Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 466 of 785 (855924)
06-24-2019 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Faith
06-24-2019 5:20 PM


Faith writes:
No need for mutation, there's plenty of variation built into the genome of each species to account for all the phenomena that wrongly get attributed to mutations just because they seem to be needed by the ToE.
So are mutations responsible for the differences, or not? You seem to be bouncing between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 5:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 7:02 PM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 467 of 785 (855926)
06-24-2019 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by AZPaul3
06-24-2019 5:53 PM


deep ancestry?
Then what is it in creation theory that could cause the appearance of such deep common ancestry?
I can only assume it's a sort of illusion created by the design method but it might be worth taking a closer look at the supposed evidence some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2019 5:53 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 7:08 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 468 of 785 (855927)
06-24-2019 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Taq
06-24-2019 6:07 PM


Your model would require the chimp and human genome to be identical at the beginning of creation.
That makes no sense, Taq, and I don't know what makes you persist in such an idea. They are separate and different Creations/Kinds.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Taq, posted 06-24-2019 6:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Taq, posted 06-25-2019 11:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 469 of 785 (855928)
06-24-2019 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Taq
06-24-2019 6:09 PM


I don't see any "bouncing." You all claim at least that a mutation here and there can be shown to have made a difference so I accept it to that very limited extent on your say-so but there is no need for mutations at all and if an occasional one does something useful I figure well it's just a string of chemicals so it could come up with a useful string by accident from time to time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Taq, posted 06-24-2019 6:09 PM Taq has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 470 of 785 (855929)
06-24-2019 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Faith
06-24-2019 6:56 PM


Re: deep ancestry?
Far too much agreeing data and agreeing methods for it to be an illusion. 2.3 million species fitting the hierarchy. Two separate methods for constructing the hierarchy that agree just short of perfectly.
You'll never look at the data, and if you did your unshakable anti-reality filter would prevent understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 6:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 7:53 PM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 471 of 785 (855932)
06-24-2019 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Continuing with message 431.
But there is another mechanism to macroevolution that causes the nested hierarchies and that is cladogenesis, or divergent speciation:
The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
I use this situation all the time for discussing how reproductive isolation of a daughter population brings about new phenotypes by requiring the reduction of genetic diversity. I usually just suppose one such isolated daughter population but the same thing can be discussed for two or more.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Sounds to me llke you've never even seen my many discussions of this very phenomenon although you have expressed annoyance at my frequently repeating it. Perhaps this is because you can only think in terms of your own scenario as you describe it above. So I'll break it down and discuss it in pieces:
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations .
The loss of gene flow, between the daughter populations as well as between the daughter and parent populations, is what I keep describing as reproductive isolation, which it is, and the whole point is that the new population breeds only within itself, combining its own separate set of gene frequencies, NOT MUTATIONS. the different "evolutionary responses" are the formation of completely different phenotypes within each subpopulation. (There could also be a change in the parent population depending on how large it is, that is, how much it lost to the daughter populations). YOU DO NOT NEED MUTATIONS FOR EVEN VERY DRAMATIC PHENOTYPIC CHANGES TO OCCUR IN A DAUGHTER POPULATION IF ITS GENE FREQUENCIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PARENT POPULATION. BOTH DAUGHTER POULATIONS MAY DEVELOP STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPIC PRESENTATIONS OVER MANY GENERATIONS OF BREEDING ONLY WITHIN THEMSELVES.
Again, you ASSUME mutations, they are not necessary, and if any are present you are not demonstrating that they are. In any case the dramatic changes that may occur do not depend on anything but the changed gene frequencies, no mutations are needed for that to happen. If you have a large enough original population you could have many daughter populations that each develop strikingly different phenotypes in reproductive isolation.
Such as the case of the Jutland cattle which was a herd that broke into four separate isolated populations and developed into completely different "species" or "breeds" in a matter of years, just enough generations to thoroughly mix the gene frequencies possessed by each separate population.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations....
In other words over these generations ORDINARY SEXUAL RECOMBINATION OF THE NEW SET OF GENE FREQUENCIES, quite apart from any supposed ecological pressures, since nothing but the gene frequencies is necessary and nothing extra to bring about the changes you are talking about... the recombination of the different gene frequencies/"different hereditary traits available within each of the daughter poContinuing with message 431.
