Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 421 of 830 (870617)
01-22-2020 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by JonF
01-22-2020 4:03 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
...where it will also result in a tiny phenotypic change with no effect on fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by JonF, posted 01-22-2020 4:03 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by JonF, posted 01-22-2020 4:52 PM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 422 of 830 (870618)
01-22-2020 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Faith
01-22-2020 4:45 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
Yep.
Then the cumulative effect of those tny changes is significance phenotypic change and maybe increased fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 4:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 6:40 PM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 423 of 830 (870627)
01-22-2020 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by JonF
01-22-2020 4:52 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
It's being spread through the population; how is it accumulating? Brown eyhes spread through a population without accumulating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by JonF, posted 01-22-2020 4:52 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 8:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 429 by JonF, posted 01-23-2020 9:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 424 of 830 (870630)
01-22-2020 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
01-22-2020 6:40 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
JonF writes:
Then the cumulative effect of those tny changes is significance phenotypic change and maybe increased fitness.
It's being spread through the population; how is it accumulating? Brown eyhes spread through a population without accumulating.
Ah, Jebus! We have to explain simple English to you yet again? And yet again it's that complex English concept of the plural.
"Plural" means "more than one." It's really not that difficult to understand. Why the idea of "more than one" would be so taxing for you quite frankly boggles our minds.
Read again (assuming you had read it even one time) the part where JonF says "the cumulative effect of those tny changes".
"those" is the plural form of the demonstrative "that". It refers to more than one thing.
What things (HINT: that word that I had just used is also plural)? "changes". That "s" indicates the plural when appended to a noun (hopefully you are not also baffled by the concept of nouns). Therefore, "changes" means "more than one change".
Hopefully, we haven't lost you yet again. Go over it a few times (or a few dozen times, whatever it takes) and you should eventually be able to understand it.
 
So then what JonF was saying was that there are many tiny changes, each of which spreads through the population and contributes to the accumulation of small changes. And that accumulation of small changes can result in large changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 6:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 425 of 830 (870632)
01-22-2020 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Faith
01-22-2020 11:09 AM


Re: My 2 sense worth
I have a little time before dance classes.
In the wild you get the isolation of some limited number of members of a population which means you have new gene frequencies,including many fewer of some alleles if the population is small. The more such population splits occur the more genetic variability is reduced in the new populations until finally you can get a situation similar to a pure breed from domestic selection.
What the f*ck are you talking about?
It sounds like you're saying that when a subpopulation splits off from the main population, then it takes some of the genome with it. An analogy to what I see you saying is that it's kind of like a tribe having a central treasury containing x monetary units, so when a third of the tribe leaves to form its own tribe then it takes a third of the treasury with it (x/3) leaving the original tribe with only two-thirds of the treasury (2x/3). That is absolutely bizarre!
In reality, both subpopulations start off with near-exact copies of the population's composite genome. From that point on in isolation from each other, each subpopulation's composite genome will change on its own independent of the other such that they will over many generations become increasingly different from each other. Those changes would be due to different selective pressure from differing environments and from the accumulation of different mutations which can only spread through the subpopulation and not be shared with the other.
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new from a genome, which reallyh is impossible but I play with the idea since it's the only way it COULD happen although it can't.
First, you have bastardized the word "species" beyond all recognition, so nobody has any idea what you could possibly mean by "evolution beyond a species". Your use of those words is absolutely meaningless.
Since nobody can know what that "idea" is, nobody can even begin to figure out how it could happen. Besides which you have so far refused to explain what that "only way it COULD happen" could possibly be.
That is why we have to keep asking and demanding that you explain what you are talking about and you keep refusing to do so.
Why do you persist in keeping that secret? My money is on you being engaged in deliberate deception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 11:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Pressie, posted 01-22-2020 11:09 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 427 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 3:08 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 428 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 5:22 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 435 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 1:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 426 of 830 (870634)
01-22-2020 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by dwise1
01-22-2020 8:33 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
dwise1 writes:
My money is on you being engaged in deliberate deception.
