Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22492
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 183 of 301 (347028)
09-06-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
09-06-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Mutation Fallacies in Macro-ToE
Faith writes:
You must not be keeping up with the creationist arguments. No creationist denies genetic adaptation, natural selection or any of that.
...
I wouldn't think that the processes that bring about a change in allele frequencies in a population would be a matter of opinion.
...
I'm not "rushing to debunk" mutation. I've been trying to get a grip on what it is and does for some time now and the better I understand it the less it looks like it could actually do anything to further evolution.
So you accept that adaptation through changing allele frequencies in reaction to selection pressures is possible, unless the changes in allele frequency are due to the introduction of new alleles (mutations), in which case the possibility of adaptation is questionable?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 09-06-2006 4:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 09-06-2006 4:49 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22492
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 190 of 301 (347039)
09-06-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
09-06-2006 4:49 PM


Re: Mutation Fallacies in Macro-ToE
Faith writes:
The inevitability of adaptation doesn't change. I have no problem with new alleles being introduced but this is generally assumed in the discussions here, rather than proven or demonstrated, except in a very few cases whose result is questionable to my mind.
So all you're looking for is evidence that mutations happen on a significant, regular and consistent basis?
Or are you looking for an explanation of how a point mutation (single nucleotide substitution) is actually the same thing as a new allele?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 09-06-2006 4:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 09-06-2006 5:28 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22492
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 195 of 301 (347052)
09-06-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
09-06-2006 5:28 PM


Re: Mutation Fallacies in Macro-ToE
Faith writes:
I would expect an allele to be the length of the gene. But perhaps I'm wrong about that.
No, you're right about that. Think of a gene as one slot on a chromosome. Each chromosome has slots for lots of genes. Each gene has a number of alleles that can be plugged into its slot. There is no requirement that all alleles of a gene be the same length in terms of nucleotides, but it would probably be generally correct to say that most alleles of the same gene are approximately the same length.
Each allele of a gene consists of a sequence of nucleotides. A point mutation is when a copying error causes one of the nucleotides to be incorrect. It would be like changing one letter of the word COW to get SOW. Continuing the analogy, whereas before the mutation the allele performed the action "MILK THE COW", after the mutation it performs the action "MILK THE SOW".
So the question is, are you looking for an explanation of how a point mutation (single nucleotide substitution) is actually the same thing as a new allele? If so, then I think I just provided one.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 09-06-2006 5:28 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22492
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 300 of 301 (348091)
09-11-2006 10:00 AM


I haven't participated very much in this thread, but since it is ending soon I just want to note that I don't think the topic of this thread has ever been addressed. There's been a lot of discussion about mutation, but as far as a mechanism preventing micro-evolution from becoming macroevolution, nothing.
If this topic comes up again I think the creationists need to better understand what they're claiming. An analogy would be micro-walking versus macro-walking. What keeps a micro-walk from becoming a macro-walk. Well, if you live in the continental United States, nothing prevents this. If you can walk to the store then you can walk across the country, it just takes longer. But if you live on a small desert island then the island's coastline is the limit of walking, and it makes macro-walking impossible.
Just as an island's coast prevents macro-walking, creationists have to identify some boundary or mechanism that prevents macroevolution.
--Percy

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024