Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
98 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie, Tangle (3 members, 95 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,001 Year: 5,113/6,534 Month: 533/794 Week: 24/135 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 785 (855018)
06-15-2019 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tangle
06-15-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another and all the examples of new "species" (that aren't species at all but merely new populations of a species with a new look to it) brought about merely by breeding together a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation. This is how distinctive new "species" are made without any mutations, but although I'm using the word "species" this is nothing but changes within a species from built in genetic variability. We don't need the hundreds of alleles AZ was conjuring up, all we need is a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation. Your moths, and the pocket mice, are not a new species.

ALL THIS IS THE USUAL IRRELEVANT DISTRACTION FROM MY ARGUMENT, WHICH ALWAYS GOES BEGGING IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

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 180 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 3:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 3:59 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 183 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2019 4:10 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 182 of 785 (855019)
06-15-2019 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
06-15-2019 3:47 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another and all the examples of new "species" that aren't species at all but merely new populations of a species with a new look to it brought about merely by breeding together a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation.

You mean that you say that. But can you produce a single example where we know that is all there is to it ? Indeed, given that mutation plays a role even in the case of domestic breeding - with far shorter timescales - shouldn’t we expect mutations to play a part in speciation ?

Can you offer an explanation of how reproductive isolation develops that is more than speculation - at least for the case where it is impossible to produce fertile offspring ? Wasting reproductive effort - mating with no chance of success - would be a definite selective disadvantage.

Because so far you haven’t addressed either point with any real evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 3:47 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8548
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 183 of 785 (855020)
06-15-2019 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
06-15-2019 3:47 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Faith writes:

No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another

Yes Faith the moth is still a moth. But how many times have you denied that beneficial mutations can change a phenotype? The moth's change of colour was not plasticity it was a mutation.

Now you have to explain why many mutations like that one can't build to species change. Macroevolution is microevolution plus time.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 3:47 AM Faith has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6735
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 184 of 785 (855022)
06-15-2019 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
06-15-2019 3:12 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Oh but mutations ...

That is the answer. I don't think you know what the actual question is.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 3:12 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20826
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 185 of 785 (855023)
06-15-2019 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by caffeine
06-14-2019 4:11 PM


I think we might agree on the facts but disagree about the way I described them. What you describe does to me seem to be mutation playing a nearly zero role in breeding, which is what I said that you originally disagreed with. If 99.99% of breeders (I'm guestimating, of course) never experience a useful mutation in their breeding stock during their entire breeding career, then that seems pretty close to zero. Useful mutations do occur every once in a long while, but that's what nearly zero is. (I use the word "useful" instead of "beneficial" to distinguish between traits useful to the breeder versus traits beneficial to the organism.)

The important point I was making for Dredge is that mutation plays almost no role in breeding. Of course the occasional breeder lucks out into a useful mutation, but that's a very rare occurrence. There's nothing going on in breeding that causes useful mutations to appear any more frequently than beneficial mutations in the wild. Its an uncommon occurrence.

Even more rare is for a breeder who is breeding for a particular trait to have his breeding stock experience a mutation relevant to that trait, that is, a mutation that produces a change in the direction of the trait the breeder desires. That's probably never happened in the history of breeding.

And probably most of the useful mutations in domestic animal populations didn't even occur in animals that were part of a breeding program. They occurred in farmers' or ranchers' cows or pigs or horses or chickens and spread from there, not from any breeder. And possibly some of the mutations you mention are the kind that pop up with regularity, the way down syndrome mutations pop up in humans with regularity.

But another important point for Dredge to take away from this is that breeding stocks do experience mutations, probably at pretty much the same rate as equivalent species in the wild. But most mutations have no apparent effect. They occur in a non-coding region or they result in the same protein or other things like that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by caffeine, posted 06-14-2019 4:11 PM caffeine has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 186 of 785 (855024)
06-15-2019 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
06-15-2019 2:43 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
The main thing seems to be that you all see mutations where I see normal built in variation and this has never been satisfactorily sorted out

Only because you refuse to understand the many simple explanations.

Let's take eye color as an example. The father has BB, the mother has Bb. The child could have BB or Bb but not bb, because only one parent has one b.

No mutations.

But if there is a mutation in the b gene the mother has, the child gets BB or Bζ. ζ is a new gene that is probably very similar to b, but is not the same as b. It was created by the mutation. It did not pre-exist. it's very unlikely it exists anywhere else, and if it does it's because it arose independently.

There are only two types of genes in the inherited genome; those that are the same as the mother's or the father's, and those that are different. The latter is the definition of mutation; a change that makes something that is not the same as the mother or father but is brand new, created at some point during the process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 2:43 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20826
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 187 of 785 (855026)
06-15-2019 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dredge
06-14-2019 2:34 AM


Dredge writes:

Okay, but hypothetically speaking and according to ToE, given millions of years, wouldn't enough mutations occur that could eventually lead to the breeding of a new species?

So let's hypothesize a breeding program that lasts millions of years whose only goal is to produce a new species. That means any new species, not some specific species like whales. Over millions of years many, many active mutations will arise, and so a new species seems inevitable. Over the course of millions of years just genetic drift alone should produce a new species.