Yip, he's like a JW with an Amway franchise.
Never stops.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 8:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 427 of 830 (870637)
01-23-2020 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by dwise1
01-22-2020 8:33 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
It sounds like you're saying that when a subpopulation splits off from the main population, then it takes some of the genome with it.
You guys need to get together. Someone else here said every genome is different. And that's what I have in mind. Each individual has its own genetic makeup, its own genome, its own alleles for particular genes. When a population splits off its a new mix of those individual genomes than that in the parent population. That's how we get new "gene frequencies," meaning new proportions of the various alleles that exist in the total population. Some will be more numerous in the new population than the old, some less numerous. Depending on the size of the new population, if it's very small, some alleles may not even exist in this new group. From this new mix of alleles the new population will develop a phenotype somewhat different from the parent. This is how a population split caused the formation of the blue wildebeests from the black wildebeests, how the salamanders in the California ring species developed different markings on their hides, how you get all the variation in any ring species. Isolated new populations bring out the dominant alleles of their new gene frequencies.
An analogy to what I see you saying is that it's kind of like a tribe having a central treasury containing x monetary units, so when a third of the tribe leaves to form its own tribe then it takes a third of the treasury with it (x/3) leaving the original tribe with only two-thirds of the treasury (2x/3). That is absolutely bizarre!
But it isn't anything like what I'm saying. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that individuals have different mixes of alleles from each other and that isolating a portion of a population is going to bring about a new set of frequencies which make for new combinations of the alleles that over many generations of breeding among themselves will bring out a new overall look or phenotype for that population. Blue wildebeest, black wildebeest. All the different breeds of cattle that were merely the result of isolating small populations from the original wild herd.
In reality, both subpopulations start off with near-exact copies of the population's composite genome.
How wrong you are. And somebody here, maybe RAZD, said something completely different not too long ago.
From that point on in isolation from each other, each subpopulation's composite genome will change on its own independent of the other such that they will over many generations become increasingly different from each other. Those changes would be due to different selective pressure from differing environments and from the accumulation of different mutations which can only spread through the subpopulation and not be shared with the other.
Well, I have a completely different view of this. The new population starts out with its own set of gene frequencies which are different from the parent population's, and this is in fact very well known. This new set of gene frequencies when combined over generations in isolation will produce the changes that make the new population different from the parent population. The idea that environmental pressure causes the changes isn't very convincing since in most cases there is hardly any change at all in the environment. Say in the ring species of salamanders in Califronia, they just kept putting out new subpopulations that developed new skin patterns in reproductive isolation, even in relative isolation where hybrids were forming. There's really not time enough for selective pressures to have an effect, or mutations. It's all due to the new set of gene frequencies in each new population being worked through the population down the generations in reproductive isolation.
Consider the Jutland cattle that formed four completely different subspecies in only a few years simply because of reproductive isolation from each other. No change in environment, no time for selective pressures or mutations to make the difference. Or the Mrcaru lizards that developed the large jaws and a valve in the gut that made digesting tougher food easier than the parent population ate. There wasn't different food on their island where they were isolated from the food on the mainland where the parent population lived, it was purely a genetic thing that hnappened from their own peculiar mix of gene frequencies. This brought out the larger jaws and that caused them to gravitate to the new foods the stronger jaws could deal with, and prefer them over their original diet. All this happened within thirty years. The entire population that developed from only ten individuals that were relasesd onto the island had the larger jaws and valve in the digestive tract. They didn't have to eat the tougher food but since they could they did. I think this is what really happens in most of the scenarios that get interpreted the other way around: as pressure from the environement. My guess would be that is a very very rare scenario. Most populatoins couldn't survive at all under those circumstances.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 8:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 428 of 830 (870638)
01-23-2020 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by dwise1
01-22-2020 8:33 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
What the f*ck are you talking about?
It sounds like you're saying that when a subpopulation splits off from the main population, then it takes some of the genome with it. An analogy to what I see you saying is that it's kind of like a tribe having a central treasury containing x monetary units, so when a third of the tribe leaves to form its own tribe then it takes a third of the treasury with it (x/3) leaving the original tribe with only two-thirds of the treasury (2x/3). That is absolutely bizarre!
