Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 8:05 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Son Goku (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,344 Year: 15,380/19,786 Month: 2,103/3,058 Week: 477/404 Day: 81/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Introduction to Genetics
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 121 of 236 (719549)
02-15-2014 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
02-15-2014 3:56 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
So Faith, has this micro/macro evolution now stopped?

Of course not. Some species have a lot of genetic variability left.

Are all the critters that we call species now fixed?

No.

And, as a corollary, when did the all the critters that we have now, become what they are? How soon after leaving the Ark?

I'm sure it varied a great deal depending on the species, the circumstances, the generation time, the number of daughter populations, the number of the founding individuals of the daughter populations and many other things. I don't know if there's any way to know for any given species. But certainly the idea that any of it took millions of years is out of the question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2014 3:56 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2014 4:20 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7018
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 122 of 236 (719552)
02-15-2014 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
02-15-2014 4:04 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
Faith writes:

Of course not. Some species have a lot of genetic variability left.

So in a million years from now, will any of these genenetically varied species have evolved into completely new beasts? and are you expecting all life on earth to eventually run out of genetic variability?

I'm sure it varied a great deal depending on the species, the circumstances, the generation time, the number of daughter populations, the number of the founding individuals of the daughter populations and many other things.

Several branches of science and other 'ologies' like archaeology can show that the species we have today were around at the date of your flood. There are also written records, for example your bible, of many of today's animals being around several thousand years ago. How do you get around these difficulties in your little model?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:36 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 123 of 236 (719555)
02-15-2014 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Tangle
02-15-2014 4:20 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
So in a million years from now, will any of these genenetically varied species have evolved into completely new beasts?

I don't think the earth has been around for more than thousands of years and don't expect it to last more than maybe another thousand. And no, a creationist doesn't think anything becomes a "completely new beast," just interesting variations or races of the given species.

and are you expecting all life on earth to eventually run out of genetic variability?

Looks that way to me, yes.

Several branches of science and other 'ologies' like archaeology can show that the species we have today were around at the date of your flood.

Well, if they say things that disagree with God's word, I can't accept them.

There are also written records, for example your bible, of many of today's animals being around several thousand years ago. How do you get around these difficulties in your little model?

I stick to a general idea of how things would have played out, but there's nothing hard and fast about it. I assume it can be adjusted for specific cases if necessary. ABE: Species don't evolve at the same rate. But it's also likely that animals of the same name then may not be exactly like their counterparts today anyway. Very similar of course.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2014 4:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2014 5:00 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7018
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 124 of 236 (719558)
02-15-2014 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
02-15-2014 4:36 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
So not only is the earth very young but it's also not going to get very old either. It does seem to be a bit of a waste to create an entire universe of billions of stars and planets for it to be only around for a few thousand years, but hey ho.

Well, if they say things that disagree with God's word, I can't accept them.

I can see the effort you put into trying to reconcile our increasing understanding of our world with what you imagine God's word to be. It can only get increasingly difficult for you. You're an interesting anachronism Faith.

.. but there's nothing hard and fast about it.

Yes we've all noticed that. It's generally referred to as ad hoc or simply making shit up


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:10 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 125 of 236 (719559)
02-15-2014 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Tangle
02-15-2014 5:00 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
Eventually we're going to get a new earth. The billions of stars aren't going to go to waste.

ABE: Oh and this one COULD have stuck around but, you know, the Fall and all that kind of wrecked things.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2014 5:00 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 126 of 236 (719569)
02-15-2014 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
02-14-2014 10:01 PM


"Macroevolution" implies that the genome can eventually morph into another kind of genome.

That's exactly what I was saying in my post earlier ... you take issue with the IMPLICATIONS of the words. I totally understand not using the word macroevolution. The other words you mention, speciation, divergence, and mutation ... not so much. It's really hard to expect that people on the science side should change the definitions or their usage of these words to accommodate your ideas (unless you can establish that your ideas SHOULD be accepted). I would also like you to explain why you think they are interpretive; that may help me understand better why you don't want to use those words, because I don't see them as interpretive, but descriptive.

