Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 316 of 1034 (692726)
03-06-2013 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by NoNukes
03-06-2013 8:13 PM


Re: Jeer bait
It appears that she has spent her time on her mantra "evolution is going down, diversity is disappearing, there are no mutations."
Not once has she set foot in a biology or genetics lab.
She could have actually done some actual research and learned something in 8 or 10 years. She could have even gone all the way and become an expert, earned a Ph.D, made discoveries, written papers and books.
What a waste, to spend that much time mulling a fantasy in her mind.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2013 8:13 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2013 11:03 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 5:47 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(5)
Message 364 of 1034 (726357)
05-08-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by NoNukes
05-07-2014 3:09 PM


Re: Good idea, next step
You don't get to take a dozen people and show the problems that result, because none of us are claiming that you can take a dozen people and create a diverse population. That kind of bottleneck is how you get something like cheetahs.
The bottleneck would be much more extreme in humans. The bottleneck in Cheetahs is estimated to have occurred ~10,000 years ago. The biblical timeline implies that there would be two bottlenecks in humans. The first would be Adam and Eve ~6,000 years ago and the second ~4,300 years ago at the flood.
The humans at the time of the flood (only ~1,500 years after the A & E bottleneck) would have been much less genetically diverse than cheetahs are today. Then with a second bottleneck ~4,300 years BP, we should expect humans to be so genetically similar today that organ transplants would never suffer from rejection due to genetic differences.
On top of that, when you consider that a cheetah generation is 3-4 years (2500-3300 generations since bottleneck) and a human generation is around 20 years (215 generations since flood bottleneck) it becomes absolutely clear that any human bottleneck must have occurred long before any biblical timeline says it did and also long before the cheetah bottleneck.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2014 3:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(7)
Message 365 of 1034 (726365)
05-08-2014 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
05-08-2014 1:56 AM


Re: and I still say (macro) evolution is impossible
Faith writes:
To get a clearcut new population in the wild the same as you would a new breed, you have to have isolation of the selected traits, whether randomly or naturally selected doesn't matter, and this process is always accompanied by reduced genetic diversity, even if it takes longer has more ups and downs before it gets there in the wild.
This is one of key flaws in your argument. There is no such thing as a clear-cut new population in the wild. The characteristics that define a population new or old, large or small, never fit into a neat, uniform package. There is always a range of genetic diversity and also a range in the phenotypic characters seen and unseen that biologists use to describe a population or a species. We know this is true from studies performed by biologists in the field. They are often depicted measuring various characters on tv nature shows and I have done the same kind of studies in the field myself. The characters almost always fall into a Gaussian distribution, but when the distribution is skewed, that is a clue that there is selection of that character.
Every time individuals in the population mate they pass on some of their own mutated alleles and their offspring acquire their own new unique new set of mutated alleles.
If the population thrives, diversity increases with each succeeding generation.
If the population thrives, any loss in genetic diversity resulting from separation from the parent population, is overwhelmed by newly added mutations.
If the loss of genetic diversity is too great, and/or selective pressure is too extreme then the population will go extinct.
Observations of populations that thrive after population splits show that your reduced genetic diversity argument does not describe reality.
Populations that thrive absolutely falsify your argument.
To get a clearcut new population in the wild the same as you would a new breed, you have to have isolation of the selected traits, whether randomly or naturally selected doesn't matter, and this process is always accompanied by reduced genetic diversity
Your continued comparisons of artificial breeding and wild populations is another key flaw in your argument. Artificial breeding leads to a situation that is completely different from what is found in wild populations. Breeds are characterized by a limited number of visible phenotypic traits with ever narrowing distribution of variation in each succeeding generation.
The end goal of a breeder is a purebreed that has no variation for each different character at all. Every new variation is thrown out of the breeding plan completely or if the breeder thinks it is interesting then it may become part of beginning of a new breeding plan.
In wild populations the only goal is survival and reproduction. There is no breeder directing the population toward a uniform set of characters. There is a continuum of variation in every trait and it is continuous flux from generation to generation.
There is no ideal population description in wild populations, only a varying set traits.
There is no such thing as a purebred population in the wild.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 05-08-2014 1:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 366 of 1034 (726367)
05-08-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by RAZD
05-08-2014 8:51 AM


Re: And what would convince you Faith?
And yet, curiously, different people get the same results. And the results from morphological analysis and genetic analysis agree. Why does this happen if it is subjective Faith?
And genetic analysis of both nuclear and mitochondrial agree.
Faith writes:
Nested hierarchies beyond the known genetically related groups are pure mental constructs, ...
I'm sure she will never believe it but cladograms show nested hierarchies far beyond the species or breeding population level.
Reality trumps belief every time.
RAZD writes:
Why don't you lay out your purported laboratory experiment rather than make mysterious allusions to it.
I think she must be referring sitting and thinking about it really, really hard. She often tells everyone that if we think about it hard it will be obvious she is right.
Every time she says that I have this mental image of an old lady straining to think with sweat pouring off her as if she were straining to lift a 500 pound weight.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2014 8:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 376 of 1034 (727723)
05-20-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
05-20-2014 10:18 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
Yes I am denying that that is how white fur shows up in any species, by a mutation, except the possible extremely rare fluke as I keep saying. It is a normally occurring variation for the genes that govern fur color that is brought out by the normal processes of sexual recombination. Mutation is not needed.
This is completely incorrect. You cannot provide any evidence for what you keep saying. None, nada, never.
Mutation happens in every organism. It happens every time organisms reproduce. It is inevitable and accounts for every single trait in every single organism for the whole 3.8 billion year history of life.
Mutation and selection swamp the minor loss of diversity when populations split. It has been happening for 3.8 billion years, with no end in sight.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 10:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 10:53 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 378 of 1034 (727730)
05-20-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
05-20-2014 10:53 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
It was always understood until this mutation fiction took over, that variation is simply a matter of the sexual recombination of genetic material.
It was always misunderstood you mean. I don't know who you think always understood this. It was wrong.
The variation in the genetic material is all made up of mutations. The ongoing study of modern genetics has steamrolled your naive views. They are based on a profound lack of knowledge about biology and genetics. I am amazed that you just keep harping on the same mantra over and over, as if repeating errors will make them less erroneous.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 10:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 11:14 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 380 of 1034 (727737)
05-20-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Faith
05-20-2014 11:14 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
Oh that's for sure. A pure fiction has steamrolled the truth. Happens all the time these days.
Knowledge trumps ignorance every time.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 11:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 395 of 1034 (757739)
05-12-2015 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Faith
05-12-2015 6:59 PM


