Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 455 (785645)
06-08-2016 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Taq
06-08-2016 12:18 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Faith writes:
The way added mutations could mess up a breed is by changing major characteristics.
Chimps and humans have different characteristics, yet neither is broken. Chimps and humans differ by 40 million mutations, yet neither is broken. Your claims are contradicted by reality.
It really does help conversation if the context is taken into account. I was talking about the formation of domestic breeds and how once you have the breed you've been developing you don't want mutations coming along because they would mess up the traits you've so carefully established. And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations, but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild.
And this is after the Whozit breed has been pretty well established, so that it's ALREADY lost genetic diversity in its formation, which is NECESSARY to its formation.
You would first need to show that anything it loses is necessary.
Made that case many times already. You can't get a breed if the alleles for other traits than those of your breed are present in the breed's gene pool. Those alleles have to be lost. Their loss is NECESSARY to producing and maintaining the desired traits of your breed. Yes necessary necessary necessary.
The idea that one mutation could come along and increase its genetic diversity in any meaningful sense of the term is quite laughable.
Then you need to answer a simple question. Why do you think chimps and humans are physically different from each other? Isn't it due to the genetic differences between the genomes of each species?
Chimps and humans are separate species with no genetic relatedness. I'm talking about the kinds of changes /differences you get between populations of the same species due to built-in genetic possibilities. Mutations have nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 06-08-2016 12:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by caffeine, posted 06-08-2016 2:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 06-08-2016 3:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2016 4:59 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 455 (785647)
06-08-2016 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
06-08-2016 10:58 AM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
I think you get the prize for muddled thinking on any subject I've ever discussed with you. However, "it," which is pretty clear from the context, is my argument about loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes.
That's clearly not the case. Standard creationist thinking does not have anything to do with a loss of genetic diversity. That is entirely your own 'theory'.
oEvlution loses, it does not accumulate, anything. That's the essence of MY argument. They call it information, I call it genetic diversity but the same thing is intended. I
Clearly not the same thing. And I've explained the difference. The only thing they have in common is that neither allows evolution. But the method of operation is completely different. I suppose the difference little matters if you merely want things to be 'generally compatible' with each other and the Bible.

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 203 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 455 (785648)
06-08-2016 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
06-08-2016 12:55 PM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
But I just said I DON'T use the argument about information, but that it's a VERSION of my argument which is about genetic diversity.
No, it is not a version of your argument. It is a version of an argument that you have used in the past, and may still believe, namely that mutations create nothing but disease and trash. But your current argument is that even if mutation creates new alleles, there is a net loss of diversity due to evolution.
The two arguments are distinguishable in terms of the types of evidence necessary to overturn them. Yours requires only the direct evidence we are able to point to.

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 210 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 12:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(3)
Message 214 of 455 (785652)
06-08-2016 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-08-2016 1:17 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
It really does help conversation if the context is taken into account. I was talking about the formation of domestic breeds and how once you have the breed you've been developing you don't want mutations coming along because they would mess up the traits you've so carefully established. And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations, but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild.
I already tried to explain in very simple terms why this is wrong back in Message 178, which you didn't react to. Adding new mutations will obviously make two populations more distinct from one another. It wouldn't muddy the boundaries between them.
Now, if all you're claiming is that mutations would be intentionally selected against by a breeder maintaining a specific characteristic, then fine. Mutations which remove desired traits from a population of domestic animals are, indeed, purposely eliminated. And in the wild, the breeder's role is played by natural selection - some parts of our DNA are highly conserved, meaning they vary little or not at all amongst different people (and in some cases even amongst different species). These stretches of DNA clearly do important things that are easy to mess up, so all changes are selected against.
But there is nothing to stop the rest varying. Why would there be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 215 of 455 (785656)
06-08-2016 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
06-08-2016 12:55 PM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
But I just said I DON'T use the argument about information, but that it's a VERSION of my argument which is about genetic diversity. And I DON'T say that mutations are a loss in information, OR a loss in genetic diversity either. So you've got this discussion all garbled somehow or other.
My argument is that to get new traits or phenotypes you have to lose genetic diversity.
Then you would describe every mutation in both the chimp and human lineage as being a loss in genetic diversity, even though both lineages would be diverging from one another, resulting in two diverse species.
