|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Nevermind. I asked a ridiculous question.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
even if it takes longer has more ups and downs before it gets there in the wild You are going to need to quantify the ups and downs before you have an argument. But at least here you acknowledge that there are ups. Do you think that dogs are more diverse or less diverse than wolves? I read today that dogs are the most diverse land animal. I don't know if that is true, but I think your thesis requires that dogs be less diverse than wolves. Would you care to express an opinon on that? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If the black mice occurred within the white population they were still a smaller population there, and no doubt prey while they were there. So you just can't admit that your claim " ... These require limiting the numbers of individuals, you aren't going to get breeds or species unless you do that ... " is falsified by the black mice evolving their traits within the parent population -- without limited numbers of individuals in the parent population causing their new traits.
... breeds or species ... A better term is variety. The black mice are a new variety that evolved from the tan mice.
Definitional arguments are just game-playing. Curiously I prefer to think that using agreed on terms for agreed on meanings enhances communication and clarifies thought. In that light I also think that using terms as they are used in science to debate science is one way to ensure you are actually debating the science rather than just playing word games.
You have noticed speciation and nested hierarchies but you have not noticed them beyond the Kind, that part is all imagination. Perhaps another foray into cladistics can clarify the discussion: Clade - Wikipedia
quote: And as new species continue to arise from existing species, cladistics is more flexible in categorizing the new diversity of life than traditional taxonomy. As can readily be seen from this diagram is that this is precisely (imho) how "kinds" would descend from a parent original kind. The question between creationism and evolution then becomes what and how many original kinds were involved. Blue plus green is a clade and so is blue\green plus red. A clade located within a larger clade is said to be nested within that clade: the red clade is nested within the blue\green\red clade. The blue clade is nested within the blue\green clade. A clade with nested clades is also called a nested hierarchy. So is Red a kind and Blue/Green another kind or are all three one kind? A difference in degree ... or difference in kind? How can you tell where the clades began? And I note that you still did not answer the question: what would convince you Faith? Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
You don't get to take a dozen people and show the problems that result, because none of us are claiming that you can take a dozen people and create a diverse population. That kind of bottleneck is how you get something like cheetahs. The bottleneck would be much more extreme in humans. The bottleneck in Cheetahs is estimated to have occurred ~10,000 years ago. The biblical timeline implies that there would be two bottlenecks in humans. The first would be Adam and Eve ~6,000 years ago and the second ~4,300 years ago at the flood. The humans at the time of the flood (only ~1,500 years after the A & E bottleneck) would have been much less genetically diverse than cheetahs are today. Then with a second bottleneck ~4,300 years BP, we should expect humans to be so genetically similar today that organ transplants would never suffer from rejection due to genetic differences. On top of that, when you consider that a cheetah generation is 3-4 years (2500-3300 generations since bottleneck) and a human generation is around 20 years (215 generations since flood bottleneck) it becomes absolutely clear that any human bottleneck must have occurred long before any biblical timeline says it did and also long before the cheetah bottleneck.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: To get a clearcut new population in the wild the same as you would a new breed, you have to have isolation of the selected traits, whether randomly or naturally selected doesn't matter, and this process is always accompanied by reduced genetic diversity, even if it takes longer has more ups and downs before it gets there in the wild. This is one of key flaws in your argument. There is no such thing as a clear-cut new population in the wild. The characteristics that define a population new or old, large or small, never fit into a neat, uniform package. There is always a range of genetic diversity and also a range in the phenotypic characters seen and unseen that biologists use to describe a population or a species. We know this is true from studies performed by biologists in the field. They are often depicted measuring various characters on tv nature shows and I have done the same kind of studies in the field myself. The characters almost always fall into a Gaussian distribution, but when the distribution is skewed, that is a clue that there is selection of that character. Every time individuals in the population mate they pass on some of their own mutated alleles and their offspring acquire their own new unique new set of mutated alleles. If the population thrives, diversity increases with each succeeding generation. If the population thrives, any loss in genetic diversity resulting from separation from the parent population, is overwhelmed by newly added mutations. If the loss of genetic diversity is too great, and/or selective pressure is too extreme then the population will go extinct. Observations of populations that thrive after population splits show that your reduced genetic diversity argument does not describe reality. Populations that thrive absolutely falsify your argument.
To get a clearcut new population in the wild the same as you would a new breed, you have to have isolation of the selected traits, whether randomly or naturally selected doesn't matter, and this process is always accompanied by reduced genetic diversity Your continued comparisons of artificial breeding and wild populations is another key flaw in your argument. Artificial breeding leads to a situation that is completely different from what is found in wild populations. Breeds are characterized by a limited number of visible phenotypic traits with ever narrowing distribution of variation in each succeeding generation. The end goal of a breeder is a purebreed that has no variation for each different character at all. Every new variation is thrown out of the breeding plan completely or if the breeder thinks it is interesting then it may become part of beginning of a new breeding plan. In wild populations the only goal is survival and reproduction. There is no breeder directing the population toward a uniform set of characters. There is a continuum of variation in every trait and it is continuous flux from generation to generation. There is no ideal population description in wild populations, only a varying set traits. There is no such thing as a purebred population in the wild.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
And yet, curiously, different people get the same results. And the results from morphological analysis and genetic analysis agree. Why does this happen if it is subjective Faith? And genetic analysis of both nuclear and mitochondrial agree.
