|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point of your argument is that variation must run out, bringing evolution to a halt. This is the only truly relevant "sufficiency" to this discussion. That's only a problem for evolutionists who have to believe all living things descended from others. It's not a problem for Creation which was designed to produce variety. When one line runs out of genetic diversity you have a terrific new variety or subspecies to show for it. That was the purpose of it. But there remain thousands of other lines of variation that produce other varieties or subspecies. And even if I don't know exactly how it occurred it makes sense that junk DNA was once functioning genes that would have increased the possibilities for variation enormously. Dead genes are a symptom of the fallen world. The fecundity and variety of the original created world is something none of us can imagine. But I'm certainly looking forward to its promised restoration. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oddly you still haven't explained what nucleotide diversity is in relation to the loss of diversity that brought about the endangered species. It appears to be something else, something separate, something irrelevant.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Which is, of course, the point of your argument. Although you are wrong again because there is considerable evidence for common ancestry and throwing out the best explanation we have for it inevitably creates problems.
quote: It really doesn't. Especially not in the timescale allowed by YEC belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: Could be a mutation, might not be. The geneticists say that it's a mutation and tell you EXACTLY how, where and when it happened. "the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex." There's no might or might not be about it. You are simply not allowing yourself to accept it. Or to even read the paper. It's game over for whatever argument you thought you had for beneficial mutations not happening. You're going to have to face that now or learn enough molecular genetics to refute the peer reviewed paper. Good luck with that. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined:
|
All I can say is that's too bad. Not a healthy situation. Exactly the opposite. Without these changes going on constantly populations would be unable to change with changing conditions and then instead of almost all of them going extinct it would be all of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All I can say is that's too bad. Not a healthy situation. Exactly the opposite. Without these changes going on constantly populations would be unable to change with changing conditions and then instead of almost all of them going extinct it would be all of them. That is of course just a declaration of what the ToE teaches, an article of the Evo Faith. Any changes needed by the organism are already available through the built-in genetic possibilities, while the changes being added are either neutral or deleterious. I don't know why this isn't obvious. The ToE keeps getting recited and believed despite its utter uselessness. Taq refers to ALL genetic material as mutations, that's the level of faith in the ToE. If they're built-in you'd never find it out because belief is so strong that they're all mutations and having a contrary thought about it is very difficult. The actual evidence for beneficial mutations is almost nonexistent, the very few examples being treated as something very special for that reason. Even the idea that there has to be this need to change with changing conditions or they'll all go extinct is just an article of the Evo Faith. The idea of "Fitness" is an article of the Evo Faith. IF there was such a need, mutations wouldn't come to the rescue, being more likely the cause of extinctions themselves than any help against them. Yes I guess we've got the peppered moth now, certified mutant, maybe the pocket mice, and those are very interesting examples, I agree, though I still think they need more thought because probability is against the appearance of such a useful change. But in those cases fitness is paramount. There are no doubt other cases, but in the vast majority of species not all that many. There is no reason to believe Darwin's finches needed to change to fit the food available; change naturally occurs with isolation of a small population. Different kinds of beaks are the result, so the bird seeks out the food that fits the beak, and there's no reason to think there isn't some food in the environment that would fit. If there really was the extreme need to change because of environmental pressure, it seems far more likely the creature would just go extinct right then, there being no guarantee of an adaptive trait coming along either from a built-in or a mutant source. The Pod Mrcaru lizards didn't NEED to have large heads and tough digestive systems because their usual food was just as available on the island as in their place of origin. The changes occurred because of the new gene frequencies due to the small founding population. The changes increased over many generations until they characterized the entire population and the food that was suitable was available so they acquired a taste for it. There's probably SOME actual natural selection that occurs in nature, but I bet the above scenario is far more common. Oh well. I think the ToE is a big fat deception, so what else is new. Poor poor human race, so easily sold a bogus theory whose only recommendation is that it seems to get rid of the God they think they can do without. Mistaking mutations for friends when they are really murderers. Now I can't wait to find out more about the deception of how mutations in MtDNA and microsatellites increase genetic diversity. Just can't wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Any changes needed by the organism are already available through the built-in genetic possibilities, while the changes being added are either neutral or deleterious. I don't know why this isn't obvious. It isn't obvious because it is simply not correct Faith and is refuted by ALL of the evidence available.