The reason is that genetic copying during reproduction is imperfect. Changes from the original DNA (mutations) inevitably creep in, for humans at the rate of about 100 mutations per offspring, the vast majority having no apparent effect. Given the imperfectness of genetic copying during reproduction it is impossible for genomes to remain unchanged across time. Change is unavoidable. Species are inconstant.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dredge, posted 06-14-2019 2:34 AM Dredge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 785 (855032)
06-15-2019 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by caffeine
06-14-2019 4:37 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Since the usual predictable (and I dare say mindless) debunkery has been the only response to my posts I figure I'll probably just go watch some Netflix for a while. I'm working my way through "Forensic Files." Taq deserves an answer though. Maybe later.

But you said something here I want to answer:

First to acknowledge that I know humans are not said to have evolved from chimps but from a shared ancestor.

Chimps and humans have exactly the same organs. All of them. We have exactly the same bones. All of them. They're all in the same place. And everything is made out of the same stuff.

Not exactly the same, of course. As we discussed in a previous thread, there are slight differences between human and chimp keratins. But these differences are small and simple, and quite probably non-functional. I would be willing to bet that if you replaced the gene that produces human fingernail keratin with the gene that produces chimpanzee fingernail keratin, you would not notice - the fingernails would **** the same.

Yes, but for the moment taking the chimp as the ancestor we descended from, the task is getting ALL the keratin differences in the chimp body to become human keratin. Is this going to happen bit by bit, fingernail by fingernail or is there a place in the DNA that governs the whole thing? And since you note that there are recognizable differences between chimp and human organs and bones although we have the same organs and bones, evolution has the task of making all those "small" changes in all those parts of the body. Seems to me that's a case of the usual wishful thinking that fuels all the assumptions of the ToE. The smallness of the differences doesn't really make a difference since the overall changes that have to happen are really enormous.

Few, if any, of the 40 million odd mutations separating us from chimps would have a large and noticeable effect. But 40 million is a huge number. All 40 million together have a very noticeable effect - it's the difference between a human and a chimp.

You are of course assuming that the differences you are talking about were brought about by mutations. You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway? This doesn't get spelled out every time someone makes such a statement. The mutations, to matter, have to be in the germ cells, but not saying so leaves the discussion in a suspended state. Anyway, according to my model -- yes I believe in my model -- the chimp genome is simply the chimp genome. It may have variability built into it but not the kind of variability that could eventually make a human being. And as I keep arguing, which keeps getting treated llke trash, you don't need mutations to produce even a dramatically new population of any given species. This may not be possible with the apes because they've already differentiated as far as they are going to, but it seems to happen with lizards and cattle and wildebeests, AND even now if a small human population isolated itself for many generations it would likely acquire a distinctive new look. It would be a new race.

But there are literally no major structural changes necessary to move between a chimp and a human. What differences do we have from chimps that are not simply changes in the colour, size and shape of existing structures?

This is really what I wanted to answer, but I got into the rest anyway. To my mind the structural differences are enormous despite the similarities. The whole posture of the body has to change, the torso has to shorten and straighten, the legs have to lengthen and straighten, the feet have to become feet, the arms have to shorten, the spine has to straighten, the skull has to make some pretty dramatic changes and get repositioned on the neck, the nose has to change dramatically, the mouth and teeth have to become much smaller and repositioned in the skull, and of course the brain has to undergo some enormous changes, etc etc etc. I don't see how mutations could do any of this no matter how much time you give them. And I'm pretty sure that the differences between the supposed shared ancestor and human beings would be on a similar order. I think this is all a pipe dream.

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 169 by caffeine, posted 06-14-2019 4:37 PM caffeine has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2019 5:07 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 190 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2019 6:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 06-17-2019 10:55 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 189 of 785 (855035)
06-15-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
06-15-2019 4:40 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
quote:

Since the usual predictable (and I dare say mindless) debunkery has been the only response to my posts

I suppose getting serious answers gets in the way of your pretence.
But if you don’t like getting debunked don’t write bunk.

quote:

Yes, but for the moment taking the chimp as the ancestor we descended from, the task is getting ALL the keratin differences in the chimp body to become human keratin.

That isn’t really a problem though. If we are just talking about minor variations in the structure of a protein then it’s pretty much expected. There will be minor variations, and unless there is something very special about them then they’re just the ones that happened to turn up.

quote:

Is this going to happen bit by bit, fingernail by fingernail or is there a place in the DNA that governs the whole thing?

It’s complicated by the fact that there is more than one keratin in the body. But a keratin is just a protein, and changes to the gene which codes that protein will change every instance that gene is responsible for. So the finger and toenails would all change together (as well as anywhere else that got keratin from that particular gene)

quote:

And since you note that there are recognizable differences between chimp and human organs and bones although we have the same organs and bones, evolution has the task of making all those "small" changes in all those parts of the body. Seems to me that's a case of the usual wishful thinking that fuels all the assumptions of the ToE. The smallness of the differences doesn't really make a difference since the overall changes that have to happen are really enormous.

