Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8963 total)
85 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (2 members, 83 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,986 Year: 2,734/23,288 Month: 925/1,809 Week: 44/313 Day: 44/33 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 526 of 573 (870943)
01-26-2020 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by Faith
01-26-2020 4:06 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
I know that you keep having problems with "tricky" concepts like the plural, but are you completely incapable of understanding simple English?

Google link to Wikipedia writes:

The weasel program or Dawkins' weasel is a thought experiment and a variety of computer simulations illustrating it. Their aim is to demonstrate that the process that drives evolutionary systems—random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection—is different from pure chance.


Which seems to me to demonstrate what I keep saying: it's all about the change in phenotype or surface traits, surface changes in other words.

Which is not at all what that quote says, not even close! Pick out the specific wording within what you quoted that says anything at all about phenotypes, surface traits, or surface changes!

What is wrong with you? Why are you incapable of understanding English? I assume that it's supposed to be your native language, so it wouldn't help to switch to a different language that you would be more familiar with.

 
Now, "random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection" is "different from pure chance". That's what we keep telling you but you keep veering off into the weeds. In particular, you keep insisting on single-step selection with your "trial and error" crap, which is not only not what evolution uses, but is practically the exact opposite!

So then, no, that quote does not demonstrate what you keep saying. If anything, it contradicts what you keep saying.

It purports to show that these changes are different from pure chance.

Which it does do. More specifically, it shows that random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection is very effective in converging on a solution. And that converging action is very different from pure chance. And my analysis of the probabilities involved show why that is.

In contrast, your "trial and error" approach using single-step selection is nothing but pure chance. That is why it is so abysmally ineffective at converging on anything. And my analysis of the probabilities involved show why that is.

But it really doesn't represent those processes realistically at all so it couldn't demonstrate any such thing.

WEASEL and MONKEY both do indeed represent the methodology of cumulative selection realistically and so they do indeed demonstrate how well it works, especially as a means of comparing that method with the workings of pure chance (ie, your "trial and error").

What WEASEL and MONKEY do not serve as is simulations of biological evolution itself. They never were simulations of biological evolution and they never were intended to be, regardless of the continual misrepresentations by lying deceiving creationists such as yourself.

As I wrote on my MONKEY page (which you should have read since I've pointed you to it far more than enough times):

quote:
Certainly, a better simulation of evolution or natural selection would make use of immediate selective pressure arising from the environment itself. Indeed, better simulations have been written and run and have demonstrated that natural selection works.

But then neither MONKEY nor WEASEL was ever billed as a simulation of evolution nor of natural selection. All they were ever intended to do was to compare two different kinds of selection, which they have done rather well. The significance of that comparison is that cumulative selection, the method that was modelled after the way that life works and that natural selection is understood to work, functions extremely well, whereas single-step selection, the method that has nothing at all to do with how either evolution or life itself works, fails miserably.

The added significance of this comparison to the creation/evolution discussion is that creation science routinely misrepresents evolution as using single-step selection (which ironically is the selection method of their own model, creation ex nihilo) and creationists neglect to tell their audiences that there is another method which far better describes what life actually does. And in making that omission, the creationists are deceiving themselves and their audience.


So your entire case is that WEASEL and MONKEY fail to serve a function that they were never even intended to serve. You sound like the blathering ID10T who keeps trying to use his smartphone as a hammer and complains about what a lousy job it does as a hammer, so then all hammers are pure bollocks. Yet again we have to ask: what is wrong with you?

Are you talking about nonbiological engineering or what? I really can't tell.

I am talking and have been talking about the mechanism of cumulative selection all along! But you keep veering off into the weeds. What the hell is wrong with you?

Cumulative selection can be used in many different applications, most of which have nothing to do with biology. It also happens to be behind how life works (and hence how evolution works) -- that's actually not coincidental since cumulative selection was inspired by observing how life works.

It is one thing to take the mechanism of cumulative selection aside and examine and test how it works in isolation from any practical applications. That approach is extremely common and highly useful.

Then when you plug the mechanism of cumulative selection into a particular practical application (eg, evolution), then you are no longer studying cumulative selection, but rather you are studying that particular practical application to which knowledge gained from that separate study of the mechanism of cumulative selection would be helpful.

Studying the mechanism of cumulative selection and a practical application of it are two different and separate things!

But that is EXACTLY what I said, it has NOTHING to do with genotypes, gene expression, genetic diversity etc.