Except they are not speciation events but subspeciation events and nothing has changed in the structure of the genome itself which is what macroevolution requires,

Cough, cough, cough ... more reason why you need some lessons in basic genetics.

AIG has done "extensive research" to determine the Mammalian Ark Kinds. Regarding the dog kind - Canidae, they say:

quote:
The strong cognitum and extensive hybrid data suggest the kind is likely at the level of the family.

So, let's see if the structure of the genome has changed at all in those subspeciation events by comparing their chromosome numbers. Source

Genus Canis ................................ 78
Genus Otocyon - Bat eared fox .... 72
Genus Vulpes
- Grey fox ................................... 66
- Fennec fox ............................... 64
- Bengal fox ................................ 60
- Kit fox ...................................... 50
- Tibetan sand fox ....................... 36
- Red fox .................................... 34

You don't consider a difference of 44 chromosomes to be a change in the "structure of the genome"? Looks more like a lot of macroevolutionary events, by your own definition, to me. Just within the genus Vulpus there is a large variation in genomic structure. Do you have a different definition of "genomic structure"?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 10:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:35 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 127 of 236 (719571)
02-15-2014 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
02-14-2014 9:33 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Oh well, I've struggled along this far with a stacked deck against me ...

I recognize what you are up against. The problem is you are trying to use words in different ways than what is established and then complaining that you are being misunderstood. My comment about "stacking the deck" is only referring to wanting to discuss human / chimp relatedness without using evolutionary terminology or mutations. If you want to talk about how mutations work, or how chromosomes are arranged or how genes function, or the like; those things can be discussed without "evolutionary language."

It also creates confusion when you describe the same basic process but then don't want to apply the accepted term to that process. Example: speciation. You describe a process where a population splits into two reproductively isolated subpopulations, but you don't want to call it speciation. What you are actually disagreeing with is the mechanisms that lead to that event, not the event itself.

Which leads to a question that you missed ...

HBD writes:

it seems as if a better way to go would be to discuss genes, chromosome and alleles. Would you be interested if I posted some introductory material on those topics?

It may help you better understand the mechanisms behind the whole process and test your ideas to see they actually work.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 9:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:10 PM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 128 of 236 (719573)
02-15-2014 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by dwise1
02-14-2014 7:48 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Actually, I had never seen those terms before until creationists started using them as part of their "variation within created kinds" rhetorics. So as far as I know, they're creationist terms anyway!

I did a quick search of this (Wikipedia) and it seems as if the terms were coined back in 1927 by Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko (whoever that is?) but fell out of favor when used to describe orthogenetic theories. From there it is not clear how the term began to get used again, but I suspect you are right, that creationists began to use it to differentiate between "acceptable" evolution and "unacceptable" evolution.

So why would a creationist feel compelled to avoid them?

They don't really avoid them, they just make their own definitions. Any evolution that happens is by definition, microevolution. Macroevolution, by definition cannot happen. Even if could be demonstrated that a dog "turned into" a cat ... it would still be just microevolution - by definition.

Personally, how I would LIKE to use the terms is that microevolution is observable, demonstratable change over time. Macroevolution is change that is inferred. I think that puts the two events on different levels of certainty, but doesn't deny that level of change is possible. However, this is unlikely to be accepted in popular verbiage, so I don't try to use it that way.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 02-14-2014 7:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:16 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20060
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 129 of 236 (719581)
02-15-2014 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
02-14-2014 4:47 PM


speciation, macroevolution and genetics
Speciation is not macroevolution and it isn't necessary to use that term. It's also not speciation either but I can't see a way to change that term, so I'll just have to keep writing out my view of it.

To be honest Faith, speciation isn't macroevolution so much as the beginning of it, so it is the dividing line as it were, between micro and macro.

So I would also be happy to avoid use of the term "macroevolution" until we can agree on what the term means (and that would likely take a new thread to figure out.

There is no concession involved; I've viewed it this way for years and I'm sure I must have said so years ago already even here.

