|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Being separated from the pack" has nothing to do with anything I've said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And they call the resulting new population with its own new traits a "species." No they don't. They're still the same species. In "ring species," yes they do call each subsequent population a "species."
Separate itself doesn't change anything Separation brings about the isolation of a new set of gene frequencies. If this new population persists in reproductive isolation those new gene frequencies will eventually produce a new composite phenotype, or new "species" or "subspecies." There may also be genetic drift but it's the blending of the set of gene frequencies that is the main thing that brings about the new composite phenotype. Of course I'm disagreeing with mainstream evolutionist theory but I argue that genetic drift is not the main influence and neither are mutations, it's the mixing of the new set of gene frequencies created by the population split that is the cause of the new "species" or "subspecies" or "variation" etc. Reduced genetic diversity is always part of this picture as you can't get new phenotypes unless you lose the old ones. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.
*Yawn*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
TYou guys sling around the word "reality" as if that in itself made your comments realistic, but it's just a lot of hot air. Someday reality will bite you in the butt and you'll know what reality really is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. In actual fact most selection is nothing more than the separation of a portion of a population that becomes geographically isolated, and that produces a new identifiable "composite phenotyps" or subpopulation. Nature doesn't "care" about anything, so what? the fact is that this is probably the way new varieite sor subspecies develop in the wild, it's how you get a new populaton of a different color of bear from the parent population's color, a new type of wildebeest from ththat of the main population, new raccoom markings from those of the parent population, new markings on the salamanders of each new subpopu;aton in a ring species.
You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say.. I could be sad I guess that you didn't do what I asked, but by now I know it's just standard operating procedure. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Peppered Moth is not the Standard for all species. Sheesh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If a population changes so that it comprises two (or more) groups that cannot interbreed, how could that not be called speciation? Cuz the term implies macroevolution and all that's really going on is normal variation within a species which is microevolution. It just happens to be occurring at a level of genetic reduction so that the usual changes are dramatic enough to make continued interbreeding impossible for one reason or another, either genetic mismatch or geographic isolation or sexual selection. The term "speciation" is a bogus tendentious word dictated by the ToE. My guess is that a study of the genetic situation would show a reduction in genetic diversity (toward increase homozygosity) in jthe new population as versus the parent population. Cdertainly that's obvious enough in the case of a split into two separate populations: each would have reduced genetic diversity comparied to the parent population. This is always denied but it has to be so and that should be demonstrable too.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Severely genetically depleted animals cannot interbreed with others of the same species. Cheetah. Any very small portion of a population will have strongly reduced genetic diversity from the parent population. Even larger population splits will have some reduction in genetic diversity. When microevolution occurs through a series of population splits it progressively reduces genetic diversity in each new population. This is intuitively obvious. After enough such population splits that continue from one population to the next in reproductive isolation the genetic diversity could become as depleted as that of the cheetah. It's still the same species but won't be able to interpbreed because of genetic mismatch.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
it can't be mutations because at the rate you impute to them there would never be a stable population at all, it would always be mutating into something else, but we have lots of phenotypically stable populations, especially daughter populations after a series of splits. Like domestic breeds in many cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You don't need mutations to cause the populations to become genetically different. All that has to happen is that homozygous loci become more frequent in one population than the other. The new collection of gene frequencies in a daughter population can lead to that situation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If it's not logical or intuitively obvious to you, sorry about that but it is to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't have an anti-science point of view, I have an anti-evolution point of view. Evolution is not science even though a lot of science gets poured into it as if it were. Sad waste of time and resources. But I did arrive at my argument about microeolution simply from thinking about the facts and over the years I've posted plenty of actual evidence for it. Yup. I know I'm up against the establishment. Way it goes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh goody, the taxonomic system is getting a much-needed drubbing.
No one suggests collapsing vast taxonomic groups into single species, As I recall I do. Interbredding isn't my standard though. As for diversity I'm happy with "subspecies."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was taught many years ago that species is a biological concept that real organisms find amusing. But we have to draw some lines somewhere just for tidiness sake. Even if we rub them out later. Oh nonsense. It's not all that hard to place organisms into their rightful morphological camps, which I think should be called Species. The difficulties are fairly rare really. This idea that the species all blur together is an artifact of the ToE. Without that interference it is not all that hard to classify creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If we're just reducing the genetic variation present in an initial parent population, then the alleles each subpopulation possesses were once part of the same population. Of course but you have new frequencies of them and sometimes many have been lost. You have a lot more homozygosity for instance.
A genetic mismatch implies something has changed in at least one of the subpopulations; An increase in homozygosity at different loci could cause such problems.
otherwise joining them together would just mean mixing together the original population's alleles. You'd make the original species again. As a matter of fact you don't because you are mixing new sets of allele frequencies and that does produce something different than the original population if you mix them all together.
As we can see from real life examples, when you have actual subpopulations with greatly reduced genetic diversity, they are more likely to produce fertile young when mixed together than they are apart. If they CAN interbreed and reproduce together that would probably be true. The hybrids would be stronger in many ways than the separated populations.
The reason being that you have less individuals homozygous for harmful recessive alleles. Makes sense. But the homozygous genes don't have to be harmful. The cheetah and the elephant seal and "purebreds" all have many fixed (homozygous) loci. It's practically the definition of a purebred. In dogs this doesn't prevent interbreeding but it does in many species. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024