Wrong! You repeatedly insist that WEASEL must have everything "to do with genotypes, gene expression, genetic diversity etc." Stop lying!

Which doesn't matter in nonbiological uses of such programs but very important if you are talking about a model for how evolution works.

Except that neither WEASEL nor MONKEY are, nor were ever, intended to be models for "how evolution works." They are demonstrations and tests for one component of a model for how life works (and hence how evolution works).

When are you ever going to get that through your thick skull? What is wrong with you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 4:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 5:28 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 531 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 1:58 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 527 of 573 (870944)
01-26-2020 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by dwise1
01-26-2020 5:24 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
I think I'll just ignore you because of your abusive speech.

Maybe I should just chalk it up to your being a Scorpio?

Whatever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2020 5:24 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2020 5:45 PM Faith has responded
 Message 530 by JonF, posted 01-26-2020 5:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 528 of 573 (870947)
01-26-2020 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
01-26-2020 1:25 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
If you understand that new breeds have to lose the genetic substrate for other breeds, surely you must also see that any phenotype in the wild has to lose the genetic substrate for other phenotypes.

Except they don't lose that "genetic substrate" (by which I guess you mean the individuals' genomes). So why would we be expected to understand something that doesn't happen? We may as well be expected to understand how the moon is made of green cheese.

Genomes do not keep getting smaller and smaller. If anything, they keep getting larger and larger through duplication-type mutations. Some genes may get damaged or get switched off, but they do not go away. Learn something instead of continually churning pure crap inside what passes for your noggin.

And after a series of population splits developing new phenotypes you are going to have LESS genetic diversity and often so little further evolution is absolutely impossible.

No, quite the opposite! You end up with more genetic diversity within the species (the real species, not your crap redefinition).

We covered this in last Thursday's class which included a lecture on gene flow. In effect, gene flow works against increases in genetic variation within a population by mixing all traits together through sex. As a result, the genomes of the members of a population become more similar and genetic variation decreases. There will still be overall change of the population's common genome through natural selection, but variations from that will decrease through gene flow within the population.

But then when the population splits into two different isolated populations, their genomes will at first be the same, but then over the generations they will diverge. Thus, by splitting into isolated populations the genetic diversity of the species increases (not decreases as you claim).

Natural selection selection increases genetic diversity across the populations of the species (again, real species, not your crap phantoms), but then gene flow between those populations will actually work against natural selection by introducing genetic material from the other population (a husband-wife team runs the class; she illustrated this point by talking wistfully about a tall dark stranger arriving). An illustration is water snakes in a lake on the US-Canadian border. Because of their different environments' demands on camouflage, one population is banded while the other is not. One population lives on the shore while the other lives on an island. But being water snakes, gene flow can occur working against the effects of natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 2:12 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 529 of 573 (870948)
01-26-2020 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Faith
01-26-2020 5:28 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
Your persistent liies and your malicious ignrance are the abuse.

Pull your head out and learn something. And stop lying about the truth!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 5:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 01-28-2020 5:10 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5869
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 530 of 573 (870949)
01-26-2020 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Faith
01-26-2020 5:28 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
I'm amazed at what snowflakes so many right-wingers are.

Make sure you clutch your pearls and collapse gracefully on your fainting couch.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 5:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 531 of 573 (870971)
01-27-2020 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by dwise1
01-26-2020 5:24 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
Had a nice nap on the fainting couch and my pearls are in the safe so I'll answer some of this:

Now, "random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection" is "different from pure chance". That's what we keep telling you but you keep veering off into the weeds. In particular, you keep insisting on single-step selection with your "trial and error" crap, which is not only not what evolution uses, but is practically the exact opposite!

I don't evewn know what cumulative slection looks like. Have you described it anywhere? I doubt it would make much difference to my point but I don't know. But still what interests me about WEASEL is its naïve representation of openended phenotypic variation. HOWEVER, I can put that aside for the moment to try to get your point about cumulative selection. Which so far is a big "so what?" to me.

Read through the rest of your post and find it to be sheer gobbledygook. Do you think you could just spell out what cumulative selection is and skip all the supposed debunkings of my point of view which you misrepresent anyway?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2020 5:24 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 532 of 573 (870972)
01-27-2020 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by dwise1
01-26-2020 5:43 PM


Selection always reduces genetic diversity
Except they don't lose that "genetic substrate" (by which I guess you mean the individuals' genomes). So why would we be expected to understand something that doesn't happen? We may as well be expected to understand how the moon is made of green cheese.

