Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 536 of 785 (856163)
06-28-2019 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 534 by PaulK
06-28-2019 1:08 AM


Re: Genetic loss is a necessity
No I don't "fail to grasp" your ridiculously obvious point. You fail to grasp my point.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 1:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 1:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 539 of 785 (856166)
06-28-2019 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by RAZD
06-27-2019 8:53 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
The rest of Message 524
... That could actually sum up the whole method of domestic breeding: eliminating everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits. ...
Which is precisely why it is NOT a model of natural evolution. It is a model of selection, as noted by Darwin, and nothing more. Selection is only part of evolution, and the other part is mutations
:
Before I arrived at this view I familiarized myself with the supposed "processes of evolution" which areF
Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
As I was thinking through this list it hit me that Mutation and gene flow ADD to the genetic variability, and must create a scattered effect of phenotypes. What makes for a homogeneous species, on the other hand, is the subtractive processes of selection. It took me a while to figure out "genetic drift" and now I see it as just one form of species creation by isolating a portion of the population. It isn't a process or a mechanism at all and it's hard to figure out why it's even on the list.
I note that the definition now includes "the effects of a reduction in genetic variation" which seems like it could be an attempt to take into account what I keep arguing. This is new to the definition; it wasn't there when I was coming to my view of reduced genetic variability. AND it's not my view anyway: Calling it "genetic variation"is the clue that it's not the same thing as "genetic variability." "variation is a result; variability is a potential. But this is probably not the place to try to get into this discussion.
The importance of genetic variation; The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation; How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
This strikes me as gobbledygook beyond my ability to sort out on short notice, but maybe I can come back to it. "...RESULT in evolution by natural selection" makes no sense whatever. At least it explains that it is the randomness of genetic drift that gets it on the list. The problem with that is, as I was thinking through how species develop from population splits, ALL such ways species get created are random in the wild. It's only in domestic breeding that they aren't random.
Now I'm regretting getting off into all this but I'm going to leave it as a record of how confused the definitions can get, and get back to your post if I can.
... It's good evidence and it has to apply to the development of species in the wild too, ...
Except that evolution in the wild doesn't have to eliminate "everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits" because in the wild there are many different "set of traits" that can benefit survival and reproduction.
I certainly agree that "evolution in the wild doesn't have to eliminate everything that doesn't fit [some] chosen set of traits" but I never ever suggested that kind of similarity with breeding anyway. I've always said it's a random process. What happens is that a set of traits is randomly selected by the separation of a portion of the parent population to become a daughter population. That random separation of a certain group of individuals forms a new gene pool with new gene frequencies that when blended together over some number of generations of breeding brings out a distinctively new species from a new group of phenotypes created by the new gene frequencies in sexual recombination for those generations. It's the same process as what happens in domestic breeding except that a set of traits is randomly selected out of the population to form the new species.
If you would but open your eyes you would see that there is a much wider range of traits that can benefit survival and reproduction than occur in selective breeding, where the purpose is to preserve the breed. The purpose of breeding is to prevent evolution from changing the breed/s.
Here we have another example of how different my model is from yours. The ToE says that evolution is powered by benefit to survival and reproduction, but in my model no such selective pressures need apply and usually don't. ALL IT TAKES TO GET A NEW SPECIES IS THE NEW GENE FREQUENCIES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE SEPARATION AND ISOLATION OF A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL POPULATION. That's ALL it takes. No selective pressure at all, no ecological pressure, nothing environmental at all. The genetic rearrangements are the whole thing. There COULD be some input from natural selection but there's no need for it and I don't think it happens much.
Although the ToE was invoked to explain the evolution of the larger head and jaw of the Pod Mrcaru lizards after thirty years in isolation, meaning they were actively adapting to the tougher kind of plant they came to prefer, but there is no hint that there was any absnese of the kind of food they had when they were still part of the parent population, they just came to prefer the tougher food. MY EXPLANTION OF THIS IS THAT their new gene frequencies contained the emphasis on larger head and jaw and that alone brought out that characteristic. Then BECAUSE THEY HAD THAT CHARACTERISTIC, THEN they wree drawn to the tougher kind of food that they could now eat. It's the opposite of the usual way of explaining this. In the usual way the food comes first, it is a factor of natural selection that causes the creature to develop the traits necessarily to eat it. There are a number of reasons this doesn't work. For one thing there is no hint that their normal food was missing from their new habitat, so there was no pressure to eat anything else. There would have to be some pressure to eat the tougher stuff and there is no reason to think there was, besides which there is no way in thirty years time the creature would have "evolved" an entirely new set of traits to deal with it even if there was. Even you must agree that mutations don't just come along in such short time periods to adapt to an environmental pressure.
Then there is the case of the Jutland sheep that developed four entirely new species out of one herd in a matter of a few years. There wre no differences in the enironments, all that happened was that the splitting of the population into isolated groups brought out new gene frequencies that eventually changed the whole population into a distinctly different herd from the original and from the others.
You do not need mutations, you do not need natural selection, you do not need environmental pressures to get new species.
