Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
71 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 616 of 785 (856556)
07-01-2019 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:01 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
quote:

You persist in your weird illusion that you argue from evidence and I don't.

It’s not an illusion. It’s a fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:12 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 617 of 785 (856557)
07-01-2019 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by PaulK
07-01-2019 3:57 PM


Speciation is an illusion
The inability to interbreed seems to be an obviously natural dividing line. Especially when it is an inability to produce fertile offspring even when mating occurs.

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet. According to the ToE this situation is called "speciation" and "macroevolution" but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion. In any case it can't be a springboard for further variation/evolution as the ToE assumes it is. So I regard this situation as an illusion foisted on us by the ToE without the slightest actual evidentiary support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 3:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 623 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:21 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 618 of 785 (856558)
07-01-2019 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by Faith
07-01-2019 3:56 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Faith writes:

I still haven't figured out where you get your very strange readings of what I'm saying, such as dogs breeding with catfish and humans having anything to do with chimps at all.

"Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line."--Faith

I consider dogs and catfish to be separate species, but apparently you think their inability to mate is an artificial dividing line because they are able to interbreed.

Also, you keep acting as if combining different alleles will get you all the phenotypic variation that is needed. If this were so, then combining different chimp alleles should produce any other species that exists, including humans. If, as we have been saying, that you need mutations in those genes to get new species then you shouldn't get humans by mixing and matching chimp alleles. Which do you think is the better model?

I'm sure new characteristics COULD emerge due to mutations but in my scenario they aren't needed so I don't include them.

Why wouldn't we need mutations to produce different species? Chimps and humans are different species, so wouldn't we need mutations if they evolved from a common ancestor?

And in any case the mutations aren't going to be brand new are they? I'm guessing they would have developed in the parent population and now act like any other allele.

Every generation is born with new mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:14 PM Taq has taken no action
 Message 626 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:43 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 619 of 785 (856559)
07-01-2019 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by PaulK
07-01-2019 4:03 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Since your evidence is an illusion in many cases, such as in the case I've been discussion of "speciation," it's no fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:03 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 620 of 785 (856560)
07-01-2019 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:10 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
Faith writes:

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet. According to the ToE this situation is called "speciation" and "macroevolution" but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion.

Can you cite a single example of this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:16 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 621 of 785 (856561)
07-01-2019 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Taq
07-01-2019 4:11 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Every generation is born with new mutations.

That says absolutely nothing. You'd have to show that those very mutations, or some of them or even one of them, 1) did something new, and 2) made some difference in the next generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:11 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 622 of 785 (856562)
07-01-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by Taq
07-01-2019 4:13 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
How can I give an example when all you guys do is assert it without evidence anyway? I've seen examples of a frog that is supposed to be a new species on this standard but I haven't seen a DNA analysis of it. Plants are often given as examples, similarly without any DNA analysis. I'm giving a different interpretation of what you describe as a fact but is also only an interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:13 PM Taq has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 664 by Percy, posted 07-03-2019 1:56 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 623 of 785 (856563)
07-01-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:10 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
quote:

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet.

That is obviously not true. The definition of species is problematic but that is because we don’t use clear criteria like the inability to produce fertile offspring as the sole criterion. Obviously it doesn’t apply to species that only reproduce asexually, and it can’t be applied to extinct species, but that doesn’t make it any less natural a dividing line.

quote:

...but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion

And therein lies one of your problems with the evidence. Breeds will likely (in some cases certainly) be more “genetically depleted” than natural species. Yet they do not show this inability to interbreed.

quote:

In any case it can't be a springboard for further variation/evolution as the ToE assumes it is

Would you like to back that up with evidence? Since there are no obvious problems with what the ToE actually says.

quote:

So I regard this situation as an illusion foisted on us by the ToE without the slightest actual evidentiary support.

And yet you have no evidence for this opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 624 of 785 (856564)
07-01-2019 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 623 by PaulK
07-01-2019 4:21 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation" -- They are the scientists after all. DNA analysis would show whether there is enough genetic diversity for further variation or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 665 by Percy, posted 07-03-2019 3:24 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 625 of 785 (856566)
07-01-2019 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 624 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:29 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
quote:

The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation" -- They are the scientists after all.

The evidence should come from you, since it is your claim.

And we have adequate evidence against your ideas. Even though you try to pretend otherwise.

It is a fact that domestic breeding, despite working faster than natural selection (and thus doing more to reduce genetic diversity) does not seem to produce new animal species.

It is a fact that we do not see the extreme genetic depletion your ideas would predict in natural species.

It is a fact that you have no examples of bottlenecks producing new species either. Despite your claims that the cheetah bottleneck made significant phenotypic changes you produced not the slightest evidence, nor did you with regard to the elephant seal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 624 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 626 of 785 (856567)
07-01-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Taq
07-01-2019 4:11 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Why wouldn't we need mutations to produce different species? Chimps and humans are different species, so wouldn't we need mutations if they evolved from a common ancestor?