In a way I guess you could say they lose "the individuals genomes," by losing the specific alleles that make traits that are not the selected trait. This means of course eliminating some individuals from the breed. If you are breeding a fluffy white dog you want to eliminate any genetic material for sleek black fur or any other kind of fur that is not fluffy white.

By the time you get your breed "pure" you will have eliminated all the dogs that have contrary charact3eristics and will be able to breed your purebreds and preserve your selected white fluffy fur. All the alleles for all the other k9inds of fur will not be in your purebred population, only those that code for your chosen characteristics and these will all be homozygous. This is how you lose genetic diversity. And the evidence that you lose it is that breeding purebreds has come to be recognized as promoting genetic disorders, so they've pulled back on doing such aggressive inbreeding and started incorporating other individuals to improve the genetic diversity for the sake of the animal's health.

There is no way you are going to get MORE genetic diversity no matter how energetically you bash me. Evben in the rest of the population that contains all the genetic material elimninated from the breed you don't get MORE genetic diversity. You may or may not get less there too.

Natural selection selection increases genetic diversity across the populations of the species (again, real species, not your crap phantoms), but then gene flow between those populations will actually work against natural selection by introducing genetic material

Sorry, natural selection ALWAYS decreases genetic diversity. And yes gene flow interferes with it by ADDING more genetic diversity.

AbE: This is why reproductive isolation of a daughter population is what brings about a new composite phenotype. In this case the selection is random, not focused on a particular trait or traits, but it will have a new set of gene frequencies from the parent population, and if it's a much smaller population, formed from few individuals, it will have much decreased genetic diversity and will form its new composite phenotype from a much reduced gene pool. The smaller the new gene pool, meaning the less genetic diversity, the more dramatic the new phenotype. If gene flow comes back into the new population the new phenotype will be destroyed, just as if you allow your purebred to mate with another breed or a mutt you will destroy its charcteristics. The point is that to get a coherent composite phenotype in the wild requires reproductive isolation just as breeding does, and that means reduced genetic diversity in your new population.

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.

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 528 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2020 5:43 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 533 of 573 (871031)
01-27-2020 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
01-26-2020 1:25 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
Thank you. Can we expect similar for all other cases where you misuse "species"?

You are aware that "species" is simply Latin? Greek? for "kind," right? ...

Irrelevant. We are talking about scientific usage and terminology that is developed to reduce confusion and improve communication. Using word inappropriately is counter to good communication.

... If you are all very strict about sticking to the Linnaean taxonomy in your use of the word then I'm happy to comply and do my best to avoid confusion. ...

Good. So Trilobites are members of class Trilobita, composed of families, genera and species, not a species on its own.

Likewise Aves/birds are members of class Birds (Class Aves)

quote:
Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrates constituting the class Aves, characterized by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton. Birds live worldwide and range in size from the 5 cm (2 in) bee hummingbird to the 2.75 m (9 ft) ostrich. There are about ten thousand living species,[3] more than half of which are passerine, or "perching" birds. Birds have wings whose development varies according to species; the only known groups without wings are the extinct moa and elephant birds. Wings, which evolved from forelimbs, gave birds the ability to fly, although further evolution has led to the loss of flight in some birds, including ratites, penguins, and diverse endemic island species. The digestive and respiratory systems of birds are also uniquely adapted for flight. Some bird species of aquatic environments, particularly seabirds and some waterbirds, have further evolved for swimming.

Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs, and constitute the only living dinosaurs. ...


We have the fossils to confirm this last statement, including ones with feathers before flight developed.

... However, when I'm talking about variations, variations of anything, cat, bird, oak, whatever, the word "species" is still going to have to be in there somewhere and I don't think merely identifying the Kind is going to solve that problem.

So feel free to use "KIND" for birds and trilobites and dogs and cats and whatever your heart desires, but please use species according to scientific usage. Shouldn't be difficult now that we have established how inclusive "KIND" can be.

For instance, although you want me to stick to the Linnaean use of the term "species" it is not clearly used in that sense for "ring species." Each population that has evolved from the previous population is called a "species." ...

Actually they are all designated as varieties --- the three scientific labels are Genus species variety.

quote:
Greenish warblers

Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, ...


