Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 11:33 AM
35 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), ringo (8 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,170 Year: 15,206/19,786 Month: 1,929/3,058 Week: 303/404 Day: 21/96 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 345 of 457 (708528)
10-10-2013 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Faith
10-10-2013 6:43 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
You mentioned drift and mutations, PERIOD and treated the very idea of change without those or Selection as IMPOSSIBLE and even DAFT.

Then you misunderstand what everyone has been trying to tell you for years now. Yes, allele frequency is an agent of change. The different forms of selection are agents of change since they change allele frequency. Mutation of DNA into new alleles is an agent of change since they change allele frequency . Drift is an agent of change since they change allele frequency. And more and more we are realizing that evo-devo and epigenetics are agents of change since they change not only allele frequency but allele expression.

None of these are solely exclusive.

Where you go off the reservation is your intransigence in believing that present alleles are the only ones that will ever be. This is pure religious bull with everyone trying to give you examples of where the frequency of present alleles is not the only factor involved. So you confuse this with their saying that allele frequency is not an agent of change. It is. But it is not the only agent of change. There are others including the formation of new never before seen alleles.

In the end, yes, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population. But there are different mechanisms that cause this frequency change from selection thru new alleles and more.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 6:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 7:28 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 346 of 457 (708530)
10-10-2013 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Faith
10-10-2013 6:43 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Once Natural Selection or any other "mechanism of change" that brings about a new subpopulation kicks in then you have the trend to reduced genetic diversity and it just swallows up your mutations.

At about 2,100,000,000 mutations entering the human genome every year, that would take a whole lot of swallowing.

and this

" Once Natural Selection or any other 'mechanism of change' that brings about a new subpopulation kicks in then you have the trend to reduced genetic diversity"

is just pure bullshit as you have been shown many times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 6:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 12:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 349 of 457 (708535)
10-10-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Faith
10-10-2013 7:28 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
What I'm adding, or emphasizing, is just that ALL these things bring about POPULATION SPLITS, which is THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIVE way allele frequencies get changed.

No, Faith. These mechanisms of change operate quite readily in an unsplit population. These add genetic diversity to the population. Genetic diversity will not split a population.

Only reproductive isolation causes a population split. At that point the same old mechanisms of allele frequency change continue more or less just as always. If the initial number of the smaller split population is low then we get the cheetah situation with a higher probability of extinction of that sub-population since new diversity is also low to nonexistent. If the sub-population is not too small then genetic diversity will increase with each new generation. That is what sex and mutation do for a species assuming selection allows the changes.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : re-word and re-order

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 7:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 8:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 351 of 457 (708540)
10-10-2013 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Faith
10-10-2013 8:49 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
All those mechanisms act in that way, only mutations don't. Some population splits can occur WITHIN a larger population TOO, as I've also said a number of times. I believe Drift can be described that way. Whenever a particular allele or set of alleles occurs in higher frequency that does not spread through the entire larger population, THAT's the equivalent of a population split, creating its own reproductively isolated subpopulation within the larger.

Oh, my lady, how can you get so much wrong in such a short amount of space.

Yes, in massive populations over an extended range the population in the eastern quarter may have an allele frequency quite different than the population in the western quarter. We already know this. Over time the eastern and western populations may diverge to the point of separate identities. But this was not caused because of some intrinsic feature of allele frequency but because of the reproductive isolation of the two populations over a large geographic region.

You gotta think before you speak ... er ... write.

Migration creates a completely separate population as I've understood the term, a new population that's migrated away from the mother population.

Yes, migration often does mean reproductive isolation and a population split and is exactly the same scenario as the split in the east-west population scenario.

These add genetic diversity to the population.

Far from it. All you are getting is new gene/allele frequencies, and this is due to the fact that you have fewer numbers in both new populations than you did in the original population, and when you have fewer numbers you are not adding genetic diversity, you merely have new allele frequencies to combine in new ways.

With the initial populations, yes, the split may reduce the genetic diversity in each population. But, again, think before you speak.

"you are not adding genetic diversity, you merely have new allele frequencies to combine in new ways."

Combining alleles in new ways, in new combinations, with new strengths and weaknesses, is, by definition, an increase in genetic diversity! Now add new alleles via mutation to the combinatorial mix and genetic diversity increases yet again.

At that point the same old mechanisms of allele frequency change continue more or less just as always. If the initial number of the smaller split population is low then we get the cheetah situation with a higher probability of extinction of that sub-population since new diversity is also low to nonexistent.

Which is also what I've been saying all along. Where have YOU been?

Don't get testy, dear. Just repeating for clarification and full understanding. I never said you were wrong about this one small fact.

Sex only shuffles alleles, it does not increase genetic diversity.