Yet again, you have argued yourself out of the argument. You would describe the emergence of two diverse species originating from a common ancestor as a loss in diversity. You would describe the millions and billions of species that do exist and have existed as being less diverse than the single celled common ancestor that they all descend from.
Anyway I don't have an opinion about mutations you find in chimps.
Yes, you do. You claim that mutations don't increase genetic diversity. 40 million mutations separate humans and chimps. Therefore, your claims have direct application to chimps and humans whether you like it or not.
Not my argument. I don't discuss mutations as a loss in information.
You describe it as a loss in genetic diversity, which is the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 12:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 216 of 455 (785662)
06-08-2016 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
06-08-2016 12:31 PM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
Faith writes:
Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
I hope that now that you know that that is wrong - given what you've seen with the moths where a proven mutation turned a white moth to a black one - you'll put him right.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 12:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 6:25 PM Tangle has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 217 of 455 (785664)
06-08-2016 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-08-2016 1:17 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Faith writes:
It really does help conversation if the context is taken into account. I was talking about the formation of domestic breeds and how once you have the breed you've been developing you don't want mutations coming along because they would mess up the traits you've so carefully established. And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations, but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild.
First off, you are already agreeing that mutations change traits:
"I was talking about the formation of domestic breeds and how once you have the breed you've been developing you don't want mutations coming along because they would mess up the traits you've so carefully established."
Also, you are admitting that mutations increase genetic diversity which then increases phenotypic diversity. Just because you don't personally find those changes to be aesthetically pleasing in a domesticated dog breed does not change the fact that mutations can and do increase both genetic and phenotypic diversity.
Made that case many times already. You can't get a breed if the alleles for other traits than those of your breed are present in the breed's gene pool. Those alleles have to be lost. Their loss is NECESSARY to producing and maintaining the desired traits of your breed. Yes necessary necessary necessary.
Where did you show that those traits are necessary for the survival of the lineage?
Humans lost the ability to run on all fours. Did that end the human species?
Chimps and humans are separate species with no genetic relatedness.
Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with other apes. That is relatedness.
I'm talking about the kinds of changes /differences you get between populations of the same species due to built-in genetic possibilities. Mutations have nothing to do with it.
We are talking about what happens when mutations occur within those populations, which will happen because every individual within those populations is born with mutations.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 1:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 6:18 PM Taq has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 218 of 455 (785666)
06-08-2016 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-08-2016 1:17 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations ...
My friend Mr. Direct Observation says different.
... but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild.
But diversity does not prevent us from recognizing a species or a breed. We can recognize humans as a species, despite us coming in all different colors. We can recognize Canis lupus as a species, despite the vast diversity exhibited by its breeds ...
... and we can recognize a breed despite the diversity that it exhibits. For example, these are all chihuahuas, and they are all recognizably chihuahuas. (And breeders, so far from extirpating the diversity, welcomed it.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 1:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 219 of 455 (785668)
06-08-2016 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Dr Adequate
06-08-2016 4:59 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations ...
My friend Mr. Direct Observation says different.
I think you've mistaken Mr. Evo Bias for that friend. You assume mutations without any warrant for assuming it.
... but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild.
But diversity does not prevent us from recognizing a species or a breed. We can recognize humans as a species, despite us coming in all different colors. We can recognize Canis lupus as a species, despite the vast diversity exhibited by its breeds ...
I can hardly believe you are that dense. Perhaps it's intentional. Or maybe you ARE that dense.
EACH of those breeds has its own specific genetic substrate that EXCLUDES the genetic diversity in the ENTIRE REST OF THE DOG SPECIES. Each has its own set of characteristics and the genetic material that underlies them. Each has ONLY its own genotype for its own phenotype. It DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the other breeds. There may be many different versions of chihuahuas but each has its own genotype and not that of the others. There is a specific recipe you could say for each breed. And if you are a breeder of a particular breed you don't want the other characteristics popping up after you've established it.
Dogs are marvelously genetically diverse AS A KIND, or family or Species or whatever the category is, which is why so many breeds can be developed from that Kind. Mutations had nothing to do with their diversity, it's built in to the Kind.
