Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
58 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,427 Year: 1,073/14,102 Month: 65/411 Week: 86/168 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 127 (811908)
06-13-2017 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-12-2017 9:05 PM


All the mutations you refer to occur at a particular gene for a particular trait so all they can do is vary that trait. If it's rabbit fur color assuming they can produce something new it will be just another fur color. If it's the immune system it will supposedly provide a new protection against a new disease. In other words all such changes occur within the genome, which is the same thing as saying "within the Kind."

And evolution, the production of a new phenotype, requires the loss of the genetic material for other phenotypes. That means no matter how many mutations you get the production of a new phenotype means losing all but those that contribute to the new phenotype. This is a process of overall loss, not gain. You need gain to keep evolving. The definition of the Kind it seems to me is the point where you run out of genetic diversity. Macroevolution implies the open-ended continuation of change until one species becomes a recognizable new species. This can't happen. You run out of genetic diversity after producing lots of different rabbits or whatever the genome defines. You can never get beyond the rabbit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-12-2017 9:05 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 06-13-2017 11:30 AM Faith has responded
 Message 54 by Dr Jack, posted 07-14-2017 11:55 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 127 (811951)
06-13-2017 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
06-13-2017 11:30 AM


Why would you need "gain" in order to keep evolving, as you define it? It seems that the production of new phenotypes and the loss of old phenotypes is all you need to keep evolving.

Everybody here except you argues that mutation is the necessary gain, acknowledging that gain, or increased genetic diversity, is needed for evolution. New phenotypes only come at the cost of genetic diversity, so eventually no further evolution is possible. No matter how many mutations are produced, evolution eats them up.

I've argued this a million times already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 06-13-2017 11:30 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 06-13-2017 5:30 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 127 (811982)
06-13-2017 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taq
06-13-2017 5:30 PM


Producing new phenotypes that become characteristic of a new population or species requires the loss of competing phenotypes. Doesn't matter if they are the product of mutations or built in alleles, the same processes have to occur to get a new population or race.

Or a breed: domestic breeding makes the point most clearly: to get the breed requires the loss of all the traits for other breeds: to get a Chihuahua all the alleles for a Great Dane are rejected from the gene pool.

That is how evolution occurs in the wild too, often by random processes: some individuals from a population leave and start a new population, and depending on the degree of reproductive isolation produce a completely new "species." By losing the traits that belonged to the parent population while forming new phenotypes from a new set of gene frequencies.

You can get lots of variation and lots of new species from mere splits in the population, but eventually enough evolution in one direction will lead to the condition of depleted genetic diversity from which further evolution is impossible. Evolution defeats evolution. You can never get anything but variations on a species, never a truly new species.i

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 06-13-2017 5:30 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2017 6:25 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:17 AM Faith has responded
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 3:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 127 (812025)
06-14-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taq
06-14-2017 11:17 AM


New mutations mean no evolution is going on. If you have evolution then you have the elimination of anything that doesn't contribute to the new phenotype, i.e., reduction in genetic diversity. You can have all the mutations you like, for evolution to occur you have to lose most of them. Of course you don't HAVE to have evolution. But I thought that's what we're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:17 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:26 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 127 (812035)
06-14-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taq
06-14-2017 11:37 AM


Re: Simple Example
Mutations are not microevolution. Microevolution is changes in the phenotype not the DNA. Mutations may or may not play a part in a new phenotype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:37 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2017 2:53 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 127 (812036)
06-14-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
06-14-2017 11:26 AM


All the increases in genetic diversity by mutation still get reduced when you are getting evolution, meaning an isolated population with new gene frequencies that may become a new species. Evolution always cuts down the genetic diversity, no matter what.

Also the mutation is occurring to a gene, which governs a particular trait, so the best you can get is a new version of that trait. It may even be selected and become part of the new species, but it will never get you beyond the one trait of that one species.

AND that many beneficial mutations in a sex cell, which is the only way they would get passed on, is not possible anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:26 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:24 PM Faith has responded
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 12:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 127 (812042)
06-14-2017 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
06-14-2017 12:21 PM


Re: Simple Example
You don't need changes in the DNA sequence at all. You could get a new breed or species or subspecies without a single mutation. It's just a matter of changed gene frequencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:21 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 127 (812043)
06-14-2017 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
06-14-2017 12:24 PM


It doesn't matter how many mutations you have, TO GET EVOLUTION, MEANING A CHANGE IN A POPULATION, THEY HAVE TO BE DECREASED. Add a hundred if you like, you are going to have to get rid of most of them in order to have evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:24 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:50 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2017 1:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 127 (812065)
06-14-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
06-14-2017 2:53 PM


Re: Simple Example
Mutations are not necessary for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2017 2:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 3:12 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2017 5:03 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 5:06 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 127 (812092)
06-14-2017 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taq
06-14-2017 5:06 PM