What Faith's trying to describe is the idea that has been mooted in regards to, for example, the dog breeds formally recognised by Nazi-dog societies like the American Kennel Club. These things have only existed for less than two centuries, hence the idea that the phenotypic variation between the breeds can be explained solely by a partitioning of the standing genetic variation of 19th century domestic dogs.
It's not an inherently ridiculous idea, even though it is in fact wrong even in this specific instance of extremely recent, extremely fast directional selection. There are strong candidates for de novo 20th century mutations within dog breeds, causing noticeable morphological change, that have been subseqently selected for. I mentioned earlier the mutation in the [i]Runx2[/] gene in English bulldogs.
Trying to account for all variation in a Faith-species this way is ludicrous, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 8:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 12:41 PM caffeine has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 429 of 830 (870640)
01-23-2020 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
01-22-2020 6:40 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
Brown eyes aren't a good example. The mammalian ear would be.
One mutation produces a minor neutral phenotypic variation that spreads via neutral drift.
Another mutation produces a further minor neutral phenotypic variation that spreads via neutral drift.
Another mutation produces a further minor neutral phenotypic variation of the same part(s) that spreads via neutral drift.
Another mutation produces a further minor neutral phenotypic variation of the same part(s) that spreads via neutral drift.
Another mutation produces a further minor neutral phenotypic variation of the same part(s) that spreads via neutral drift.
Wow, now the cumulative phenotypic variation is significant! and may affect fitness.
Trillions upon trillions upon gazillions of trials. Millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 6:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 430 of 830 (870645)
01-23-2020 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
01-22-2020 1:33 PM


oopsie
oopsie
Edited by RAZD, : double post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 1:33 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 12:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 431 of 830 (870647)
01-23-2020 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
01-22-2020 1:33 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
Of course I'm not "neglecting" that, it's what happens with standard microevolutionary variation within a species which is what I'm always talkinga bout. You get a new set of gene frequencides with every new population split and that is a CHANGE IN THE GENOME for pete's sake. You'll never get anything BUT variations within the species through these normal processes. That was my whole point.
Except you are omitting the part where you say it can't evolve outside the species genome. Like the yellow circle bouncing around inside the blue circle but never getting outside it:
Whereas there is no boundary or limiting genetic distance for evolution, instead you get progressively further from an original parent genome as generations pass. Like the series of yellow circles for generation after generation evolution leaving the original parent genome behind:
This "drunken walk" of each generation adapting to their changing ecological conditions is how the human foot evolved from an ape foot through selection of mutation/variation for feet with better adaptations for walking. I drew it this way to show that it is not a straight line process, but one that changes with the stochasticly changing ecology
Curiously, I notice you didn't answer the main question of my last post:
quote:
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new ...
Like what Faith?
quote:
EvC Forum: Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
So what would you like this to become?
Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?
How much change is necessary, and ... more importantly ... how do you quantify it?
How much change do you think is necessary? How do you quantify it?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : fix spell check's error

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 412 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 1:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 1:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 432 of 830 (870648)
01-23-2020 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by caffeine
01-23-2020 5:22 AM


How populations change: are mutations necessaryh?
Your information on the history of these things isn't really relevant. The relevant thing is whether the genetics is correct and I'm going to go on arguing that it is.
Your only alternative offering seems to be mutation. But I donbt
It's not an inherently ridiculous idea, even though it is in fact wrong even in this specific instance of extremely recent, extremely fast directional selection.
"Extremely fast directional selection" means what exactly? I assume you are describing what I've been saying.
So I guess you are going to go on to say HOW it is "wrong" -- because it ignores mutations?
