|
Author
|
Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5948 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.5
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 406 of 908 (817269)
08-16-2017 10:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 391 by Faith
08-16-2017 1:32 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
A big part of the problem here seems to be that this is the first time you've ever encountered my argument. Wrong. You've been posting this half-baked idea of yours for quite some time now. And during all that time you've been ignoring all attempts to help you to correct its problems.
However, I don't know what your evolution simulating program does or how same or different it is from Dawkins.' I do not have any evolution simulating program! I have told you that repeatedly! Neither WEASEL nor MONKEY simulate evolution! Try to get that through your thick skull!
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. False! It does no such thing nor was it ever intended to! You are projecting your own half-baked ideas onto it.
And so far nothing you've said shows that your program takes it into account either. And so far nothing you have said shows that the Bible takes into account the UNIX operating system, therefore the Bible must be false. Criticizing something for not accomplishing something that it was never intended to accomplish is foolish. Please stop being so foolish!
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. Yet again, it is indeed a matter of add and subtract. Just because selection is happening does not mean that mutation stops happening. Failing to recognize that is the major problem with your silly half-baked argument. Besides, selection does not turn on and off either. Selection happens (we should make that into a bumper sticker). Selection happens all the time in every single generation just as mutation happens in every single generation. Selection drives stasis -- without selection, stasis could not happen -- and selection drives changes to a new or changing environment. Faith, your half-baked argument informs us that you misunderstand even the most basic parts of how evolution works. You need to think your ideas through and correct those errors. And that you refuse so vehemently to do so tells us a llot about you and your argument.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 391 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 1:32 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 413 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 11:08 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 407 of 908 (817271)
08-16-2017 10:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 380 by CRR
08-15-2017 10:29 PM
|
|
Re: This is NOT macroevolution, the product of non-stop microevolution
CRR writes: Now when the isolated populations merge we have two different alleles. Note that no new genes have been created, just two corrupted versions of the original. Hence this can be regarded as microevolution. Corrupted? Is the human genome a corrupted version of the chimp genome simply because there are differences?
In most cases this won't prevent interbreeding; like blue eyed and brown eyed people can still have children. But they aren't interbreeding which is why the alleles diverge. It isn't a matter of if they can interbreed, but if they do interbreed. For all we know, humans and chimps can produce offspring, but what is important is that we don't. What we have is macroevolution produced by the accumulation of microevolutionary events in each lineage.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 380 by CRR, posted 08-15-2017 10:29 PM | | CRR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 445 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 6:28 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 408 of 908 (817272)
08-16-2017 10:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 381 by CRR
08-15-2017 10:38 PM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
CRR writes: That is so, and very few of the beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information. Do you have any science to back up this assertion? Are the differences between the chimp and human genomes a loss in information?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 381 by CRR, posted 08-15-2017 10:38 PM | | CRR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 444 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 6:24 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 409 of 908 (817273)
08-16-2017 10:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
08-15-2017 11:54 PM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes: Even if ALL mutations were beneficial, selection inevitably brings about loss of genetic diversity. And mutations replenish that genetic diversity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 383 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 11:54 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 410 of 908 (817274)
08-16-2017 10:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
08-16-2017 12:33 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes: 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. And mutations have to increase 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. And after the new phenotype becomes fixed in the population, new mutations will produce new phenotypes which replace the previous phenotypes. It never stops.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 385 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 12:33 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 411 of 908 (817275)
08-16-2017 10:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 387 by Faith
08-16-2017 12:55 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes: The gas analogy doesn't work. It works perfectly. You are claiming that evolution will run out of gas. You are claiming that evolution can only go as far as the gas currently in the tank will allow it. We are pointing out the fact that you can put more gas in the tank. You are saying that after you buy a car you can only go for about 300-400 miles until the gas runs out. You are saying that putting gas in the tank ruins the purpose of the engine burning that gas. That is how silly your argument is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 387 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 12:55 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10038 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 412 of 908 (817276)
