|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I disagree. It will take time, but if the daughter population is successful I expect it to catch up with the diversity of the parent population. There is no reason why it cannot.
quote: What you originally said definitely DID relate to a maximum, since you claimed:
you can't maintain a species in the wild or a breed in artificial selection if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity That is NOT relative.
quote: Of course I have succeeded in proving you wrong on occasion. However, I need not do so, I only need to show that you lack a good case for your position. Indeed, even here you are arguing a different point rather than defend your original statement - and even so you have not made a case.
quote: No, they are not. Produce examples if you disagree. Genuine examples, not recognised species.
quote: But it is only temporarily necessary. There is nothing stopping diversity from increasing again.
quote: You are the one engaging in wishful thinking, not least because neutral mutations are quite sufficient to restore diversity. You have no numbers to back up your claims.
quote: You have never shown any such thing. You just keep saying it, without even an attempt to support it. Why do you say these things when you must know they aren’t true? In reality selection is not trying to do anything and the idea that new variations must directly target the loci under selection is obviously foolish. Yet if those loci are not targeted the obviously there can be no interference with selection. You obviously have not thought it through.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Sadly for you Faith, reality doesn’t not agree that it ought to be the way you want it. Maybe you ought to have a real argument instead of a collection of unlikely opinions, but you don’t. That is why you keep losing. And why this silly pretence if yours is a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, that’s you.
quote: Yeah, sure, when the AntiChrist comes and grants you the power you deserve you’ll brutally punish everyone who dared to tell the truth. I won’t be holding my breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I think that the problem is that you don’t understand the concept of following your reasoning. We can certainly recognise and understand your reasoning - what little you present - without agreeing with it’s conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That is incorrect, it is macroevolution - and if normal variation within a species causes mutual infertility I’d like to see some evidence. Also, simply refusing to admit that is speciation doesn’t change the fact that it is.
quote: Even ordinary within-species variation includes mutation as we know. And there is no reason to think genetic reduction causes infertility, certainly not as a general rule. Chromosomal variations seem to be important in some cases, like the incompatibility between horses and donkeys.
quote: This is a complete falsehood. Your personal dislike does not make it bogus or even tendentious, and it is dictated by the definition of species - a concept which predates the theory of evolution.
quote: While it is likely that a population appreciably smaller than the original would have reduced genetic variation it is not true that the larger population will always be appreciably smaller than the original. Also both populations will include mutations that did not occur in the other (the larger population will have more, but they are more likely to be fixed - take over the population - in the smaller)
quote: It is certainly not always denied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Can’t they? Cheetahs do breed, obviously. Besides, this severe genetic depletion is not a normal condition. (ABE) and let’s point out that the situation you are supposed to be addressing is where there are two populations each of which can breed perfectly well - but can’t interbreed. The cheetahs don’t address that at all.
quote: I doubt that it will be that strong, unless it is a very tiny population that probably isn’t viable.
quote: As I said, there is a relationship with population size, but it certainly isn’t linear.
quote: Only if the population continuously declines, which is a very unlikely case.
quote: Funny how there isn’t a single example of that happening. Or it would be if you weren’t making uninformed speculations.
quote: I think that if cheetahs have fertility problems it will be due to genetic matches, not mismatches. Recessive genes, causing problems. But please if you have any actual evidence produce it. I say that genetic mismatches are far more likely the product of mutation causing the populations to become genetically different. And that is intuitively obvious. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Perhaps you can offer something more than an uninformed opinion. Like actual support for this claim.
quote: Species aren’t genetically - or phenotypically - homogeneous. Indeed, a mutations which introduced a degree of genetic incompatibility doesn’t need to have any visible effects on gross morphology - which is the only thing you are considering. So your objection is looking pretty weak. If there is variation at the level you do look at then variation you won’t even see can hardly undermine this stability.
quote: Which can only exist because the parent population had genetic and phenotypic variations. And are more the product of artificial selection - stronger than natural selection - than of population splits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Reality is not dictated by what you think is needed. And when we are talking about variations appearing in the smaller population -or their descendants - that are not in the larger, mutations are the most likely way. And if the descendant populations do not interbreed for genetic reasons, that is by far the most likely way.
quote: You assume it, but how likely is it? After all the parent population didn’t have any breeding problems. And the larger population and it’s descendants can’t be assumed to have changed much (we can’t assume that they will be changed by selection and drift will be slow, so long as the population is large). If the new species is completely unable to breed with the (original) parent population it doesn’t seem likely to be due to factors that were present before the split.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your assumption is irrational and you only believe it because of your anti-science prejudices. Sorry about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Yes you do.
quote: Which is a form of anti-science view, and your objections are frequently anti-scientific, lacking both a sound base in theory or evidence.
quote: Faith, when will you learn? If you want to pretend that you don’t have an anti-science view don’t provide the proof that you do - in the same post.
quote: And that’s your anti-science view showing up again.
quote: No, you didn’t. You’ve avoided even finding out the facts that you would need to make the case.
quote: No you haven’t. You haven’t posted a single piece of evidence that was worth anything. You can’t even be bothered to look for evidence.
quote: You mean that you’re up against people who won’t be bullied into worshipping you. Which is your only tactic at this point,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is taking it way back past the context. To the best of my knowledge speciation is considered to be macroevolution. And let us also note that you acknowledge that the mice are different species.
quote: Species may not have a hard definition, but your argument goes in the wrong direction. There are species which engage in hybridisation on occasion - but you would need to argue that populations that don’t interbreed are the same species. That is a rather different point. A condition may be sufficient without being necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The trouble is that higher taxonomic groupings are, if anything, worse. Species may turn out to be rather fuzzy, but they are as good as anything. Besides Faith’s approach to macroevolution is whatever it is, I’m against it - she doesn’t care what it means. So any definition will do, and the definition which includes speciation certainly appears to be used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I think that it is easy for you to choose groupings you like. To do so objectively and claim that these morphological camps are absolutely distinct is much harder - in fact rendered impossible by the nested hierarchy and the anatomical intermediates found in the fossil record.
quote: The actual idea - that species are too fuzzy to allow for a clear-cut definition is a fact. It is a fact that supports the theory of evolution, so I can see why you’d object to it. Unfortunately for you, your likes and dislikes don’t change the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: How unBiblical of you. Didn’t Noah release both a Raven and a dove from the Ark ? Surely you have to count corvids and columbidae as separate kinds!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It isn’t. Taxonomy was part of the evidence for evolution.
quote: No, the confusions are there in nature. I guess you are going to have to put most of biology into your not science because it contradicts Faith category. While you go on claiming that you aren’t anti-science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024