|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think it's a false analogy. Loss of genetic diversity doesn't slow down evolution at all, it is necessary to evolution. The point is that eventually, with enough continuing selection (reduction of genetic diversity) in a particular evolving line you arrive at the condition of inability to continue evolving, a condition where you have fixed loci for the salient traits of the new species.
A better analogy is running out of fuel, but that one's not all that great either. ABE: Realizing this fuel analogy does have the virtue of showing why adding mutations doesn't stop the process of running out of genetic diversity. All you are doing is replenishing the fuel supply; until it is used the car isn't running, you aren't getting evolution in any meaningful sense, meaning phenotypic changes from population to population. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
CRR writes: No, what we have is two isolated sub-populations of the OG species. Isolation does not immediately confer speciation. That is why I said that speciation begins with two isolated populations.
Now we have several hypothetical mutations. Probably neutral mutations that are fixed by genetic drift. For this example, they are beneficial mutations.
So at the end you might have two alleles that have no effect on the phenotype and and still have one species. It doesn't matter if they affect phenotype or not. If different mutations are accumulating in each population then speciation has occurred. If they were interbreeding then you would find the same allele in both species.
Probably not even separate species, let alone separate kinds; and hence not even macroevolution. There are more differences between those alleles than there is between humans and chimps, two species that creationists claim are in different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: But the implication of the genetic loss by selection is overlooked, as if you could cull indefinitely and not deplete genetic diversity. You are overlooking mutations which increase genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
A better analogy is running out of fuel... Something like 3.8 billion years later and we aren't running out of fuel yet. Maybe there's something wrong with the way you are thinking about evolution.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: First, they don't keep arriving, even according to establishment descriptions of how mutations occur; beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Extremely rare is often enough to keep new variations arriving on a continual basis. Mutations never stop.
Second, if they did keep arriving they would defeat the purpose of the selection, and you could never get an identifiable variety or species. Selection has no purpose, as you have already been told several times now. Selection is simply what happens when you have imperfect replicators competing for limited resources. Also, all species have a spectrum of features.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm coming to like my fuel analogy just above. The point is that adding mutations is like adding fuel to an engine. Unless the fuel is used up the engine isn't running, you aren't getting evolution. The analogy is far from perfect since the actual situation is dynamic and not a matter of guzzling fuel, but it's better than most.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: The point is that eventually, with enough continuing selection (reduction of genetic diversity) in a particular evolving line you arrive at the condition of inability to continue evolving, a condition where you have fixed loci for the salient traits of the new species. Mutations keep occurring which produce new alleles for those that are fixed.
A better analogy is running out of fuel, but that one's not all that great either. Mutations are the gas stations where they keep adding new variation to the tank of evolution.
ABE: Realizing this fuel analogy does have the virtue of showing why adding mutations doesn't stop the process of running out of genetic diversity. All you are doing is replenishing the fuel supply; until it is used the car isn't running, you aren't getting evolution in any meaningful sense, meaning phenotypic changes from population to population. Since gas is added to every tank in every generation, it never stops.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: I'm coming to like my fuel analogy just above. The point is that adding mutations is like adding fuel to an engine. Unless the fuel is used up the engine isn't running, you aren't getting evolution. The analogy is far from perfect since the actual situation is dynamic and not a matter of guzzling fuel, but it's better than most. Imagine if there is a fuel station every 5 miles, and you top off the tank at every fuel station. That is how evolution works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Extremely rare means too rare to have any kind of effect on the formation of new species or varieties, which is typically a lot more rapid than assumed under the ToE. Jutland cattle. Pod Mrcaru lizards.
I'm using selection to refer to the isolation of a portion of a populatlon with its limited collection of genes/alleles, creating a new set of gene frequencies from that in the original population, a new gene pool from which new phenotypes are expressed, so that the high frequency genes in particular come to be characteristic of the new population. Classical natural selection has the same effect of reducing genetic diversity in the bringing out of new characteristics of a new population, but I think it's a lot rarer than the random selection I'm talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently, and even if you were you'd just have that situation I keep talking about, where you are getting a scattering of new phenotypes within a population, which isn't evolution because evolution makes new populations and that requires selection of some kind (using up the fuel).
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Faith writes: Extremely rare means too rare to have any kind of effect on the formation of new species or varieties, which is typically a lot more rapid than assumed under the ToE. Jutland cattle. Pod Mrcaru lizards. Please cite some references on the rarity of beneficial mutations. Otherwise, you are just making stuff up.
I'm using selection to refer to the isolation of a portion of a populatlon with its limited collection of genes/alleles, creating a new set of gene frequencies from that in the original population, a new gene pool from which new phenotypes are expressed, so that the high frequency genes in particular come to be characteristic of the new population. Classical natural selection has the same effect of reducing genetic diversity in the bringing out of new characteristics of a new population, but I think it's a lot rarer than the random selection I'm talking about. Mutations add genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Something like 3.8 billion years later and we aren't running out of fuel yet. Maybe there's something wrong with the way you are thinking about evolution. The fact that evolutionary processes must inevitably run out of fuel proves that evolution from species to species cannot happen and has never happened and the whole ToE scenario is shown to be false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently, Prove it. I already showed that you can get a beneficial allele in the human population in less than 2 years. Let's say that there is only one possible beneficial substitution mutation in the human genome, a diploid genome that is 6 billion bases long. Since there are 3 possible substitution mutations at each position, that is 1 substitution mutation out of 18 billion possible mutations. Each human is born with about 100 substitution mutations. This means that on average you need 180 million births to get that one mutation. There are about 130 million human births per year. This means this mutation will take less than 2 years to occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I think you are making the error of assuming that mutations are irrelevant because few will beneficial mutations will arrive during the speciation event. This is a mistake because it neglects - yet again - that most mutations will occur during the far longer period (with a far larger population) between speciation events. Also the mutations that prevent interbreeding are mostly likely to be neutral (that effect cannot be beneficial until the populations meet again, and there is a possibility of interbreeding)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: The fact that evolutionary processes must inevitably run out of fuel . . . Mutations continually add fuel.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024