But to get each breed requires LOSING the genetic stuff for all the other traits that don't belong to the breed but continue in other breeds and the Dog Population as a whole.
Why is this so hard to get?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2016 4:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Taq, posted 06-08-2016 6:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2016 8:21 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 220 of 455 (785669)
06-08-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Taq
06-08-2016 3:43 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Faith writes:
It really does help conversation if the context is taken into account. I was talking about the formation of domestic breeds and how once you have the breed you've been developing you don't want mutations coming along because they would mess up the traits you've so carefully established. And the reason I make this argument is that I keep hearing how mutations can just increase genetic diversity after you have a breed or subspecies as if that would be a good thing. First it doesn't happen, you aren't going to get new traits from mutations, but if you did it would only prevent the formation of a breed or a recognizable species in the wild.
First off, you are already agreeing that mutations change traits:
"I was talking about the formation of domestic breeds and how once you have the breed you've been developing you don't want mutations coming along because they would mess up the traits you've so carefully established."
WHen I'm accepting mutations for the sake of argument, yes, the idea is to point out that even if they work as you think they do they would do things you don't want them to do, and in fact they don't do anyway. All the mutations I keep hearing are going to come along and replenish the lost genetic diversity brought about by developing a species or breed would in fact just mess up the species or breed, which doesn't further the assumptions of the ToE. The whole point is that it's necessary to lose genetic diversity to get those phenotypic changes that are usually considered to be the evidence of evolution. Why would you want to destroy that evidence?
Also, you are admitting that mutations increase genetic diversity which then increases phenotypic diversity. Just because you don't personally find those changes to be aesthetically pleasing in a domesticated dog breed does not change the fact that mutations can and do increase both genetic and phenotypic diversity.
The only mutations that happen are destructive in one way or another, they contribute nothing to an organism of use to the organism. If they do change anything, they change traits for the worse, not for the better. I'm not talking about MY judgment of what's aesthetically pleasing, I'm talking about breeders wanting to get the best version of their breed, which new genetic input would only wreck. WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO GET? Well, obviously it's because if I'm right, bye bye ToE.
Made that case many times already. You can't get a breed if the alleles for other traits than those of your breed are present in the breed's gene pool. Those alleles have to be lost. Their loss is NECESSARY to producing and maintaining the desired traits of your breed. Yes necessary necessary necessary.
Where did you show that those traits are necessary for the survival of the lineage?
I don't get this question. Breeders want a certain set of traits so they breed for those traits, if you mean the "survival of the lineage" in the sense of the preservation of those traits, the question is absurd -- those particular chosen traits are the breed. The question is nonsensical.
Humans lost the ability to run on all fours. Did that end the human species?
'
Huh? If somebody was breeding some animal for its ability to run on all fours, then losing that ability would be the loss of that breed. Obviously.
But humans never did run on all fours, just as a matter of boring fact.
Chimps and humans are separate species with no genetic relatedness.
Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with other apes. That is relatedness.
\
No, it's design similarity. There is no genetic relatedness.
I'm talking about the kinds of changes /differences you get between populations of the same species due to built-in genetic possibilities. Mutations have nothing to do with it.
We are talking about what happens when mutations occur within those populations, which will happen because every individual within those populations is born with mutations.
Those mutations are unfortunate errors and ticking time bombs for disease, nothing that furthers the wellbeing of the organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 06-08-2016 3:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 06-08-2016 6:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 221 of 455 (785670)
06-08-2016 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
06-08-2016 5:51 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Faith writes:
EACH of those breeds has its own specific genetic substrate that EXCLUDES the genetic diversity in the ENTIRE REST OF THE DOG SPECIES.
Every single dog has its own specific genetic substrate since every dog is born with mutations.
It DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the other breeds. There may be many different versions of chihuahuas but each has its own genotype and not that of the others.
In the future, the descendants of these dogs will have DNA sequences that their ancestors did not, and they may very well look different from their ancestors because of it.
Dogs are marvelously genetically diverse AS A KIND, or family or Species or whatever the category is, which is why so many breeds can be developed from that Kind. Mutations had nothing to do with their diversity, it's built in to the Kind.
