|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can the creationist model explain the data? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Here's my laboratory experiment which I've mentioned before: Collect a bunch of small creatures, small enough to let multiply in a lab but large enough to do DNA sampling on. Let them multiply, split them into new populations, let them multiply, keep doing this from each new population. Watch what happens to the genetic diversity. There have been several, mostly with fruit flies (short generations, DNA easily extracted). See fruit fly experiments dna diversity - Google Search Browse at your leisure, but there have been significant changes to their DNA over the period they have been done Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search. What I said was:
(Faith): Collect a bunch of small creatures, small enough to let multiply in a lab but large enough to do DNA sampling on. Let them multiply, split them into new populations, let them multiply, keep doing this from each new population. Watch what happens to the genetic diversity. There have been several, mostly with fruit flies (short generations, DNA easily extracted). See fruit fly experiments dna - Google Search... Browse at your leisure, but there have been significant changes to their DNA over the period they have been done Now I could go down the list and then list every one ... and the difference would be? The point is that there are hundreds of studies. Curiously they all tend to discredit Faith's thesis about genetic diversity dwindling because they show mutations and new traits. But here's one:
quote: A gene mutated causing white eyes, recessive and sex linked, but still it increased diversity. Here's another:
quote: Increasing reproductive inaccuracy ("transmission distortion") causing more mutations to increase diversity in response to ecological stress. Such fun. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When there are a thousand studies that show diversification of fruit flies, a single reference is inadequate to show the number of such studies. This argument that diversity always decreases is so much toast in the real world that the sheer number of such studies is like an avalanche to bury the poser.
That's what you seem to miss in your whining about getting a bing (not google - they track your uses for ad companies) search. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes there are thousands of studies on fruit flies. Embryologist Jonathan Wells sums up the research on fruit fly mutations. "There are only 3 possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly." Then Jonathan Wells lies hyperbolically for christ. See Message 36 for examples, one from 1915 that shows a mutation causing white eyes arising. Now in Jonathan Wells' view this may be "defective" but the eyes work as well as the red ones. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Drosophila collected from the wild have dark red eyes. That's all you need to know to conclude that "white eye" is a deleterious defect. If it worked "as well" then it would not be eliminated from wild populations. "We further show that white mutant flies are not only optomotor blind but also dazzled by the over-flow of light in daylight." Influence of the White Locus on the Courtship Behavior of Drosophila Males - PMC Looks like Jonathon Wells was right in this case. In creationist speak all mutations are defects, regardless of their benefits in different ecologies. This term means nothing when so used.
Drosophila collected from the wild have dark red eyes. That's all you need to know to conclude that "white eye" is a deleterious defect. If it worked "as well" then it would not be eliminated from wild populations. Has it actually been tested in the wild or is this just a lie for the gullible readers? No, it is not "all you need to know" -- that is a lie.
"We further show that white mutant flies are not only optomotor blind but also dazzled by the over-flow of light in daylight." Influence of the White Locus on the Courtship Behavior of Drosophila Males - PMC Or it means they are better suited for twilight conditions, a different ecology. That is how evolution utilizes new traits -- whether or not they can expand into different ecologies -- such as the black pocket mice. No, it looks like Jonathon Wells was not telling the whole truth. He was telling you what you wanted to hear and nothing more. Nor does this argument show that the mutation was not a different trait that evolved in the lab, that it was not due to a mutation in the lab population, and that it therefore did not add to the diversity within the lab population -- which is Faith's claim. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
CRR writes:
It's premature to conclude that white-eyed fruit flies don't exit in the wild BECAUSE of the mutation. Have you considered any other possible explanations? It is almost inevitable that the white eye mutation has occurred in the wild and it has not persisted so we can conclude that it is a deleterious mutation. What I have trouble with is assuming that because this mutation occurred in the lab that it would also occur in the wild -- the probability of two such mutations occurring is really very very small. Saying they don't exist in the wild is like saying they don't have blue or gold eyed flies in the wild, so those would be deleterious in the wild. It's lying by omission. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It's quite likely that if it happened in a short time in a small laboratory population then it will also have happened in a much longer time in a much larger wild population. Why? What's the probability of a specified mutation occurring? (and isn't that a favorite IDologist argument?)
However the effects of this mutation have also been documented showing clearly that it is detrimental and not beneficial. In one ecology. Has it been tested in all ecologies? When a black fur mutation occurs in a tan mouse population wouldn't that be clearly detrimental and not beneficial in the tan mouse ecology, but does that also mean it is clearly detrimental and not beneficial in a black lava bed ecology? It is the ecology that determines fitness, not the mutations. Methinks you are assuming what you want to be without sufficient data\evidence. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... But since that acts to preserve the current allele frequencies it does not result even in microevolution! If it causes a change in the frequency of alleles then microevolution occurs. Selection for stasis is still evolution.
But the Theory of evolution requires much more. Since it hypothesizes ascent from a microbial ancestor ... Wrong, and this is the kind of error one makes when one starts with a wrong definition for the ToE. Note that I am referring to your definition for the ToE in Message 7:
quote: All the ToE (scientific version) says is that mutations occur and cause variation in the inheritable traits, and selection operates on those variations by allowing the individuals with traits that are a better fit for the ecological challenges and opportunities to survive and reproduce. When that ecology is static and the population has reached an equilibrium fitness, selection will work to maintain a stasis in the population.
... the evidence must show that beneficial mutations that increase the genome can occur in a cumulative manner within the time available. Deleterious changes do not support that at all. Actually all the evidence needs to show is that inheritable traits change over time, that anagenesis and cladogenesis do actually occur ... and it does.
Darwin had sufficient evidence to propose this as a hypothesis but the evidence since then is predominantly against it. And I have no idea where you are getting this false information/idea. All scientific studies of evolution confirm evolution occurring, you can see it in every generation of every species currently living. Again, you appear to be working with your problematic (misleading) definition of the ToE that "ascent" must occur, evolution must climb a ladder, when this is not what the ToE (scientific version) says. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
All the ToE (scientific version) says ...
Reference required to the official definition of the TOE (scientific version). There is no single "official" definition, but I can show you how it is taught at one of the major universities that teaches biology and evolution:
quote: quote: The link to the third lecture no longer works (it repeats the second lecture above). Definition 1 is what results from process of evolution in a breeding population, while definition 2 is what results from the processes of anagenesis and cladogenesis, which are the long term, multigenerational, accumulation of the results of the process of evolution in a breeding population. These are pretty standard definitions, and you can find similar definitions on other university websites.
quote: As you can (or should be able to) see these two sources provide the same basic definition. You can also compare these to my definition:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level. If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis. If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024