You can't get change when the purpose is preservation of the breed.
At that point you don't WANT change, you WANT preservation. All the changes occurred on the way to establishing the breed.
... but I realize that since the ToE depends on increase rather than decrease I'll just continue to be trashed for saying it. ...
Evolution depends on whatever is good for survival and reproduction.
It's true that I don't try enough to answer these basic tenets of evolution which is probably the cause of a lot of miscommunication. I content myself with trying to describe my different model but I see that it has to try to answer all these other objections more than I take into account.
What you get trashed for, is repeating points that are falsified. By Evidence.
I'm thinking now it probably more about what I say above, not dealing enough with the evolutionist assumptions about things llke natural selection, environmental pressure, survival and reproductive benefit and so on. Since they aren't part of my model I don't address them enough.
... I've also of course many times given the example of the cheetah and the elephant seals, and those are rejected too. I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does? ...
Because evidence from the real world invalidates your opinions/assertions.
Well, no it doesn't. Evidence is hardly ever in evidence here, it's all assertions.
... There are other places I can take the argument. ...
Yes, there are mutual admiration groups of want to believers, but they don't confront reality.
No I don't expect other creationists to be any more welcoming of my views than you all are at EvC.
... But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes.
You want to chane the minds of people who accept evidence, then you need to present evidence, not assertion upon assertion.
But that's all you are doing RAZD. It's ALL assertion after assertion, just spelling out the ToE in its various elements and claiming it explains this or that, not actually giving evidence that it does.
I think what I need to do is try to put together a lengthy article trying to cover the whole shebang since I now think I'm leaving too much out of these discussions. Not something to do at EvC of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2019 8:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2019 9:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 545 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 10:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 549 by Taq, posted 06-28-2019 11:48 AM Faith has replied
 Message 550 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2019 12:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 551 of 785 (856240)
06-28-2019 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Taq
06-28-2019 11:48 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
No population is *perfectly* homogeneous but the wildebeests are pretty homogeneous, both the black herd and the blue herd; also buffalo; black bears are pretty homogeneous, also polar bears, grizzly bears etc.; kangaroos are pretty homogeneous, so are the Pod Mrcaru lizards, also most wild species of birds, and fish species etc etc etc. Even so there may be a great deal of genetic diversity in such populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Taq, posted 06-28-2019 11:48 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2019 7:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 595 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 552 of 785 (856241)
06-28-2019 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by RAZD
06-28-2019 12:18 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
[the processes of evolution I posted] Are not part of my posts in this thread. Please designate source. Not that they are wrong, just want to be clear on what comes from where.
I copied them off the Google page on "processes of evolution." They are from the Cal Berkeley website on evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2019 12:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2019 9:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 554 of 785 (856252)
06-28-2019 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by Tanypteryx
06-28-2019 7:58 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
I'm talking about their obvious appearance. I recall that in RAZD's Message 424 or the one before it, he describes the point at which a species becomes a species in terms that imply arrival at homogeneity, which has always been my criterion too. I responded that I'd discussed that myself. In my scenario it's the point at which all the new phenotypes in a new population have blended together using all the gene frequencies possessed by the original founders, through whatever number of generations it takes to bring that about.
Before that it starts with the founders all looking llke the homogeneous parent population. Then there is a phase where there is a motley collection of different phenotypes scattered through the population, being brought out by the new set of gene frequencies. After a few more generations they form their own new overall homogeneous appearance distinct from the original parent population.
Each individual has its own unique genome nevertheless, so that if some of them eventually form a new isolated population themselves they will contribute a unique set of gene frequencies to it that when reproductively blended together over some generations will produce yet another homogeneous population with characteristics disctinct from all the others.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2019 7:58 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Percy, posted 06-29-2019 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 555 of 785 (856261)
06-29-2019 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 544 by herebedragons
06-28-2019 9:53 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Good grief, HBD. I'm about to get off the computer and go to bed but I read through a few of your paragraphs, down to where you say all this diversity you see proves my model wrong and I have to answer: don't you know I'm not talking about PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY having to decrease? The whole point is that phenotypes proliferate while GENETIC DIVERSITY gets reduced. I have to sleep so I'm not going to try to deal with the rest until tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2019 9:53 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2019 11:56 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 559 of 785 (856298)
06-29-2019 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by herebedragons
06-29-2019 11:56 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Fine, I'll go back and read it again eventually, but why tell me about the importance of (phenotypic) diversity anyway, that's irrelevant to the whole discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2019 11:56 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 560 of 785 (856300)
06-29-2019 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by herebedragons
06-29-2019 11:56 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Reread the first part, then went on to this:
The short point here is that biologists have been studying diversity for a long time... and it is still a huge area of study. New genomic tools are allowing us to look at diversity on a whole genome level, not just at individual loci. If your model were correct, we would be finding that out. Instead, we are finding MORE and more diversity. We are discovering diversity we did not previously know existed (unculturable organisms for example) and how diversity looks at a genetic level - not just alleles, but whole genomes.