We’re talking about small changes to a few genes and you think it is a big problem ?

quote:

You are of course assuming that the differences you are talking about were brought about by mutations. You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway? This doesn't get spelled out every time someone makes such a statement. The mutations, to matter, have to be in the germ cells, but not saying so leaves the discussion in a suspended state.

Of course it’s the mutations in the germ cells we are talking about because those are the only ones that can accumulate from generation to generation. This is another mistaken objection.

quote:

This is really what I wanted to answer, but I got into the rest anyway. To my mind the differences are enormous despite the similarities. And I see enormous structural changes too. The whole posture of the body has to change, the legs have to lengthen and straighten out, the feet have to become feet, the arms have to shorten, the spine has to straighten, the skull has to make some pretty dramatic changes and get repositioned on the neck, the nose has to change dramatically, the mouth and teeth have to become much smaller and repositioned in the skull, and of course the brain has to undergo some enormous changes, etc etc etc

But are any of those really massive changes from the perspective of developmental biology. Similar - or larger - differences seemed pretty small to you when you were talking about trilobites. You should probably consider the variations shown in earlier hominids, too.

Anyway when this came up before I advised you to look into neoteny
- which is a big part of the picture.

quote:

I don't see how mutations could do any of this no matter how much time you give them

Yet you can see similar differences as just normal within-species variation. When it is convenient for your position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 4:40 PM Faith has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6735
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 190 of 785 (855039)
06-15-2019 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
06-15-2019 4:40 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
I hope you and caffeine won't mind but I was in the area and stopped in for a visit.

Yes, but for the moment taking the chimp as the ancestor we descended from, the task is getting ALL the keratin differences in the chimp body to become human keratin. Is this going to happen bit by bit, fingernail by fingernail or is there a place in the DNA that governs the whole thing?

Yes to the DNA.

...evolution has the task of making all those "small" changes in all those parts of the body.

No, it was not a “task” to be performed. Evolution couldn’t care less about task. It was what happened. For the longest time we didn’t know why/how but with centuries of concentrated study we now have the chemistry pretty much nailed down. We know how it happened. The rocks and the chemistry are quite clear in what happened.

We can’t say with certainty each granular step that took place, there is missing data, but, in detail finer than mere broad line, we know the connections.

You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway?

We’re talking only mutations in germline cells not somatic cells. Germline cells have some of the most wonder ways of leaving the body taking their mutations with them.

The mutations, to matter, have to be in the germ cells, but not saying so leaves the discussion in a suspended state.

It shouldn’t. The rest of us in this discussion seem to understand the references. We know we’re talking germline. May I ask how you didn’t?

And as I keep arguing, which keeps getting treated llke trash, you don't need mutations to produce even a dramatically new population of any given species.

Really doesn’t matter whether mutations were necessary or not. Fact is, and we know the facts M’Lady, that mutations did the trick quite well. We’ve seen them in the lab. We can create them. We know how they work. We can see their effect on populations in the far past sitting there in our own genome.

We really are good at chemistry.

I don't see how mutations could do any of this no matter how much time you give them.

Well, that is what happened, more or less, and we have just boatloads of evidence. You can disagree all you want but that isn’t going to change


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 4:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 7:05 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message
 Message 192 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-15-2019 7:33 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 06-16-2019 12:19 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 785 (855040)
06-15-2019 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AZPaul3
06-15-2019 6:30 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
Well, that was a bust. Thanks at least for affirming that you are always talking about germline mutations.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2019 6:30 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 192 of 785 (855041)
06-15-2019 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AZPaul3
06-15-2019 6:30 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
AZPaul3 writes:

You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway?

We’re talking only mutations in germline cells not somatic cells. Germline cells have some of the most wonder ways of leaving the body taking their mutations with them.

I pointed this out to her clear back in Message 25

Tanypteryx writes:

Faith writes:

Mutations occur willynilly here and there, and the ones that occur in the reproductive cells are particularly rare.


Rare on whose scale?

The mutations that occur in the reproductive cells are the only mutations that we are talking about. They are the only ones involved with evolution.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2019 6:30 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 7:36 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 785 (855042)
06-15-2019 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Tanypteryx
06-15-2019 7:33 PM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
It's come up before that the location isn't clear so I asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-15-2019 7:33 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 785 (855043)
06-15-2019 7:40 PM


You all cannot change my mind by asserting your own beliefs and your expertise to determine their truth. You are so sure of yourselves you aren't interested in entertaining anything I say or how I arrived at it, I'm just wrong and that's the end of it. I don't find that at all convincing, you're just being arrogant know-it-alls, and yes, of course, I'm going to continue with my own beliefs, you've affected nothing, you're just being offensive and arrogant. So the conversation is over, you think you won and that's where it always goes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by JonF, posted 06-15-2019 8:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2019 1:44 AM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 195 of 785 (855048)
06-15-2019 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
06-15-2019 7:40 PM


"Don't bother me with facts, I've made up my mind."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 7:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 06-15-2019 8:08 PM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022