But there is another mechanism to macroevolution that causes the nested hierarchies and that is cladogenesis, or divergent speciation:
The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
I use this situation all the time for discussing how reproductive isolation of a daughter population brings about new phenotypes by requiring the reduction of genetic diversity. I usually just suppose one such isolated daughter population but the same thing can be discussed for two or more.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Sounds to me llke you've never even seen my many discussions of this very phenomenon although you have expressed annoyance at my frequently repeating it. Perhaps this is because you can only think in terms of your own scenario as you describe it above. So I'll break it down and discuss it in pieces:
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations .
The loss of gene flow, between the daughter populations as well as between the daughter and parent populations, is what I keep describing as reproductive isolation, which it is, and the whole point is that the new population breeds only within itself, combining its own separate set of gene frequencies, NOT MUTATIONS. the different "evolutionary responses" are the formation of completely different phenotypes within each subpopulation. (There could also be a change in the parent population depending on how large it is, that is, how much it lost to the daughter populations). YOU DO NOT NEED MUTATIONS FOR EVEN VERY DRAMATIC PHENOTYPIC CHANGES TO OCCUR IN A DAUGHTER POPULATION IF ITS GENE FREQUENCIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PARENT POPULATION. BOTH DAUGHTER POULATIONS MAY DEVELOP STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPIC PRESENTATIONS OVER MANY GENERATIONS OF BREEDING ONLY WITHIN THEMSELVES.
Again, you ASSUME mutations, they are not necessary, and if any are present you are not demonstrating that they are. In any case the dramatic changes that may occur do not depend on anything but the changed gene frequencies, no mutations are needed for that to happen. If you have a large enough original population you could have many daughter populations that each develop strikingly different phenotypes in reproductive isolation.
Such as the case of the Jutland cattle which was a herd that broke into four separate isolated populations and developed into completely different "species" or "breeds" in a matter of years, just enough generations to thoroughly mix the gene frequencies possessed by each separate population.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations....
In other words over these generations ORDINARY SEXUAL RECOMBINATION OF THE NEW SET OF GENE FREQUENCIES, quite apart from any supposed ecological pressures, since nothing but the gene frequencies is necessary and nothing extra to bring about the changes you are talking about... the recombination of the different gene frequencies -- or in your words, the "different hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations".... brings about a new "species" or a population with shared characteristics that are different from those of the parent population and any other daughter population or populations. ALL BECAUSE OF THE NEW GENE FREQUENCIES. Without mutations, without any ecological or other environmental input. JUST THE GENE FREQUENCIES.
. ...I'm suddenly getting very sleepy. Happens to me a lot lately because I don't sleep much at night. Hits me suddenly and hard. So I have to quit for a while even though it's not a good time as far as the content goes. I'll have to come back to it later.
[qs] and when these differences ...
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2019 9:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 472 of 785 (855933)
06-24-2019 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by JonF
06-24-2019 7:08 PM


Re: deep ancestry?
So please present the evidence again. I suspect the "fit" is subjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 7:08 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by JonF, posted 06-25-2019 10:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 473 of 785 (855940)
06-24-2019 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
More from message 431.
By the way I found a solution to the problem of the glaring charts: I copied them into Word, increased their size and printed them out.
==========================
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs...
I answered the first part in the previous post by giving my view that the differences that accumulate between the different daughter populations don't require ecological pressures, or mutations, but only their respective set of gene frequencies. Nothing else is needed for each to produce its own completely different appearance after enough generations of breeding within the population.
Now you are saying that there is some "critical level" that gets reached when interbreeding stops? Why would there be any "critical level" anyway, and what is that critical level? Why would that happen? Even after the gene frequencies of the new population are thoroughly blended so that its a very homogeneous population (is this the critical level?) distinct from the other daughter populations and the parent population, interbreeding certainly continues, why not?
...then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred.
OK, then you do mean the critical level is the point at which the population is now genetically blended to the point of having a homogenous appearance. You don't seem to be aware that I've discussed this whole process many many times by the way.
After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the others.
