Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 181 of 303 (349177)
09-14-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
09-13-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
There had to be something different about the genome then, bigger, more genes, something, not what we see now.
Hi Faith.
If this is the case why is that none of the ancient DNA which has been analysed shows even the slightest hint of this?
I think you say the Flood was around 4000 years ago? Well we have looked at human DNA from Oetzi the Iceman and various other natural and ritual mummies such as those from Egypt - most famously Tutankhamun. Some of these date to at least 3300 years old. so did the genome undergo this degradation in just 700 years?

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 11:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:27 AM MangyTiger has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 182 of 303 (349188)
09-14-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
09-14-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
Apparently this bottlenecked algae thrived in a new environment?
No, it thrived in it's original environment, so much that it took over from it's parent species from italy to israel.
And this alone is your proof it was a mutation that did it? What's wrong with the possibility that you merely incubated a previously low-frequency allele or more like it, combination of alleles?
You should be telling us what's wrong with the mutation explanation instead of asking what's wrong with your alternate cumbersome explanation since the the title of the thread makes it clear that some kind of barrier to the evolution process was to be expected to be presented in here (none has been presented so far)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 8:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:13 AM fallacycop has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 303 (349213)
09-15-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by MangyTiger
09-14-2006 9:06 PM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
There had to be something different about the genome then, bigger, more genes, something, not what we see now.
Hi Faith.
If this is the case why is that none of the ancient DNA which has been analysed shows even the slightest hint of this?
Well, in that case I'll have to give up that idea.
But do you happen to have some references for this, a good description of what the ancient genomes look like, a discussion of the similarities and differences from the modern genome, etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by MangyTiger, posted 09-14-2006 9:06 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 184 of 303 (349227)
09-15-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by fallacycop
09-14-2006 11:16 PM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
You should be telling us what's wrong with the mutation explanation ...
I've told you what's wrong with it.
It's all hypothetical, an assumption. No actual evidence has been given in response to a specific question.
What shows that alleles increase after the decrease brought about by population splits? You can't answer that by simply asserting in general that mutations do. You have to show it and nobody has.
The fact that mutations occur frequently is not an answer to this specific question. This is a general answer, not a specific answer. It hasn't been demonstrated in relation to the specific instances.
Certainly that short list of supposedly beneficial mutations is not an answer. Only the bacteria examples really seem to show that a real mutation occurs after reduction to a single bacterium. It's way too big an extrapolation from that to chipmunks or human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by fallacycop, posted 09-14-2006 11:16 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2006 2:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 188 by RickJB, posted 09-15-2006 5:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 189 by mick, posted 09-15-2006 6:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 191 by fallacycop, posted 09-15-2006 8:55 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 185 of 303 (349229)
09-15-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
09-14-2006 6:38 PM


Re: overcoming a bottleneck
quote:
Funny thing, this huge theory called the ToE is treated as fact though it rests on SO little actual evidence, while those who point out that lack of evidence are told THEY have to produce it.
A typical example of creationist reasoning. Since you pretend that the evidence for the theory of evolution is lacking, you claim that your own assertions should be given a free pass.
It doesn't work that way. If you can't live up to the standards that you demand from others you can't expect to be taken seriously.
quote:
It's sufficient to produce a reasonable argument.
But you won't accept reasonable arguments from your opponents. Nor have you produced one yourself - despite the fact that this thread is about your assertions. If the fact that open use of a double standard AND an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof isn't enough to save your clims how can you continue to cling to them ?
quote:
And I've shown the barrier many times over.
You haven't shown it even once. You've got no evidence and no valid argument.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 6:38 PM Faith has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 186 of 303 (349231)
09-15-2006 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
09-15-2006 2:13 AM


Evidence has been given
It's all hypothetical, an assumption. No actual evidence has been given in response to a specific question.
That is absolutely untrue. You have been given evidence. You have ignored it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:13 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 187 of 303 (349232)
09-15-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-14-2006 8:42 PM