So to summarize then, we are in agreement that -- to use a genetic definition for this thread:

(1) The process of (micro)evolution involves changes in the composition and the frequency of the distribution of alleles within breeding populations from generation to generation.

ie -- variation and adaptation, and this would include loss of alleles as well as redistributions.

And:

(2) The process of speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

ie -- separation of breeding subpopulations by reproductive isolation.

In addition there would be variations within breeding populations that show diversity without being reproductively isolated subpopulations.

And where breeding populations means organisms reproducing after their kind\clade.

Except that there is nothing new about my view of these things, and speciation is not speciation, and there are many subspecies that belong to that diversity that aren't the product of speciation.

Subpopulations that are not reproductively isolated would be variations\varieties within reproductively isolated populations, but not able to interbreed with other reproductively isolated subpopulations, yes?

You would have:

  1. Kind/Clade -- a parent breeding population
    1. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

Would you agree that isolation could be geographic (physical barriers to interbreeding) as well as genetic (loss of ability to interbreed)?

Would you agree that there could still be gene flow between varieties within a breeding subpopulation (ie hypbrids and new varieties)?

It is important that I use words that say what I mean and avoid sounding like I agree with evolutionist concepts I don't agree with. It is not an easy task to negotiate these differences between the models, ABE: especially in the teeth of the militant insistence on evolutionist terms as factual, which they are not /ABE. In the case of mutations, I do NOT agree that alleles are the product of mutations, they are built in variants of genes, built in from the Creation. Mutations hardly ever, and probably in actuality never, create viable alleles that perform the functions of normal alleles. Mutations may manage not to destroy their function, that is, they may be "neutral," or they may be many degrees of deleterious to the gene, or they might even bring about the death of a gene, which I think is how some of the junk DNA was formed (though I think most of it reflects the mass death of the Flood bottleneck), and the mere assumption that any allele was the product of mutation should be avoided on this thread. If there is some reason to assert it then it should be asserted and not assumed. But most of the time I don't see that there would be any reason to assert it at all. The idea that there is EVIDENCE that alleles are the product of mutation is false, but if someone wants to defend that then it should come up when we finally get to mutations.

What I have understood from past conversations is that you basically believe that all change within a kind/clade is through loss of alleles from some parent population as populations spread out and become isolated.

We will just have to disagree on whether mutations can add new alleles, because as far as I am concerned the evidence is compelling.

I'm not amused. "Divergence" is an evolution-specific word. Simple factual comparisons of differences between the genomes of different species are all that's needed on this thread.

Yet two subpopulations that have become reproductively isolated have -- by definition -- diverged from one another.

Would you be happier to use "separation\separated" or "deviation"?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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 104 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 4:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 130 of 236 (719587)
02-15-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by herebedragons
02-15-2014 7:14 AM


I totally understand not using the word macroevolution. The other words you mention, speciation, divergence, and mutation ... not so much. It's really hard to expect that people on the science side should change the definitions or their usage of these words to accommodate your ideas (unless you can establish that your ideas SHOULD be accepted).

As I think I've said somewhere up thread, macroevolution is the only one I really don't want to use. Speciation I use because it refers to something recognizable and it would be too confusing to try to use other words instead; suggestions for other words came up in the context of trying to explain what I think it really is, not intending to propose a different word in its place. That is, just descriptively it seems to be nothing more than a subspecies that has lost its ability to interbreed with former populations of the species.

I might add here that although it hasn't come up in this discussion so far, I've been half expecting someone to question that description and maybe you should since it may not ALWAYS lead to inability to interbreed? Please clarify. If it doesn't, then I don't know what there is to differentiate this new population from any other subspecies.

One issue I have with the concept is that I would expect it to show the trend to decreased genetic variability because it's a product of a population split or even a series of population splits, so that to call it a new "species" which implies it's a step in the process of evolution on to further species, is a tad overly optimistic.

And I wasn't asking anyone to redefine "divergence" and "mutation," just to try in this discussion to use simple descriptive terms for the first, such as "difference" and to use "mutation" only where a change is KNOWN to be a mutation rather than the frequent use of it as an assumption that all alleles were originally mutations.

