|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You really need to rein in your gratuitous snide remarks.
Tangle started it in Message 352
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
And yet you are spending more effort on the subject than on the topic of this thread.
I note that you have not answered Message 379 Please explain how adding variations not found in the parent population would make a new species phenotypically indistinguishable from the parent population as you seem to be claiming. Surely new variations should add to the phenotypic distinction between the populations, not eliminate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I don't define "beneficial" by human aesthetics. Yes, you do. You have already said that humans are looking for animals that look a certain way. Any mutation that changes the way they look would be selected against.
Genetic diversity. Meaning the sum of the genetic possibilities available in the population for creating new varieties of phenotypes (which you think of as mutations and I think of as Created for the purpose of variation of the Kind). That is exactly what this mutation does.
When I'm talking about the production of phenotypes I'm talking specifically about how that process reduces genetic diversity. I'm not focused on how the pool of genetic diversity originated from which the new population developed, but when mutations get into the picture I do acknowledge that of course they WOULD contribute to that diversity if they really do what you all say they do. I have acknowledged that much as a hypothetical situation I don't know how many times. Chimps are physically different from humans, are they not? Those physical differences are due to DNA sequence differences between our genomes, are they not? Mutations produce DNA sequence differences, do they not? The logic seems pretty straightforward to me.
This would happen whether those new gene frequencies were mutations or built in. The evidence demonstrates that they aren't built in. They appear over time. You can't make this conclusion go away by stomping your feet and insisting otherwise.
I'm focused on the reduction of genetic diversity through the mere reduction in numbers of individuals that founded the new population, which works best in reproductive isolation. You are ignoring the biological processes that increase genetic diversity. You can't make claims about the whole process of evolution by only focusing on one part of it. You have to focus on the entire process, and that includes the observed and known production of mutations. It includes concepts like Ka/Ks ratios and the pattern of conserved sequences, which are evidence for random mutations and selection occurring over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
To get a new subspecies, species or breed requires the loss of genetic diversity. If it isn't lost or at least reduced, you don't get a subspecies, species or breed. In order to get a new species, you need new mutations to appear in the population so that they two populations diverge over time. Mutations are what produces the divergence between the populations. For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps did not have a mixture of the exact alleles found in the human and chimp populations. The vast majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to different mutations that occurred in each lineage after they split from their common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As we have seen you make claims that are obviously false.
E.g
In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all.
You say that people who do not believe these claims are "obtuse" (or worse) although you make no argument for them. If you are being honest, as you assert then clearly you believe that these obviously false claims are obvious truths. How would you describe someone who mistakes an obvious falsehood for an obvious truth ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In order to get a new species, you need new mutations to appear in the population so that they two populations diverge over time. Mutations are what produces the divergence between the populations. I understand that is the theory. My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in, and because nonselected traits must be lost for the selected traits to emerge at those loci, over time there is a trend to loss of the genetic stuff that would make further evolution possible. You aren't going to get further change from the loci that don't affect the main appearance of the creature: that is, all those loci that code for secondary or internal or invisible traits. The divergence of phenotypes is due completely to new combinations of preexisting alleles, and the divergence is limited by the necessity for loss of competing traits. You can get two populations evolving in entirely different directions but only up to the point that they no longer have genetic diversity for further variation or evolution. Even if you had constant input of mutations all you could ever get is traits from those particular mutations that are selected, while all the rest are lost to the evolving creature, so that eventually no more evolution is possible in that evolving line.