Re: On Counting Alleles
you have to PROVE it's a mutation
the ToE is treated as fact
Come on Faith - you know better than this. Science never proves anything, and the ToE is not treated as fact.
There is emperical evidence that mutations can increase diversity in organisms with very quick generational times - we simply don't have time to wait for several hundred generations of humans to go by in isolated conditions to show a new allele appearing. Instead we use reason - the same molecule is involved in bacteria as it is in humans and the basic same rules apply.
So its reasonable that alleles can form from mutation.
Finally there is no logical reason that
ACG TCT GAA AAT GCC
couldn't mutate to
ACG TCC GAA AAT CGG
which would be a new allele. What barrier exists that can prevent this from occurring? There is redundancy in the genome, and the language of DNA itself is redundant and it is physically possible to proceed one mutation at a time from one protein to any other. What can prevent this from happening? There is no barrier yet produced that would prevent this.
The level of evidence you require is higher than a capital crime and with no reason.
You say that mutation is assumed, but in cases where it is it is a scientific assumption (assuming mutations are the cause, we'd expect to see...oh look we do see).
I could say that we are simply assuming that lightening is always electrical in nature just because we have a few small cases where we have measured it. There are thunderstorms going on all the time which aren't being tested and any one of those strikes could be some other force. Some kind of hyperrain or something.
You might think you have some kind of reasoned argument, but eventually we need to actually look at the world around us and examine the things we are talking about. Mutation remains the best explanation because mutation has been shown to increase diversity in the lab. Mutation can be shown to be physically capable of increasing diversity and no force has ever been detected that will prevent this capability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 8:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 10:55 AM Modulous has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 188 of 303 (349249)
09-15-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
09-15-2006 2:13 AM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
faith writes:
It's all hypothetical, an assumption. No actual evidence has been given in response to a specific question.
- YOU are making the claim that the ToE mutation hypothesis is lacking.
- It is YOUR job to produce a counter-hypothesis supported by evidence.
This is possibly my sixth or seventh time of asking either you or MJ....
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:13 AM Faith has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 189 of 303 (349251)
09-15-2006 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
09-15-2006 2:13 AM


empirical evidence of an increase in allele diversity after a bottleneck
What shows that alleles increase after the decrease brought about by population splits?
Faith,
I found an article in which some researchers analyzed DNA from archive museum samples of cod killed from 1954 through 1998. In this time period the cod population underwent a bottleneck. They counted alleles in the DNA samples they obtained from the museum stock. Here are the total allele counts for a number of years:
1954: 46
1960: 42
1970: 37
1981: 42
1998: 45
The allele diversity did indeed recover after the worst of the bottleneck in the 1970s such that allele diversity in 1998 was at about the same level as was allele diversity in 1954.
The article is available here
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:00 PM mick has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 190 of 303 (349253)
09-15-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-14-2006 6:06 PM


Re: overcoming a bottleneck
All hypothetical, Mod.
No - it's not, Faith. That ecosystems can change so that they can only support a smaller maximum population size of a species is a documented fact. You asked for an explanation, you were given one. You didn't give a specific scenario so you can hardly expect a specific response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 6:06 PM Faith has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 191 of 303 (349261)
09-15-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
09-15-2006 2:13 AM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
It's all hypothetical, an assumption. No actual evidence has been given in response to a specific question.
What shows that alleles increase after the decrease brought about by population splits? You can't answer that by simply asserting in general that mutations do. You have to show it and nobody has.
You have already accepted that benefical mutations can happen. A logical consequence of mutations is an increase in the number of alleles. To say that mutations happen but won't create new alleles makes absolutly no sense whatsoever and come to show how irracional your reasoning really is.
It's also clear that you have given up trying to show that evolution is wrong and have been reduced to trying to show that we have not proven it right. But the title of the thread makes it clear that some sort of barrier to mutations was going to be presented. instead of presenting that barrier you've been telling us that may be it exists since we have not proven that it doesn't.
Why should anybody waist time trying to show that an imaginary problem with the theory doesn't exist when there is no reason to believe that it does to begin with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 12:14 PM fallacycop has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 303 (349275)
09-15-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
09-15-2006 2:42 AM