But after all this rather rancorous discussion, I think I'm ready to just leave it all alone and struggle through the establishment terms as well as I can.

I would also like you to explain why you think they are interpretive; that may help me understand better why you don't want to use those words, because I don't see them as interpretive, but descriptive.

"Speciation" implies something other than the usual development of a subspecies, it implies something outside the Kind or Species itself, a step outside (and having skimmed ahead a bit I see that RAZD is going to claim just that), but there's nothing in the actual facts that I can see to justify this idea; it seems to be purely an artifact of the ToE to claim this, not a description of the reality. Same of course with "macroevolution." An arbitrary term for something that is nothing more than the usual development of a subspecies, implying that it is more than that. "Divergence" clearly implies evolution of one species from another, but it should be possible to simply describe the factual differences between the genomes of the two without implying that. "Mutations" sometimes refers to actual known mutations and sometimes is used as almost synonymous with "allele," because of the theory that says alleles are the product of mutations, only because of that theory, not because there's any way to prove this; it's purely an assumption based on the theory.

Yes the fox example looks like a lot of change in the structure of the genome, so either that isn't a determinant of a Kind or there is something else in the genomic structure that determines it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by herebedragons, posted 02-15-2014 7:14 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2014 5:20 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 131 of 236 (719588)
02-15-2014 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by herebedragons
02-15-2014 7:51 AM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
My comment about "stacking the deck" is only referring to wanting to discuss human / chimp relatedness without using evolutionary terminology or mutations. If you want to talk about how mutations work, or how chromosomes are arranged or how genes function, or the like; those things can be discussed without "evolutionary language."

That's all I meant to be asking for.

It also creates confusion when you describe the same basic process but then don't want to apply the accepted term to that process. Example: speciation. You describe a process where a population splits into two reproductively isolated subpopulations, but you don't want to call it speciation.

I tried to be very clear that I am NOT refusing to use the term "speciation" but that in fact I DO use it BECAUSE I know it would cause confusion not to. I TRIED to be very clear about that. Unfortunately I got involved in further discussion about my objections to the term and apparently you took that to mean I was refusing to use the term, which is not the case.

What you are actually disagreeing with is the mechanisms that lead to that event, not the event itself

I certainly don't see how this is true. Population splits are the best example of how new subspecies are formed, and I make a lot of my case about how this leads to decreased genetic variability from this example, so the idea I'm objecting to the mechanisms makes no sense. I AM objecting to the idea that what they lead to is a new "species" rather than just another subspecies. I see no justification for that term since the mechanisms are not different.

As for going on to discuss genes, chromosomes and alleles, the problem is that I'm still back on Taq's much earlier post where he said some things I wanted at the time to figure out, but now I've forgotten what those were. The question that I began with was about identifying one species from another genetically. Really that's the question that started the whole thread, it just keeps coming up in different contexts for me. Taq was the only one who said this could be done; others have said right now not enough is known.

I'll have to regroup as it were and see if I can recover my questions from those earlier posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by herebedragons, posted 02-15-2014 7:51 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by herebedragons, posted 02-16-2014 4:58 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 132 of 236 (719589)
02-15-2014 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by herebedragons
02-15-2014 8:28 AM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Personally, how I would LIKE to use the terms is that microevolution is observable, demonstratable change over time. Macroevolution is change that is inferred.

This is how creationists use it. But the point is that microevolution occurs within the Kind, while macroevolution implies change outside the Kind or beyond the limits of the Kind, toward something other than the Kind; and I was looking for a way to show that the genome itself is limited to microevolutionary change, not successfully so far. My argument remains that you can't get evolution outside the Kind simply because the mechanisms that bring about evolution also reduce genetic variability. But this is not the thread to argue this. I've argued it to death on other threads.

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 128 by herebedragons, posted 02-15-2014 8:28 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20060
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 133 of 236 (719590)
02-15-2014 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
02-15-2014 4:35 PM


One issue I have with the concept is that I would expect it to show the trend to decreased genetic variability because it's a product of a population split or even a series of population splits, so that to call it a new "species" which implies it's a step in the process of evolution on to further species, is a tad overly optimistic.

