Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 435 of 455 (786615)
06-23-2016 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Faith
06-23-2016 10:18 PM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
I do not understand how you are misconstruing what I wrote about losing the breed. The whole human race is not a breed or a variety, or even a race as the term is usually used.
No, it's a species.
I've never said the whole Kind would be lost, just the breed or variety or species or race.
See? You say that species will be lost as a result of genetic diversity. And yet our species, Homo sapiens, comes in a range of shapes, sizes, and colors, and yet there is no sense in which our species is "lost".
Not if the mutations change the basic characteristics of the species so that it is no longer recognizable as that species.
Which would be evolution.
Again, your objection seems to be: "But if, as you say, evolution takes place, then this would result in evolution taking place!"
Well ... yes?
But when that happens the alleles for the traits for the varieties being replaced are getting reduced and can eventually be lost altogether.
Yes, that's what "fixed" means. That's exactly the scenario I'm proposing.
Yes you may get your new species, and yes that is evolution, but the only way you can get it is if the genetic underpinnings of the rejected traits are lost.
And replaced with the new traits which (by hypothesis) were produced by mutation. So there's no net loss of diversity over the whole process.
If you have an apple, and I give you an orange, and then take away your apple, have you undergone a net loss of pieces of fruit?
No, I say mutations themselves stop the processes of evolution that form new species, I certainly haven't said that mutations mean evolution will never stop, because evolution requires selection which always reduces genetic diversity. If you add diversity after you have a new species as a result of evolution/selection/reduction of genetic diversity, you simply lose your species. It's no longer the same species. You may get something else, even another species eventually, but you'll have lost the species originally selected. This isn't evolution ...
Yes it is, Faith. That is, exactly, evolution. If, for example, you start of with a population of Australopithecus and end up with a population of Homo sapiens, then evolution has taken place. Sure, you've lost the species you started with. But you've gained a new one which has evolved from the old one. If this is not evolution, then what is?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Faith, posted 06-23-2016 10:18 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 438 of 455 (786624)
06-24-2016 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2016 2:25 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
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 ..
No. It does not "keep being contested". No-one contests that. No-one in the entire world has ever contested that. Everyone agrees that for one trait out of several to become fixed in the population, the other traits must be eliminated. I know that. Paul knows that. Every geneticist in the world knows that. Everyone with a shred of common sense knows that. Even you know that.
What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) understand what fixation is, but that you (unlike us) are ignoring all the other processes that take place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 2:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 10:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 445 of 455 (786693)
06-24-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Faith
06-24-2016 10:56 AM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
Strictly speaking you are right that loss of genetic diversity isn't the thing being contested, and I misspoke, 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.
No. You don't get to decide what people are implying. And if you ever notice us talking to creationists other than yourself, you will notice that we spend a lot of time shouting at them about natural selection, because most creationists take the tactic of ignoring that and focusing only on mutations. (It would be an interesting experiment to put you in a room with them and lock the door.)
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.
You probably shouldn't have knocked yourself out.
ABE: I have to take back the above because of your post showing all the dog breeds that implied there is no loss of genetic diversity at all, missing the whole point I'd been laboriously making. That is a MAJOR misunderstanding, as good as getting absolutely nothing I'd ever said, and it keeps cropping up in this discussion, so I didn't misspeak, that basic point DOES keep getting contested.
No. Pointing out that there are lots of different kinds of dogs is not the same as contesting the existence of natural selection. And yes, the production of a purebreed does involve homogenizing certain genes of that breed, I never denied that, but on the other hand the careful preservation of mutations has added diversity to the whole species, to Canis lupus.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 10:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 7:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 447 of 455 (786696)
06-24-2016 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
06-24-2016 7:01 PM


Re: An attempt at a simple illustration
And you don't get to tell me I'm "deciding" something when I'm giving a reasonable opinion.
Apparently you've also decided that your opinions are reasonable.
The fact is that the typical way evolution is described implies that variation is open-ended ...
Well, of course it is.
... without a hint of suspicion that loss of genetic diversity is inherent in evolutionary processes.
We know that it's inherent in some evolutionary processes. I know that. Geneticists know that. Everyone who was awake in science class knows that. Even you know that.
What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) are aware that some evolutionary processes reduce genetic diversity, but that you (unlike us) are unable to grasp the role and significance of those that increase it.
In general people DO NOT think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity.
Yes they do. I think of it that way. Geneticists think of it that way. Everyone who was awake in science class thinks of it that way. Even you think of it that way.
What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) think of natural selection as implying loss of genetic diversity, but that you (unlike us) are blithely indifferent to the processes that ensure a constant supply of diversity to select from.
What you were contesting was not natural selection but the loss of genetic diversity by implying that I'd overlooked how much genetic diversity there is in the Dog Kind as a whole ...
Which you do indeed persistently do.
And again, when people speak of natural selection they are not thinking of loss of genetic diversity or I wouldn't be having to work so hard to get it across.
You have not had to do any work to get that across. I think of it that way. Geneticists think of it that way. Everyone who was awake in science class thinks of it that way. Even you think of it that way.
What makes you different from us is not that you (like us) think of natural selection as involving loss of genetic diversity, but that you (unlike us) are blithely indifferent to the processes that ensure a constant supply of diversity to select from.
Which you can't prove.
Do I have to show you the pictures again?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 06-24-2016 7:01 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 453 of 455 (786713)
06-25-2016 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Faith
06-25-2016 11:37 AM


Re: Once again now, evolution of new phenotypes REQUIRES loss of genetic diversity
No I don't think it is what you all mean by evolution.
Hello. Yes it is, we're kind of experts on what we mean. Obviously the evolution of a new species from an old one is evolution.
The main thing is that you don't count in the loss of genetic diversity with each new species/subspecies. In reality you don't keep getting the mutations you claim occur anyway ...
Direct observation says you're wrong.
... but if you did there would be nothing that fits the ToE in a series of new species that all reduce the genetic diversity you suppose you get with the mutations you suppose you get.
If you rewrote that in English, it would be wrong.
Maybe you should look at my graphical representation again, see if you can understand it this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-25-2016 11:37 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