|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then you misread me or I wasn't clear. I mean and always mean that A WHOLE POPULATION of a particular phenotype is produced by selection, not the black fur itself. I've said over and over that it doesn't matter how the genetic diversity is produced, whether by mutation or built in alleles, when you have evolution, meaning the production of a population of new phenotypes, it can only happen by the reduction of genetic diversity. If the mutation for black fur is selected then you have to lose the alleles for light fur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: I mean and always mean that A WHOLE POPULATION of a particular phenotype is produced by selection, not the black fur itself. Would you also agree that black fur color was produced by a mutation, and that mutation is beneficial?
I've said over and over that it doesn't matter how the genetic diversity is produced, whether by mutation or built in alleles, when you have evolution, meaning the production of a population of new phenotypes, it can only happen by the reduction of genetic diversity. At one point there was just brown mice. Due to a mutation, there is now black and brown mice. This is evolution. How is this a reduction in genetic diversity when you go from one phenotype to two phenotypes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know what to think of the mutation theory. It may be a mutation, but it doesn't matter. Again, it's the selection that reduces the genetic diversity, and it's the selection that creates the new population, or in some cases "species." In the new population there is only the one phenotype.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
It may be a mutation, but it doesn't matter. It matters. A lot. If it's a mutation your claims about loss of genetic diversity are false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, new species etc. It does NOT matter what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the new gene frequencies form, you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
This change only requires the - eventual - replacement of one allele. And the arrival of a number of different alleles for black fur - maintained by natural selection in the regions where it is beneficial - has increased the genetic diversity of the species.
Thus we do not need an ever-declining diversity. A fluctuating diversity, where new alleles are introduced by mutation and eventually replace the "originals" is quite sufficient. And the pocket mice are strong evidence that it is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, ... Still wrong, still invalidated by polyploidy increasing genetic diversity. Still invalidated by actual evolution. Without mutations adding to the genetic diversity selection has nothing to select other than the old phenotypes. The scientific evolution - not Faitholution - includes mutation and selection in a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. Those are four facts that make up the actual real world process of evolution -- it is observed, documented fact. Denial is delusion.
... It does NOT matter what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the new gene frequencies form, you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species. The source of genetic diversity is mutations. This gives selection something new to work with to adapt a population to an ecology, something that didn't exist before. Polyploidy, for example, provides another copy of the genome to mutate and then the organisms have both the original version and the new version. Thus they have more genetic diversity ON THEIR OWN than their parents. Denial is delusion.
... you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species. Where do the alleles for larger size come from in Pelycodus Faith? Selection is removing the alleles for the smaller organisms, but where do the larger organisms get the alleles for increased size?
quote: How has all of Pelycodus jarrovii become larger than all of Pelycodus ralstoni except by the addition of alleles for larger and larger organisms, while selection removes the old alleles for smaller organisms. Selection removes alleles when there is a choice, and choice is provided by mutations. Evolution and anagenesis explains this very simply, with no torturous mental fantasy. Denial is delusion. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Heritable traits like fur color will never lead to macroevolution. And reduction of genetic diversity is ALWAYS necessary to get a new species, can't happen any other way. Drift also loses genetic diversity to produce its new phenotypes.
Mutations are not needed to produce new varieties, but even if mutation was the cause of a particular change, the same processes have to occur in order to make a species out of it. What has to happen is that an existing or mutated allele or set of alleles for larger size be selected and become characteristic of a new population. And for the larger size to become characteristic, the genetic material for the smaller size will be reduced or lost. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Heritable traits like fur color will never lead to macroevolution. ... Except when it is cause for a population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one fur color remains in its current ecology and the new fur color moves into a new ecology and starts evolving independently of the original fur color population. Except when simple size difference causes one population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one size inhabits outer tree branches while the other inhabits a more ground based ecology, foraging and reproducing in those different habitats.
... And reduction of genetic diversity is ALWAYS necessary to get a new species, ... Totally and utterly falsified by polyploidy, failure to understand this is not a refutation of the facts. Denial is delusion.
