|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Yeah the problem IS yours Percy, you fail to comprehend the simplest points, yes that is your fault. But probably not one you can do anything about if you even had a desire to. Time to end this charade. Let's see if you can comprehend the simplest of points.
Start -Mutation---Selection-----Middle-----Selection------End allele: AA AB BB You start with a homozygous AA population. A mutation occurs producing allele B. Due to selection that B allele becomes more common, resulting in a heterozygous AB population. Selection continues until you have a homozygous population of BB. The genetic diversity at the end is the same as the genetic diversity at the start. Evolution does not run out of genetic diversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
To get the AB and the BB you had to lose As. In the end it came out even but even with mutations you aren't going to get an increase because mutations simply replace other alleles, and with randomly selected population splits eventually you'll lose low-frequency alleles for a net loss.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: To get the AB and the BB you had to lose As. In the end it came out even but even with mutations you aren't going to get an increase, and with randomly selected population splits eventually you'll lose low-frequency alleles for a net loss. You have been claiming that evolution will run out of genetic diversity, yet we can see with this simple example that this isn't the case. Do you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Since the discussion is impossible, and anything I say is mangled in the ToE paradigm anyway, I'm just going to sketch it all out again knowing that will happen... Masquerading your religion as science is not a paradigm.
...and you can all go fly a kite. Charming. Anyway, seeing you "sketch it all out again" should be interesting. Let's see if you can say anything that has evidence (that we don't already agree about, like selective breeding) or that isn't made up.
All it takes to form a new race or variety or subspecies is to isolate a relatively small number of individuals on an island for a surprisingly short amount of time. A few hundred years should do it and there should be plenty of evidence for that having happened many times in the past. It happens with human populations as well as animals. The major forces behind species change are mutation and selection. Sufficient change to genes and alleles results in genetic incompatibility and a new species. The most famous example of this is Darwin's finches on the islands of the Galapagos. How long it takes is dependent upon many factors.
This observable fact makes the different populations of trilobites and coelacanths in the strata/fossil record best explained as formed within the same short periods of time, and the assumption of evolution between say reptiles and mammals over millions of years just plain ridiculous. The evidence of the fossil record tells us that trilobites and coelacanths existed millions of years ago over periods of many millions of years and evolved over many millions of years, in the case of the coelacanth right up to the present. The claim that they "formed within the same short periods of time" has no supporting evidence and is contradicted by the existing evidence.
Selection reduces genetic diversity. The isolation of a small number of founders of new populations is a form of selection. In such a group there will be a new set of gene frequencies which will bring out the new traits over some number of generations that is far far short of millions of years and certainly occurs frequently within hundreds. In the absence of mutation, which you don't mention and so I assume you're excluding it, what you're describing is analogous to breeding, about which we agree, though you forgot to mention that selection continues through the generations after the population's founding. The rapidity of change is a function of the particular selection forces and genetic drift. For example, a founder population in the identical environment as the original population will only be subject to genetic drift and will likely change little and slowly, while a founder population in an environment far different from that of the original population will be subject to strong selection forces and might change rapidly, or even go extinct.
You don't need mutations for any changes whatever. Obviously mutation produce change, so that isn't in dispute. Mutations are necessary to produce change beyond the species level. Without mutation genetic incompatibility will never be achieved.
The original created DNA in every species contained enough variability to produce every variety and race that exists,... There is no evidence that that there is any such thing as original created species. Species change gradually over time.
...and a lot more than that before so much of it became junk DNA. Since death entered Creation there has been a lot of genetic loss in every species, represented by junk DNA. There is no evidence that great amounts of functional DNA became junk DNA, and a great deal of evidence that the DNA of ancient animals is much like the animals of today. Death has been part of life since life's beginning. The evidence of the deaths of billions of individual organisms over billions of years is recorded in the fossil record.
The bottleneck of the Flood didn't produce the severe genetic depletion a bottleneck today would produce because there was way more genetic diversity on the ark, a lot more heterozygosity in each genome that would simply lose some of it and become homozygous, but not enough to be genetically depleted like the elephant seal or the cheetah. This is impossible. It's simple math and the ark is a fairy tale. Except for creatures classified as clean, there were only two creatures of each kind on the ark. This means there could be at most four alleles per gene, and since you're ignoring mutation you have no mechanism for producing additional alleles. Since many genes of modern creatures have more than four alleles, your ark explanation is impossible.
The idea that mutations contribute anything to healthy genetics is mostly an assumption not borne out in reality,... All the evidence we have says that mutation is the source of all alleles and genes in all populations today.