Why "after this?" It's BEEN microevolving all along, since the split and isolation event that started the differentiation between the various populations.
These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
Right, except it's only the working through of a set of gene frequencies to develop a particular variation of a particular species, so that to call it "speciation" rather blurs the reality of what is happening. In a way it makes sense to call it that because you do now have a distinctive new population, like a dog breed or a cattle breed though formed in the wild, but since such terms falsely feed the assumptions of the ToE it's a deception.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
Yes but you think those processes involve mutations and ecological pressures and so on and so forth, while I'm at pains to point out that none of that is necessary, that normal sexual recombination of existing alleles in a new set of gene frequencies within each new population, is all that is required to bring out the new phenotypes, and some number of generations of interbreeding is all that is required to work them through the population until it has the homogeneous appearance of a new "species." Like the blue wildebeests that went through this process after breaking off from the main herd.
With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
But now this really does come across as trivial, since I've been describing these very events in the formation of new "species" or subpopulations for years now, and the mere fact that if you group them in relation to the parent population they form this nesting phenomenon doesn't say much about any of this. What I'm always focused on is the fact that the very processes of evolution that form such new daughter populations ALWAYS REQUIRE REDUCED GENETIC VARIABILITY, and that this fact HAS TO LEAD EVENTUALLY to a point where further evolution becomes impossible. And again, if you add mutations you do nothing but contribute to the pool from which the subtraction or selection process has to occur in order for the evolution to happen at all, so mutations accomplish absolutely nothing toward saving the day for the ToE.
So even if you could have a long series of daughter populations branching off a parent population, eventually they have to run out of the genetic stuff which makes evolution possible at all, and again, mutation can't prevent this from happening. At best it could put it off for a short period, but I don't even think that happens. Again consider domestic breeding. You get your breed, you get a purebred maybe, what happens if you get a mutation at that point? Well, you'll either want to incorporate it into your breed or you'll want to get rid of it. You have that choice by how you select breeding partners at that point. In the wild that mutation will probably get selected out, but if by chance it multiplies and survives maybe it will become a trait in the new population. A TRAIT, one single trait. And I doubt even that much happens. To hold onto the curled ear mutation that shows up occasionally in cats required a lot of careful breeding, and in the wild it's just going to throw away that kind of mutation. It may still show up here and there down the generations, but the odds are it isn't going to become part of the characteristic phenotype. (And by the way I still doubt that's a mutation, I suspect it's the result of something that happens in the normal processes of breeding when a particular trait gets multiplied, in this case a weakness in the cartilage, and shows up once in a great while for that reason. Yes, I know I'm a pain.)
Now you're going to go on to talk about one of the diagrams I think so I'll stop here for now.
ABE: Oh goody: Dr. Adequate just showed up, the EvC expert on the curled ear "mutation" so I'm probably in for some very clever insults.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2019 12:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 475 by Pressie, posted 06-25-2019 5:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 516 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2019 11:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 474 of 785 (855942)
06-25-2019 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
06-24-2019 11:12 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
There are a lot of assertions there but no real evidence.
quote:
So even if you could have a long series of daughter populations branching off a parent population, eventually they have to run out of the genetic stuff which makes evolution possible at all, and again, mutation can't prevent this from happening. At best it could put it off for a short period, but I don't even think that happens.
The pocket mice demonstrate that mutation can produce new selectable variation. Your assertions don’t even make sense. Even if evolution did reduce a species to being genetically homogenous- something we have never seen - new variations would still allow evolution to proceed. Why should we accept your unsupported opinion when it defies evidence and reason ?
quote:
Again consider domestic breeding. You get your breed, you get a purebred maybe, what happens if you get a mutation at that point? Well, you'll either want to incorporate it into your breed or you'll want to get rid of it. You have that choice by how you select breeding partners at that point. In the wild that mutation will probably get selected out, but if by chance it multiplies and survives maybe it will become a trait in the new population. A TRAIT, one single trait.
