|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
And then one day one of his brothers turned black. It happened for five different reasons, impacting 80 different genes, but it was just natures messy business of never being able to maintain a stable body plan that works. Given that both the light colored mice and the dark colored mice are doing fine in nature it would appear that nature can find body plans that work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
WHEREVER you get new varieties or phenotypes you get this phenomenon of reducing the genetic diversity . . . I guess down is up in creationist circles. You have phenotype A. A mutation occurs. You now have phenotype A and B. You have two phenotypes where you used to have one. You are claiming that going from one phenotype to two is a reduction in genetic diversity? If so, I think you should look up the definition of "reduction".
a point that is where further new phenotypes can't be formed at all, which I'm saying is the end of evolution -- for that line of variation. Nowhere have you shown that this point exists. Nowhere.
WHEREVER you get new varieties or phenotypes you get this phenomenon of reducing the genetic diversity and what that MEANS is that forming new "species" which one would have thought the ToE was all about, has an end point that must be the definition of the boundary of the Kind or Baramin or whatever you want to call it. Evidence please.
Presumably what you need is a kind of "increased diversity" that can change the structure of the genome itself . . . I would assume that you think that humans and chimps are in separate baramins. Can you please show us how their genomes are different structurally. Can you also please show us which differences between humans and chimps can not be produced by the observed processes of mutation. Please show us the mutations you claim can not occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
New traits are not necessarily brought about by mutation, but can have been latent in the gene pool until some sequence of recombination events brings them to expression. We also know that new traits do appear through mutation, such as the double muscling of the Belgian Blue bovine breed:
These mutations add to the genetic diversity of any population, not reduce it.
It's selection that makes the difference, and selection, or reproductive isolation/selection, and that's what reduces the genetic diversity, and it does have the last word. How can selection have the last word when every generation is born with new mutations?
True it's slower but it's the same process of creating a new phenotype by reducing the competing alleles which for that new variety is genetic reduction. What about creating a new phenotype by mutation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
In order to GET corn the plant genome had to lose the genetic atuff that produced maize instead. It also had to add the genetic stuff that makes corn instead of teosinte. That's what an increase in genetic diversity means as I'm using it.
If you keep breeding for a particular trait you will keep favoring the alleles that produce that trait, maybe for multiple genes even, and the more you favor the more that trait is emphasized. AND at the same time the more you lose the alleles for other kinds of flowers that you DON'T want. First, you need the traits to select for, and for corn this required an increase in genetic diversity since the ancestral teosinte gene pool did not have the genetic diversity that included the traits found in modern corn.
They also fit very well with my scenario as I'm describing it here, either mutation or built-in genetic diversity supplying the material for selection to work on, Mutations producing a new phenotype is an increase in genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Nope, it always had the genetic capacity to produce corn but that capacity had to be brought out by selection. That is false. Corn has specific mutations not found in wild teosinte, and these mutations are responsible for some of the corn specific features. For example, mutations in the tga1 gene:
quote: These are new mutations producing new phenotypes which is an increase in genetic diversity. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
How is this a fair comment at all? Where are the bible quotes? If someone questions the viability of evolution, the automatic throwback position is that its a bible argument? Given the correlation between religious belief and denial of evolution one can hardly be blamed for making the connection. If you actually cited scientific facts instead of using empty assertions perhaps you could avoid these allegations.
Since you can not prove that the problems of reinforcement of harmful genes can be overcome after time, and growth, then really you are just promoting atheism in a science forum. You have not shown that there is a problem. Again, you need more than empty assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Given the correlation between belief in evolution and atheism, . . . False correlation. There are tens of thousands of christian biologists who accept the theory of evolution.
You just said that one can't make assertions without scientific fact to back it, and then you say, "You have not shown that there is a problem." In other words, YOUR side is allowed to make assertions, and it is up to the opposing side to show there is a problem?
You are the one asserting that there is a problem. It is up to you to support your claims. Where is your evidence?
You haven't shown there is a problem with Faith's ideas. Yes, I have. I have cited peer reviewed scientific papers to back my claims, such as the mutations found in corn and the mutations found in pocket mice. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
How does a supposed mutation in a pocket mouse refute Faith's claims? Mutations add genetic diversity, contrary to Faith's claims. That is what the mutations in pocket mice illustrate. At one point, there were just light colored mice. Mutations caused the appearance of a new phenotype. That is an increase in genetic diversity by every measure.
You see, its this kind of deceitful arguments that make your assertions suspect. Do you know that there are people of all different religious faiths, even atheists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution? So once again your double standards and deceitful arguments are showing your desire to push an anti-religious agenda.
Do you deny that you have a belief in a creator deity? **the rooster crows** Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Do you deny you are agnostic/atheist? Not at all. Do you deny that you believe in a creator deity? **the rooster crows a second time**
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Your pocket mice story is not complete until you showed what the pocket mice evolved from. Already did that in post #78.
Plus you have to account for the other 4 instances where pocket mice showed black fur without that mutation. How will 4 more examples be more convincing when 1 is not? If those 4 other examples are due to mutations in 4 other genes what then? Just ignore those too? What if I cite the mutations in humans that are responsible for differences in skin color? What then? Just ignore those too?
But again, you probably only believe the story of the pocket mouse, because you are atheist. I accept it because of the evidence, something that you don't have for your claims. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I believe that until you can come up with a plausible explanation for how the laws of gravity, the laws of electromagnetism, the laws of the strong and weak nuclear force, and the existence of any law at all coming into being through an unordered, chaos-the existence of desired order is the default position. How many time will you deny Jesus before the day is over? Three? Peter would be proud. Until you show how a deity produced the universe the default position is "I don't know".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Oh that is a TERRIBLE misrepresentation. I've done a lot more than merely assert this, I've walked you through all the reasoning that leads to this conclusion time after time after time. I have not seen this reasoning. Could you point me to the post in this thread where this reasoning can be found?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Because I interpret the facts from within a different explanatory system. Thus far, you seem to be making stuff up on the fly without any reference to any facts. That doesn't seem to be a very good explanatory system. You claim that further mutations can not produce a new kind or baramin, but you have yet to show any evidence to back this claim.
Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong. Where did you demonstrate that their conclusions were wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I RECOGNIZED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A SERIES OF POPULATION REDUCTIONS/ISOLATIONS/SELECTIONS OCCUR AND I REALIZED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Why do you ignore what happens when mutations occur and increase genetic diversity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
What actually happens in reality is that the processes of evolution come to an end by running out of genetic possibilities. Evidence please.
In REALITY. This is demonstrated in breeding and it is demonstrated all the time in the wild where conservationists are concerned about species endangered by genetic depletion. This doesn't refute the observation of mutations adding genetic diversity.
You know that there ARE mutations but you don't know what they actually DO in the population. Yes, we do. They produce increases in genetic and phenotype diversity. Why else do you think humans and chimps look different? They are different because mutations have changed their genomes. The differences are due to mutations.
The other paradigm is that the existing genotype is quite sufficient to provide all the diversity needed for new phenotypes to emerge through many population splits, each new reduction in numbers reducing the genetic diversity until eventually if the splitting keeps continuing you arrive at speciation and inability to further evolve new varieties. Then show us the combination of chimp genotypes that can produce a human.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024