|
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
coyote writes:
Disagree all you want--you presented a definition of "kind" which, if followed, includes all primates within the same kind. If you don't like that, get a better definition. What I see coyote saying is that creationist try to make the blue block(humans) a separate clade from the green block above (chimps and other apes) when science shows they are all one clade.
I disagree with you. Science is a tool. Science does not endorse anti creationism. The evolutionist religion endorses anti creationism. ... So much for presumed neutrality. Science is a tool that can be used to uncover reality, and like all tools it can be misused and mishandled. Much of creationism is full of the misuse and mishandling of science, often outright lies and misinformation. The goal in science is to explain all the evidence, not just that which fits inside your personal bubble of "convenient truths." Science is agnostic to religion and there is no "evolutionist religion" ... and it always amuses me when creationists try to insult evolution by calling it a religion. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I have been using the term inbreeding simply to describe breeding within the reproductivelyt isolated population, which is probably but not absolutely necessarily made up of nonrelated founding individuals. Should I be using a different term? Most of the time using the term inbreeding is fine, but when discussing population genetics and changing allele frequencies and such, the term has important implications to the discussion. "Interbreeding" would be a more appropriate term for general breeding within a population. Still, the point is that in small populations, inbreeding will affect the genetics of the population. Inbreeding, along with drift, are the main factors that cause small populations to become increasingly homozygous and lead to the fixation of a disproportionate number of alleles. Randomly mating populations tend toward Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
Mutations I suppose? But as I've already said, why should mutations be genetically incompatible? They may or may not be... it depends on the mutation. Besides, one single mutation is unlikely to cause genetic incompatibility. It is the accumulation of mutations that would lead to incompatibility.
If they are "beneficial" they replace an existing allele with a functioning allele, meaning it fits just fine in the gene and codes for a protein that codes for a phenotype. Not necessarily. There are several ways of developing reproductive incompatibility.
Where's the incompatibility? For example, the main characteristic that causes reproductive isolation in Greenish Warblers is mating song recognition. If you took gametes from individuals on opposite ends of the ring and combined them in the lab, they may produce viable offspring (I don't know if they for sure if they can actually produce viable hybrids or not) but in the wild, they don't recognize each other as potential mates and so are reproductively isolated, even though their ranges overlap. How many mutations did that take? Plumage, nesting behavior, and genital incompatibility can also play a role in reproductive isolation. It is not limited to the failure of gametes to form viable hybrids. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Funny... when I first glanced at the image in your post, I thought "That green block is not a clade! Why are they depicting it as a clade?" Then I read the caption...
HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Although I do focus quite a bit on such small populations I claim the same trend exists in larger daughter populations, it just takes more time for the effects to be worked through, Exactly, and a major point of my example of RIL populations. The effects that you are expecting in daughter populations cannot happen any faster than they can in a population derived from a single parental line, isolated individually and self fertilized for several generations. That breeding strategy operates at the MAXIMUM potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization. If a system that operates at maximum potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization cannot produce new species in 10 generations (98+% homogeneous populations), how could a wild population do it... that is if isolation and changing allele frequencies are enough?
Also the most important thing in my scenario is the initial random selection of the founders of the daughter population, which you don't pay much attention to. Nonsense. The initial parental cross distributes the alleles to the offspring as predicted by Mendelian genetics. Each RIL begins with a single individual or breeding pair which would have an allele frequency for each gene. In the case of an individual, allele frequency would be 0%, 50% or 100%. In the case of a breeding pair, allele frequency would be 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. So each RIL starts with an allele frequency that may or may not be different than the parents at each gene loci. For sure the combination of alleles across all genes will be different in every single RIL individual.
I attribute one new set of allele frequencies to the number of individuals in the founders of a daughter population. Isolation is what is necessary to making sure the new gene frequencies are the only source of the traits in the new population. What is important is taking those alleles to fixation. How would having a different allele frequency produce different phenotypes? What needs to happen is one population needs to be fixed for allele 'A' and the other fixed for allele 'a'. You have mentioned this yourself, that the other traits, the other alleles need to be eliminated from the population in order to have differentiation. So fixation of alleles is what is important to differentiating populations. RIL is the most efficient method for doing that across many loci. BTW, I already mentioned that this system is used for animals... it is how laboratory mice and rats are produced. They use sibling crosses rather than self crosses, but otherwise it works using the same principles. Sibling crosses would actually result in a slower rate of homogenization and fixation than selfing, but still would operate much faster than a wild population. And don't forget, as a wild population grows, the effect of inbreeding will be reduced and the process will slow even further. And... you yourself have recognized this system in breeding programs. Isolate and breed within a small population until desired trait is fixed. The main differences in a RIL population and a standard breeding program are: 1. The RIL program produces homozygotes and fixed alleles much faster than traditional breeding approaches 2. The RIL population is not selected for any specific trait (ie. there is no directional selection) 3. The RIL population consists of numerous (hundreds) or lines, each with its own unique set of traits Your objection to this being done with plants is unfounded. For one, it can and is done with animals. Secondly, genetics of plants and animals operate in the same way. They undergo meiosis and mitosis; they reproduce sexually; they undergo recombination; they respond to inbreeding, outcrossing, bottlenecks, selection, drift, etc. the same way animals do. If fact, most of what we know about population genetics and breeding comes from plant systems. Plants are easy models to work with that don't have the same ethical implications that animal models do. RIL populations demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that isolation and changing allele frequencies alone are not enough to produce new species. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Faith writes: OK sorry, I wasn't getting this clearly at all. ALl that came from mutations you are saying. but it can't happen that way. Mutations are going to occur just here and there in individuals in a population, and without selection you aren't going to get changes in the population at large. I think this is the crux of your issue with random mutations increasing genetic variation. Here's a new example: We have a population of wolves.They are all the same. They do not breed with any other wolves at all. They only breed within their own population. Here are some traits: Length of hair - Same - all shortLength of nails - Same - all short Colour of eyes - Same - all grey Colour of coat (hair) - Same - all black/white/grey Length of tail - Same - all short Width of paws - Same - all small Sharpness of teeth - Same - all sharp Angle of ears - Same - all sharp Broadness of chest - Same - all small Strength of heart - Same - all strong Strength of legs - Same - all short Ability to smell - Same - all strong (All other traits not listed... of which there would be thousands... are all the same). After 500 years, we now have a population that looks something like this due to random mutation: Length of hair - SameLength of nails - Same Colour of eyes - Different, some are blue, some are grey Colour of coat (hair) - Same Length of tail - Same Width of paws - Same Sharpness of teeth - Same Angle of ears - Same Broadness of chest - Same Strength of heart - Same Strength of legs - Same Ability to smell - Same This would occur due to a random mutation that caused some eyes to be blue.As well, no wolves cared if the eyes were blue or grey so the ones that had blue eyes still reproduced and the trait spread throughout the population. The blue eyes simply were not selected out, and they grew to be a larger and larger part of the population. No speciation event. No selection. There's just wolves now with blue eyes in the population due to random mutation. Are you saying such a thing is strictly impossible?If so, why? What would prevent it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: What I see coyote saying is that creationist try to make the blue block(humans) a separate clade from the green block above (chimps and other apes) when science shows they are all one clade. Science is still Science. Science has not been used to show new kinds from different kinds. Thus it is not in contradiction to creationism. Further Science is not in the business of finding God. And it is a joke to pretend Science can find origin. Further Science can only do so much in finding reality, it can only study what is observed. Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up. Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err Edited by DOCJ, : Err
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
and looking at dead things is not observing esp since you do not get real dead things. Hmmm. Better not try and tell that to forensic anthropologists.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Ref fossils not corpses. And I took that out of my post as I knew it would be spun incorrectly.
Edited by DOCJ, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ref fossils not corpses. And I took that out of my post as I knew it would be spun incorrectly. Still wrong. We can indeed read the distant past just as forensic anthropologists read the more recent past. You probably aren't aware, but a lot of forensic anthropology deals with bones, as a corpse left out in the open is mostly bones within a few months depending on conditions. Once you are at the bones stage, there is little difference between that and analyzing fossils. You are parroting creationists' silly ideas about separating science into two parts because a lot of science disproves religious claims. (By the way, I do consulting for local coroners on bones, and half my Ph.D. work was in the field of fossil man so don't try and tell me that my field of science isn't valid.) [Preachers are always complaining that scientists are playing God, but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist--The Sensuous Curmudgeon.] 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Ok. Provide evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ok. Provide evidence. The evidence is in university libraries, and takes up several floors in most cases. It is also in museums and other similar places. Unfortunately, most creationists avoid these places and avoid examining the evidence as much as vampires avoid garlic.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Fyi
You are spinning my post incorrectly. I completely support anthropology. However nothing discovered has disproven the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I completely support anthropology. However nothing discovered has disproven the bible. Archaeology has disproved the idea of a global flood during historic times. This is not the appropriate thread for that topic, but I've presented evidence, as have a number of other posters, in other threads.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have been using the term inbreeding simply to describe breeding within the reproductivelyt isolated population, which is probably but not absolutely necessarily made up of nonrelated founding individuals. Should I be using a different term? Most of the time using the term inbreeding is fine, but when discussing population genetics and changing allele frequencies and such, the term has important implications to the discussion. "Interbreeding" would be a more appropriate term for general breeding within a population. I want a term to make it clear I'm talking only about breeding within the new population.
Still, the point is that in small populations, inbreeding will affect the genetics of the population. Inbreeding, along with drift, are the main factors that cause small populations to become increasingly homozygous and lead to the fixation of a disproportionate number of alleles. Randomly mating populations tend toward Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. All I'm talking about is recombination through enough generations to blend all the gene frequencies together and produce a homogeneous character to the new population..
Mutations I suppose? But as I've already said, why should mutations be genetically incompatible? They may or may not be... it depends on the mutation. Besides, one single mutation is unlikely to cause genetic incompatibility. It is the accumulation of mutations that would lead to incompatibility. Well DUH. But the only kind of mutations that should be a problem are the deleterious ones.
If they are "beneficial" they replace an existing allele with a functioning allele, meaning it fits just fine in the gene and codes for a protein that codes for a phenotype. Not necessarily. There are several ways of developing reproductive incompatibility. Where's the incompatibility? For example, the main characteristic that causes reproductive isolation in Greenish Warblers is mating song recognition. If you took gametes from individuals on opposite ends of the ring and combined them in the lab, they may produce viable offspring (I don't know if they for sure if they can actually produce viable hybrids or not) but in the wild, they don't recognize each other as potential mates and so are reproductively isolated, even though their ranges overlap. How many mutations did that take? Plumage, nesting behavior, and genital incompatibility can also play a role in reproductive isolation. It is not limited to the failure of gametes to form viable hybrids. And this collection of pedantic irrelevancy contributes what to the discussion? Edited by Admin, : Fix closing quoted section.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024