|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Indeed, microevolution is one part of macroevolution, and the other part is time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution. But this is just the ToE assumption. ... Nope, it is an observed fact.
... In reality microevolution can't lead to macroevolution because the processes of variation require the loss of genetic variability. Domestic breeding always seems to be the best illustration: You can't get a Great Dane without losing most of the genetic material for Dachsunds and Chihuahuas and Golden Retrievers. When Darwin formulated his theory based on Natural Selection he assumed it was open ended and didn't realize it requires genetic loss, and neither does anyone today it seems. ... Because this is a falsified idea. Actual observations show mutations add to genetic variation and cause beneficial phenotypes that expand the opportunities for the species. Pocket mice for example: mutation caused dark form which can survive in lava beds where tan form is easy prey, while the dark form are easy prey in the sandy areas inhabited by the tan mice.
... You all talk about Natural Selection as if it could add something or at least not subtract, I guess because it does result in new phenotypes, but it HAS to subtract. ... Nope. There is no evidence that supports your assertion and there is evidence that falsifies it. This idée fixe (an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period : obsession) is one of your biggest stumbling blocks in understanding how evolution actually works.
Getting a new population with new characteristics either in breeding or in the wild requires loss. That's what selection IS and DOES, ... Selection in the pocket mice (with a new character) required an added trait -- dark fur -- for the pocket mice to exist in the lava beds.
... In a ring species what REALLY happens is that a population multiplies for some time and then individuals migrate from it to a new location and start a new population. These individuals carry a new set of gene frequencies from the set that formed the first population, ... ... including new genes due to mutations since the time of leaving the first population ...
... so if they are have reproductive isolation, which may not be perfect but for the sake of discussion we can assume it is, then after some generations of breeding within this new population you'll have a completely new "species" that may have some dramatic new characteristics simply because it is combining a new and probably smaller set of alleles. ... ... and because mutations continue to occur in all populations, generation after generation ...
... It can probably interbreed with the original population. For a while. The longer the isolation lasts the more likely hybridization becomes less viable.
And then after this second population is well established and its numbers have grown a great deal, ... ... and they continue to accumulate new mutations that are not found in the original population, increasing the variation in this second population ...
... individuals migrate away from it and establish a third population and the process repeats: new phenotypes from new gene frequencies and NO mutations necessary at all. Wrong. Mutations happen, and they cause shifts in the variations in each population. Isolated populations variations shift in different ways from each other. This idée fixe (an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period : obsession) is one of your biggest stumbling blocks in understanding how evolution actually works. Consider descent from (undefined) kinds -- it doesn't matter if mutations are involved, you still have every breeding population reproducing according to the gene pool of that population, whether mutations are involved or not. One could even argue that mutations are alterations to the created kinds after (due to) the fall.
And of course all this is microevolution, ... ALL evolution is microevolution. Over time the accumulation of new traits (each one due to microevolution) is sufficient to say a new species has evolved ... and that is all that macroevolution is. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. ... But they do change the genotype and they do add to the pool of hereditary DNA for a breeding population. Yes, but again, adding to the genotype doesn't change the phenotype, which is what you are more or less acknowledging here. You have to subtract to get new phenotypes. When you add mutations you may or may not get a new allele, usually all you get doesn't change the phenotype at all, and if you do get something new it's only going to be a variation on what the gene already does. .. Changing the genotype means then genome changes. Selection occurs on the phenotype ... unless the genetic changes are deleterious. Genetic changes that cause different fur color are due to genes being expressed in the phenotype and, in pocket mice, lead to differential selection of the mice depending on habitat (sand or lava beds).
Anyway, ADDING to the pool of alleles, even if mutations did do that, which is highly suspect to my mind, ... Just to repeat, it takes SUBTRACTION of alleles to get new phenotypes. Evolution can go from phenotype B to A just as easily as it can go from phenotype A to B, because A = B + ΔMutations, because ΔMutations can be positive or negative.
