Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3801 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 477 of 871 (691630)
02-23-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
02-23-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Novelty
I expect this to get argued out in some thoroughness when my thread is promoted. But for now all I'll say is that even if it is a mutation, which I doubt, but say it is, even then what you have is an allele, that's what a mutation produces, right? So this new allele is a mutation that occurred in what, one individual?
Populations evolve, not individuals. But, if this new allele is beneficial and is successfully passed down to some offspring, it will likely give them differential reproductive success. ie. They are more successful at breeding and thus passing the new allele to further generations.
It still has to get passed on to its progeny then, and presumably THEN it gets selected as the light-furred individuals don't survive while the dark-furred ones proliferate.
See, it really doesn't matter if the allele for dark fur was a naturally occurring one that got selected and passed on, or a mutated allele that got selected and passed on. Reduced genetic diversity is the RESULT of the selection process, and that will be the case whether it is a mutation or a naturally occurring allele that is selected, because the other alleles for other colors will be eliminated from the population. THAT's reduced genetic diversity. It doesn't "produce" anything, it's the result of selection.
Reduced genetic diversity is NOT the result. The light fur is recessive. So now, you have a dominant gene for dark fur (call it D) and a recessive gene for light fur (d). The gene for light fur may not be expressed such as in a dark furred mouse with both genes (Dd). If the recessive gene isn't somehow wiped out in the population (which would probably be some kind of close to extinction event - ex. bottleneck) then the mice will most likely retain that variation of the light fur gene in their population and it will be a hidden variation.
Hidden variation happens a lot.
Edit: Just to be clear. Just because a gene is beneficial doesn't mean that it is dominant (ex. blue eyes) and just like the genes that determine eye color, they can be complex and not so straightforward as in my example. Gregor Mendel made his choice of peas because they were not complex.
Edited by DBlevins, : Added for clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 02-23-2013 11:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3801 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 495 of 871 (691714)
02-24-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by mindspawn
02-24-2013 3:38 PM


Not actually science
However the line is not arbitrary , its based on likely mutations over 6500 years.
Actually a 6500 year line is arbitrary, based on one interpretation of passages in the bible.
Once creationists have drawn our own line, then the test is, does anything contradict the line that has been drawn to test our theory. The theory has to be tested according to scientific criteria, delving into any possible contradictory evidence to baramins 6500 years ago.
Starting with the assumption that the line starts at 6500 years ago doesn't help your theory. The fact that the age of the Earth and the universe is billions of years old is upheld by multiple scientific disciplines. At one time, there were 'scientists' who believed that the Earth was young and that the flood was real, but over time science has found that their assumptions were wrong. The scientific evidence did not support those conclusions. You would have us go back 100's of years so that we can start over again and be wrong about many of the basic processes of geology, physics, chemistry, etc. That would not serve you or future generations well.
The biggest problem you are having is you need to fit your view of the world into your version of the bible. You don't seem to be able to separate your belief from the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by mindspawn, posted 02-24-2013 3:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by mindspawn, posted 02-25-2013 4:41 AM DBlevins 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