|
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 don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus. All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics. I don't even believe there is such a thing as speciation, not as you all understand it though the fact is no doubt real enough, but since you all do I'm asking what you think brings it about. And please point to an example. It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But you are arguing about it, asking questions and insisting on your own idea of how it happens. And getting angry when people disagree and produce evidence for a contrary view.
quote: If that was the case you wouldn't have spent years arguing about it. No, you are arguing about more than that - and that is where the trouble lies.
quote: Maybe it does, but reduced genetic diversity is not even a likely cause of the loss of interfertility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Evidence? Nobody's given any evidence of anything. All you're doing is slinging assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Evidence of what ? That reduced genetic diversity is NOT a likely cause of the loss of interfertility ? I provided some in my previous message Message 675
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
DOCJ writes: I don't believe the flood was 4500 years ago. Well you'd be correct about that but are you sure it's biblical? In an article written by a certain Doc J(ohn), Creation.com has it at 4,285 years ago. The Date of Noah’s Flood - creation.comJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Gradually accumulating genetic differences in separated populations is what brings about speciation. Right, so how are those genetic differences accumulated? What brings that about? ...So please explain how you think they are accumulated. Where were you the first 117 times this was explained? Mutations occur in every generation. Those that are neutral or beneficial are passed on to the next generation, and the next and the next and the next and onward through time. Gradually these mutations accumulate and spread throughout the population. Separated populations of the same species would acquire and accumulate different mutations and gradually become increasingly genetically incompatible.
My argument accounts for a great deal of genetic difference accumulating between separated populations, but the differences I keep saying accumulate don't do it for you. Your scenario can never reach the point of genetic incompatibility. The daughter population can only possess genes and alleles already genetically compatible with the parent population.
This is obvious because genetic distinctness is what defines all the species that exist in the world today. Differing allele frequencies do not define species, different alleles and genes do. Different alleles obviously don't or that would be the case in my scenarios. You can't get different alleles in your scenarios because you allow no role for mutation. In your scenarios a daughter population can only have alleles the parent population already has. And in your scenarios a daughter population can certainly never acquire new genes, and differing genes is the most distinct difference between most species.
Different genes -- where do they come from? Do you have even a shred of evidence of different genes occurring and causing speciation? New genes are often copying errors, just like new alleles are copying errors. New genes come about in various ways. A new gene may be formed by gene duplication, where a gene is copied twice instead of just once during gamete formation. Or small mutations could create start/stop codons in a previously inactive region of the genome. Or start/stop codons could mutate to something else, resulting in one gene becoming two, or two genes becoming one, or a sequence of previously inactive DNA being added to an existing gene. Lateral gene transfer might introduce a gene from another species. Or viruses might insert a new gene.
If you do, which I strongly doubt, my guess is you're talking about a severely deleterious situation, just another way further evolution becomes impossible and most likely a step on the way to extinction. Any offspring experiencing a mutation rendering it meaningfully less fit will not likely pass its genes on to the next generation. Selection filters out deleterious alleles and genes before they affect the population. Gene duplicates are especially easy to detect, and there are many examples. It is estimated that the human lineage has experienced 100 gene duplicates per million years (Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes). The most familiar example of gene duplication is actually duplication of an entire chromosome with all its genes: Down syndrome. Many plants contain examples of duplication of their entire genomes (polyploid speciation). Ice fish have a gene duplication that provides an antifreeze capability (Gene Duplication), and snakes have a gene duplication that helps provide snake venom (Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A2 genes). The similar MWS/LWS genes in primates arose through gene duplication and provide improved color sensitivity for eyesight (Evolution of colour vision in primates). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Maybe I'll never be able to prove it, though I think it's obvious from everything I've argued about this. You'll never be able to prove something that is obviously false. Reduced genetic diversity can never cause genetic speciation. At a minimum different species have different alleles (meaning that each species population possesses alleles the other does not have), and most commonly different species have different genes. Simply reducing genetic diversity can never produce alleles in the daughter population that don't exist in the parent population, and without that the two populations can never become genetically incompatible.
There's nothing "religious" about it at all, it's all about genetics, whether anybody gets it or not. Nobody gets it because there's nothing to get. When one person "talks" for years and receives nothing but the equivalent of blank looks from everyone, including those who share her religious views, the fault doesn't lie with everyone else.
If breeds are developed by losing genetic diversity, so are varieties, races and yes, species. You cannot transform a daughter population into a new species simply by reducing genetic diversity because the daughter population can only possess genes and alleles already present in the parent population. It's why breeders cannot produce new species.
You are all fooling yourselves that genetic diversity has to increase or that it even could increase when selection has to cut it down over and over again to get a population with a new character. You're again ignoring the fact that it depends upon the *rate* of selection and the *rate* of mutation. If mutation produces new alleles faster than selection removes alleles, then diversity increases.
The ToE has all of you under a spell, not persuaded by evidence at all, just under a spell. Says the religious fanatic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Science is still Science. ... 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. So all pretense of neutrality is now dropped and you've moved into full preacher mode. Another one.
... Further Science is not in the business of finding God. ... Correct, it doesn't study what cannot be tested.
... Science has not been used to show new kinds from different kinds. ... And, curiously, it never will ... because evolution does not work that way. It seems only creationists, in general, and YECists in particular, seem to make this argument from ignorance. The way you defined "kind" in Message 396 is essentially the same as a clade (see my Message 615). Evolution says that descendant of any organism in a clade is still a member of that clade, no matter how much or how little it is changed/evolved since the parent organism/s.