And that also means that they can be included in later mutations (as is true for all mutations that don't kill the bearer). "Can," but not likely. And yet the evidence shows this happening over and over and over in the lineages of species, where every species changes over generations. Pelycodus is a good example here, where the population increases in size generation after generation.
In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm. Which fails to explain the e-coli citrus experiment beneficial results. That's still an accident to my mind, as would be the very occasional similar function brought about by a mutation in other creatures. ... Random mutations are accidental by definition. That doesn't mean they don't occur, and that doesn't mean they are not beneficial. It certainly doesn't mean that new traits are not developed this way. 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 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence of genetic loss through evolution is in domestic breeding where it's obvious that you can't get your chosen breed without losing all the genetic material for anything that would interfere with it. That could actually sum up the whole method of domestic breeding: eliminating everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits. It's good evidence and it has to apply to the development of species in the wild too, but I realize that since the ToE depends on increase rather than decrease I'll just continue to be trashed for saying it. I've also of course many times given the example of the cheetah and the elephant seals, and those are rejected too. I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does? There are other places I can take the argument. But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes.
So unless I get a second wind there's no point in continuing with this predictable futility. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Faith writes: The evidence of genetic loss through evolution is in domestic breeding where it's obvious that you can't get your chosen breed without losing all the genetic material for anything that would interfere with it. Mutations would start occurring right after the genetic bottleneck. This would start increasing genetic variation over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, it doesn't happen and isn't going to happen but I guess that doesn't deter you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Faith writes: Well, it doesn't happen and isn't going to happen but I guess that doesn't deter you. All vertebrates are born with mutations. The process never stops. If you think I am wrong, then please cite studies showing that when a breed is formed they all stop producing mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As a rule mutations do not show up to change the traits of purebred animals, and I suppose if it happens it gets weeded out of the population anyway. And of course we know the cheetah is still waiting for the mutation that could save it from extinction, and while the elephant seals seem to be doing fine even with their depleted genetic diversity so they aren't desperate for a mutation, as far as I know none has shown up in their population anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Faith writes: As a rule mutations do not show up to change the traits of purebred animals, and I suppose if it happens it gets weeded out of the population anyway. Or, the new mutation can be the basis of a new breed. Either way, mutations continue to happen and increase variation.
And of course we know the cheetah is still waiting for the mutation that could save it from extinction, and while the elephant seals seem to be doing fine even with their depleted genetic diversity so they aren't desperate for a mutation, as far as I know none has shown up in their population anyway. Please show that new mutations are not happening in those populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course. This is the normal result of sexual recombination from generation to generation. But this does require some degree of isolation from the parent population because if interbreeding is maintained among all the generations although there should be some change it shouldn't be dramatic because the parent's genes are always getting redistributed into the mix. ... The isolation from the parent population is due to time -- the individuals of the parent population die off leaving descendants to carry on. Each generation has mutations that make their generation's gene pool different from their ancestral gene pool. The each generation's genes are always getting redistributed into the mix based on their gene pool, including the mutations their parents did not have. This means that the species necessarily changes over time in small ways and sometimes, occasionally, in big ways, as mutations accumulate. This is observe in all living species.
When you give processes a formal name it may imply something more than is actually going on. All you are describing seems to be the normal effect of sexual recombination within a large population. It does produce genetic and phenotypic changes from generation to generation. But even this process is the result of some form of selection or isolation, i.e. subtraction of some genetic material allowing other combinations to be expressed. ... And addition of some genetic material allowing new combinations to be expressed. The pattern of new genetic material (mutations) can be tracked and the evidence it shows is the evidence of ancestry from a parent population. The parent population cannot have the mutations in the descendant populations because they are isolated by time. The child cannot give birth to the parent, cannot give them their mutations. They can only give their mutations to their descendants.
... This wouldn't be the case with human populations, though, but it should be the case with most animal populations. Except that it is observed in humans.