Re: On Counting Alleles
you have to PROVE it's a mutation
the ToE is treated as fact
Come on Faith - you know better than this. Science never proves anything, and the ToE is not treated as fact.
Please don't get hung up on terminology here. You have to SHOW it, you can't merely assume it. Is that better?
As long as the most likely possibility is that it's a pre-existing alleles, you can't just assert that it's a mutation instead.
There is emperical evidence that mutations can increase diversity in organisms with very quick generational times - we simply don't have time to wait for several hundred generations of humans to go by in isolated conditions to show a new allele appearing. Instead we use reason - the same molecule is involved in bacteria as it is in humans and the basic same rules apply.
You may be able to reduce a bacteria culture down to one and get a beneficial mutation, but try that with a mammal. You know very well that mutations can't be counted on to rescue a severely genetically depleted mammal. Why not? You can count on it with bacteria after all.
When you have pre-existing alleles in a population THAT is the LIKELY explanation for new traits in that population.
So its reasonable that alleles can form from mutation.
Nobody said it's not reasonable. The question is what those alleles DO. A dog breeding link I posted back there somewhere says most alleles cause a gene not to function at all. We've all agreed that a large number of mutations produce BAD alleles, that cause disease. And again, the list of good alleles from mutations is so far minuscule, and two of those are in bacteria, which just doesn't work well as a model for mammals or other higher creatures.
Finally there is no logical reason that
ACG TCT GAA AAT GCC
couldn't mutate to
ACG TCC GAA AAT CGG
which would be a new allele. What barrier exists that can prevent this from occurring?
I don't know. I guess it occurs. I don't have an issue with its occurring, I have an issue with its usefulness for furthering the survivability or thrivability of the species.
There is redundancy in the genome, and the language of DNA itself is redundant and it is physically possible to proceed one mutation at a time from one protein to any other. What can prevent this from happening? There is no barrier yet produced that would prevent this.
Again, I haven't proposed a barrier to its mere occurrence, only doubted its usefulness for evolution.
The level of evidence you require is higher than a capital crime and with no reason.
Maybe it would be possible to design a less cumbersome experiment.
You might think you have some kind of reasoned argument, but eventually we need to actually look at the world around us and examine the things we are talking about.
I'm the one who has provided examples from the world around us, from the world of dog breeding and the world of animal conservation. So far nobody has given evidence that mutations do anything to contradict the trend to genetic depletion that is a hard cold fact experienced in both those arenas, the same trend that usually occurs more slowly but just as inexorably in all cases.
Mutation remains the best explanation because mutation has been shown to increase diversity in the lab.
In bacteria. Period. In higher animals the trend to reduced diversity continues at a steady pace.
Mutation can be shown to be physically capable of increasing diversity and no force has ever been detected that will prevent this capability.
Meanwhile reality continues to reduce diversity in the higher animals even as they produce new phenotypes and even as they speciate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 09-15-2006 2:42 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 09-15-2006 12:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 09-15-2006 1:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by Equinox, posted 09-15-2006 1:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 202 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2006 1:15 PM Faith has not replied

jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 303 (349296)
09-15-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
09-14-2006 2:09 AM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
I think speciation is a somewhat artificial concept myself, the point being that all the processes that tend toward speciation all reduce genetic diversity along the way as new phenotypes are developed.
I don’t think speciation tendencies per se have to affect allele diversity in a drastic manner. Speciation, taken at face value, is merely the process by which two groups of organisms that used to have successful DNA swapping become are less successful till the point where coitus is no more than a waste of energy from a reproductive point of view. All that it takes is a change of the size of sexual organs or a change in breeding season. But I see your point.
Though, even if you were right and mutation is to no avail, speciation is itself possible, but without mutation you could certainly not be able to take it as far present day ToE supposes.
The negation of mutation does however not rule out a natural process or even make it less likely. We would still have to consider the option of hybridization and the question if the majority of the DNA, which is unused junk molecules, could in some way come into play

/jerker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 2:09 AM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 194 of 303 (349298)
09-15-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
09-15-2006 10:55 AM


Once again waiting for an answer
to the issues raised in Message 140 and Message 143.
Faith, we can look around and see the diversity that exists today.
That needs to be explained.
The TOE explains what is seen today AND the record that has been left.
You must present a model that does a BETTER job of explaining the diversity that is seen today.
Where is the model that better explains the diversity seen today as well as the record of past critters, and where is the evidence that supports that model?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 10:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 12:15 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 303 (349299)
09-15-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by fallacycop
09-15-2006 8:55 AM


Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
You have already accepted that benefical mutations can happen. A logical consequence of mutations is an increase in the number of alleles. To say that mutations happen but won't create new alleles makes absolutly no sense whatsoever and come to show how irracional your reasoning really is.
"New alleles" can be useless alleles, alleles that stop the functioning of a gene, alleles that are incomplete, alleles that cause disease etc etc etc. The mere fact that mutation happens says nothing at all about SPECIFICALLY what a particular instance of it does in a complex organism -- that has to be demonstrated in each case. You can't just assume it furthers evolution, furthers survival, furthers thriving, or doesn't interfere with either. You have to look and see if it does. And meanwhile pre-existing alleles are all it takes under random or intentional selection to produce new phenotypes and even speciation; mutation is not needed.
The title of the thread is barrier to macroevolution, not to mutations. The barrier is the tendency of all selection processes, usually known as evolutionary processes, to reduce genetic diversity. That is the barrier.
Mutation is tacked on presumptively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by fallacycop, posted 09-15-2006 8:55 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2006 12:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 210 by fallacycop, posted 09-16-2006 12:17 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024