|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Follow the argument. You proved no such thing. Then I guess I will have to show you again. You are claiming that evolution has hit a dead end when the population is homozygous, or AA.
Start -Mutation---Selection-----Middle-----Selection------End allele: AA AB BB That clearly shows you are wrong. Evolution keeps going.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Nobody can define Kind because there's been too much change since Creation. But I have a functional definition which is more than anybody else has: the point at which selection depletes genetic diversity in an evolving population. Are humans a kind? If so, please show how selection is depleting genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: You are right, there's no point in addressing all that to me, but I do appreciate your simple reminder that it's a big waste to talk to a YEC about supposed chimp-human relatedness. All I am asking is how long you think it takes for two lineages that share a common ancestor to differ by 40 million mutations through the accumulation of mutations that happen after the lineages split. 1,000 years? 10 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: The finches probably possess lots of mutations but mutations are not needed for the emergence of different kinds of beaks. It isn't necessary for an airplane to have jet engines. Does this mean that there are no airplanes with jet engines? Just because you don't think something is necessary does not allow you to ignore it. Even if mutations are not necessary for speciation, it doesn't change the fact that speciation still can and does occur through mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Since what you are asking doesn't exist I can't answer you. Prove it. Show that it doesn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Isolated inbred populations,k the selection being the collection of original founders. The Amish. Getting genetic diseases. I'm sure there are other examples. The Amish are a separate human kind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically. You are claiming that selection will lead to a population that is homozygous for the allele A. I have already shown that mutations can produce allele B which is then selected for. Over time, this results in the population going from homozygous A, heterozygous AB, and the homozygous B. Once you have homozygous B, a mutation can occur to produce C, and the process repeats. It is logically unimpeachable that this process can continue and continue and continue. Evolution never stops.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: And when you disagree with a theory, when you subscribe to a different paradigm about scientific things, there's no way to avoid defining things differently. The problem is that you are denying facts, such as the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity.
I'm not ignorant of fossil evidence for evolution from species to species but the fact that trilobites and coelacanths exist in so many adjacent supposed "time periods" while reptiles and mammals were buried only one "time period" apart, is evidence against it. Huh? Mammals are found in the same time period as coelacanths, just as both coelacanths and mammals are found now. How in the world does this do away with the fact that transitional fossils exist?
Domestic breeding is a good model for what happens in evolution, especially loss of genetic diversity from population to population but also even in its lack of "speciation." And once again you ignore the fact of mutations.
I'm not ignorant of the idea that mutations are the source of genetic variability, I just think it's utterly screamingly ridiculous given their record of producing thousands of genetic diseases, and besides it's absolutely unnecessary given the elegant original design of DNA. It's not necessary to have a diesel engine in a car. Does that mean there are no cars with diesel engines in them? You still can't understand the difference between necessity and reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it. It's the truth, so you avoid it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: As so often is the case when discussing mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE. Just how much time are you imagining for this scenario to unfold? And have you ever seen it happen anywhere perchance? We have seen it happen with pocket mice and peppered moths, as has been shown to you many times now. There are also the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, demonstrating that changes to DNA sequences can and are beneficial.
Given that it shouldn't take long at all, a matter of years even, to get a new variety or race from a smallish number of founders (Pod Mrcaru), more time of course with a larger founding number but still within a human time frame, what's your estimate how likely it is that your scenario will occur at all in that time period? It is already happening:
quote: Mutations in dog genomes are already producing new genetic diversity and new phenotypes in dog breeds.
Also, you're talking change in ONE allele, so you have to be assuming that particular change is going to make a big difference in the new population? If you have to add other changes in other genes your odds are going to diminish too. We can directly observe that mutations happen in all genes. No assumption needed.
I'm talking about a trend through a number of population splits that will ULTIMATELY show the loss of genetic diversity that has to occur for the new phenotypes to emerge, because this is the only way you get new phenotypes, which domestic breeding exemplifies. You are changing your story again. You are saying that once a gene reaches a homozygous state that evolution will stop. This is false. New mutations in that homozygous gene will increase genetic diversity and keep evolution going.
Not only are mutations unnecessary to this process but they couldn't possibly occur as needed and their usual effect is destructive anyway rather than beneficial. We need to see evidence for these claims. Mere assertions aren't going to cut it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As it turns out, the different types of coats in some dog breeds required mutations.
Picture found here:Canine Morphology: Hunting for Genes and Tracking Mutations | PLOS Biology "Figure 4. Coat variation in the dog.Coat texture and length are features that distinguish between breeds and between varieties of the same breed [16]. Clockwise from the left are shown the Vizsla with a short, straight coat. These dogs and others like them have wild-type alleles for the three critical genes controlling coat texture, length, and curl, which are RSPO-2, FGF5, and KRT71, respectively. The giant Schnauzer displays the eyebrows and moustache characteristic of the trait called furnishings and carries the variant form of RSPO-2. Dogs with furnishings usually exhibit wiry coats as well. The Cocker spaniel has long straight hair, demonstrating the variant form of FGF5, but wild-type alleles at other loci. The Bichon frise has variant alleles at all three critical loci, RSPO-2, FGF5, and KRT71, and displays a coat that is long, curly, and with furnishings. (Image: Giant schnauzer and Bichon frise pictures provided by Mary Bloom, American Kennel Club.)" Canine Morphology: Hunting for Genes and Tracking Mutations | PLOS Biology Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: The fact that some traits are caused by mutations proves what exactly? It proves that even in your model organism there are mutations that keep evolution going at a point where you claim evolution should stop. Your argument has been refuted.
And I do suspect that some mutations are really the chemical reconstruction of a former lost allele, maybe that became junk DNA. That is just a fantasy, backed by zero evidence. Do you really think that making stuff up on the fly is a valid argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: I'm a Old Earth creationist, and I think the Genesis "kind" refers to, not the original creatures God created, but to the "kinds" that exist now (or more precisely, the "kinds" that existed at the time Genesis was written).
What criteria do you use to determine if two species belong to the same kind?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024