... can't happen any other way. ... Except when it so obviously does. Denial is delusion.
... Drift also loses genetic diversity to produce its new phenotypes. Except when there are prior mutations that provide alternatives and it is this gain in genetic diversity that provides the ability for drift into develop a new phenotype.
Mutations are not needed to produce new varieties, ... Except when mutations provide the traits for the new varieties, as in the black mice. Denial is delusion.
... but even if mutation was the cause of a particular change, the same processes have to occur in order to make a species out of it. ... You mean the division of the population into two independently evolving daughter populations, as in polyploidy species and fossil species like pelycodus, where the opportunity provided by mutation allowed the original population to inhabit a second ecology.
... What has to happen is that an existing or mutated allele or set of alleles for larger size be selected and become characteristic of a new population. ... That didn't exist in the previous population, so it must be a mutated allele/s that are selected.
... And for the larger size to become characteristic, the genetic material for the smaller size will be reduced or lost. Because they have been replaced/displaced by the new larger allele that were just gained by mutation. Net change in genetic material hovers around zero in a never ending equilibrium between new and old as new becomes old. Enjoy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race, evolution within the Kind, not macroevolution. You get a population of blue wildebeests that split off from the black population; you get a new pattern of colors on the new population of salamanders, new plumage on the new population of green warblers and so on. You do not get macroevolution.
You don't need mutation for adaptations either, just new combinations of existing alleles. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Polyploidy isn't any different really from any mutation, it doesn't make anything new, in fact it doesn't even make anything as new as a mutation can supposedly make if it codes for a new protein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race, evolution within the Kind, not macroevolution. ... All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race or species, evolution within the Clade, which is the definition of (scientific) macroevolution.
... You get a population of blue wildebeests that split off from the black population; you get a new pattern of colors on the new population of salamanders, new plumage on the new population of green warblers and so on. You do not get macroevolution. Anagenesis(1) and cladogenesis(1). Can you tell me what your definition is for macroevolution? Inquiring minds want to know. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems. Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind,--- abe: no not ANY change, I mean a new population -- but it can't happen, you run out of genetic diversity at that point.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That is what you hope however it is obviously not the case.
quote: As we see this attempt fails because the whole idea of "the boundary of the Kind" is meaningless. Oh, I suppose we could more accurately phrase it as "evolution which creationists reject" but that is somewhat subjective and not exactly useful to science.
quote: That's your opinion but the evidence is still against you. And your opinion hardly outweighs the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems ... Which seems to be your way of "proving" your opinions, semantics and twisted definitions to fit your opinions ...
... Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind ... abe: no not ANY change, I mean a new population ... So you have: Macroevolution is any new population beyond the boundary of their Kind, yes? What is "the Kind" and what is the "boundary of the Kind" and how do we identify and find them? If a new population is descendant from an existing "kind" species, isn't it -- by definition -- a part of that "kind" (and thus cannot be outside the "boundary of the Kind")? Without knowing this your definition is useless and as arbitrary as your opinion. Let us talk about dogs for starters, Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species.
Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection of new mutations, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species, because the mutations occur randomly and the only difference is the selection and viability of the populations (artificial selection does not test for survivability in a natural environment because the breeds are kept in protected environments -- this artificially increases the different types that would survive). Some are much more viable than others, especially when the breed is used for specific purposes (eg - sheep herding, fox hunting, etc). So how big is the "Dog Kind"? We have dogs (all breeds) and wolves (all species) and presumably all other members of Canidae:
quote: How do we know if these are "Dog Kind" members? OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Caniformia:
quote: Caniformia also includes bears and badgers -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too? How do we know? Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary? OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivora:
quote: Carnivora also includes cats and other members of Feliforma (jackals, mongoose, etc) -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too? How do we know? Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary? OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivoramorpha:
quote: Carnivoramorpha also includes the (extinct) Miacoidea -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too? How do we know? Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary? Before we can say that something has evolved outside the "boundary of the Kind" don't we have to know what that boundary is and how we can test species against that boundary? 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