|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the history of life require "macroevolution"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And I keep showing how that argument is refuted by the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity. And, overlooking the problem that most mutations do nothing of the sort, I keep answering that to get a new species you have to eliminate (select out) most of the genetic diversity, even in extreme cases to the point of genetic depletion from which further evolution is impossible. If you want to add a mutation at that point, I'd point out that no mutations have come along in the case of the cheetah. And all you can get in any case is a variation on a trait, a new fur color perhaps, nothing structural, nothing that changes the basic characteristics of the animal. You can get all colors and sizes of just about anything but you can't get a cat to be anything but a cat, there's something about the cat genome that makes it a cat no matter how many variations of catness you can get out of it. Isn't there a part of the genome that determines basic structure? ABE: I suspect that by genetic engineering you might be able to get a dinosaur from a lizard by exploiting genes for size of the creature and of various parts, and tweaking various functions of the lizard, but I'm quite sure you could never get a mammal that way. There's something about the genome that is so species-specific it can't change but I never hear this discussed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All diversity within a kind CAN be accounted for as I said. No problem whatever. I'll try to illustrate it when I can but it's not rocket science, you should be able to see it yourself. Extra alleles for some genes do not change what I've said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The complexisties you describe don't suggest any kind of change that would promote evolution beyond the Kind, it's all still changes to genes, and even if those functions change they are still genes for those functions, they aren't going to produce something outside the range of what genes do, which would be necessary for evolution beyond the Kind.
It's certainly true that evolution involves a constant loss of genetic material for other phenotypes. Natural selection is a reductive process, it involves throwing away genes, but the other half of evolution is mutation. And mutation involves not just point mutations but also insertions, deletions, and duplications. This generates not just new genetic patterns but also fresh space for new mutations to occur in. There is simply no reason to believe that the reduction in genetic diversity should outpace the production of new diversity. In fact, it cannot do so. Thank you for that basic acknowledgement that selection requires loss. As I keep arguing, domestic breeding is still the best example, it doesn't matter where the genetic diversity comes from it still has to be lost by selection to get new phenotypes characteristic of a breed or species, and the end result of the selective processes, which produce those new phenotypes, HAS to be loss. There HAS to be a point in a series of such evolutionary processes where genetic diversity is reduced to the point that further evolution cannot happen, a hypothetical point in most cases but sometimes real. This is certainly true in old fashioned breeding methods where a purebred is characterized by fixed loci for its defining characteristics. The formation of species in the wild is not so streamlined but you still couldn't get a definitive type without loss of the genetic material for other characteristics. IF YOU GET MUTATIONS AT THAT POINT you start losing the species, you go back to genetic diversity, you get a motley collection of new phenotypes, not an identifiable species, in breeding you get "mutts" and evolution as the production of definable races, species or breeds stops happening. if you try to call this evolution you are fudging the idea of speciation. You need selection for that. You need selection for evolution. I'm sure there are all kinds of complexities I don't grasp but this has to be the basic pattern. And again, mutations don't change the basic function of a gene even if that gene involves more than one function. You'd need a structural change of some kind to produce change beyond the basic characteristics of a Kind. Yes I know you're the geneticist but most geneticists are believers in the ToE and have to think in that direction so I expect it to be rationalized no matter what you say. Seems to me you need far more than what you observe to get macroevolution, a change in parts of the genome that define the differences between the Kinds, whatever those might be. For instance, dogs have stiff bodies, cats have flexible bodies. What parts of the genome affect those structural differences? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No evolution cannot continue. It's all theoretical anyway because mutations don't occur after you have a species or breed, beyond the occasional fluke. If you got a whole bunch of mutations you'd get a "mutt" and maybe from the mutt selection could produce another breed, again theoretically and not likely, but a breed involves the reduction I'm talking about, you cannot get a breed without that reduction and the end result is always going to be loss wherever you are getting evolution or the production of new breeds/species. In many cases fixed loci, which define purebreds, is a point from which no further change is genetically possible at all. Your point is definitional, not real, it doesn't happen in reality.
YOu can't even show a species that developed from mutations beyond a single trait. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What you are referring to as no change in information meaning no change in the phenotype, is a "neutral" mutation, which got discussed to death on another thread recently. I wish you'd contributed to that discussion. It was about the immune system and the claim that mutations in that system occur frequently and do change function, do produce new immunities against disease. They claim some have hundreds of such beneficial functional mutations. I can't dispute that, can you?
I argued that a mutation changes an allele so that even if it produces a beneficial function (I still doubt this myself but oh well) it has the effect of scattering the benefit in a population. Some individuals have this protection, others have the other protection of the original allele. If you have hundreds of different functions for a given gene due to mutations, which is the claim, then you have fewer individuals having any particular benefit. Which seems like a highly inefficient system that would promote the death of many individuals simply from lack of the particular function needed. But since you seem to have a better grasp of the scientific issues than I do I wish you'd participated on that thread. Maybe I can dig it up. This one: Message 1 Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Typical definitional word game. Chimps and humans do NOT differ by "40 million mutations," they differ by that many TRAITS, even that many genes perhaps. The "mutations" as usual are nothing but assumptions based on faith in the ToE. Such traits are no doubt part of the basic built-in created differences between chimps and humans.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Gain then loss" cannot work, you aren't thinking. If you changed every single allele of every gene by a mutation, which cannot possibly happen and never happens, the actual incidence of benefical mutations is minuscule by comparison, but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them. The traits of the new species are a very small selected number. So you get new fur colors, new whatevers, a lot of them, different traits (which again, does not happen) still to get a new species of a particular set of traits means getting rid of all the others, and the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed. Since the traits can only be variations on the basic genome of the Kind the variations could only be within the Kind -- and they always are. You get reduced genetic diversity no matter what, and you cannot get macroevolution from reduced genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It doesn't happen, it can't happen, it doesn't need to happen. There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see. Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species. Species within a Kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mutations make no difference.
Domestic breeding is evidence that reduced genetic diversity is necessary. And it would be simple to confirm this with wild creatures too in the simple lab experiment I've so often suggested, of creating a series of daughter populations and checking the DNA for rate of homozygosity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
then does any mutation that adds to the genetic diversity mean it is evolution outside the kind? Utterly silly question, incomprehensible really. First such a mutation is so rare as to be nonexistent.Second if it does occur it will either be selected and become part of the evolving new species or it will be selected out of that population. Of the Kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Last time I objected to somebody's answering a question I asked someone else I got upbraided by Admin. Personally I'd be very happy if we could decide who posts to us, I'd immediately eliminate at least half a dozen EvCers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What are you talkiing about? You need to provide links when you sling accusations. I have no idea how CRR got into this. I was responding to RAZD and referring to something that occurred some time ago that was not about CRR as far as I kinow.
RAZD's question hit me as completely nonsensical. And you are certainly not the one to correct me if I'm wrong. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I "BUTTED IN" ON A QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST TO CREATIONISTS AND ANYONE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTION. CRR CAN ANSWER IT IN HIS OWN WAY. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That would be she, not he. In her seventies and consumed by hate and rage. Brown people, immigrants, Roman Catholics, homosexuals, liberals, mainstream anything, and probably others. All of them, in her words, "deserve to be hated". That is way way out of line. The Left has no ability to tell the difference between ideas and people. (Or you're just being true to Saul Alinsky's methods). I hate lots of ideas, I don't hate people. If you are going to quote me, provide the link. I think you need to be reported for this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The idea of the wall is national security, protection against illegals.
The doctrines of the RCC murdered 67 million people in their Inquisition. Some of their doctrines also prevent people from being saved. The doctrines of Islam are all about murdering people.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024