Where did you show that mutations had nothing to do with it? Aren't the differences due to differences in DNA sequence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 5:51 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 222 of 455 (785671)
06-08-2016 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Tangle
06-08-2016 3:13 PM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
You have developed the most amazing ability to misattribute quotes to me. I was quoting Jonathan Sarfati, I didn't say that myself. That's his angle on the creationist argument and I don't completely agree with him. I'm not sure what he means by "can only eliminate traits." He may be right and in fact I may say the same thing in other ways, but the point is this is Sarfati's statement, not mine.
The moth situation is not as clear as you are saying it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2016 3:13 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Tangle, posted 06-09-2016 3:42 AM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 223 of 455 (785672)
06-08-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-08-2016 6:18 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Faith writes:
WHen I'm accepting mutations for the sake of argument, yes, the idea is to point out that even if they work as you think they do they would do things you don't want them to do, and in fact they don't do anyway.
Differences in DNA sequence are not responsible for the physical differences between species?
Please explain this. How do you explain the cause for these physical differences?
All the mutations I keep hearing are going to come along and replenish the lost genetic diversity brought about by developing a species or breed would in fact just mess up the species or breed, which doesn't further the assumptions of the ToE.
How do the physical differences that separate us from chimps "mess us up"? How does walking upright and having a big brain "mess us up"?
The whole point is that it's necessary to lose genetic diversity to get those phenotypic changes that are usually considered to be the evidence of evolution.
As we have already shown, you would consider the billions of living dead species a "loss in genetic diversity" compared to a simple single celled common ancestor. Your definition of genetic diversity is meaningless.
The only mutations that happen are destructive in one way or another, they contribute nothing to an organism of use to the organism.
How are the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps destructive to both humans and chimps? Back up your claim.
I'm not talking about MY judgment of what's aesthetically pleasing, I'm talking about breeders wanting to get the best version of their breed, which new genetic input would only wreck. WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO GET?
What I am not seeing is the actual evidence that every mutation which occurs in these dogs is destructive. All I see is you claiming it, and barking at anyone who dares to challenge it.
Please show that every single mutation that happens in these dogs is destructive, and not a single mutation is beneficial.
I don't get this question. Breeders want a certain set of traits so they breed for those traits,
What breeders want has nothing to do with how evolution works.
No, it's design similarity. There is no genetic relatedness.
How do you differentiate between design similarity and genetic relatedness? What criteria do you use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 6:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 7:16 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 224 of 455 (785674)
06-08-2016 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Taq
06-08-2016 6:33 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Faith writes:
WHen I'm accepting mutations for the sake of argument, yes, the idea is to point out that even if they work as you think they do they would do things you don't want them to do, and in fact they don't do anyway.
Differences in DNA sequence are not responsible for the physical differences between species?
Please explain this. How do you explain the cause for these physical differences?
There are two different theories here about the cause of "differences in DNA sequence." MUTATIONS are not responsible for them, BUILT-IN NATURALLY OCCURRING ALLELES, or differences in DNA sequence, are responsible for them.
All the mutations I keep hearing are going to come along and replenish the lost genetic diversity brought about by developing a species or breed would in fact just mess up the species or breed, which doesn't further the assumptions of the ToE.
How do the physical differences that separate us from chimps "mess us up"? How does walking upright and having a big brain "mess us up"?
We are not genetically related to chimps. There are no mutations that could possibly occur to form one species from another. In the best possible scenario mutations would only substitute one ordinary allele for another, which is redundant and unnecessary, but in reality they don't do even that much, they either manage not to do anything good or bad, or they render an allele unfunctional, or they produce an actual disease process. The ToE needs mutations but the mutations it needs don't exist.
And if you understand my argument the formation of phenotypes has to lose genetic diversity so even if all your genetic diversity is made up of mutations when phenotypes are selected most of that diversity is excluded from the new population anyway, NECESSARILY excluded or you don't get the new phenotypes that are supposedly the evidence of evolution. Perhaps it would help if you assumed the lotus position and meditated on this for a while. {ABE: Sorry, trying to be amusing. Seriously, if you prayed to the living God of the Bible you'd probably start understanding these things. /ABE}
The whole point is that it's necessary to lose genetic diversity to get those phenotypic changes that are usually considered to be the evidence of evolution.
As we have already shown, you would consider the billions of living dead species a "loss in genetic diversity" compared to a simple single celled common ancestor. Your definition of genetic diversity is meaningless.
