|
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: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: Darwinists insist - perhaps in some futile quest for meaning - that evolution is not the result of a series of random accidents, because is it all controlled by natural selection. Only ignorant Creationists make such silly claims. No one familiar with either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution would make so stupid a statement.
Dredge writes: If life is to be fashioned from a collection of atoms, it can happen in only two ways - by design or by random accidents. Design requires intelligence, but natural selection doesn't have intelligence so cannot design, therefore there is no element of design in the process of evolution. Bullshit. Sorry but that is just another stupid assertion.
Dredge writes: This means evolution is purely the result of the only other option - random accidents - sheer, blind, mindless luck, in other words. Nope, seems you are wrong yet again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Dr. A writes:
For once you are right about something. I'm not at all a biologist, much less a geneticist, but... It was my understanding that all parts of a genome are not equally prone to mutations. Some areas are quite stable. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Individuals don't evolve, populations do. The frequency of the red-headed alleles in that population changed, so that population evolved - but none of the individuals evolved. According to what Dredge described the population did "evolve." There were already redheads in the original population, so there was already an allele for redheadedness in the original population (or perhaps more than one if the trait is governed by more than one gene),, and those individuals survived while all the others and their alleles died. They did not evolve, they survived. They were naturally selected from the total population. Then they multiplied, their numbers increased. So we can say that the population evolved, or changed character with respect to the original population, because there were only redheads and their alleles left and they increased in numbers from that point until there was a very large population of nothing but redheads. This is really a version of microevolution because really this is all that happens to bring about new phenotypes characteristic of new populations -- the selection by one means or another of some proportion of the parent population, its reproductive isolation, either because the others have been killed off or by some other means, and then its increase in numbers. That's really all that ever goes on in "evolution" anyway. (And of course I must point out that the survival and proliferation of redheads because all the others died means there was a drastic decrease in genetic diversity in the new population from the old, due to the enormous loss of alleles for the hair color loci, so a drastically reduced ability for any further "evolution.") Yes, of course Dredge is right, this IS an example of "human avolution," misunderstood as usual by evolutionists. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 879 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
It was my understanding that all parts of a genome are not equally prone to mutations. This is true.
Some areas are quite stable. I think I would put it the other way though, that there are areas that are more unstable or more prone to mutation. There is a sort of baseline mutation rate that most areas have that is simply related to the error rate in the polymerase. But there are regions that are more likely to have errors such as in highly repetitive regions which tends to cause the polymerase to stutter or slip. There are also regions that are prone to damage and the repair mechanisms have a hard time fixing them correctly. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was my understanding that all parts of a genome are not equally prone to mutations. This is also true; why do you mention it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is really a version of microevolution because really this is all that happens to bring about new phenotypes characteristic of new populations -- the selection by one means or another of some proportion of the parent population, its reproductive isolation, either because the others have been killed off or by some other means, and then its increase in numbers. That's really all that ever goes on in "evolution" anyway. That's something you made up, remember?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
See subtitle.
Dr. A writes: This is also true; why do you mention it? Your message that I was replying to:
Dr. A writes: Dredge writes: It's my understanding that mutations are a result of pure, blind chance. Am I mistaken? For once you are right about something. I was pointing out that all areas of a genome are not equally prone to mutations - That it's not "pure, blind chance". Some genome areas are more probable to mutate than others. Maybe call it "impure, blind chance"? Remember, I'm a dubious quality geologist, and the closest thing to a biology class I ever had was invertebrate paleontology. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh here we go again. Except I don't want to go that far with this right now. No, this is the result of thinking about some known facts, it's not made up. The old fashioned methods of domestic breeding are sufficient to make the point: to get a new phenotype you eliminate all the other possible phenotypes and their genotypes too of course. A lot of the work of breeding is preventing the mating of your breed with other breeds of the same animal so as not to reintroduce the alleles for other phenotypes, that would interfere with the purity of your breed. This is so fundamental there's no way to deny it: you get new phenotypes by getting rid of the competitive phenotypes and their genotypes. And the old fashioned breeder also didn't want any mutations because they would just bring in genetic material that does not exist in the pure breed, and that's what you don't want if you are developing a purebred animal.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Of course it is made up. Domestic breeding does not produce new species. Therefore the idea that there is nothing more to speciation than domestic breeding must be considered suspect. if you were thinking about the facts you would have to include that one.