Faith writes: Even the idea that there has to be this need to change with changing conditions or they'll all go extinct is just an article of the Evo Faith. The idea of "Fitness" is an article of the Evo Faith. IF there was such a need, mutations wouldn't come to the rescue, being more likely the cause of extinctions themselves than any help against them. Again, all of those are not simply wrong assertions, they are nonsense and refuted by the BILLIONS of years of history and all of the available evidence. We know extinctions have happened and in many cases the cause of the extinction event and mutations simply play no part in any of them. We know for a fact that conditions change and that those changes have lead to extinctions.
Faith writes: Oh well. I think the ToE is a big fat deception, so what else is new. Poor poor human race, so easily sold a bogus theory whose only recommendation is that it seems to get rid of the God they think they can do without. Mistaking mutations for friends when they are really murderers. Again. more utter nonsense Faith. The Theory of Evolution does not get rid of any gods except the one you try to market as is shown by the fact that all of the major Christian Denominations have no issue with the Theory of Evolution or the fact of evolution or the fact humans are related to chimpanzees. Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The breeds do NOT exhibit high GENETIC diversity. They can't, because they DON'T have all those genes for other traits. Each breed has to have low genetic diversity unless it's been mixed with others. Now look at the pictures of chihuahuas again. Notice how much more diverse they look than, for example, wolves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are talking about PHENOTYPIC diversity. Your doing that raises all kinds of suspicions of course, since I couldn't have been clearer over at least the last ten years that I'm talking about GENETIC diversity.
To get a phenotype you have to lose the GENETIC material for the OTHER phenotypes/breeds. Yes this is true, I did not make it up. Pick one of the chihuahuas, it DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the OTHER chihuahuas. Each chihuahua DOESN'T have the stuff for the other chihuahuas (unless it isn't purebred and has had some gene flow. And yes that can happen, sometimes breeds are formed by mixing breeds etc etc etc, but I'm trying to keep to the simplest cleanest description of selecting traits and that is by ELIMINATING the alleles for the other traits of the other breeds. A purebred longhaired chihuahua will not have the alleles for the bald kind. Etc etc etc etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
To get a phenotype you have to lose the GENETIC material for the OTHER phenotypes/breeds. Not correct. You have to lose the genetic material for some traits, not for all traits. And of course presumably all of those chihuahuas are the same breed. And of course the point is that apparently simply having a different set of traits does not kick you out of the breed.
Pick one of the chihuahuas, it DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the OTHER chihuahuas. Do you not understand the problem this created for your point? Chihuahuas are a single breed with huge genetic diversity. How does this happen. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are talking about PHENOTYPIC diversity. Your doing that raises all kinds of suspicions of course, since I couldn't have been clearer over at least the last ten years that I'm talking about GENETIC diversity. How do you suppose you get phenotypic diversity without genetic diversity? Do you think those chihuahuas have been dyed?
Each chihuahua DOESN'T have the stuff for the other chihuahuas ... Well yes, woman. Of course not. Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. Genetic diversity does not mean that one particular animal has the genes for a different animal. It is a property of the breed, or the population, or the species as a whole. If you're now going to try to redefine genetic diversity so that you can say it doesn't exist because each particular animal only has its own genes and no other, then ... why would you even bother? The theory of evolution does not depend in any way on the proposition that an animal has genes other than its own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
The topic that still needs explanation is the idea that you can measure genetic diversity by mutations in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA -- both areas that seem to have nothing to do with the actual losses under discussion, such as the loss of genetic diversity that is necessary to forming breeds and species, and the loss that at the extreme endangers creatures such as the cheetah and the elephant seal. mtDNA and microsattelite DNA are both subject to exactly the same pressures as the rest of the genome - selection and drift. Processes which we've agreed tend to reduce. I'm not sure where you're coming from exactly, but if you're thinking these are different because they do not have phenotypic effects, then that's not correct. With relevance to our discussion of dog breeds, changes in a microsatellite region of RUNX2 in dogs seem to be involved in the different facial length of different breeds, for example.