This statement is what is meaningless. Did you mean "living dead species?" Anyway I have NO idea what you are talking about. The loss in genetic diversity occurs when new phenotypes are developing. It MUST occur. This should be obvious just from knowing how breeding works. The only explanation of all of this is that living things did not evolve from a common ancestor but belong to their own particular genetic Kind or Species, within which much variation is possible. For this variation to occur the evolving population must lose genetic diversity so that it can't vary beyond the point where there is no more diversity left. There may be plenty of genetic diversity in other subspecies or breeds of the same Kind, but where it is varying or evolving it has to lose diversity. This is the built-in limit to evolution that defines the limit to the Kind as well.
The only mutations that happen are destructive in one way or another, they contribute nothing to an organism of use to the organism.
How are the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps destructive to both humans and chimps? Back up your claim.
What you are calling mutations are not mutations, they are naturally occurring built-in genetic differences.
I'm not talking about MY judgment of what's aesthetically pleasing, I'm talking about breeders wanting to get the best version of their breed, which new genetic input would only wreck. WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO GET?
What I am not seeing is the actual evidence that every mutation which occurs in these dogs is destructive. All I see is you claiming it, and barking at anyone who dares to challenge it.
You consistently confuse natural allelic forms with mutations. But when I'm talking about mutations coming along to mess up a breed I'm talking hypothetically for the sake of argument, that once the breed is formed, which requires reduction in geneitic diversity, it would wreck the breed for there to be any new genetic input, whether from mutations, (which I include only for the sake of argument because I believe they are predominantly destructive) or resumed gene flow due to immigration of other individuals. The only reason I emphasize the preservation of a breed or species is to make the point that the ToE claims new species or phenotypes to be evidence of evolution and I'm showing that it can't be because it's genetically limited.
Please show that every single mutation that happens in these dogs is destructive, and not a single mutation is beneficial.
There aren't any mutations happening in these dogs, period. It's all hypothetical for the sake of argument. The dog breeds are developed from natural built-in genetic variability.
I don't get this question. Breeders want a certain set of traits so they breed for those traits,
What breeders want has nothing to do with how evolution works.
Oh but it does, it makes a perfect analogy. Even Darwin understood that much.
No, it's design similarity. There is no genetic relatedness.
How do you differentiate between design similarity and genetic relatedness? What criteria do you use?
My basic argument proves that the ToE doesn't work. That leaves design.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 06-08-2016 6:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NosyNed, posted 06-08-2016 11:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2016 1:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by Taq, posted 06-13-2016 2:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 225 of 455 (785675)
06-08-2016 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
06-08-2016 5:51 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
I think you've mistaken Mr. Evo Bias for that friend. You assume mutations without any warrant for assuming it.
We directly observe them. That's kinda the opposite of assuming things.
I can hardly believe you are that dense. Perhaps it's intentional. Or maybe you ARE that dense.
EACH of those breeds has its own specific genetic substrate that EXCLUDES the genetic diversity in the ENTIRE REST OF THE DOG SPECIES. Each has its own set of characteristics and the genetic material that underlies them. Each has ONLY its own genotype for its own phenotype. It DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the other breeds. There may be many different versions of chihuahuas but each has its own genotype and not that of the others. There is a specific recipe you could say for each breed. And if you are a breeder of a particular breed you don't want the other characteristics popping up after you've established it.
Sure, one breed is not another breed. A chihuahua with the genes of a dalmatian would not be an unusual chihuahua, it would be a dalmatian. A human with the genes of a chimp would be a chimp. A dog with the genes of a giraffe would be a giraffe. And yet the fact remains that humans, dogs, and chihuahuas exhibit diversity and yet are recognizable in spite of that diversity.
Dogs are marvelously genetically diverse AS A KIND, or family or Species or whatever the category is, which is why so many breeds can be developed from that Kind. Mutations had nothing to do with their diversity, it's built in to the Kind.
But to get each breed requires LOSING the genetic stuff for all the other traits that don't belong to the breed but continue in other breeds and the Dog Population as a whole.
Why is this so hard to get?
I understand the stuff you've made up, I am just not convinced of it, due to my familiarity with the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 5:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:33 AM Dr Adequate 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