...but even if they did they don't produce new races or varieties, it takes selection to do that and selection reduces genetic diversity. New races and varieties can be produced by either subtracting or adding alleles (or doing both). Selective breeding removes alleles, cross breeding adds them.
This has to happen in any evolving line which will eventually reach a point of genetic loss from which further genetic change is impossible, which defines the point where evolution has to end, which is the boundary of the Kind down that particular evolving line. "Kind" is a Biblical term, not a scientific term. It has no scientific definition. And calling this "the boundary of a Kind" is clearly wrong even in a creationist context. Two separate breeding populations taken to the extremes of homogeneity and reduced genetic diversity through selection will not form any boundary between them. As creationists are fond of saying, "They're still the same kind."
Adding mutations to breeds destroys the breed,... Every offspring of every breed, be it cat or dog or cattle or human or whatever, experiences mutations, and yet breeds continue to exist. Mutations obviously do not destroy breeds on human timescales, at least not unless they have very short generation times. But for longer timescales this is course true. The forces of mutation and selection guarantee change. Evolution means that change is a constant.
...and their occurrence in any wild population just makes for a scattering of phenotypes, not evolution. This is nonsensical, since mutation is part of evolution. Mutations add diversity to a population and can be beneficial, neutral or deleterious. In other words, mutations can affect fitness. Individuals (and their genomes, which consist of genes and alleles both new and old) are selected based upon fitness.
It takes selection to bring about evolution... This is nonsensical. Evolution includes both mutation and selection - you can't redefine it.
...and selection is going to get rid of everything that isn't in the selected gene pool in order to bring about a new subspecies with new characteristics. Say what? Maybe you want to rephrase that.
The only evolution that happens is within a created Kind. You're talking religion, not science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Darwin's finches didn't need mutations, just the appearance of different beak types due to changed gene frequencies due to random selection of portions of the finch population. Then they gravitated to whatever food best suited their beak.
Nope, a created Kind is a physical reality. Religion is something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My claim is that ULTIMATELY, down a PARTICULAR LINE THAT IS EVOLVING (the clearest example of which is ring species), it has to end up at a point of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. How often this extreme situation occurs I have no idea but it is inevitable given the processes that bring about new subspecies.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: All that's happened is a bunch of utterly ridiculously stupid straw man "refutations" not one argument that even addressed the real issues in my argument. Your arguments have been shown baseless or wrong, not because they weren't understand, but because they were.
The argument about mutations did at least that much but everything since HBD and Percy got in on the act has been a bunch of weird attacks on straw men. Yes, we know, everybody's fault but yours. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Yeah the problem IS yours Percy, you fail to comprehend the simplest points, yes that is your fault. But probably not one you can do anything about if you even had a desire to. Time to end this charade. I think what you need to do is stop trying to find blame and instead try to find arguments that don't ignore known evidence, that are themselves based upon evidence, and that make sense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: My claim is that ULTIMATELY, down a PARTICULAR LINE THAT IS EVOLVING (the clearest example of which is ring species), it has to end up at a point of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. I just showed you that this is false. Want to see it again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think what YOU need to do is stop accusing me of everything in the book and think fairly about what I'm saying. You won't so go fly a kite, a really really big one that will carry you to the moon, how about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Follow the argument. You proved no such thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: Darwin's finches didn't need mutations,... Of course they did. These finches were blown to the islands from the mainland and possess genes and alleles not present in the most closely related mainland species.
...just the appearance of different beak types due to changed gene frequencies due to random selection of portions of the finch population. Research has demonstrated that the selection forces on Darwin's finches were distinctly non-random.
Then they gravitated to whatever food best suited their beak. Actually, just the opposite. Food availability drove selection.
Nope, a created Kind is a physical reality. Religion is something else. Now you're just in denial. You can't even define kind, let alone find its expression in "physical reality". --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nobody can define Kind because there's been too much change since Creation. But I have a functional definition which is more than anybody else has: the point at which selection depletes genetic diversity in an evolving population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course they did. These finches were blown to the islands from the mainland and possess genes and alleles not present in the most closely related mainland species. Different genes even? There are probably many genes that govern beak size and type that already existed in the genome, which is all it would have taken to produce any given beak type from simple population splits. The whole variety of beaks needs no mutations at all. If all the known skin colors are available from two genes of two alleles each, as I've shown many times before, there is no reason for any extra genes or alleles above and beyond those originally created to explain all the different beaks in the finch genome. The standard Darwinian explanation is that the food drove the selection. That is immensely costly and unnecessary, especially since all it takes is ordinary genetic recombination to produce every kind of beak for every kind of food. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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