|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 297 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Fith writes: Luckily for humanity reality does not care about what you claim to be your version of 'thinking'.
Which is all theoretical since I don't think even this much actually happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'm losing momentum and I think it's partly because I may have misunderstood something about your first example, the anagenesis example. ... Indeed, that appears to be the case.
ANYWAY. In the anagenesis example you have two separate daughter populations, ... Nope, there is only one daughter population. The parent population becomes the daughter population.
quote: This daughter population is different from the parent population due to the accumulation of mutations and the selection of more beneficial phenotypes generation after generation ... eg evolution over multiple generations.
... if the daughter populations are all reproductively isolated, ... This single daughter population is reproductively isolated from the parent population by time. It is important to understand that anagenesis can produce a new species - one that is different from the ancestral species (but related to it) -- but that the process is gradual change over many generations, making it difficult to point to a single generation and say that is where the change in species occurs. Genetically, each generation has a different gene pool to draw from -- due to mutations and selection -- and thus the genomes of the individuals are also different from those in the parent population as a result. This is not assumption, it is observed fact in all living species. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : subtby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What's been posted so far is explanations of what a nested hierarchy is, and I'm far from convinced you understand that.
THe data and how it's processed is far more that is realistic to explain in this medium and is widely scattered. Since you won't read black-on-white web pages, I don't know how to present it. Maybe others can think of a way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18056 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: It certainly matters for your argument.
quote: And more mutations will come along to replace them. That is what it means to have a constant stream. Again it all comes down to relative rates. Until you can address that properly - and you never have even though I brought it up right at the start - you don’t have a real argument.
quote: What matters far more than who you reply to is whether you produce real evidence - rather than taking the attitude that that is just for other people. You would think after all the years you’ve been pushing this argument that you would have something, but no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18056 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: Really ? You have evidence that a mechanism suddenly kicks in and prevents further mutations from happening ? Then why are we able to observe mutations happening ? Or is your “reality” just your fantasy ?
quote: Yes we do. The scotch fold cat is a recent example that we know to be a mutation. And again, it comes down to rates. Domestic breeding has a rapid rate of selection so it is not surprising that it goes faster than mutation - at least as far as obvious phenotypic changes go. That is exactly what we’d expect.
quote: If you consider a good number of centuries to be a short time - given ideal conditions.
quote: Are they a new species ? The last I heard nobody was claiming that.
quote: But they are not a new species at all.
quote: Aside from the fact that evolution obviously cannot sustain the rate of change we see in domestic breeding. Aside from the fact that species often last hundreds of thousands of years. Aside from the fact that suitable conditions for speciation are not so frequent. Ignorantly jumping to conclusions is hardly the way to get things right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Faith writes: That makes no sense, Taq, and I don't know what makes you persist in such an idea. Your posts support this idea. You said that the differences between the chimp and human genomes was due to mutations: "I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything." If mutations are not responsible for the differences between the human and chimp genomes, then you need to name this mechanism and explain how that mechanism predicts the patterns we see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Faith writes: Yes mutations add to genetic diversity and the formation of new species requires subtracting from it. Mutations don't stop happening after selection. They keep ticking away in each and every generation.
Mutations prevent a species from forming and destroy one that has already formed. That's entirely made up.
Yes, theoretically they could add a new trait, but in practice I don't think they even accomplish that much, Reality doesn't conform to what you think. We can sequence the genomes of parents and their children. In doing so, we can measure the rate of ongoing mutation which is about 100 mutations per person per generation. Would you agree that this happens? Would you like me to go through the scientific studies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18056 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: That’s pure crank nonsense.
quote: In other words the rate of mutations isn’t insanely high. That’s not exactly helping your case.
quote: Because why should you believe real examples ?
quote: Only if the rate was insanely high. And it isn’t.
