|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Selection can change a species, but as a matter of fact there are an awful lot of species that simply persist without change. The peppered mother and the pocket mice are unusual situations which is why they are talked about. If there had been no industrial revolution and no lava-covered areas neither would have changed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Since the fossil record is not a record of change from time period to time period as is claimed by OE and ToE theory, but a record of what lived before the Flood, you have no point. Besides, I'm not talking persistence over millions of years, I'd expect small changes in any population even over a few hundred years, so I'm talking about relative stability of a population in which the changes are hardly noticeable in any case.
I'd suggest the wildebeests as a stable unchanging population, grizzly bears, polar bears, panda bears, any local population of raccoons, bobcats, lions, etc etc etc. Almost any species you can think of is stable in the sense I'm talking about. You get change when you get selection; otherwise you get stability even with all your mutations. Even the cheetah is stable, how long has it persisted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I can't follow what you are saying I have no choice but to ignore it. If you want to talk to me make it intelligible to me and stop with the insults if you want to be heard. I stopped reading your post about a third of the way down because it makes no sense to me, it's a lot of insulting gobbledegook. Sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've been consistently answering all the bogus "problems" you all keep bringing up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is absurd. The understanding that mutations are predominantly neutral, many deleterious and a very very few beneficial is so commonly known I wouldn't expect to have to justify it. There must even be many threads at EvC that affirm this. Where are the honest evos who know this is the truth and will say so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
(JonF) Do you have any calculations or observations of the real world whether there are enough beneficial mutations (or neutral but beneficial when the environment changes, or detrimental but conferring some benefit before it's lost) to account for no inevitable loss of diversity? Even if ALL mutations were beneficial, selection inevitably brings about loss of genetic diversity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's been backed up over and over and over again. There's no way it can't happen, and besides it's even been agreed that it happens. Breeding examples are the clearest demonstration of why and how it has to happen even in nature. Selection has to reduce genetic diversity, that's all there is to it. You can't get a population of new phenotypes if genetic material for other phenotypes remains at any appreciable level in the population. There is no need for calculations, the logic is clear.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The gas analogy doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, that is a false analogy. losing genetic diversity in the emergence of a population with new phenotypic characteristics is not just a matter of addition plus subtraction.; The loss is NECESSARY to the formation of the new population, it can't happen unless there is such a loss, and that's why continued selection would eventually have to arrive at a point where further evolution couldn't occur. It's not a matter of add and subtract.
A big part of the problem here seems to be that this is the first time you've ever encountered my argument. However, I don't know what your evolution simulating program does or how same or different it is from Dawkins.' When I joined this conversation I commented on having seen Dawkins' program demonstrated some time ago and it was clear that it represented the usual idea of unimpeded microevolution becoming macroevolution without any recognition of the necessary loss of genetic diversity. And so far nothing you've said shows that your program takes it into account either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Gosh you make a lot of snarky assertions, without one iota of actual substance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's been answered a million times already. I know you aren't stupid so you must keep asking it to distract from the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's remarkable how you manage to write a whole long post without giving a single piece of information about anything, nothing but snarky accusations and namecalling.
The Dawkins program I saw in action was intended as a model of how evolution works, with little stick characters turning into other little stick characters. If it wasn't intended to be a model and if yours isn't, shouldn't you at least say what it IS intended to do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I were a dog breeding lineage (me, my children, their children, their children...) and selected dogs with short hair and small stature over the years while not selecting too fast and keeping the general population numbers high... I could end up with a small dog with very short hair, yes? Then, if my lineage decided to change it's selection to dogs with long hair and large stature over the years, again while not selecting too fast and keeping the general population numbers high... I could end up with a large dog with long hair, yes? Isn't this what Faith is saying is flatly impossible?That breeding a small dog (or pick whatever feature you want) "loses" the ability of being a large dog (or anything that is not-the-feature-in-question)? Isn't this done by many breeders today? I thought there were many breeds of things (birds, fish) that were bred in one direction traditionally, but lately breeders have been reversing the trends to give a "shock factor" in their attempts to sell animals? Sort of an "Oh my! A traditionally short-haired dog with long hair! I must buy it, my friends will all be so impressed because they've never seen such a thing!!" Doesn't such breeding tactics fly directly in the face of Faith's breeding examples for this "loss" she claims to exist?Or, maybe I'm just not understanding any of the arguments here... If you have been breeding only short-haired small dogs over that many years you should certainly have reached a point where you couldn't switch to larger long-haired