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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 407 of 455 (786496)
06-22-2016 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
06-22-2016 3:03 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
quote:
You can't just say that adding genetic diversity proves my argument wrong when the argument is specificallyl that genetic diversity MUST be reduced for a new species to emerge.
I've said rather more than that. I have pointed out the fact that periods of decrease can be balanced by periods of increase, a consideration absent from your argument above. I have pointed out that your arguments against mutations adding to diversity are simply assertions - and obviously false, at that. It's there in this thread.
If there's a lack of understanding it is clearly on your part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 3:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 410 of 455 (786524)
06-22-2016 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
06-22-2016 4:44 PM


Re: A serious question for Faith
quote:
Well, you haven't, but I was actually addressing Dr. A's statements, not yoursk and thought you were too, since it was his argument I called obtuse. sorry I wasn't clear.
Since you accused me personally of not understanding, the fact that I have produced counter-arguments which show a better understanding than you seem to possess would still seem relevant. No matter who you were talking about. And indeed, no matter who said it the existence of the counter-arguments is enough to establish that you cannot infer a failure to understand from simple disagreement.
quote:
That is exactly the same irrelevant argument I was talking about, nothing different
Calling it irrelevant is a foolish mistake. It is certainly relevant because if it is true your argument fails. And your responses to it have failed to make sense.
quote:
Periods of increase can happen of course, but during those periods you are not getting selection, isolation or indeed evolution, meaning change in a whole population, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT.
And that response is simply dishonest. Your argument is not simply about what happens in those periods. You claim an overall reduction in genetic diversity, which means that all changes must be considered. Ignoring increases because they happen in periods you don't want to talk about is a ridiculous excuse.
quote:
Your periods of increase are at best redundant.
Now that is a genuine irrelevance. Whether they are needed or not the question is whether they occur. If they do occur and do return genetic diversity to the level of the parent population your argument is wrong.
(Now I do say that new variation is needed if evolution is to continue indefinitely - and you would be disagreeing with your own argument to deny it, but that is a side issue. More relevant is my other point, which is that the theory of evolution requires a source of additional variation if it is to explain the evidence that it is intended to explain.)
quote:
It's a reasoned argument, not mere assertion.
It is? All I see is silly arguments about it being unnecessary or stuff like
quote:
if it did you'd never get established species, which presumably are the stuff evolution needs in order to keep evolving to other species.
Which is just a silly assertion. Why would we not get established species ? Where is the 'reasoned argument"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 4:44 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 436 of 455 (786618)
06-24-2016 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
06-23-2016 7:30 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
I have a question about your example.
According to you, if mutations were to produce new variations the child population would become indistinguishable from the parent Message 377. I, on the other hand, hold that would only be true if the mutations restored the missing traits, which is very unlikely.
So, please explain this to me. It seems to me that the white flowers with a blue centre are distinct from the original pink population. And it seems to me that this would be true even if the blue centre was the result of a mutation. Why would you claim otherwise ?
In fact, if the only difference between the pink and the white flowers is the colour is it not the case that any new variation other than restoration of the pink colour would leave the white flowers distinguishable from the pink ? Frilly petals, a change in leaf shape or even a blue variation would all be distinguishable.
Since this point covers an area of genuine disagreement, unlike your example, answering it may help move the argument on, after being stuck for years in the same place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 7:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 2:25 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 439 of 455 (786625)
06-24-2016 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2016 2:25 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:
I don't know where you are getting that from that message.
By reading it in context of course.
I was objecting to your earlier claim:
In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all. You'll be back at Square One as far as evolution of new species goes.
I replied by pointing out that mutations were unlikely to reverse the changes, and so the new species would still be phenotypically distinct from the parent population, and still unable to interbreed with the parent population and therefore still a new species contradicting your claim.
You responded by asking:
How is it going to be "phenotypically distinct" if produced by mutations?
Clearly the objection is that even mutations that do not reverse the changes will still make the new species phenotypically indistinguishable from the parent population.
quote:
After you have an established species mutations at loci specific to that species would turn it into something else, something not the species. It would destroy the species
i would point out that while mutations to alleles required for the newly-fixed traits are more likely to affect those traits, they do not have to. Also, the point you were responding to was not limited to mutations at those particular loci at all, so adding that rider is a significant concession.
quote:
I brought up the example to demonstrate the necessity of losing alleles in order to get the new trait to become characteristic of the whole population. The argument is stuck on this point because it keeps being contested although it's my main point...
The argument is not stuck on that point, it is not being contested.
What is being contested is the question of whether adding variation from mutation over the lifetime of the species is sufficient to counteract the losses from the initial speciation event. We contend that it can, and that the evidence indicates that it does, you contend that it can not. That has been the situation for all the years this argument has gone on. How can you not know that ?
quote:
You are of course assuming and asserting that mutations would produce a trait that would be just another selectable variation rather than something that would merely mar the species.
