Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 44 of 127 (812293)
06-15-2017 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
06-15-2017 4:15 PM


Re: Simple Example
Faith writes:
I've given up trying to match the biblical record for now but I still believe for other reasons that two-allele-genes has to be the original, and given that there are many genes for most or all traits, it really is easy to account for all the known diversity in any Species. I gave the example of two genes for skin color giving the whole range of skin colors.
The problem is that you can't account for the diversity between species with two alleles per gene, much less within a species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 4:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:38 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 47 of 127 (812469)
06-16-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
06-16-2017 12:02 AM


Re: Simple Example
Faith writes:
And, overlooking the problem that most mutations do nothing of the sort, I keep answering that to get a new species you have to eliminate (select out) most of the genetic diversity,
That genetic diversity is then replenished with new mutations. Mutations never stop, even after a specific allele in a specific gene has reached fixation. When that gene reaches fixation then new alleles will arise from that fixed allele. It never stops.
I'd point out that no mutations have come along in the case of the cheetah.
Since when? Show me a paper that compares cheetah genomes or family triads and shows that there is not a single mutation that separates those genomes.
And all you can get in any case is a variation on a trait, a new fur color perhaps, nothing structural, nothing that changes the basic characteristics of the animal.
So you are saying that the differences between a chimp and a human has nothing to do with structure or basic characteristics?
there's something about the cat genome that makes it a cat no matter how many variations of catness you can get out of it.
Chimps and humans are variations of primates.
Bears and humans are variations of mammals.
Fish and humans are variations of vertebrates.
Trees and humans are variations of eukaryotes.
None of this is macroevolution simply because I can call them the same name? Is that what this all comes down to, the ability to call two species by the same name?
ABE: I suspect that by genetic engineering you might be able to get a dinosaur from a lizard by exploiting genes for size of the creature and of various parts, and tweaking various functions of the lizard, but I'm quite sure you could never get a mammal that way. There's something about the genome that is so species-specific it can't change but I never hear this discussed.
If we took a lizard genome and changed it so it was identical to a human genome, this wouldn't produce a human?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 12:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 48 of 127 (812470)
06-16-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
06-15-2017 11:38 PM


Re: Simple Example
Faith writes:
I think you said that the wrong way around. I don't think the diversity between species has anything to do with genetic inheritance so there is no genetic provision that could account for it.
If you can't account for all biodiversity with just two alleles per gene, then mutations are relevant to the discussion. You have to change the DNA sequence in order to get the biodiversity we see today.
But within a species two-allele genes/ many genes per trait, is definitely enough to account for all the enormous diversity we see.
You have yet to prove this assertion. It is just your faith based belief.
Name the trait, multiple genes with two alleles each will cover all the diversity.
The trait is HLA-A molecules on macrophages. Please show me that there are only two alleles for this gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 7:18 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 50 of 127 (812681)
06-19-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-16-2017 7:18 PM


Re: Simple Example
Faith writes:
All diversity within a kind CAN be accounted for as I said. No problem whatever.
Then prove it. Show me that there are only two HLA-A alleles in the human population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 7:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 53 of 127 (814991)
07-14-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by CRR
07-14-2017 8:05 AM


Re: Simple Example
CRR writes:
Coming in a bit late here.
Mutations can increase genetic diversity without increasing information.
E.g. If there is a point substitution such that the codon produces the same amino acid there would be a new allele but no change in produced protein or in the phenotype. It could even change the amino acid without changing the function of the protein.
A mutation can also change a function without it increasing information, such as in the sickle cell trait. This produces defective red blood cells but also provides some protection against malaria. A defect in the MC1R gene results in red hair.
The original kinds from the ark could have had up to 4 alleles for each gene, more for the clean kinds. Mutations could have increased alleles and diversity without increasing information.
Evolution doesn't need to produce new information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by CRR, posted 07-14-2017 8:05 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 07-15-2017 1:38 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 62 of 127 (815026)
07-14-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-14-2017 2:35 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:
YOu can't even show a species that developed from mutations beyond a single trait.
Chimps and humans are separated by 40 million mutations. They differ by more than one trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 2:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 63 of 127 (815027)
07-14-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
07-14-2017 1:54 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:
Thank you for that basic acknowledgement that selection requires loss. As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss.
The process of gain then loss, gain then loss, gain then loss is exactly what drives macroevolution. This is why the chimp genome is different from the human genome. Mutations that occurred in the chimp or human lineage replaced the pre-existing alleles to arrive at two genomes that are now different from one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 1:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 66 of 127 (815031)
07-14-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:11 PM