I suppose you would need mutations to get from one species to another as the ToE requires, although I don't think mutations could accomplish that anyway, but since in my model there is no genetic relationship whatever between humans and chimps no mutations are needed. Since the way they are described is pretty muddied I can't even get a grip on what they actually do so I've not be able to say much about how my model would deal with them except to say that I regard them as mistakes that don't contribute to the normal mechanisms of variation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 4:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 5:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 627 of 785 (856568)
07-01-2019 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by PaulK
07-01-2019 4:42 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.

I wonder how many of the new "species" according to the ToE have actually varied beyond their current situation. I think they'd be lucky to increase in numbers, that would at least show a level of vitality such as is possessed by the elephant seals, but further variation? Any examples?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 4:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2019 5:02 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 07-04-2019 8:49 AM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 628 of 785 (856569)
07-01-2019 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Faith
07-01-2019 3:40 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Stage three new characteristics should start to emerge from the new combinations of alleles, including a new pattern of markings on an animal like a raccoon.

There are no new combinations of alleles that were not possible in the parent population, and if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population.

Variations in markings would be due to modified development (see silver foxes) from changes in hormone levels or modified genes for markings. Otherwise they should be in the parent population as well.

And reproductive stages beyond that should bring out even more new characteristics, again all from recombination of the new gene frequencies.

Again, there is no new characteristics when all you rely on is pure Mendelian reproduction, if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population.

The end result should be that the whole population will have blended together to form a new appeaerance of homogeneity that is distinct from the original population and from all other populations of the same species. A completely new pattern of markings would probably identify the new raccoon population.

At best you get a variety of racoon, not a new species that cannot reproduce with the parent or other similar sub-populations.

I expect my opponents to describe their own completely different scenario with the mutations and the ecological selection pressure and so on, and even be adamant that it's the correct scenario based on the ToE, but I strongly object to telling me I'm wrong because I don't share that scenario. No, if that's going to be the attitude, sorry, YOU are wrong.

Typical. Open your eyes, Faith.

You are limited in your ability to understand by your ability to understand ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 630 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 5:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 629 of 785 (856570)
07-01-2019 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:48 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
quote:

You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.

Odd how you keep failing to see the evidence in my post. Here it is again:


It is a fact that domestic breeding, despite working faster than natural selection (and thus doing more to reduce genetic diversity) does not seem to produce new animal species.

It is a fact that we do not see the extreme genetic depletion your ideas would predict in natural species.

It is a fact that you have no examples of bottlenecks producing new species either. Despite your claims that the cheetah bottleneck made significant phenotypic changes you produced not the slightest evidence, nor did you with regard to the elephant seal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:48 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 630 of 785 (856571)
07-01-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by RAZD
07-01-2019 4:49 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
There are no new combinations of alleles that were not possible in the parent population,

It's possible but not necessary. In any case they are going to get emphasized in this new population until they become part of a new general appearance that is different from the parent population, which is what I'm saying is all there is to the formation of new species, such as ring species for example.

and if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population.

As I say above, they could, but it's not necessary for them to have been expressed there beyond the occasional occurrence which is hardly noticeable in a large population of motley traits with a general homogeneous appearance. It's all a matter of gene frequencies.

Variations in markings would be due to modified development (see silver foxes) from changes in hormone levels or modified genes for markings. Otherwise they should be in the parent population as well.

I assume they were all in the parent population but for some reason more potential than expressed. This is why I got interested in the exaggerated traits of the pigeons and the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, and the question of how you can have a pretty homogeneous population such as the original lizard population, or the wild pigeon population Darwin had to start with, and get dramatically new phenotypes from it through reproductive isolation. Darwin selected individuals with very slightly enlarged chest or chest feathers, or fan-shaped tail feathers from the normally very homogeneous pigeon population, traits that most of us would probably not notice at all looking at a flock of pigeons, or even examining them individually. He kept breeding those with the most noticeable versions of those selected traits until he got what you see in the pictures. Somehow genes build on themselves: that's what I've been wondering about. You can start with a whole flock of birds of a feather as it were and end up with something dramatically different simply by controlling the gene pool.

So there is also the case of a very large herd population with high genetic diversity that can be the source of strongly different traits in daughter populations. So I now have the idea that traits don't necessarily manifest in some obvious way at first, just enough to be selected in breeding, or even in nature, but not enough to show up in a herd unless you go through it individual by individual. It takes the new gene frequencies to begin to emphasize such traits and bring them to observable expression in the new population. You all rely on mutations to explain all this although I don't think that's even possible, but in any case my model has new characteristics emerging even in dramatic ways in daughter populations that didn't get expressed in the parent population, or not to any noticeable degree.

At best you get a variety of racoon, not a new species that cannot reproduce with the parent or other similar sub-populations.

Yes, but this becomes a semantic problem because one often runs across such phrases as "species of raccoon" and "species of wildebeest" although there is no reason to think they can't interbreed. I can go back to "variety" if necessary" but I keep finding that no particular terminology is sufficient.

To the rest of your post:

"whatever." I'm dealing with your objections so you don't need to resort to insults.

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 628 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2019 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2019 10:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 685 by Percy, posted 07-04-2019 10:12 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 693 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 1:36 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022