Re: genetic diversity
Faith writes:
As I've said a bazillion times, the PROCESSES of evolution REQUIRE the reduction of genetic diversity, doesn't matter how you get the diversity or when, IF YOU ARE GETTING NEW TRAITS you are also getting a reduction in genetic diversity WHERE THAT IS HAPPENING
And you have been wrong a bazillion times. This is completely assbackwards. When you are getting new traits you are adding diversity.
The processes of evolution absolutely do not require a reduction of diversity.
It does not matter how many times you say it will always be wrong.
You have never once offered a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. Faith's Fantasy Genetics has no resemblance to reality.
Stop repeating yourself and show us a single study that supports your fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 6:59 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2015 10:00 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 398 by Tangle, posted 05-13-2015 1:11 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 404 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 397 of 1034 (757745)
05-12-2015 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Coyote
05-12-2015 10:00 PM


Re: genetic diversity
It does when you believe in a mythical Fall from a mythical perfect state some 6,000 years ago.
I know, but it still just seems so crazy to me. She refuses to discuss the evidence that refutes her claims....nope, I don't want to talk about bacteria...nope I don't want to talk about examples of clearly understood mutations.
And then she denies that they exist.
And then she repeats her claims that all diversity was built into organisms 6000 years ago. And then insists that the processes of evolution demand reduction in diversity.
She scoffs at the findings of science and immediately embraces a bronze age myth that all the physical evidence shows cannot be true.
Over and over and over. It boggles my mind.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2015 10:00 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 406 of 1034 (757772)
05-13-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Admin
05-13-2015 6:48 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Admin writes:
And you have been wrong a bazillion times. This is completely assbackwards. When you are getting new traits you are adding diversity.
Here you seem to be saying that new traits can only emerge from added diversity, but then you go on to say something more inclusive:
The processes of evolution absolutely do not require a reduction of diversity.
This seems to allow that new traits can also emerge from reduced diversity, so I'm not sure what your position is, and Faith may not be either.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. There are several different arguments going on here.
Comparing breeding with evolution can only be applied superficially and just to the selection process.
The only comparison is really artificial selection vs natural selection. The breeder selects the closest individuals to the target to mate in the next generation. Each mating is essentially a bottle neck. The primary way new traits emerge is from homozygous recessive matches. The characters that are controlled by multiple genes will be displayed distinctly to reflect homozygous dominant or heterozygous or homozygous recessive traits. There are only the 2 individuals so the number of possible new traits to be displayed in the offspring is relatively limited. Diversity is reduced and continues to be reduced each generation by the breeder. Any mutation that is displayed as a trait may be of interest to the breeder and may or may not be used in subsequent matings.
In a natural population, all of the individuals in a generation may have a chance to mate and pass on their genes plus any genes that were modified by mutation. There is no target, no ideal phenotype. Mutations that are not lethal may be passed on to subsequent generations and may possibly persist in the population for many generations. Diversity is added with each new generation through mutations and individual genes may or may not be passed to offspring depending on differential mating success and the random shuffling of genes that occurs at each mating. There is no gatekeeper allowing only certain individuals to mate. Small founder populations will have an overall genome that is a subset of the whole population but speciation seldom occurs in a single generation, but rather over many generations during which there is gene flow between the populations that is gradually reduced. Most of these founder populations fail to be viable and go extinct. The reduction of diversity may be a contributing factor. Occasionally, a founder population persists long enough to be viable as its genome becomes more diverse.
Comparing breeding and artificial selection with evolution and natural selection is only useful for showing that characters can be selected to be traits in the next generation.
That is what Darwin was showing with his breeding experiments; that traits can be selected, but he did not know about the underlying mechanisms of genes or the rules that governed their combination and expression. His leap of inspiration was that natural selection and differential breeding success could make great changes in species over time.
Breeding and Evolution are equivalent only in that superficial way; during mating they involve the combination of genes and the expression of characters. That is all there is to breeding, but evolution includes increasing diversity through mutation, and genetic drift, gene flow and selection through differential breeding success of the whole population over multiple generations.
What has been learned about genetics so far shows no evidence that genomes of individual organisms were ever frontloaded with multiple versions of each gene that have subsequently been lost. What the evidence does show is that diversity has increased in whole populations as genes are mutated to form new alleles.
ABE: Saying that there is a rule that evolution or speciation requires loss of diversity is incorrect and is not supported by reality. All we have to do is look at the millions of species that are alive on the planet right now to see that this rule is not true. Using this rule to make the claim that evolution is running down or that evolution will stop working is refuted by the reality of millions of species on the planet right now that continue to evolve in defiance of this rule
Edited by Tanypteryx, : added last paragraph
Edited by Tanypteryx, : grammer
Edited by Tanypteryx, : grammer

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 AM Admin has seen this message but 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