Yes, this is a prediction of your hypothesis that all variation in a kind is pre-built into the ark-kind pair and that all subsequent speciation is due solely to loss of alleles as the offspring spread out. That we don't see a decrease in genetic variability would mean your hypothesis is falsified or at the least severely challenged.

"Speciation" implies something other than the usual development of a subspecies, ...

Nope.

... it implies something outside the Kind or Species itself, ...

Never.

Evolution is always within clades\kinds, and it is always surprising that creationists don't know this.

... (and having skimmed ahead a bit I see that RAZD is going to claim just that), ...

Perhaps you better re-read it then.

Subpopulations that are not reproductively isolated would be variations\varieties within reproductively isolated populations, but not able to interbreed with other reproductively isolated subpopulations, yes?

You would have:

  1. Kind/Clade -- a parent breeding population
    1. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

Perhaps I should expand it ...

Subpopulations that are not reproductively isolated would be variations\varieties within reproductively isolated populations, but not able to interbreed with other reproductively isolated subpopulations, yes?

You would have:

  1. Kind/Clade -- a parent breeding population
    1. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

    2. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

    3. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

  2. Kind/Clade -- a parent breeding population
    1. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

    2. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

    3. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

  3. Kind/Clade -- a parent breeding population
    1. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

    2. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

    3. Speciation/subspecies -- a reproductively isolated subpopulation
      1. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      2. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation
      3. Variation/variety -- non-reproductively variation within a subpopulation

Everything yellow would be one kind and the descendants within that kind

Everything orange would be one kind and the descendants within that kind

Everything red would be one kind and the descendants within that kind

Does that help?

Edited by RAZD, : variability instead of viability - thanks Faith


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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 130 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:26 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 134 of 236 (719591)
02-15-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by RAZD
02-15-2014 5:20 PM


ABE: So all you've done is define "speciation" so that there is no way to differentiate the development of a subspecies of a Species from a change that makes one Species into another -- it's ALL "speciation." You are objecting to this very concept although you know as we all do that this is why creationists object to the ToE. /ABE

The problem with that system, RAZD, is that while it's technically true enough it blurs the line where you get another Kind from a former Kind, which is still what the ToE claims and what creationists are arguing with. All you are doing is insisting that the change comes about so gradually that one can't identify that line at all, basically trying to define the debate out of existence. But of course you know as all the rest of us do that the reason creationists object to the ToE is not about all those microevolutionary changes which have been known forever, but about the point at which you would claim that microevolution has become macroevolution.

So perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us the terminology you would find acceptable for identifying that point so we can actually have this debate?

But this really doesn't belong on this thread anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2014 5:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2014 6:12 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32715
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 135 of 236 (719593)
02-15-2014 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by RAZD
02-15-2014 5:20 PM


One issue I have with the concept is that I would expect it to show the trend to decreased genetic variability because it's a product of a population split or even a series of population splits, so that to call it a new "species" which implies it's a step in the process of evolution on to further species, is a tad overly optimistic.

Yes, this is a prediction of your hypothesis that all variation in a kind is pre-built into the ark-kind pair and that all subsequent speciation is due solely to loss of alleles as the offspring spread out. That we don't see a decrease in genetic viability would mean your hypothesis is falsified or at the least severely challenged.

But the problem is you aren't looking for reduction in genetic variability (not "viability"), which is why you have not "seen" it. You are not looking where it would be found. There is no way this is NOT the case. When you have a population based on reduced numbers you HAVE to get reduced genetic variability in the population as a whole, ABE: though this may not be apparent until the numbers have been appreciably reduced so that the trend can become apparent. At first you'll just get the usual remix, the new gene frequencies, and new phenotypes from them, but in order to do that you have to reduce the competing alleles, and this only becomes apparent as an overall reduction in alleles as you get further population splits. This COULD be demonstrated in a laboratory. /ABE

But this should not be on this thread, which should be about the genome.

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 133 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2014 5:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2014 6:41 PM Faith has responded
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-18-2014 10:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019