Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


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 554 of 830 (871192)
01-29-2020 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by frako
01-29-2020 6:11 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
"Being separated from the pack" has nothing to do with anything I've said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by frako, posted 01-29-2020 6:11 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by frako, posted 01-29-2020 6:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 557 of 830 (871209)
01-30-2020 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 556 by Tangle
01-30-2020 3:06 AM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2020 3:06 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Tangle, posted 01-30-2020 11:03 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 560 of 830 (871246)
01-30-2020 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by RAZD
01-30-2020 1:24 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.
*Yawn*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2020 1:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2020 2:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 565 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2020 10:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 566 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2020 1:07 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 562 of 830 (871255)
01-30-2020 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by PaulK
01-30-2020 2:35 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2020 2:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2020 3:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 564 by jar, posted 01-30-2020 3:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 567 of 830 (871365)
02-01-2020 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by RAZD
01-30-2020 1:24 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2020 1:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2020 2:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 570 by frako, posted 02-01-2020 2:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 571 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2020 3:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 573 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2020 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 569 of 830 (871367)
02-01-2020 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Tangle
02-01-2020 2:20 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
The Peppered Moth is not the Standard for all species. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2020 2:20 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2020 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 575 of 830 (873547)
03-16-2020 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Sarah Bellum
03-16-2020 3:10 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-16-2020 3:10 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by PaulK, posted 03-17-2020 1:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 03-17-2020 3:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 594 by caffeine, posted 03-18-2020 2:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 653 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 8:38 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 577 of 830 (873549)
03-17-2020 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by PaulK
03-17-2020 1:20 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution -
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by PaulK, posted 03-17-2020 1:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by PaulK, posted 03-17-2020 2:56 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 580 of 830 (873621)
03-17-2020 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by Taq
03-17-2020 3:54 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 03-17-2020 3:54 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by JonF, posted 03-17-2020 7:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 584 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 1:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 613 by Meddle, posted 03-19-2020 12:12 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 581 of 830 (873622)
03-17-2020 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by PaulK
03-17-2020 2:56 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution -
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by PaulK, posted 03-17-2020 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 1:31 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 586 of 830 (873643)
03-18-2020 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by PaulK
03-18-2020 1:31 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution -
If it's not logical or intuitively obvious to you, sorry about that but it is to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 1:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 3:55 AM Faith has replied
 Message 588 by jar, posted 03-18-2020 7:39 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 589 of 830 (873664)
03-18-2020 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by PaulK
03-18-2020 3:55 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution -
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 3:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 596 of 830 (873680)
03-18-2020 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by caffeine
03-18-2020 1:52 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution -
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by caffeine, posted 03-18-2020 1:52 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 597 of 830 (873681)
03-18-2020 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by Tangle
03-18-2020 2:11 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution -
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2020 2:11 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by caffeine, posted 03-18-2020 3:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 603 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2020 3:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 605 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2020 4:51 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 599 of 830 (873685)
03-18-2020 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by caffeine
03-18-2020 2:44 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by caffeine, posted 03-18-2020 2:44 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by caffeine, posted 03-18-2020 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024