... Thus it is not in contradiction to creationism. ... Until you look at the details, like the fact that all organisms have common ancestors with all other organisms, just at different times in the past. There is no mass stopping point with a bunch of different "kinds" and no ancestors for them.
... And it is a joke to pretend Science can find origin. We'll see who gets the last laugh, science or mythology ... so far mythology has a pretty poor record of documenting reality.
Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up. It only has "extreme limits" in the minds of those who want those limits to be there. YECism on the other hand is constrained by their love of convenient lies and comfortable ignorance. Real science observes all the evidence, including fossils and rocks, and then uses theory to explain those facts and make predictions. The eclipse is just simple celestial mechanics that even school kids can work out. As an example of looking at all the facts we can observe all the evidence for an old earth and easily see that it exceeds the mythological age of YECism by several orders of magnetude. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 if you disagree. Perhaps you can explain why there is so much evidence of an old earth that all conforms and correlates with all the other evidence? If you love science then the pursuit of knowledge on how old the earth is should be of interest. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Of course it's true that you don't have selection without variation. My argument is that ultimately you WILL completely run out of variation so there is nothing more to select, which means evolution must stop. That would be the point where there is so much homozygosity you've run out of variation. All of it could be recently accumulated mutations but once they've been reduced to enough homozygosity, end of evolution. As has been explained many times, mutation and selection are simultaneous processes. Both are taking place in every generation. Selection decides which individuals pass their genes on to the next generation, and mutation provides each offspring with a genome slightly different from its parents. The production of new genetic material to select from never ceases. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah you all do keep "explaining" this and completely missing the point.
Whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You'll never be able to prove something that is obviously false. Reduced genetic diversity can never cause genetic speciation. Good thing that's not what I'm trying to prove then. All I'm proving and have proved is that selection brings evolution to a halt. Mutations can't stop it. The idea that the RATE of mutation makes a difference is an illusion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
(RAZD: How would you draw a cladogram of chimps and humans?) Not related. Different kinds. There is not any evidence suggesting the 2 species are related. Having similarities is a weak point to argue evolution. So are Chimps and Gorillas in one kind or two? Orangutans? Gibbons? How do we know? Can you tell me which of these are related to Chimps and which are related to Humans?
quote: I'll help you get started: Chimp: A, and ... Human: N, and ... How can you tell?
I'm not neutral but I can see different perspectives. I have not always been a beleiver. I took anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry and many other courses in college and started realizing the universe is to organized, and life is to organized to not accept creation. So, then all of creation is a record written in matter and time of the work of the god/s ... would not studying that record to understand it as fully as possible be more likely to find reality than looking in a book of myths and anecdotes, often contradicted by the full record of creation: the earth is older than 10,000 years, the universe is older still, and there was no global flood. Science does not "prove" things (at best it validates theories that approximate reality) but it does disprove things, like world wide fantasy floods and preposterous young age. Mythology neither proves nor disproves anything, it is not an exploratory/discovery paradigm. It just provides comfortable ignorance to coddle special people ... imho. Such as the belief that people are special and different from the other animals. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ok. I don't believe the flood was 4500 years ago. I am merely 1 of the millions of old earth creationist ... So how old is the earth, out of curiosity ...
... And the flood would of been somewhere in the range of a 100,000 years ago.The book of nature has just as much to say about God as scripture and the two sources work together to explain our reality. And yet you are still wrong about the flood. There is evidence in the "book of nature" that invalidates that date.
... Adam and Eve lived probably a couple hundred thousand years ago which is biblical. ... Based on what evidence from the "book of nature" ... ? Genetics?
quote: quote: So 200,000 to 300,000 years ago for "adam" and 152,000 to 234,000 years ago for "eve" ... was there a long time before one of "adam's" ribs was transmogrified into "eve" by god-magic? Or was "eden" 200,000 to 234,000 years ago? and where was it? There certainly was no world wide flying fantasy flood since then ... (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 7 to Message 9). Or is the "book of nature" lying? Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus. Sure speciation is your focus. That's why you keep talking about species. This claim about species is from your Message 645:
Faith in Message 645 writes: That's how a domestic breed is maintained and it has to be how a species is maintained as well. This one's from Message 666:
Faith in Message 666 writes: If severe reduction in genetic diversity doesn't, then although I think that must be the actual genetic situation in most supposedly new species,... This one is from Message 673:
Faith in Message 673 writes: If breeds are developed by losing genetic diversity, so are varieties, races and yes, species. So of course your focus is species, which it has to be because this thread is about macroevolution (change above the species level) versus microevolution (change within a species).
All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics. That's breeding. There's no disagreement about breeding. The disagreement is about speciation.
I don't even believe there is such a thing as speciation,... Yes, you do. You believe that after the flood the small set of species from the ark evolved rapidly through loss of genetic diversity to produce the great diversity of species we observe today. But as has been clearly explained many times, loss of genetic diversity in a daughter population cannot produce new species, because the daughter population only possesses genes and alleles already present in the parent population and cannot be genetically incompatible.
...not as you all understand it though the fact is no doubt real enough, but since you all do I'm asking what you think brings it about. You're repeating the same question over and over again. The answer hasn't changed. New species are produced as mutations occur and are selected. Over time the selected mutations accumulate until the change is sufficient for there to be the genetic incompatibility that characterizes the division between species.
And please point to an example. Examples of speciation? Sure. This list is from Examples of Speciation, I only include the ones for which I could find information:
It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from. Again, depleted genetic diversity cannot produce speciation. The daughter population will always be genetically compatible with the parent population. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You haven't proven that. In fact it's been disproven. Really, why do you come out with these obviously false claims ?
quote: Hardly. The rate would need to be zero for you to be right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024