dogs from that same line because you WOULD have lost all the genetic material for that kind of dog by that point. If you now want this different type of dog you pretty much have to start over with the kind of dog you now want that isn't related to your short-haired small breed. To get a long-haired version of your breed could be as simple as not having completely lost that particular trait in all your former breeding so that the long hair still shows up from time to time in your litters, which you usually cull out, but you can choose not to cull it out, so that when it shows up in an individual here and there you can breed those for the long hair variety. If, however, you HAVE lost the long hair trait in your breed, so that you now have homozygosity for short hair at all the gene loci that govern hair length, then you won't be able to get the long hair from your breed, you'll have to introduce a long haired small dog into your breed to get that trait. And since you'll no doubt lose some other salient traits of your breed in that process you'll probably have to take a few generations of careful mating choices before you've got a dog that looks like your original breed but has long hair. ============ABE: I of course extrapolate from such breeding examples that in the wild where you have a homogeneous population inbreeding over many generations it too will lose all the traits that are not found in its own characteristic trait picture. If the loss hasn't been total so that different traits continue to appear from generation to generation, and then a small number migrate to a new location where they become the founders of a new population, and by chance they posses alleles for other traits in high enough frequency for them to become characteristic of the new population, they could become a new species. It's all a function of how much genetic diversity still exists (along with other factors such as dominance-recessive, sexual selection, drift and even theoretically an errant beneficial mutation I suppose) whether you can get new species from this kind of process, so that from a species/population that has become homozygous for a great many traits, which is loss of genetic diversity to a rather extreme degree, getting a new species from that population would most likely be impossible. (I point to the cheetah which has never had a beneficial mutation occur in all its generations to allow for any further evolution.) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just using some ballpark figures, if each individual has 100 mutations, and the probability of a beneficial mutation is 0.000001%, and the population is 1 billion, then there are 1000 beneficial mutations per generation. Remember, it has to occur in a germ cell to be passed on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm pretty sure that if we have fully and completely lost the long hair trait in the breed it's quite possible for a random mutation to happen that can be selected for to get long hair again without having to introduce any other dogs into the breed. Well, consider the odds. Not only does your mutation have to occur at the gene locus for the long haired trait, it has to be a particular sequence that would code for the protein for that trait, it also has to be dominant and able to be expressed even if ten other genes also code for hair length and they are all homozygous for short hair, and it has to occur in a sex cell in order to be passed on. Then if it gets passed on and shows up in half the pups in that litter it will probably only be a LITTLE longer than the short haired type anyway, but you could start your new breed from there. But again, consider the odds.
And if we stop selecting for short hair, and start selecting for long hair again... well, the rest is normal breeding to get long hair into the population again. See above for the odds based on a mutation. My guess is that it would in fact be impossible and that even if you got a slightly longer haired pup it would take many generations before it got long enough to be what you have in mind by simply multiplying the effect of that one gene. And I don't even know if that's possible. The odds are seriously against you.
This 'new' long hair gene will probably be different from the 'original' long hair gene. You're saying such a thing is impossible? What would prevent it? Are you saying that random mutations are impossible? I'm saying that such specific mutations as described above are highly improbable.
I think this is rather against the evidence. Are you saying it's impossible for a random mutation in any short haired breed to grant the ability to have long hair? I think the odds are astronomically against it. But as I say above if the allele hasn't completely disappeared from the population but pops up now and then it could be exploited to get long-haired versions of your dog. It entirely depends on whether that trait is still in the population here and there
I'm pretty sure this has been done many, many times by many different breeders. I think if you learn more about the steps taken to that end you'd find out it's probably a case of the allele still being present and showing up here and there to be exploited. Sometimes people do impute the appearance of a rare trait to a mutation that isn't really the result of a mutation. Consider the case of the cat with the curled ears, the "American Curl." It was originally a mutation in a single cat, so for it to be passed on required breeding the cat with that trait with a whole variety of other kinds of cats to preserve that one trait. Now there are many different kinds of cats with curled ears, not a particular breed with it, although they call all of them the American Curl. A single mutation in other words doesn't have much of a chance of becoming part of the trait picture of a given breed.
Are you saying it's impossible for a random mutation in a "short haired breed that came from a long haired breed but lost the original long haired gene" to grant the ability to have long hair? If so, how would the mutation know it can't do that? What would prevent it?Random mutations don't "know" or "remember" the past history of the breed... Please ponder what I've written about this above about the odds against getting a particular mutation in the right place to be passed on etc etc etc. It's all a matter of getting a particular DNA sequence that codes for a particular protein in the germ cell. Consider the odds. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024