quote: Have you noticed that pretty much all your arguments in this thread are theoretical ? And not even in a good way since you need to rely on dubious assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23167 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: You can't get "patterns of common ancestry" from random mutations. I didn't see any explanations for why this is wrong, so I'll add my own reply. Only an organism's descendants can have its particular random mutations. Your children will have roughly half your random mutations (the other half will come from their father). But your brothers and sisters will have none of your random mutations (assuming they're not identical twins), and hence your children's cousins (your nieces and nephews) will have none of your mutations. This distribution of random mutations through generations of descent, this pattern, is how we can determine degree of relatedness. A DNA analyst with only the DNA of your children and their cousins could determine the degree of relatedness and know who were brother and sister and who were cousins. They'd actually be using alleles to do the analysis, not recent mutations, but the principles are the same. This pattern of random mutations distributed among your family members is an example of a pattern. We can look for such patterns in the DNA of any life and determine degree of relatedness, though of course it would be through mutations that have established themselves in alleles. You might have heard about recent cases of police using online DNA databases at genealogical websites to solve old crimes. The pattern of alleles passed down through descent is what makes this possible. The same principles apply to determining the evolutionary relationships of species, which turns out to have a nested structure, just like families. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
She's saying that the nested hierarchy can't be created by mutations. So stupifyingly wrong that it's difficult to address.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2028 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
She's saying that the nested hierarchy can't be created by mutations.
I'll place a bet that she says you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
JonF writes: She's saying that the nested hierarchy can't be created by mutations. So stupifyingly wrong that it's difficult to address. Indeed. If Faith understood biology she would know that you can't have nested hierarchies without random mutations, along with vertical inheritance. If mutations were non-random then you would have the same mutations in different branches which don't follow a nested pattern. Random mutations create lineage specific change which is the basis for the nested hierarchies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... I don't think I really get why you make a distinction between it (anagensis) and the cladogenesis example. I mean, I see the differences, I just don't get why you think they are important. ... As noted in Message 482 anagenesis has only one daughter population, while cladogenesis has two (or more) daughter populations.
... while in the cladogenesis example you have two daughter populations that go on to form new daughter populations. ... This process can also take several generations, starting with separation of the parent breeding population into two or more sub-populations that don't interact due to isolation. These sub-populations may be capable of interbreeding if there is opportunity, even after several generations have past and they have accumulated different mutations in their gene pools. The results can vary from hybrids that are capable of reproduction -- and introduce hybrid vigor to the overall population (even create a new subspecies that is more fit than the original population) -- to offspring that are not capable of interbreeding (mules for example). Eventually, after many generations, the differences between the populations prevents interbreeding and they become different species (by definition).
... I just don't get why you think they are important. Except for the fact that the second example (cladogenesis) makes for a nested hierarchy, but then I don't see the importance of THAT yet either. The importance is that it shows how the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy as the pattern for the diversity of life as we know it, and thus when we see evidence of nested hierarchies we can say that the evidence is congruent with the theory of evolution.
... 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." ... Or gained in order to produce new species, via the production of new genetic diversity through mutations. In any event we have a pattern of lineal descent for anagenesis (where the breeding population changes over time and may become different enough to be classified as a new species), and we have a pattern of branching descent for cladogenesis (where reproductively isolated subpopulations evolve differently and become daughter populations, with new species). The branching pattern forms nested hierarchies, but the path of changes along any one branch is similar to what we see with anagenesis -- the evolution of the breeding populations over many generations. When we see these patterns we can say this evidence is congruent with the theory of evolution. These patterns of descent, with genetic markers added along the way (neutral mutations, retro-viral inserts, etc) would also be expected for descent from original created kinds ... if they are real. The problem with this is that the patterns we see all go back to an original life population of single cell life over 3.5 billion years ago, rather than ending with a set of several original created kinds. When we see these patterns extending all the way to the first life form on earth, we can say this evidence is NOT congruent with the theory of descent from original created kinds ... ... especially when we see this pattern extending further into the past than Young Earth fundamentalist believe is the age of the earth. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What matters far more than who you reply to is whether you produce real evidence - rather than taking the attitude that that is just for other people. This just caught my eye as I was scrolling through all the ignoring and trashing of everything I posted yesterday. As I think about it, RAZD did not offer any evidence for anything he said either. He gave illustrations, as did I, but no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18056 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: Your stuff is not being ignored and it deserves to be trashed.
quote: RAZD is mainly explaining. But it is a fact that our side has produced evidence - and you have produced none of any worth. You would think that after years of repeating the same argument you would have more than opinions at odds with the evidence and reason. But you don’t. And that is why it is a very bad argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025