The varietal forms are designated

Phylloscopus trochiloides viridanus
Phylloscopus trochiloides ludlowi
Phylloscopus trochiloides trochilodis (the "type" variety for the species)
Phylloscopus trochiloides obscuratis
Phylloscopus trochiloides plumbeitarsus
and a non-ring variety,
Phylloscopus trochiloides nitidus

... Even that can gtet confusing if there isn't an attempt to distinguish which species in the ring is meant.

The species designation for all of them is still Phylloscopus trochiloides.

That is where the word is going to get confusing no matter which system or theory is used it seems to me. ...

Not for scientists.

... But of course I think the whole idea of speciation in which the speciated new population is considered to be macroevolution is wrong. ...

Actually they would be microevolved. Macroevolution is just the observation that speciation has occurred, it isn't a process.

Again, this is simply scientific terminology and usage. You can use it correctly and improve communication, or you can misuse it and sow confusion.

... in fact it is mere wishful thinking because it implies that this new population can evolve into more species. ...

... and why couldn't they? Why would this be different than evolving new varietals? They will still be members of the ancestral clade/s, and the differences between generations would not be significantly different than normal generation to generation microevolution. The only difference of note is the loss of ability to interbreed with an(other) isolated population.

... But it seems to me that when you get to the point of having a new species, or variation, or subspecies, that can't breed with the parent population you are very likelyh to have the genetic situation I'm always talking about: reduced genetic diversity. And that genetic condition allows LESS possibility of evolution, not more.

Whatever, it still should not be a barrier to using species properly or agreeing that speciation by microevolution has occurred.

So I think you are all kidding yourselves. Just as in Dawkins' WEASEL program you are always all thinking of openended possibilities of evolution, ...

Because there is no scientific evidence of any type of barrier that would close off the possibilities of evolution.

... If you understand that new breeds have to lose the genetic substrate for other breeds, surely you must also see that any phenotype in the wild has to lose the genetic substrate for other phenotypes. ...

Which is no big deal as genetic information is lost all the time, just as new genetic information is developed via mutation all the time. The only criteria for a species to thrive is the test for survival and reproduction:

... This is essential to evolution, period. ...

Both the loss and the gain is essential. To focus on one and ignore the other means a partial model that invariably misrepresents reality.

... And after a series of population splits developing new phenotypes you are going to have LESS genetic diversity and often so little further evolution is absolutely impossible. ...

And there we have the invariably misrepresentation of reality. This is a false "barrier" to evolution because it ignores mutations. You have been told this a kazillion times.

... Calling that "macroevolution" or just "speciation" is wishfulness without even a shred of reality to it.

Just think of it as extended microevolution from generation to generation and you will have a clearer picture of what occurs.

It's still documented, observed reality according to standard scientific terminology, and trying to pretend otherwise is pure wishfullness without even a shred of reality to it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 2:28 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 534 of 573 (871033)
01-27-2020 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by RAZD
01-27-2020 2:19 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
Good. So Trilobites are members of class Trilobita, composed of families, genera and species, not a species on its own.

So just as I regard the Class Aves as definitive of the Bird Kind, and won't use the term "species" because it's co-opted by the ToE to another usage, I will regard the Class Trilobites as definitive of the Trilobite Kind. For cats and dogs it's the Families, Felidae and Canidae, though I have yet to ponder the Suborders Feliforma and Caniforma to see if they should be included in the Cat Kind and Dog Kind.

And I'm going to have to continue to use the term "species" when discussing ring species because that is the common usage and I don't see any need to get into the strictly scientific designations. If such designations are clearly needed in some discussion or other, that's another story. Otherwise the insistence on the strictly scientific terminology is just a way of obstructing communication.

Because there is no scientific evidence of any type of barrier that would close off the possibilities of evolution.

Well I've many times shown that there is such a barrier and it's only a dogmatic blind adherence to the "science" that refuses to recognize it cuz it blows the ToE to smithereens. But I don't have to prove this at EvC, I can work it out for others elsewhere.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2020 2:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2020 2:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 548 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2020 2:10 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15923
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 535 of 573 (871041)
01-27-2020 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Faith
01-27-2020 2:28 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
quote:
Well I've many times shown that there is such a barrier and it's only a dogmatic blind adherence to the "science" that refuses to recognize it cuz it blows the ToE to smithereens.

Have you considered that the reason we don’t believe it is because it’s a silly lie? You haven’t proved any such thing. You know that.

