|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 is? All I see is silly arguments about it being unnecessary or stuff like
quote: Which is just a silly assertion. Why would we not get established species ? Where is the 'reasoned argument"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: Not necessarily. Why would you think that ?
quote: And if it spreads by drift ?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: I can't see how you can honestly justify that. Especially since your argument above rests on an obvious falsehood.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024