clade.As such I would find it surprising if the ear evolution were the same.So the confusion would appear to come from calling the common ancestors "reptiles" (as opposed to "reptile-like" or properly as "amniote") ... hence the usage of "non-mamalian amniote" above and in previous discussions, something I will now be even more careful about.This divergent evolution of the ear is also good evidence of not using the same "design" over, even when all the parts are there, readily available, and fully functional.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Thanks, let's iron this out as much as possible. Curiously I tried to use your terminology in that "abstract" of your argument, so if you are having trouble understanding the meaning then you begin to get an inkling of the problems we have trying to understand you. Which is what I thought I said. Okay, so you now stop short of extinction and the end of further evolution. It's how you set up an argument in logic.If Premise 1 is true
and Premise 2 is true
then Conclusion is trueYour premises are you observations and your conclusions are what logically follows from the premises if the premises are true and the logical argument is valid.You claimed you argument was logical, so I thought you understood what made up a logical argument, as opposed to one that just 'feels good' because you agree with it. Maybe you should give it a try -- it is a common method for organizing one's thoughts into a clear argument, and it may help you get your points across better. There are references if you are interested. Parent and daughter. What I was trying was a description that would avoid the word species, seeing as you have such an averse reaction to it. I was also thinking ahead to further population splits, which would be Tertiary (grand-daughter), Quaternary (great grand-daughter), etc. And I was ignoring the effect on the parent\remaining population for now and focusing on just the isolated daughter population as that is where you focus your argument. Can we agree to ignore the parent population at this time? So the alleles will have a high probability of being different frequencies, I think we can agree on that, and I can modify 'premise 1' to read Would that be a more accurate premise in your argument? It certainly is one I can agree with. Essentially what I said your 'Conclusion 1' was; different phenotype distributions compared to the parent\primary population. But let's get back to 'premise 2' ... So we can agree that 'Premise 2' is part of your argument, and again, I think we can agree on that, even though it now appears fairly much the same as 'premise 1' as modified. So you agree that 'conclusion 1' is part of your argument, and again, I think we can agree on that Which is essentially what I said for 'premise 4'. So we agree that 'premise 3' is part of your argument. So we agree that 'premise 4' is part of your argument. So we agree that 'conclusion 2' is part of your argument. Sorry, my mistake and lack of clarity: I meant dominant as in dominates the population rather than dominant as in dominant versus recessive. Let me rephrase that to Which is essentially what I meant for 'premise 5' as you can see now with my correction. Again (you can see how word use affects understanding eh?) I'll change this to correct my poor/misuse of 'dominant' to read: So if I further change 'premise 6' from "will cause" to "may cause" we can agree that this would reflect your argument. Except that -- with the corrections made for my poor choice of "dominant" as noted above -- it seems that we are in agreement over what your argument is and how you get to this conclusion.Note that taking a different path to the same result does not make that path invalid, so you are not correct in that statement. There are many paths to the top of a mountain, but they all get to the top of the mountain and thus are valid paths, yes? Okay, so you are backing away from evolution ending by extinctions of species ... for now. We can modify 'conclusion 4' to read; Would that be an accurate statement of your argument? So do the corrected premises and conclusions match your argument now? Curiously what I see are minor differences that can be easily corrected as I have done.I will summarize the revised version in the next post for brevity and clarity.Enjoy.

Let me put it in bullet form this time:

1. every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.
   ​
2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.
   ​
   C1: THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of those existing phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.
   ​
3. this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation (1st set of offspring), due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Parent Population.
   ​
4. over time (several generations) this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated.
   ​
   C2: THEREFORE over time (after many generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Daughter Population, one that is distinctly different from the Parent Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but appearing similar on the majority of traits).
   ​
5. the domination of the new "Type" will drive some alleles that were previously common into lower and lower frequencies until they become eliminated from the phenome of the Daughter Population.
   ​
6. loss of previously common alleles may eventually cause the Daughter Population to become reproductively incompatible with the Parent Population.
   ​
   C3: THEREFORE a new subspecies is formed that has less genetic diversity than the original species.
   ​
   C4: THEREFORE as populations continue to divide this will result in less and less genetic diversity being available, until the (final) resultant subspecies become unable to sub-divide further, thus ending evolution.

So, does this or does this not describe your argument?Now I note that there is a leap in the argument from statement 4 to the following conclusion (C2) -- what causes a new "Type" to emerge and dominate the population versus just having a hodge-podge of varieties ... I seem to be missing a part of your argument, one that appears rather important. Can you explain?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : added labels to conclusions for easy reference, modified C1 for clrty