Re: Mutations assumed by faith in the ToE
Faith writes:
Chimps and humans do NOT differ by "40 million mutations,"
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature
That is from the chimp genome paper. I think I will go with the scientists who actually sequenced the chimp genome over a lay person on an internet forum that has demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge in the field of genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 67 of 127 (815032)
07-14-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:19 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:
If you changed every single allele of every gene by a mutation, which cannot possibly happen and never happens, the actual incidence of benefical mutations is minuscule by comparison, but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them.
Why would I have to lose all the new mutations in order to get a new species? Why would a new species have a genome identical to it's ancestors?
So you get new fur colors, new whatevers, a lot of them, different traits (which again, does not happen) still to get a new species of a particular set of traits means getting rid of all the others, and the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed.
New traits continue to appear due to mutations. You get a continual pattern of gain then loss, gain then loss, gain then loss. This is what changes the daughter populations compared to the ancestral populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 71 of 127 (815037)
07-14-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
07-14-2017 4:51 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:
There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see. Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species. Species within a Kind.
The mutations would be an increase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 4:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 6:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 105 of 127 (815216)
07-17-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
07-14-2017 6:37 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Faith writes:
Mutations make no difference.
Quite obviously, the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans make a big difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-14-2017 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 6:05 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 106 of 127 (815217)
07-17-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CRR
07-15-2017 1:38 AM


Re: Simple Example
CRR writes:
Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information.
Just as humans and chimps are in the primate kind, bears and humans are in the mammal kind, and fish and humans are in the vertebrate kind. Nice to see that you agree with the theory of evolution. There didn't need to be an increase in genetic information, as you define it, for all of these species to evolve from a common ancestor.
If we showed you every mutation in the human lineage that occurred after splitting from the chimp lineage, you would call each and every one of those a loss in information. And yet, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors anyway. Your definition of information is pretty meaningless when it comes to actual biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 07-15-2017 1:38 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 107 of 127 (815218)
07-17-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
07-15-2017 5:36 PM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
Faith writes:
First such a mutation is so rare as to be nonexistent.
The 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps say otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 07-15-2017 5:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 108 of 127 (815222)
07-17-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
07-16-2017 6:58 PM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
CRR writes:
As my reply to RAZD shows mutations that increase diversity are not necessarily rare, but many of them are detrimental and even the beneficial ones are usually defects of some sort.
Of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, how many are defects of some sort?
What IS rare are the beneficial information adding mutations, Macroevolution, that would be essential for the proposed evolutionary history of life.
Of the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, which, if any, do you consider an increase in information?
Evolution apologists need to show that sufficient macroevolution can take place during the time available to produce the changes required.
Apologists? Why do creationists continually try to make evolution look like a religion? To make it look as bad as creationism? Anyway . . .
With a mutation rate of 100 mutations per individual per person, a 25 year generation time, a constant population of 1 million, and 5 million years since diverging from a common ancestor, that is a total 20 x 10^12 (20 trillion) total mutations that have happened in the human lineage. We are only separated from chimps by 40 million mutations. If half of those mutations occurred in each lineage, that is just 20 million mutations that have to be selected for or kept through genetic drift. That is just 0.001% of the total number of mutations that did occur. Can you please tell me how the observed process of mutation could not produce these changes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 07-16-2017 6:58 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:45 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 112 of 127 (815290)
07-18-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
07-18-2017 5:45 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
CRR writes:
Of the millions of genetic differences that separate humans and chimps I would expect most to be innate and some would be inherited defects accumulated over the last 6000 years.
That's what mutations are, genetic differences. Are you saying that if a supernatural deity makes a change in a genome it won't cause any problems, but if the natural process of mutagenesis produces that exact same change it will cause problems?
If changing a genome at all will cause defects, as you claim, then it will cause problems no matter who or what is making those changes.
If however humans and chimps are assumed to have a common ancestor ~7 million years ago then the hundreds of non-homologous genes would either be an increase in information or losses from the genome of the common ancestor. Since it is unlikely that so many genes could have been produced and fixed in the evolutionary time available the common ancestor must have had a super-genome with hundreds more genes than either the chimp or human today. Massive devolution is indicated.
Where is your evidence that the mutations producing new reading frames could not be produced in that time frame?
CRR writes:
You'll have to explain the maths to me. Dr Adequate came up with a quite different figure; you might want to discuss it with him. I had a discussion with him on this topic in another thread.
I already explained the math in the previous post. It is simple arithmetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:45 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 9:54 PM Taq 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