Oddly you still haven't explained what nucleotide diversity is in relation to the loss of diversity that brought about the endangered species. It appears to be something else, something separate, something irrelevant. Because nucleotide diversity is genetic diversity. DNA is made of nucleotides. Saying that a population has high nucleotide diversity means that there are lots of differences in the DNA of different members of the population. It's the same thing we're talking about. ---------------------- On a more general note, I think some clarity might be introduced by pointing what we actually mean by mutation, since from reading your posts I'm not sure you mean the same thing. Mutation means a change in DNA. When we say we have observed a mutation, what we usually mean is that we can see differences in the DNA of an organism from its parent(s). If Mum and Dad both have a C at locus x, while their daughter has a G, this is a mutation. We cannot claim that the ancestral genome had all these capabilites within it; since we have the ancestral genomes. For whatever reason, the daughter's genome has changed, and this is what we call a mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1130 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
Comment mostly cuz I'm bored with both sides' current argument by assertion.
If there had been no Fall, no death, the system would produce wonderful variations in every Species or Kind without endangering them, lots more breeds of dogs even than that large collection we have. Without death, all the reproducing animals would cover every square inch of the earth. Let's look at the elephant to keep numbers manageable. I tried the meadow vole but Excel crapped out on the size of the numbers.
African elephant - Wikipedia Crude estimate from data under section Reproduction Assume every female has 6 offspring in 50 year period with 3 being female.Assume no death and number males equals number females Assume 6,000 years since creation to now so 120 generations of 50 years Please forgive the formatting N(female) = 3 females/generation ^ 120 generations= 1.8 x10^57 N (total) = 3.6 x 10^57 Using 20 ft long & 10 ft wide (guess) Area of elephants = 2.6 x 10^52 square milesArea of earth's land = 5.7 x 10^7 square miles Depth of elephants = stupid number So obviously we can't have reproduction without death. The alternative is talking all the bull elephants into chastity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
There are no doubt other cases, but in the vast majority of species not all that many. So there is some evidence for the theory of evolution.
There is no reason to believe Darwin's finches needed to change to fit the food available; change naturally occurs with isolation of a small population. Different kinds of beaks are the result, so the bird seeks out the food that fits the beak, and there's no reason to think there isn't some food in the environment that would fit. No reason... no reason. That would be right, except that there is no evidence of your "isolation effect" producing anything other than cosmetic changes already possible in the original population. Here you've admitted that there is at least some evidence supporting natural selection. But there is none for what you propose. Dog breeding involves strong selection rather than mere isolation, and in fact, generally involves selecting and removing offspring that do not fit the desired breed. That requirement for strong selection having nothing to do with fitness is the reason why breeds don't appear in the wild. Originally all dogs looks like domesticated wolves. Despite the fact that dogs and man have lived together for countless thousands (hundreds of thousand actually) of years, most modern breeds are less than 100 years old. Pretty strong evidence that your nonsense does not work. Yet here you argue that natural selection is no factor and only selection produces change. That's more evidence for the TOE, so where is your evidence against natural selection? Heck we can observe natural selection directly. I understand the need to have evidence against the theory of evolution, and also the need to find evidence supporting your own view. You've explained your opinion that Darwinism displaces God. But that's only for folks that buy into YEC style creationism. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think they didn't reproduce as often in the beginning as they did later, both humans and beasts. Also the entire planet was habitable back then, no inhospitable areas. Besides, there are lots of other planets out there. When thinking about the original Creation you have to avoid reading today's situation into it. I like to think of having lots of friendly animals around, bears and lions and tigers to be friends with. And birds. I guess not alligators so much, but who knows. As long as they don't want to munch on my leg I might enjoy them too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024