The obvious error here is that you are considering only one mutation when there is a constant stream of mutations arriving. Whether a species becomes “genetically depleted”, as you put it is down to rates as I have explained from the very start. That is obvious from the mathematics. But you don’t supply any evidence that the rate of mutation is low enough to support your claim - and the evidence we have says that there is no “genetic depletion” except in species that have undergone unusually severe bottlenecks.
quote:
To hold onto the curled ear mutation that shows up occasionally in cats required a lot of careful breeding, and in the wild it's just going to throw away that kind of mutation. It may still show up here and there down the generations, but the odds are it isn't going to become part of the characteristic phenotype. (And by the way I still doubt that's a mutation, I suspect it's the result of something that happens in the normal processes of breeding when a particular trait gets multiplied, in this case a weakness in the cartilage, and shows up once in a great while for that reason. Yes, I know I'm a pain.)
If that were true then the trait would be very hard to breed. It isn’t. If all you have is speculations untempered by the evidence - which appears to be the case - then you lose. Because we do have evidence and reason on our side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 11:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 6:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 475 of 785 (855946)
06-25-2019 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
06-24-2019 11:12 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
This one is funny.
Faith writes:
Now you are saying that there is some "critical level" that gets reached when interbreeding stops? Why would there be any "critical level" anyway, and what is that critical level?
Yip. It's called extinction. Plenty of evidence for those in the fossil record.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 11:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 476 of 785 (855949)
06-25-2019 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
More on 431.
I'm losing momentum and I think it's partly because I may have misunderstood something about your first example, the anagenesis example. I don't think I really get why you make a distinction between it and the cladogenesis example. I mean, I see the differences, I just don't get why you think they are important. Except for the fact that the second example makes for a nested hierarchy, but then I don't see the importance of THAT yet either.
ANYWAY. In the anagenesis example you have two separate daughter populations, while in the cladogenesis example you have two daughter populations that go on to form new daughter populations. That could happen just as well in the first example, couldn't it? Anyway I don't really see the importance of this distinction. if the daughter populations are all reproductively isolated, which I realize may not be perfectly realized in reality but even partial isolation will bring about phenotypic changes... Anyway these daughter populations are what I'm always talking about in discussing how genetic diversity has to be lost in order to produce a new "species."
But this is just an interim post because I'm not up to more at the moment. So I'll be back later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2019 8:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 493 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2019 3:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 477 of 785 (855954)
06-25-2019 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by PaulK
06-25-2019 12:25 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Doesn't matter how many mutations there are, anything that adds to the genetic diversity has to be reduced/selected/subtracted/depleted or whatnot in order to get new phenotypes or a new "species." But I'm not going to spend time on your posts in this thread, at least not yet. I've got enough to do dealing with RAZD's
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2019 12:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Pressie, posted 06-25-2019 7:01 AM Faith has replied
 Message 484 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2019 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 478 of 785 (855958)
06-25-2019 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
06-25-2019 6:04 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Faith writes:
Doesn't matter how many mutations there are, anything that adds to the genetic diversity has to be reduced/selected/subtracted/depleted or whatnot in order to get new phenotypes or a new "species." But I'm not going to spend time on your posts in this thread, at least not yet. I've got enough to do dealing with RAZD's
Nope. All mutations add to genetic diversity. Every mutation. Big or small.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 6:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 7:08 AM Pressie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 479 of 785 (855959)
06-25-2019 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
06-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
In the case of separately created Kinds, however, there would be no older parent ancestor species before the original created Kind. AND, as I've been arguing, there wouldn't be anything further either, AFTER a certain number of daughter populations have formed, because each population has to reduce genetic variability in order to develop as a species distinct from both the parent population and the other daughter populations. If there is a lot of genetic diversity it will take longer than if there isn't a lot, but the end result is inevitable if the series continues.
PaulK argues that there is a "steady stream of mutations" that should supposedly prevent this from happening, but that's really a pipe dream. It doesn't happen in reality. If it did we'd see it in domestic breeding series and we don't. In the wild the development of one species from another isn't going to take much longer either: it only takes whatever time is needed to produce enough generations to blend the new gene frequencies from any founding group. That can happen in a matter of years, the same way the Pod Mrcaru lizards were a brand new species after thirty years, that had been built from only five pairs of founders, and thirty years is probably just when they were found, not a measure of how long it took. And the Jutland cattle formed their four new populations in a matter of years too. (The common idea that evolution takes millions of years is clearly nonsensical in light of the actual time it takes to form a new species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution.