Re: Simple Example
But it doesn't occur through mutations at all. It occurs through some kind of selection, often random selection, which brings about new gene frequencies, plus reproductive isolation (ideally anyway). Mutations are absolutely and completely irrelevant, and I seriously doubt they are involved in the process except very very rarely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 5:06 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 7:44 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 127 (812095)
06-14-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
06-14-2017 7:44 PM


Re: Simple Example
The differences in DNA sequence are built into the genome of the Kind. They are capable of producing a great deal of variation within the Kind. The processes that bring about the changes in phenotype entail loss of genetic diversity, however, so that you get new variations or subspecies (or breeds) by losing the alleles for other variations, and ultimately, down a particular line of evolution (or breeding) the new species or breed has only those alleles for that species or breed and has lost the alleles for other species or breeds. That means that at the extreme of evolution there is no more genetic diversity for further evolution. Breeders wouldn't add new genetic material at this point, and there's no reason it would occur in the wild either. The cheetah is still stuck with its fixed loci, no new mutations have come along to increase its genetic diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 7:44 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 8:22 PM Faith has responded
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 06-15-2017 3:40 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 127 (812112)
06-14-2017 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
06-14-2017 8:22 PM


Re: Simple Example
In order to evolve a new kind you would need to change the DNA sequence, correct?

To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

As I keep saying increasing genetic diversity 1) is not evolution and 2) to get evolution requires reducing whatever genetic diversity is present, no matter what its origin. Evolution as I'm using it means establishing a new population with new traits that differentiate it from the parent population. THAT is what requires reducing genetic diversity. As I keep saying, it does not matter how much genetic diversity you add, TO GET EVOLUTION you have to reduce it to get a new species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 8:22 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 2:33 AM Faith has responded
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 06-15-2017 10:46 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 127 (812148)
06-15-2017 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by dwise1
06-15-2017 2:33 AM


Evolution Defeats Evolution Argument
I've argued this many times before on my own threads and others' threads. I try to repeat the argument when necessary but it gets frustrating when nobody remembers my former versions and I have to start all over, and I'm running out of steam. I know it's not right to give a bunch of links but I want at least to show where it's been argued before, and these are only a very few of the threads. I make the case better in some threads than others of course and I haven't reviewed all of them, I just want to have some kind of list, and I may add to it:

A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it
Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 2:33 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2017 6:25 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 06-15-2017 10:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2017 11:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 127 (812259)
06-15-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by caffeine
06-15-2017 3:40 PM


Re: Simple Example
I've given up trying to match the biblical record for now but I still believe for other reasons that two-allele-genes has to be the original, and given that there are many genes for most or all traits, it really is easy to account for all the known diversity in any Species. I gave the example of two genes for skin color giving the whole range of skin colors.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 06-15-2017 3:40 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 06-15-2017 7:05 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 127 (812314)
06-15-2017 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taq
06-15-2017 7:05 PM


Re: Simple Example
The problem is that you can't account for the diversity between species with two alleles per gene, much less within a species.

I think you said that the wrong way around. I don't think the diversity between species has anything to do with genetic inheritance so there is no genetic provision that could account for it. But within a species two-allele genes/ many genes per trait, is definitely enough to account for all the enormous diversity we see.

Genes for size, some number of them, two alleles each
Genes for fur color and markings, many of them, two alleles each
Seven genes for skin color in humans covers the entire range, two alleles each
That many or something comparable for eye color covers the entire range, two alleles each

Name the trait, multiple genes with two alleles each will cover all the diversity. The combinations of all these different traits is capable of producing an amazing variety of races of any animal on earth. Lions, tigers, leopards, mountain lions, bobcats, cheetahs, and all the domestic cats. Tell me what you think is lacking in the genetic material to produce all these different cats without mutations.

And dog breeds are an even more various bunch, for which all the genetic material is available there too. The variations within a Kind are just a matter of isolating different combinations of size and trait expression according to the function of each gene. Multiple genes of two alleles each does it all. All it takes is isolation of a limited number olf individuals out of the overall population to bring out new gene frequencies that can produce even dramatic new phenotypes that make up a new species/subspecies.

Think about domestic breeding. How did all the different species of cattle develop? Simply by isolating portions of the wild population and inbreeding them. How was dog breeding originally done? By breeding for particular traits. That's also how Darwin got his varieties of pigeons. It's not mutations because they easily revert to the original type when left to their own devices. Besides which it is generally agreed that all this happens far faster than mutations occur that could contribute to them.

All the ring species are just the product of a limited number of individuals leaving the former population to form a new population in isolation. The new gene frequencies in reproductive isolation over some number of generations is all it takes to bring out the characteristics of a new species. Hybrid zones produce some new variations too. The originally created genome for each Kind is quite sufficient.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 06-15-2017 7:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 5:08 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021