When you give processes a formal name it may imply something more than is actually going on. All you are describing seems to be the normal effect of sexual recombination within a large population. It does produce genetic and phenotypic changes from generation to generation. But even this process is the result of some form of selection or isolation, i.e. subtraction of some genetic material allowing other combinations to be expressed. But in a large population where each generation will interbreed among themselves there's going to be a lot of redistribution of the genes from the parent population anyway. I guess this is a form of "evolution" but of course a mild form of microevolution. Naming it implies something more than that: Phyletic speciation, anagenesis, or arbitrary speciation, these terms imply something more is going on than just the normal changes from generation to generation. ... The names are used to describe the process of evolution occurring over multiple generations. Microevolutionary changes occurring from generation to generation, each one with different gene pools that include mutations.
... The term "speciation" suggests the usual ToE assumption that if we just keep going and going and going we'll get s completely new species rather than just new variations on the same species. New species have been observed, so this is congruent with the theory of evolution.
... which I assume could be tracked from generation to generation as you suggest, showing changes with each generation. **** the blue wildebeests that must have wandered away from the main herd of black wildebeests and after some generations of breeding in isolation produced their bluish hide and smaller body type and different kind of antlers. That's all it takes, RAZD, you don't need mutations, all you need is isolation of a new set of gene frequencies to get interesting new "species" or variations. Except that (A) the bluish wildebeests is the "common wildebeest" with 5 living subspecies, while the black wildebeest appears to have evolved from the bluish wildebeest to become a distinct species around a million years ago, in the mid- to late Pleistocene. and (B) they also have an ancestral record of mutations that the black wildebeests don't have ... and vice versa because of time spent in reproductive isolation. An ancestral record of mutations that is congruent with the theory of evolution.
The oldest in the lineage would be the parent population, and each following generation would be their descendants. The first generation of descendants would have ancestral (P1) traits plus some derived (P2) traits due to mutations. Mutations not needed to develop new traits, only sexual recombination of whatever alleles were inherited from the parents.
The second generation of descendants would have fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, and some new derived (P3) traits due to mutations. Again no mutations are needed. ... You're missing the point. I am discussing mutations rather than traits per se. Without mutations you don't have the ancestral record of mutations that identify the generation by generation pattern that we find in all species. The mutations are there, and once again that evidence is congruent with the theory of evolution.
... The second generation traits which were already the result of recombination are no less traits from the ancestral generation too, but each new generation recombines them all in new ways. Except that they also include mutations that occurred after the parent population. Again I'm not talking about traits per se, but mutations.
YOU ASSUME MUTATIONS WHERE MUTATIONS ARE NOT NEEDED. We observe mutations and not including them means that only part of the evidence is considered. The theory of evolution has to explain all the evidence to be a good theory. It does.
The parent population would have P1 traits, but no P2, P3 or P4 traits Yes but all that means is that they lack the particular combinations that would produce those traits. They have the same genes and the same alleles as all the other generations but in different combinations. Again, I am talking about mutations rather than traits per se. The parents cannot have the same mutations that descendants have at their birth.
Uh, it shows no evidence of the ToE, it's nothing but normal variation within a genome/species/population, otherwise sometimes known as microevolution. This will go on all the time no matter what. It's quite consistent with the creation model and certainly doesn't give any evidence for the ToE. The pattern of accumulation of mutations generation after generation is congruent with the theory of evolution.
Although it's not quite as evident where there isn't branching, or an actual isolated population, there is still the process of selection or isolation going on in each generation that "selects" some combinations over others to create the observed changes. And again, no mutations are needed for this to happen and my guess is that they just about never enter into it, I won't say never but it's got to be so rare as to be just about nonexistent. Mutations are not needed ... but the evidence shows they exist, that they create a pattern of ancestral descent, in which mutations are added to the gene pool that did not exist in ancestral populations. ERVs for example. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does? There are other places I can take the argument. But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes. Your actual problem is that our eyes are indeed open and what you are saying is getting through. That is why we keep trying to explain to you why what you are saying is wrong. But your own eyes are closed, so the truth cannot reach you.