Faith writes: Nested hierarchies beyond the known genetically related groups are pure mental constructs, ... I'm sure she will never believe it but cladograms show nested hierarchies far beyond the species or breeding population level. Reality trumps belief every time.
RAZD writes: Why don't you lay out your purported laboratory experiment rather than make mysterious allusions to it. I think she must be referring sitting and thinking about it really, really hard. She often tells everyone that if we think about it hard it will be obvious she is right. Every time she says that I have this mental image of an old lady straining to think with sweat pouring off her as if she were straining to lift a 500 pound weight.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined:
|
Faith writes: If the mutation occurs in a fur color gene it will only affect fur color. You are not going to get anything really new, a new function for instance, through mutation. So fur colour can change, but we shouldn't expect any new functions--like, say, the ability to sneak up on prey unobserved (polar bears, tigers)? How about fur stiffness? Can that change, too? Or would the change get too newly functional (hedgehogs)? If hair shafts can change shape, how about skeletal features? You postulate a natural boundary where ongoing small mutations must suddenly stop happening. Why must they stop? Where may a geneticist look for this border? Archer O All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: If the mutation occurs in a fur color gene it will only affect fur color. You are not going to get anything really new, a new function for instance, through mutation. So fur colour can change, but we shouldn't expect any new functions--like, say, the ability to sneak up on prey unobserved (polar bears, tigers)? Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.
How about fur stiffness? Can that change, too? Or would the change get too newly functional (hedgehogs)? Not from the gene for fur color, perhaps from the gene for fur stiffness depending on the range possible for that gene.
If hair shafts can change shape, how about skeletal features? Only if the genome provides the basis for such variation. That's my point. You aren't going to get changes that aren't built into the genome.
You postulate a natural boundary where ongoing small mutations must suddenly stop happening. Why must they stop? Where may a geneticist look for this border? The natural boundary has nothing to do with mutations, only with the reduction in genetic diversity, whatever its source, by the processes of selection. You have to read my argument to understand how it works. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though. A bear differing in no way from other bears other than having gained white fur is automatically better suited for stalking prey in snowy areas. In other words, fur color is functional. In addition to enhancing hiding and/or sneakiness, fur color may provide respiratory advantages in some environments. Fur length and fur density are also functional. So are silly looking minor things like the ability to move one's outer ears. Perhaps a better way of distinguishing the mutations you believe are possible from the ones you believe are not would be useful here. But shucking and jiving about the definition of functional is going to cost you even more of your credibility. Or maybe a loss of credibility on the topic is simply not possible for you.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.
A bear differing in no way from other bears other than having gained white fur is automatically better suited for stalking prey in snowy areas. In other words, fur color is functional. In addition to enhancing hiding and/or sneakiness, fur color may provide respiratory advantages in some environments. Fur length and fur density are also functional. So are silly looking minor things like the ability to move one's outer ears. You are missing the context, which is "new" functions, "new" being the operative word. If it's in the genome, an allele or options for any combination of genes already available in the bear population, it's not a NEW function, it's simply a normally occurring variation that will be selected if it is advantageous.
Perhaps a better way of distinguishing the mutations you believe are possible from the ones you believe are not would be useful here. I don't believe mutations contribute anything at all to normal variation/microevolution, except possibly the very rare fluke when a mistake in replication happens to reproduce a sequence that revives a formerly lost function. But normal variation is the result of normal sexual recombination of built-in genetic possibilities. I know it's hard to think along these lines if you are used to thinking in terms of mutations, but this is the way it used to be understood and they were right.
But shucking and jiving about the definition of functional is going to cost you even more of your credibility. No, what costs me credibility is nothing more than having to do battle with ingrained bias.
Or maybe a loss of credibility on the topic is simply not possible for you. Not with myself, but otherwise would that it were so. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't believe mutations contribute anything at all to normal variation/microevolution, except possibly the very rare fluke when a mistake in replication happens to reproduce a sequence that revives a formerly lost function. But normal variation is the result of normal sexual recombination of built-in genetic possibilities. I know it's hard to think along these lines if you are used to thinking in terms of mutations, but this is the way it used to be understood and they were right. But it must have been brought to your attention --- repeatedly --- that direct observation shows this to be untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It has been ASSERTED and CLAIMED, not exactly "brought to my attention" and I've never seen anything that holds up except maybe three or four iffy examples..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So if you've seen it, it's been shown rather than "ASSERTED and CLAIMED" and if you've seen "three or four", then one would suffice to overturn your general claim.
What you mean by "iffy" is known only to yourself and, if he exists, the god whom you claim to serve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You are missing the context, which is "new" functions, "new" being the operative word. If it's in the genome, an allele or options for any combination of genes already available in the bear population, it's not a NEW function, it's simply a normally occurring variation that will be selected if it is advantageous. I'm not doing any such thing. You are simply denying the premise that white fur can be a mutation, or an addition to the genome. Well that's completely wrong.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I am denying that that is how white fur shows up in any species, by a mutation, except the possible extremely rare fluke as I keep saying. It is a normally occurring variation for the genes that govern fur color that is brought out by the normal processes of sexual recombination. Mutation is not needed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024