Error 1: Genes are not governed by the genome. Genes change and enter/leave the population's genome based on usage and fecundity.
You mean they may die out altogether I would assume. In my understanding that means they join the other gene corpses as Junk DNA. Otherwise how does a gene "enter or leave" the population. It has a space on the DNA chain, right? Does something just snip it off completely? Not that I've ever understood.
Alleles or particular forms of a gene may pair up to make a homozygous product, which if mutations attack it too heavily over time, may actually kill it altogether and effectively kill the whole gene. That's just chance working in mutations, nothing to do with "usage or fecundity," which I assume to be a fantasy explanation either you or something you read made up.
Error 2: The genome does what the genes that make it up produce. When a large proportion of the genes change the genome is different.
Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether. The basic function of the gene would remain in all cases to be the way a particular trait in the creature is formed. The trait may be unaffected by a mutation, or become a disease, or may just die because the mutated sequence formed can't function at all.
The genome is not a static set of alleles but a constant flow of alleles into and out of the population.
Each gene originally has two forms or alleles. Mutations, which are mistakes and not natural phenomena, alter them, usually/always not for the better. Alleles may be lost to a particular population just because they are few in comparison to other genes which then dominate in that population. That's the only way I can see that there is a 'constant flow of alleles into and out of the population." There are many populations with different sets of alleles. These are new "gene frequencies" or "allele frequencies." The new frequencies are the cause of new traits developing in isolated populations of a given species. Drift is the only way this happens within a given population. the more common way is due to geographic isolation of a portion of the population.
Error 3: New alleles are not built into the genome. Novel combinations of nucleobases alter existing alleles and produce new alleles thus producing new novel proteins. There is no limiting factor that could keep a species genome from the chemical alterations/production of novel alleles. From there the only limiting factor to the use/demise of novel alleles is what those novel alleles do to the fecundity of the resultant phenotype.
The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait. As I think of it, over time mutations have killed off something like 95 percent of the functioning genes, which have become the Junk DNA cemetery as it were in every genome. The amount of variability has thus been severely decreased in that time. Meanwhile all the "new" alleles formed by mutations either do not change the protein product or the trait it produces, or they produce a disease, or they kill the allele and therefore in most cases the whole gene which becomes Junk DNA. You really don't get NEW alleles that do new things at all. You get new sequences that don't change the product or deform it or kill it.
And your whole scenario is pure fantasy or speculation, you have NO evidence for it. Like the ToE in general it's just wishful thinking.
You already acknowledge micro-evolutionary change. Slightly longer/shorter sharper/duller teeth, slightly longer/shorter stronger/weaker arms/legs. The same variation exists for every trait you care to mention. When populations split along geographic lines or into new habitats these variations are exacerbated by the environment leading over many thousands of generations to an organism so drastically different from its ancestors as to be called a different species.
No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome. You can get some pretty dramatic changes from geographic isolation but only within what the gene does in combination with all the other genes that affect the new phenotypes. And this has nothing whatever to do with the "environment" as you claim -- that is classic ToE but it's false -- the changes are all due to reproductive isolation. Darwin got dramatic changes in his pigeons by reproductively isolating each generation, meaning by selecting for mating the birds with the trait he wanted to develop, but he never got anything but a drastic variation in a particular trait. If he bred for large chests he got larger and larger chests and the same with whatever other trait he chose to select for. He never got anything but a variation on the chest of the bird or whatever other trait he chose to breed. This principle is amply demonstrating in any breeding program for any animal. No environmental factor has any part in forming the dramatic changes you can get just by selecting a particular set of traits or a single trait to breed. If you get a mutation somewhere in the lineage you may choose to incorporate it, emphasize it or breed it out. But otherwise the process is just a matter of reproductive isolation of the chosen trait. This is also how the large heads and jaws of the new population of lizards developed in reproductive isolation on the island of Pod Mrcaru over a mere thirty years. Evos may fool themselves that they formed due to something in the environment but all that had to happen is having more alleles for that trait in the overall population, that is, a gene frequency different in that respect from that of the parent population they came from, that over those thirty years of breeding among themselves in isolation brought out those large heads and jaws.
Further, as that new population differentiates, splits, and differentiates still more over millions of years, the resultant phenotypes are so different from the original population that we classify these as a new genus. And the process continues without the limits you impose (and cannot show to exist).
Nice presentation of the evo belief system but that is not what happens and in fact it couldn't happen. All that ever happens is new combinations of existing alleles and that alone, depending on the amount of genetic variability left {ha ha ha, the mad baby political censor can't differentiate between different uses of a word} REMAINING in the population, can continue to produce some dramatic new phenotypes. It won't take long, however, in the usual scenario, for the variability to reduce to the point that you can't get any new variations at all. You've reached the point of "purebred" where most of the genes are homozygous for the salient traits. If the reduction in variability has not produced too great a disease element in the population, which usually happens with purebreds as you know, then that population may continue to produce offspring. The cheetah is an example although it does have a disease process that compromises its ability to reproduce: it can't produce anything but a cheetah with its severely limited genetic variability however. And the elephant seal seems to have enough vigor despite its drastically reduced genetic variability to go on producing new generations that are near clones of each other. That's what happens in any series of geographic selections too: the fewer individuals that are the founders of a population, or the condition of the genetic variability among whatever number of founders there may be, the less and less genetic variability you are going to get. You cannot possibly get from this condition to some hypothetical population millions of years from now. All you are getting is reduced genetic variability and that's all you can ever get. If there is vigor in the species nevertheless it may go on reproducing and increasing in numbers anyway for many generations, but not over millions of years.
From a Triassic rodent differentiating, splitting and differentiating more we get dogs, cats, moose, bear and whales after 200 million years.
Can't happen, AZ, it's genetically impossible as I've outlined above and many many times on many other threads as well. It's sheer Evo Fantasy. All you can ever get is new combinations of the existing alleles, with the occasional mutation thrown in which does more harm than good in most cases. Alleles for the traits of a Triassic rodent can't become alleles for dogs, moose, bear and whales, and the rodent would be extinct long before it produced anything but a rodent anyway, and since it's going to start producing genetically depleted rodents over time it may become extinct long before it gets to ten thousands of years let alone hundreds of millions.
ABE: You think you answered my question but you didn't. As usual you merely asserted the theory of how it would happen but you did not explain how it could happen genetically which was my question. You have to explain how you get from that rodent genome to, oh pick one, a dog genome. Show how you get genetically from any given rodent trait to a dog trait of your choice. What specific genetic changes have to happen in the genome? And these would have to be produced by mutations, wouldn't they? How do you get a mutation to change the function of a gene instead of not changing it at all or creating a disease or killing it? You've got to spell out the sequence of changes required and explain how they could happen genetically /abe
And that's just mammals. The same for all the other life systems from insect to reptilians ... and this on steroids for bacterium.
You have been told how it all works. You no longer have recourse to say your question has not been answered.
You disagree with the answer, of course, but that is based on your religious motivation not any demonstrable facts.
There are no limits over time to changes in alleles, genes, genomes. Micro-evolution operating in disparate environments times millions of generations produces everything.
Pure fantasy, AZ. You've given the ToE belief system and I've explained why it can't happen, and it has nothing whatever to do with my religion but just with thinking through how variations develop within the genome of any species and can't form anything outside that genome. I have to assume you will continue to impose your fantasy scenario on me anyway, way it goes, but you are wrong and I've said here how you are wrong.
You're smart. May I suggest that you use your smarts to try really hard to follow my thinking here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