So unless I get a second wind there's no point in continuing with this predictable futility. Your persistent refusal to learn from your mistakes and misconceptions, augmented by your all too frequent refusal to even read responses, is the source of that predictability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"It's obvious" is not used in science. Too often it means (as it does here) the speaker has no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
quote: That argument has been shown to be falllacious. Species aren’t just breeds. The shorter timescales reduce the role of mutation. Even then mutations have added new variations which breeders have used. You make it obvious that you have no case.
quote: From the real facts - see above - we should expect mutation to play a more important role in the wild. And the evidence supports that too. We do see evidence of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, we do see evidence of new traits appearing, we don’t see any evidence that evolution is running out of variations.
quote: The real reason why your argument is being “trashed” is because it was shown to be fallacious years ago. If you keep making obviously false claims what other response should you expect ?
quote: For the simple fact that neither example offers any support for your position. The loss of genetic variation is not due to the typical processes of evolution. You haven’t even shown that either has changed enough to be considered a different species from their pre-bottleneck ancestors. If there is evidence for your position in either case you haven’t found it,
quote: I think it must be your faith in Satan. I can’t think of any other reason you could hope to deceive us by repeating the same false claims over and over again.
quote: By which you mean you want us to blind ourselves to the truth. Our eyes are open. That is why we aren’t deceived.
quote: Of course it is futile. It is futile because you are repeating arguments that have already been defeated. If you really cared about the truth you would have abandoned the whole argument - or at least looked for real evidence. But you don’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah, well, all the debunkery notwithstanding I'm standing with my views as usual. I don't accept that mutations cause the differences in the different populations or species either in the anagenesis example or the cladogenesis. For one thing such poulations form a lot faster than the ToE acknowledges, which is exemplified by the Jutland sheep and the Pod Mrcaru lizards, and mutations don't occur that fast to become part of a population in such short order. As Percy mentions if they are mutations they've been around a while, but of course I don't think they are mutations at all because I don't think mutations account for normal alleles.
And I'm more convinced than ever that this nesting hierarchy argument amounts to nothing. And the debunkery of domestic breeding as a good example can be dismissed too. The same processes occur whether they are intentionally directed or random. Also the cheetah and the elephant seals are just fine to represent the end stage of the formation of species even though they were formed by severe bottlenecks. And once species are established they don't change rapidly either, the way some here expect to happen with mutations cropping up. They don't often crop up in established breeds or in wild species, which you'd think they did the way people here carry on. But they don't, and there is no need to invoke mutations for any part of any of this, normally occurring alleles do just fine at making breeds and making new species. So any time someone wants to get rational and acknowledge any of this I'm listening, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
quote: Feel free to be as irrational as you choose. It won’t change the fact that you have no real case.
quote: Because you can’t refute it. The fact remains that the pattern exists on a massive scale. Evolution from a common ancestor explains it. Separate creation does not.
quote: Again you dismiss it because you can’t answer it. Because it proves your argument is wrong.
quote: Indeed they do. But the rates may differ and the rates matter. More, the fact that mutation can contribute useful variation to breeding programs - despite the differences between breeding programs and natural evolution - is itself evidence against your position.
quote: Let us note that that is an admission that neither is evidence for your assumed inevitable decline in variation. In other words you are conceding my point.
quote: The only one who expects rapid change is you. Personally I’ve made the point that the time between speciation events is one reason why evolution is so slow.
quote: Which is why domestic breeding is so successful in producing new species ?
quote: Sure Faith, agreeing with falsehoods is just so rational. Perhaps you can explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Most of your posts to me are full of nasty interpretations of my motivations. That's pretty foul debating tactics. What I say is what I mean, oh foul one. if I say I'm not convinced of something it's because I'm not convinced of it, not because I "can't refute" it. Not only did I find out in discussion with RAZD that there are species that don't form nesting hierarchies, but there is absolutely nothing at all meaningful about those that do.
And by the way your posts in general are obviously meant just for debunkery without any concern at all for truth. I'm sure you know that but it needs to be said once in a while, because the powers that be at EvC are very much llke the media who oppose Trump, they have no interest in truth at all, they are only interested in killing whatever they dislike, as are you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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