...have been studying DIVERSITY.. So? ...genomic tools are allowing us to look at DIVERSITY... So? YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT PHENOTYPES. You are looking at the DIVERSITY on a whole genome level.... What ARE you talking about? You seem to be talking about looking at phenotypic diversity in the genome. Or I have no idea what you are talking about. And I really hate having to address bacteria, so I may not even read the rest of your post anyway. The first part doesn't give me any encouragement to think the rest will be any more illuminating.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2019 11:56 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 561 of 785 (856301)
06-29-2019 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by herebedragons
06-29-2019 11:56 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
And now I've read through the rest of the post and it's incomprehensible to me sorry. You keep using the word "diversity" but you never say "GENETIC diversity" and I really have NO idea what you are talking about but I suspect you are still talking about phenotypes (eating leaves and waiting for opportunity to infect is on the level of phenotypes). Anyway I can't figure out what you are saying and that's the bottom llne.
Also, if you've read even a tenth of my argument you should know I'm talking about how populations develop into species by losing genetic diversity, and I don't focus on the genome level at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2019 11:56 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Percy, posted 06-29-2019 3:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 583 by herebedragons, posted 06-30-2019 12:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 565 of 785 (856319)
06-29-2019 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by Percy
06-29-2019 3:31 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
No, it's the new gene frequencies that produce new species, and this entails losing the genetic material for the phenotypes that don't show up in the new population. THINK DOMESTIC BREEDING: how do you get a new breed? By getting rid of all the genetic stuff for other breeds. It's the same process in the wild, but the traits being developed into the new population are randomly selected. It's elementary if you'd bother to think at all. "Speciation" has nothing to do with any of this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Percy, posted 06-29-2019 3:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Percy, posted 06-29-2019 7:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 567 of 785 (856344)
06-29-2019 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by Percy
06-29-2019 7:22 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
You obviously have no idea what I'm arguing but whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Percy, posted 06-29-2019 7:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2019 6:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 568 of 785 (856346)
06-29-2019 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Percy
06-29-2019 8:15 AM


Re: Lab experiment
Unless the experimenters place the mice in environments that subject them to substantial selection pressures, or if the mice populations are small, reductions in genetic diversity would be unexpected.
\
The more individuals the better. But do your own lab experiment, you obviously haven't a clue to mine. Predict all you want based on your erroneous ToE beliefs, I intend to prove that you'll get genetic decrease with this method.
No selection pressures needed, and of course I want to start with as large a population as can be managed in a laboratory, and after its numbers increase quite a bit just letting them breed for a while, then I want to remove a smallish number of individuals to start the experiment proper.
I know what I'm doing although it's very clear you don't.
Though naturally a laboratory population could not have as much diversity as the hugely larger world-wide mouse population.
Certainly, we aim for the greatest genetic diversity we can get, that's all, the best we can do given the limitations of the lab setting. We might have to wait through some number of breeding generations to get a homogeneous appearance before the experiment proper can even begin. But I know you haven't a clue what I'm talking about so I guess I can't expect you to raise money to finance my project.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Percy, posted 06-29-2019 8:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Percy, posted 07-04-2019 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 569 of 785 (856349)
06-29-2019 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by RAZD
06-29-2019 9:02 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
I read the whole thing when I started out on the path I'm on. However, there's no harm in reading it again only it will have to wait.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2019 9:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 571 of 785 (856363)
06-30-2019 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by PaulK
06-30-2019 6:04 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Percy has a pretty standard ToE in mind, not my model which he not only disputes, he doesn't understand.
Nor do you apparently. Different genes isn't what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about different proportions of various genes so that they bring out different traits in recombination. Each generation gets different traits as it is, and then when a new population develops it gets a different set of genes/alleles which will bring out new traits. Such as heavy heads and jaws in lizards.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2019 6:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2019 6:52 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 573 of 785 (856366)
06-30-2019 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by RAZD
06-29-2019 9:02 AM


Re: The genetic loss idea IS reality
So you left off the part about genetic variation (Mendelian genetics plus mutations) being fundamental to evolution and how the ecology (different species affect each other's evolution) affects selection.
Maybe if I write an article I'll discuss all of this, but it's nothing much: only mutations which you believe make new alleles and I don't; plus gene flow, which adds nothing, just reshuffles what's already in the gene pool, and gene flow just interrupts and muddies up the formation of a new species; plus sexual recombination which also shuffles what's already there, and I consider this to be a main "mechanism" for bringing out new phenotypes in establishing a new population/species in reproductive isolation.
I know it's hard to believe but I actually think the ToE is simply WRONG, wrong about most of what it has to say, although it has provided some concepts I make use of, such as the importance of new gene frequencies. New gene frequencies sexually recombined over enough generations to create a new homogeneous population distinct from the parent population and other daughter populations. That's basically my view of what happens in "evolution." You don't need natural selection, you don't need mutations, you don't need ecological or any other kind of environmental pressure. New combinations of existing genes in an isolated population is all you need, and this over time will entail loss of genetic diversity. NECESSARY loss, needed to develop new phenotypes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2019 9:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2019 10:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 596 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 12:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024