Well in the examples given there is nothing but microevolution happening. Daughter populations may increase in PHENOTYPIC diversity, certainly, but for that to happen genetic diversity has to be reduced and eventually severely reduced as new populations develop from previous populations.
This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.
Note that because each lineage going backwards in time has the same evolutionary constraints on the inheritance of traits parent populations that are seen in anagensis:
Population D will have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits.
See my discussion above of your similar points for the earlier example. What's happening is normal sexual recombination from species to species and of course the first new population will have more recognizable traits from the parent population, and new gene frequencies that form as the series progress will be using the recombined genes of the second and later populations. Same situation as what I describe above. It's all a matter of a new set of gene frequencies occurring with the founding of each new population/species, simply the result of a new set of individuals with their own unique set of alleles.
Population E will also have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D.
Population F will also have some traits from A and B plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D and E and they will not have any traits from C or its descendants.
Population H will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E and F and they will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.
Population I will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E, F and H and they too will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.
insofar as you've accurately described the sequence this is all the result of different founding sets of gene frequencies for each new population/species. Nothing new has to occur, no mutations, just recombinations of the alleles that existed in the original/parent population.
This is the basics of a nested hierarchy:
C and its descendants D and E form a clade that is nested under B.
B and its descendants C (with its descendants D and E) and F form a clade that is nested under A.
G and its descendants H and I form a clade that is nested under A.
Finally A, B and G (with their descendants) form a clade that includes all the descendant populations in the pattern shown.
Again, this is the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution, and thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution.
I'm afraid I don't see any importance to such a pattern still, even if it does occur. I don't see how it is "predicted" by the ToE either. I can't imagine how it could be seen in the fossil record at all, and I certainly can't see how it's "congruent" or in any way validates the ToE.
This pattern should also hold for kinds, each reproducing according to their kind,
OK, but again it just seems circumstantial rather than of any importance.
...however they should terminate in the past with original created kinds rather than continue to fit into nested hierarchies until all life is related on one original populations (LUCA) as a prediction of the Theory of Evolution.
Yes they should begin with the original Kind and as I say above, they should also end when the continuing evolution of new populations/species runs out of genetic variability.
This creates a distinguishing test between the theory of evolution and the theory of descent from kinds.
Maybe it's because I interpret the processes involved so differently than you do, but I don't see this at all.
...normal sexual recombination is quite enough to produce the changes you are talking about, you don't need mutations as well, so I'd guess the mutations are also an assumption and not actually observed.
The only mechanisms of macroevolution are microevolution and time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.
This, however, is clearly a failed assumption because nothing you've shown above demonstrates anything but normal microevolution through sexual recombination from population to population until a particular lineage runs out of genetic variability.
It is not assumption to see the evidence of nested hierarchies in the objective empirical evidence from the fossil record and the DNA/genetic record. It is not assumption to see that these records match in their formation of nested hierarchies, and it is not assumption to see that no stopping at created kinds is observed.
The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is congruent with the theory of evolution.
The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is NOT congruent with the theory of descent from kinds, because no multiple created kinds have singular starting points (creation) with no older ancestors that have common ancestors with other lineages.
Hardly trivial, IMHO.
I guess you think you've demonstrated all this but all I see is the usual ways a given species or Kind varies from population to population creating new varieties by losing genetic diversity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2019 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2019 11:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 517 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2019 1:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 480 of 785 (855960)
06-25-2019 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by Pressie
06-25-2019 7:01 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
Yes mutations add to genetic diversity and the formation of new species requires subtracting from it. Mutations prevent a species from forming and destroy one that has already formed. But nature produces new species so we can assume that mutations don't occur in any numbers or patterns that keep preventing or destroying them. Yes, theoretically they could add a new trait, but in practice I don't think they even accomplish that much, but if they do nevertheless they do prevent a species from forming or destroy one that has formed so all you get, maybe, is a new trait or set of traits in your new species. Which is all theoretical since I don't think even this much actually happens.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Pressie, posted 06-25-2019 7:01 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Pressie, posted 06-25-2019 7:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 487 by Taq, posted 06-25-2019 11:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 488 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2019 11:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024