08-16-2017 11:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 396 by DOCJ
08-16-2017 4:02 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
DOCJ writes: Here is a quote from the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon regarding kind at blueletterbible.org. Using that definition of "kind", there is only one kind of life on planet Earth because all species share a common ancestor. Humans belong to the same kind as all other species.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 396 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 4:02 AM | | DOCJ has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 419 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 12:29 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 413 of 908 (817277)
08-16-2017 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 406 by dwise1
08-16-2017 10:18 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
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?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 406 by dwise1, posted 08-16-2017 10:18 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 416 by dwise1, posted 08-16-2017 12:12 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 414 of 908 (817283)
08-16-2017 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 404 by Stile
08-16-2017 9:26 AM
|
|
Re: Breeding possibilities
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 404 by Stile, posted 08-16-2017 9:26 AM | | Stile has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 415 of 908 (817284)
08-16-2017 11:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 405 by Percy
08-16-2017 9:40 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 405 by Percy, posted 08-16-2017 9:40 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 455 by Percy, posted 08-17-2017 8:46 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5948 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.5
|
|
|
Message 416 of 908 (817288)
08-16-2017 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 413 by Faith
08-16-2017 11:08 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
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? I have! It's not my fault that you choose to ignore it. Biomorphs:
Message 299 DWise1 writes: There is a misconception that the amount of change in a phenotype is proportional to the amount of change in the genotype; ie, that a large change in the phenotype requires a large change in the genotype and that a large change in the genotype results in a large change in the phenotype while a small change in the genotype results only in a small change in the phenotype. That is not true, so Dawkins wrote Biomorphs to demonstrate that small changes in the genotype can result in large changes in the phenotype while large changes in the genotype can result in little or no change in the phenotype. Biomorphs does not simulate evolution! Rather it illustrates development, the use of a genotype to generate a phenotype. Since it does not simulate evolution, it does not need to include selection but rather leaves it to the user to provide artificial selection to select a biomorph to be the parent of the next generation. For that matter, including selection in the program would present problems for the program itself (ie, would require defining an environment and how the phenotype of the organisms would interact with it for selection to work) which in no way whatsoever presents problems for evolution. At the bottom of my MONKEY page I discuss this problem and mention and briefly describe two programs that do implement selection. . . . From the bottom of At the bottom of my MONKEY page:
quote:
Working on a project to more fully simulate evolution would be interesting, if I had the time. In such a project we would need to define an environment, phenotypes that would interact with that environment as they try to survive, genotypes that would direct the development of those phenotypes, and rules for the mutation of those genotypes. The problems in developing such a simulation are considerable. All of these elements would need to be as realistic and as free from interference as possible. The criteria for fitness should not be predetermined arbitrarily but would have to come directly from the environment and the organisms' interaction with that environment. The embryonic development from genotype to phenotype should follow regular rules which could be arbitrary to some extent, but the phenotypes produced should not be predetermined, but rather be the result of the expression of the genotypes -- a software example of this is Dawkins' Biomorphs2. The mutation of the genotypes should be the easiest part of the project, once the genotypes have been defined. Of course, one of the greater problems would be how to evaluate the simulation; if we allow the model to be too abstract then the resultant environment and "organisms" could be so alien to us that we could not make any sense out of it. . . .
FOOTNOTE 2:
In the second half of the third chapter of The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins describes a kind of computer game they had written to illustrate aspects of embryonic development. From that link:
The program displayed a two dimensional shape (a "biomorph") made up of straight black lines, the length, position, and angle of which were defined by a simple set of rules and instructions (analogous to a genome). Adding new lines (or removing them) based on these rules offered a discrete set of possible new shapes (mutations), which were displayed on screen so that the user could choose between them. The chosen mutation would then be the basis for another generation of biomorph mutants to be chosen from, and so on. Thus, the user, by selection, could steer the evolution of biomorphs. This process often produced images which were reminiscent of real organisms for instance beetles, bats, or trees. Dawkins speculated that the unnatural selection role played by the user in this program could be replaced by a more natural agent if, for example, colourful biomorphs could be selected by butterflies or other insects, via a touch sensitive display set up in a garden.