Even the idea that domestic breeders don't want mutations is made up. Remember the Scotch Fold cat ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I didn't use the term speciation, I'm focused on the change which is what evolution is, getting new phenotypes, which requires the loss of genetic diversity. Speciation may or may not occur.
I carefully said "old fashioned" breeding. The Scotch Fold, like the American Curl, is bred by crossing with non-fold/curl cats. The old-fashioned method was MOSTLY breeding only animals with the desired characteristics, which led to rapid genetic depletion. Cross breeding maintains the genetic variability. And today since it is recognized that genetic depletion IS the result of the old-fashioned methods, which lesds to genetic diseases, breeders avoid those methods even at the cost of the purity of their breed. The principle is the same as in the wild, as Darwin recognized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Yet if evolution is to account for speciation - and for the common ancestry of large taxonomic groupings it needs more than that. Assuming that there is no more is not something you can derive from domestic breeding.
quote: Really old fashioned breeding would not care about "pure breeding". The original breeders were interested in the uses that they could make of an animal - they would preserve traits they found useful no matter where they were mutations or not. Which is much more like evolution. The idea that evolution must act like an obsessive kennel club breeder is not only made up - it is obviously false. Indeed, since modern breeding is successful how can you ignore it ? Saying that evolution must act like one particular sort of breeder when other sorts succeed is strange indeed - and thinking about breeding alone should surely call that into question. And, of course it should be noted that if you speed up a subtractive process and leave an additive process running at the same rate - let alone work directly against the additive process - you will deplete whatever resource is involved (the equilibrium point will be lowered). We should expect a loss of genetic variation from intensive breeding even if your ideas are false. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh here we go again. Yes indeed. Once more you are making a trivial, obvious mistake.
No, this is the result of thinking about some known facts, it's not made up. I question your use of the word "thinking".
The old fashioned methods of domestic breeding are sufficient to make the point: to get a new phenotype you eliminate all the other possible phenotypes and their genotypes too of course. A lot of the work of breeding is preventing the mating of your breed with other breeds of the same animal so as not to reintroduce the alleles for other phenotypes, that would interfere with the purity of your breed. This is so fundamental there's no way to deny it: you get new phenotypes by getting rid of the competitive phenotypes and their genotypes. And the old fashioned breeder also didn't want any mutations because they would just bring in genetic material that does not exist in the pure breed, and that's what you don't want if you are developing a purebred animal. Apart from the fact that this is not usually how you get new phenotypes, it is obviously the case that natural processes are not intent on producing and then conserving a pure breed. The fact that (for example) the Dalmatian Club Of America wants to produce homogeneity and stasis in dalmatians does not prove that natural forces can do nothing but produce homogeneity and stasis. They can also produce diversity and change; so could the dalmatian guys if they wanted to. You might as well point to lapidaries polishing stones and deduce that there are no forces that can produce rough or jagged rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I was pointing out that all areas of a genome are not equally prone to mutations - That it's not "pure, blind chance". Some genome areas are more probable to mutate than others. Maybe call it "impure, blind chance"? Well, you'd have to ask Dredge what he means by the adjectives. But in general when we say that something is by chance we do not mean that all results are equiprobable. You are six times more likely to throw a 7 on two dice than a 2, but we still ascribe the results to chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I carefully said "old fashioned" breeding. The Scotch Fold, like the American Curl, is bred by crossing with non-fold/curl cats. The old-fashioned method was MOSTLY breeding only animals with the desired characteristics, which led to rapid genetic depletion. Cross breeding maintains the genetic variability. And today since it is recognized that genetic depletion IS the result of the old-fashioned methods, which lesds to genetic diseases, breeders avoid those methods even at the cost of the purity of their breed. Right, not even all the breeders do the thing which you want to make the paradigm for all evolutionary processes ever. This is a clue: I urge you to get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The old fashioned methods of domestic breeding are sufficient to make the point It is sufficient to make the point, yes, but the point is insufficient to explain all the observations. The way breeding works is just one way, it doesn't explain how all of evolution occurs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024