For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps did not have a mixture of the exact alleles found in the human and chimp populations. The vast majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to different mutations that occurred in each lineage after they split from their common ancestor. Yes, that's the theory but it's not the reality and you have no evidence that it ever did our could happen, it's ALL theory, ALL assumption. You can only get variations or differences within a Species or Kind, and there the differences are due to new combinations of new gene frequencies, and for them to emerge as a new species requires that competing alleles be eliminated from the population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
it's ALL theory, ALL assumption... In science, if not in creation "science," theory and assumption are two different things entirely. The fact that you use them interchangeably does not make it so. Here are some definitions, for about the 10th time:
If you misuse scientific terms you only engender confusion, and derision.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in A "theory" for which there is absolutely no evidence. I could describe a number of scientific problems with your theory having to do with the number of alleles that get inscribed in a single person's genome per location, but the most significant problem is not about the science at all. From Message 281 Faith writes: Yes, I think of the extra alleles having already been added a long time ago. Yes I guess I'm going to have to give up that idea. Some explanation is needed but not accidental replication events. Again, you occasionally do realize that one of your ideas does not work. But that never seems to prevent you from re-earthing those same ideas if they are needed again. I understand, as you expressed in the post I quoted that it is vital that you find some method of variation other than mutations, but you have not done so. Your need to return to discarded ideas indicates that you are probably never going to come up with an explanation that works. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: False.
Message 372
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That is your assumption. As we have seen it has serious problems.
quote: You have very little understanding of genetics. Loci do not code for anything and the relationship between genes and traits is not nearly as simple as you seem to think. And your understanding of evolution is equally poor. External appearance is no more important than "internal or invisible" traits - it is simply more obvious.
quote: That is your assumption, but one that certainly appears to be false.
quote: And that is an obvious falsehood as I have already proved. Even if you will not or cannot think about these things yourself you could at least accept the truth when it is shown to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You haven't proved one thing so stop claiming it.
You have very little understanding of genetics. Loci do not code for anything What is this, another semantic pretense to be right? Locus refers to a gene which governs a particular trait or traits. How would you prefer I say that? The form of the gene does the coding, but when is there not a form of the gene at the locus? What kind of word games are you playing?
and the relationship between genes and traits is not nearly as simple as you seem to think. I make a point of keeping it simple because the complexities aren't relevant. I've many times mentioned that there may be many genes controlling one trait or one gene affecting many, and there are certainly complexities involving dominance and recessive. All the complexities do is make the route more circuitous to the same end.
And your understanding of evolution is equally poor. It's sufficient for the purpose. Especially since the ToE is made up of assumptions and conjurings and very little actual reality.
External appearance is no more important than "internal or invisible" traits - it is simply more obvious. The point was that the internal or invisible traits do not create a species, it's the appearance that leads to that designation. If you have an animal that looks exactly the same as another except for changes in the blood chemistry or something like that you'll identify both as the same species. My point was that when all the loci for the salient characteristics, i.e. the appearance, are approaching or at homozygosity, this idea that mutations in other parts of the genome will provide the necessary genetic diversity to make up for the losses brought about by creating the species in the first place, is untenable. But those losses are where it counts, the other parts of the genome are not. And it's a silly idea anyway that you'd only get changes to the other parts of the genome, or enough mutations to matter after the extreme losses that brought the creature to homozygosity in the first place. All grasping at straws. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions False. Message 372 Read all the posts on that subject. The point is that to give the answers he gives means he hasn't a clue about the argument I'm making. If you understand it then you know adding mutations won't change the outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In fact I did prove it. I suggest that you stop assuming that everyone else shares your faults.
quote: Again, that is what you do, not me. The locus is the position of the gene on the chromosome. You were wrong. Get over it.
quote: And you are wrong again because the complexities are relevant.
quote: Obviously if you're just going to lie you don't care about the truth. But simply lying will not convince anyone who can see that you are wrong.
quote: And you are wrong again. Look up cryptic species some time. Different species can appear to be the same.
quote: That is far from obviously true. So until you have a solid argument I think I will decline to agree.
quote: It is silly to think that mutations would specifically target a few genes out of the tens of thousands a species typically has, so obviously most will be in other genes. It is also far from clear that mutations that do hit those genes would affect the "important" traits. As u said the relationship between genes and traits is not that simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And there you prove my point. You are objecting to disagreement and calling it a lack of understanding. But as I pointed out the assertions you use to support your claim are obviously false - and on being challenged you fail to support them So in fact anyone who,understood your argument would not agree. So, again, you mistake obvious falsehoods for obvious truths as proven right here, in this thread. How would you describe someone who makes such an error, even after it has been shown to her ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024