The book's appendix included an order form for that program. However, at the time it only existed for the Mac, which I have never owned, so I wrote my own version in Turbo Pascal to run in CGA graphics mode on MS-DOS. The program has since been ported to Windows and there exist open source versions.
WEASEL and MONKEY:
Message 299 Similarly, WEASEL does not even attempt to simulate evolution and explicitly was not intended to. Rather, it demonstrates the difference in performance of two different methods of selection: single-step selection (abysmally poor performance) which creationists falsely claim evolution uses, and cumulative selection (extremely effective) which is based on how selection in evolution works. That is what it was intended to do and that is what it does do. It was never intended to simulate evolution. Since neither program was ever intended to simulate evolution, naming them to support your claims is completely false. Shouldn't you try to learn something about the things that you want to use to support your claims before you actually use them? Message 406 DWise1 writes: Faith writes: However, I don't know what your evolution simulating program does or how same or different it is from Dawkins.' I do not have any evolution simulating program! I have told you that repeatedly! Neither WEASEL nor MONKEY simulate evolution! Try to get that through your thick skull! Of course, you will yet again ignore what I've been telling you and continue to make your false statements.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 413 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 11:08 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 451 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 10:12 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Stile
Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: 12-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 417 of 908 (817290)
08-16-2017 12:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 414 by Faith
08-16-2017 11:42 AM
|
|
Re: Breeding possibilities
Faith writes: 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... 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. 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. 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 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'm pretty sure this has been done many, many times by many different breeders. 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...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 414 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 11:42 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 421 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 12:40 PM | | Stile has replied |
|
DOCJ
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 418 of 908 (817291)
08-16-2017 12:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 398 by PaulK
08-16-2017 5:01 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
1st: I do not believe you can tell the difference. It is almost like you knew Moses and can read my mind. 2nd: If you don't accept the definition of kind within the written word that is a moot point.
quote:
4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4:4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4 (KJV) - I charge [thee] therefore before
—2 tim 4:3
Remember nothing some how must produce everything... 😁
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2017 5:01 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 422 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2017 12:43 PM | | DOCJ has replied | | | Message 430 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 1:20 PM | | DOCJ has replied |
|
DOCJ
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 419 of 908 (817292)
08-16-2017 12:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 412 by Taq
08-16-2017 11:01 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
According to your interpretation. 2 tim 4:3-4. :-) Edited by DOCJ, : 4
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 412 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 11:01 AM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 425 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 1:10 PM | | DOCJ has replied |
|
Stile
Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: 12-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 420 of 908 (817293)
08-16-2017 12:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 414 by Faith
08-16-2017 11:42 AM
|
|
Re: Breeding possibilities
Faith writes: (I point to the cheetah which has never had a beneficial mutation occur in all its generations to allow for any further evolution.) I'm not sure if this statement is absolutely true or not. But the idea that the cheetah has very little genetic variation is very true. However, the cheetah does not have very little genetic variation because it's "evolved a lot." The cheetah has very little genetic variation because it went through some sort of population bottleneck. Like a Noah's Ark kind of thing. I agree that population bottlenecks can end evolution. Although it doesn't really "end evolution" so much as it "ends the species because they cannot reproduce." And evolution certainly ends when things are dead. Everything has been evolving for basically the same amount of time. Cheetah's have been around as long as pretty much any other mammal. Some a little more, some a little less. But Cheetah's aren't some exceptional "older than most" species or anything like that. If what you're saying is true... that evolution itself is the culprit... then all species would be in the same boat as the cheetah. But they're not. Sure, the cheetah has evolutionary changes to it's heart, respiratory system, muscles and limbs in order to run fast. But a bear has evolutionary changes to it's heart, respiratory system, muscles and limbs in order to be big and strong. The bear is just as evolved into it's niche as the cheetah is into theirs. But bears aren't in fear of extinction like cheetahs are. This is because bears haven't experienced the population bottlenecks that cheetahs have. Evolution isn't killing off the cheetah, population bottlenecks are.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 414 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 11:42 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 424 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 1:05 PM | | Stile has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2