[qs]There are strong candidates for de novo 20th century mutations within dog breeds, causing noticeable morphological change, that have been subseqently selected for. I mentioned earlier the mutation in the [i]Runx2(apparently the coding within this quote is interfering with the quote codes I put in and I don't know how to fix the problem)
What I'm arguing for doesn't automatically preclude occasional mutations that contribute to the new phenotype, but if mutations are really what you all say they are, rare occurrence that normally do not affect the phenotype at all, that is they are "neutral," occasionally do something deleterious that has to be weeded out of the population, and only very occasiobnally contribute something to the phenotype that becomes part of the genome of the new population, it suggests an extremely rare occurrence in any population. Like the gene in English bulldogs you mention. Such phenomena suggest to me some kind of error, such as mistaking a naturally occurring combination of built in alleles for a mutation. If you have solid genetic evidence that it is a mutation, OK, but this whole idea raises all kinds of questions as I'm saying here.
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 428 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 5:22 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 433 of 830 (870649)
01-23-2020 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by RAZD
01-23-2020 12:25 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
...scholastically changing ecology
This presumably being an ecology which evolves via the dialectical method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2020 12:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2020 12:50 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 434 of 830 (870651)
01-23-2020 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by caffeine
01-23-2020 12:42 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
spell check did it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 12:42 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 435 of 830 (870656)
01-23-2020 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by dwise1
01-22-2020 8:33 PM


How popul.ations vary continued
Some thoughts left over from that post:
In reality, both subpopulations start off with near-exact copies of the population's composite genome. From that point on in isolation from each other, each subpopulation's composite genome will change on its own independent of the other such that they will over many generations become increasingly different from each other.
This actually describes the situation of a "purebred" animal which shares all or the majority of its genes with all the others in the population, which means the population as a whole has very low genetic diversity. That's what "near exact" copies of a genome in a population would actually be. That is not the situation in the wild where great genetic diversity prevails even in large populations with a homogeneous "look" to it which is brought out by the the most numerous alleles in the population, and no doubt the dominant ones, as opposed to recessive. (Recessive alleles can only come to dominate the "look" in a population when the genetic diversity is fairly low and these fixed or homozygous alleles come to be the most numerous. I hope this is clear; it's just a side point I wanted to make).
So what you are describing is more like the plight of the cheetah and the elephant seal, with their "near-exact" copies of each others' genome, which can increase in population despite their severely depleted genetic variability or diversity, (which, again, "near exact copies of each others' genome means) but cannot and do not change as you say they do. If they could, the survival of the cheetah would not be in question as it is.
That being the case it is pure wishfulness that they can change as you describe:
Those changes would be due to different selective pressure from differing environments and from the accumulation of different mutations which can only spread through the subpopulation and not be shared with the other.
Again if this could happen in a population with "near-exact copies of each others' genome" the cheetah would not be on the verge of extinction. It is pure wishfulness that this happens in such a severely genetically depleted population.
I argue, of course, that these processes are not the cause of the changes in a daughter population of any level of genetic diversity anyway. Which is what my first post in answer to you was arguing. You get the "composite phenotype" of the new population simply by the breeding among the members in isolation from other popualtions, which mixes the set of gene frequencies the original founders of the new population happened to possess. That's all it takes to get a completely new subpopulation or subspecies. Mutations are not needed and in most cases environmental selective pressures have nothing to do with it.
dwise writes:
Faith writes:
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new from a genome, which reallyh is impossible but I play with the idea since it's the only way it COULD happen although it can't.
\
First, you have bastardized the word "species" beyond all recognition, so nobody has any idea what you could possibly mean by "evolution beyond a species". Your use of those words is absolutely meaningless.
Yes I'm sorry, this is a problem I don't know how to solve. it is very difficult to be clear when the word "species" is merely a term that means a "kind" and there are levels of "kinds" involved as species or populations split off and vary from the parent species or population.
But what I usually mean by "species" is pretty simple: the major groupings of creatures we name all the time: cats, dogs, elephants, horses, pigs, snails, crows, ferns, oaks and so on. Subpopulations, daughter populations, subspecies of all these groups are still the same "Kind." But I do need a consistent and clear way to designate all these things. I do try, however.
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 425 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 8:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2020 1:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 440 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 3:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024