Could, not would. To be more precise, that it can happen and happens sufficiently often for evolution to work the way the theory says it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 2:25 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 441 of 455 (786658)
06-24-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by Faith
06-24-2016 10:56 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:
...but it is still true that the typical way people speak of evolution implies that no such thing as loss of genetic diversity could be involved in it
Is it true ? Selection gets mentioned all the time. The only people I've seen ignoring that are the occasional creationist who insists that evolution is entirely random.
quote:
Which is of course because you think "all the other processes that take place" make up for it. And here you are wrong about me because I DON'T "ignore" those processes, I've knocked myself out trying to show how they do NOT make a difference in the general trend to loss of alleles. It's most of my argument.
That is a substantial misrepresentation. Sometimes you do try to ignore mutation and make up excuses for that. Sometimes you make the assertion that mutation can't make up for the loss for some reason that never makes sense and you never explain. Even when I try to get you to explain. It looks to me as if you're just saying things that sound sort of plausible to you without any real thought or understanding behind them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 10:56 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 443 of 455 (786677)
06-24-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
06-24-2016 12:53 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:
The point I'm trying to make, however, is that in any given population any increase in genetic diversity will alter the breed.
It will add a new variation to the breed, yes. That's what we've been talking about. Now are you ever going to explain how this helps your argument in any way ?
quote:
But random mutations in an established breed will of course increase genetic diversity while altering the breed in UNdesired ways.
If you've been following the discussion you'll know that that isn't even true for breeds. And, since evolution has no desires it is not even relevant to the main discussion.
quote:
Groan.
Have you even read any of the endless discussion about this very claim?
I'm sure he has. Have you ? Because no such reason has come up, not in all the years this argument has been going on.
quote:
At which point the reduction in genetic diversity resumes as the new trait is incorporated into the breed.
Not necessarily. Why would you think that ?
quote:
Always always always that has to happen when a phenotype is selected.
And if it spreads by drift ?
quote:
It's my same point over and over and over again. Mutation or any other form of genetic increase is a liability to the breed unless a new trait is selected and the genetic diversity is again decreased by eliminating any traits competing with the new selected trait.
a neutral variation would not be a liability by definition, nor would it be selected, again by definition. So if a neutral variation were to spread by drift until it got a secure foothold in the population we would have an increase in genetic variation that could be expected to hang around for quite a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 448 of 455 (786699)
06-25-2016 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
06-24-2016 7:01 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:
And you don't get to tell me I'm "deciding" something when I'm giving a reasonable opinion. The fact is that the typical way evolution is described implies that variation is open-ended, without a hint of suspicion that loss of genetic diversity is inherent in evolutionary processes. Otherwise there wouldn't be this constant question one gets, "what's to stop microevolution from continuing."
That is obviously not a reasonable opinion. Perhaps you should consider the fact that trying to find justifications for your assertions is a very different thing from seeing implications. The more so since you often fail to see the implications of your own words and have been known to get quite angry when they are pointed out.
In reality variation is "open-ended" and there is nothing "to stop microevolution occurring" because there is an ongoing source of new variation. If you do not realise that other people believe that, then you have ignored all the discussion in this topic for many years.
And in fact - as I have pointed out - other people do often speak of the reduction. That IS natural selection.
So let us be clear - your inference relies on assuming that other people think in a particular way despite the presence of obvious evidence that they do not. That is not reasonable.
quote:
And here I was thinking the tone of the thread had improved
If you engage in obvious misrepresentation and then in further misrepresentation to justify it I cannot see that you have a valid complaint if you are caught at it.
quote:
In general people DO NOT think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity. I don't think even you do except when you are in this sort of discussion on this thread
I can't see how you can honestly justify that. Especially since your argument above rests on an obvious falsehood.
quote:
Well, it's going to continue for a while because it's still a hot topic.
I think the point is that your efforts to date have been dismal failures. Which is rather to be expected when the evidence is against you.
In general the approach of jumping to conclusions and trying to make up justifications - without true understanding - is not a good way of getting to the truth nor of producing good arguments. Knocking yourself out trying to follow such a method - and coming up with nothing of value - would seem to be badly misdirected effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 7:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 06-25-2016 11:44 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 452 of 455 (786711)
06-25-2016 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Faith
06-25-2016 11:44 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
quote:
The fact that reduced genetic diversity is necessary for a new species/subspecies to emerge is what stops it.
That is your assertion, however I have already shown that so long as new variations arrive, evolution can continue. You, on the other hand have never offered an explanation of how your assertion could be true.
quote:
Oh well, you don't get it and you're never going to get it because you don't want to get it.
And that is just abuse and a lie. If you make a claim that appears false to me - and you refuse to offer any supporting argument or explanation why should I believe it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 06-25-2016 11:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024