Indeed you know that I disproved your argument, that you lack any significant evidence and that you have no sound theoretical basis either. All you have is the lying boast that you “proved” it. Even though you very obviously didn’t do any such thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 2:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 3:01 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 536 of 573 (871043)
01-27-2020 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by PaulK
01-27-2020 2:56 PM


Oh you betcha selection kills evolution
Oh I've proved it all right and all you are doing is trying to obscure it by calling me a llar. You tried to say mutations destroy the idea but I answered effectively that they don't because selection always overrides any increase in genetic divewrsity brought about by any means from gene flow to mutation, by always reducing genetic diversity from any source. And mutation doesn't happen anyway in these populations or no composite phenotype in the wild or breed in domestic programs could ever maintain their integrity, and the cheetah and the elephant seal would not be on the verge of extinction. Sorry, I've proved you wrong over and over and over, you just refuse to recognize it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2020 2:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2020 3:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15923
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 537 of 573 (871045)
01-27-2020 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Faith
01-27-2020 3:01 PM


Re: Oh you betcha selection kills evolution
quote:
Oh I've proved it all right and all you are doing is trying to obscure it by calling me a llar.

Oh yes, I’m trying to sabotage your lying by telling the truth.

quote:
You tried to say mutations destroy the idea but I answered effectively that they don't because selection always overrides any increase in genetic divewrsity by any means, by always reducing genetic diversity from any source

At best that is an unsupported opinion, contrary to the available evidence. Hardly an effective answer.

quote:
And mutation doesn't happen anyway in these populations or no composite phenotype in the wild or breed in domestic programs could ever maintain their integrity...

Obviously false of wild species and those domestic breeds that are strongly defined that it might conceivably be an issue are maintained by artificial selection anyway.

quote:
.... and the cheetah and the elephant seal would not be on the verge of extinction

Yes they would. At least to the extent that they are.

quote:
Sorry, I've proved you wrong over and over and over, you just refuse to recognize it.

No you haven’t. You just offer unsupported opinions. You have NEVER got the data that you would need to make a real case for any of it. You would rather pretend to have proof and hope that we get a sudden attack of gullibility and believe your lies. Well no. We won’t.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 3:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 538 of 573 (871099)
01-28-2020 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by dwise1
01-26-2020 5:45 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
So apparently what cumulative selection must mean is say the sztring of selections that create the species in ring species? I've discussed this many times. I've proposed that each new population must show a reduction in genetic diversity from the previous as the new phenotype or set of traits is developed from a reduced number of individuals from the previous population. Each new species starts with a portion of the previous population, a relatively small number of individuals. This is a selection event in itself. It creates a new set of gene frequencies from the previous population's, which should show a reduction in genetic diversity from that population as the new traits emerge into a new composite phenotype for the new population or "species" in the ring.

So if WEASEL and MONKEY model cumulative selection they reflect the problem I've been talking about, a failure to understand that each new selection involves a reduction in genetic diversity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2020 5:45 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by frako, posted 01-29-2020 4:22 AM Faith has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2866
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 539 of 573 (871125)
01-29-2020 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by Faith
01-28-2020 5:10 PM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
You dont need a bottleneck for evolution to work, sure its faster that way but an entire species can evolve too. It need not start with a single pair that cant breed with its parent species. A beneficial gene can be distributed trough an entire existing species. species aa gets a beneficial mutation ab, As an ab breeds with an aa it makes several aa and several ab, since ab-s have an advantage they get to breed more, if they breed with an ab they make just ab-s, if they breed with an aa they make aa-s and ab-s but as we know the ab-s outcompeate the aa-s sooner or later the whole aa species is replaced by ab-s.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 01-28-2020 5:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 4:29 AM frako has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 540 of 573 (871126)
01-29-2020 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by frako
01-29-2020 4:22 AM


Re: Back to the WEASEL program
I wasn't talking about a bottleneck, I was talking about the emigration of a smallish number of individuals from a parent population to form a new daughter population in reproductive isolation. Just this smaller number of individuals will produce a new set of traits for a new composite phenotype over a few generations of breeding in isolation, and depending on the number of individuals this will involve some level of reduced genetic diversity.

Mutations don't enter into it. They may contribute a change from time to time but there's no reason to think they contribute more than that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by frako, posted 01-29-2020 4:22 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by frako, posted 01-29-2020 4:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 542 by frako, posted 01-29-2020 4:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 543 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2020 7:05 AM 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 © 2020