Read the literature, Faith. The invention of sex was one of the biggest genetic-diversity mechanisms ever to come along in the history of life on this planet.

And as I've argued, all this happens a lot faster than the ToE supposed. I think the lizard video time frame of just a few decades is probably quite typical, the long time frames are pure unevidenced theory.

First, the mutation rate of 30-50 mutations per individual per generation means the rate of increase in genetic diversity due to mutation is dependant upon the sexual proclivity, ie time to maturity, gestation rate and initial population size (partner availability) of the species in question. In humans this generation creation is about 20 years. Lizards have much faster generation creation.

Second, the strong evidence for evolution in deep time is well known and well documented. You continue to ignore reality to bolster your inner need for your religious fantasy. That's too bad. You are a lovely Lady otherwise, and I am greatly emotionally disturbed by your being so intellectually disturbed.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 8:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 1:43 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 370 of 457 (708644)
10-11-2013 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
10-11-2013 12:55 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
God, I hate dentists. Sadists.

If the last "species" in the ring can't breed with the first or other earlier populations, my guess would be the reason is the reduction in genetic diversity in the last one.

Your guess would be in error. The "last" link in a ring species cannot/will not breed with the first because of the built-up genetic differences that now exist between the two. Each species has now a separate history of increased genetic diversity to the point where the two have far fewer alleles in common. Both may have the same number of, say, tail-plumage alleles, but each species may have a set of unique such alleles not carried in the other. The situation is not so much that a breeding would not be successful but that sexual selection would preclude any such attempt.

Natural Selection *selects,* that is, it creates a new subpopulation of those best adapted in a particular situation. The new subpopulation is very likely to be appreciably smaller at its founding than the original just because how many adaptive alleles or other genetic influences are you going to find in any population with respect to a particular environmental challenge?

Sorry, Faith, but this is not the way NS operates. You are assuming that these fitter individuals are separated from the rest of the population they are embedded within and thus could only reproduce within this group. The way NS works is the fitter individuals create just a few more, or in extreme cases many more, offspring than the less fit members mating within the same population of available mates. This increases the number of "fitter" genomes, sets of more effective alleles, available to the population. This is the change in allele frequency we have all been talking about. Over a period of generations those "fitter" genomes with the more effective alleles may become the standard average for the population. NS has "selected" for these fitter alleles. Evolution of the population has occurred.

Edited by AZPaul3, : i wanted to


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 12:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 3:30 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 4:24 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 373 of 457 (708654)
10-11-2013 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
10-11-2013 3:30 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
The only way this could be decided is by actually examining the DNA of the various populations.

I would have thought you would look this up already. It's been done. Many times. After all, a ring species scenario with its ecological divergence shows us the processes of evolution that happen in deep time without having to wait. They have been studied in great detail.

This one is from the perspective of finding what indicators would appear to predict reproductive isolation. Their subjects were the various populations around a ring species. Their conclusion is that genetic divergence was a stronger predictor of reproductive isolation than ecological divergence. (Gee, really?)

Predictors for reproductive isolation in a ring species complex following genetic and ecological divergence.

In their analysis of genetic data they looked at both nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Genetic divergence from the parent population became greater the further around the ring.

Guess what? The genetic divergence seen was due to:

"new sequences nested within the clades already described for the whole species complex."

Which means new mutations of alleles that existed in the whole population, not a "loss" of alleles between the populations around the ring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 3:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 6:12 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 374 of 457 (708656)
10-11-2013 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
10-11-2013 4:24 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
And it has occurred BY creating that subpopulation I was talking about. In your scenario its formation takes more time but in the end what you have is a NEW population, and yes new allele frequencies.

No, Faith, an individual with a reproductive advantage does not constitute a "subpopulation" of the species any more than a woman with stronger leg muscles than the average constitutes a "subpopulation" of the human species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 4:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 10-11-2013 6:14 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(4)
Message 429 of 457 (708897)
10-16-2013 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
10-15-2013 7:55 PM


Re: Frako's Msg 86 list of proofs of evolution
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

You're right, Faith. Just like the turtles its micro-evolution all the way down.

Miacidae


*************************************************V
Population split. Micro-evolution.****-------------------------------------------------------------
******************************V************************************V
Proailurus
********Amphicyonidae

************************************************************************V
***************V**********More micro-evolution and splits.***-------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************V************************************V
Felidae
*******Ursinae
Daphoenodon

***********V***********V***********And more. *********V********************************V

*******
***************

And the most startling thing is that after 65 million years, after micro-evolving wolf, bear and lion, there couldn't possibly be any alleles left.

Ever wonder what an allele-less animal looked like?

Yep, your kittycat!
(Explains a lot doesn't it)

Amazing, evolution is!

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019