A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Percy has a pretty standard ToE in mind, not my model which he not only disputes, he doesn't understand.Nor do you apparently. Different genes isn't what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about different proportions of various genes so that they bring out different traits in recombination. Each generation gets different traits as it is, and then when a new population develops it gets a different set of genes/alleles which will bring out new traits. Such as heavy heads and jaws in lizards.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Percy has a pretty standard ToE in mind, not my model which he not only disputes, he doesn't understand.

---

He is raising obviously relevant points. And you are not addressing them

quote:

---

Nor do you apparently. Different genes isn't what I'm talking about at all.

---

Which shows that you are the one who doesn’t understand. The fact that you are not talking about the different genes is the problem.

quote:

---

I’m talking about different proportions of various genes so that they bring out different traits in recombination

---

And you claim that species are produced by that means alone. The fact that we see other, significant, differences is closely-related species - as well as the other points Percy made - are problems for that idea.

Maybe if I write an article I'll discuss all of this, but it's nothing much: only mutations which you believe make new alleles and I don't; plus gene flow, which adds nothing, just reshuffles what's already in the gene pool, and gene flow just interrupts and muddies up the formation of a new species; plus sexual recombination which also shuffles what's already there, and I consider this to be a main "mechanism" for bringing out new phenotypes in establishing a new population/species in reproductive isolation.I know it's hard to believe but I actually think the ToE is simply WRONG, wrong about most of what it has to say, although it has provided some concepts I make use of, such as the importance of new gene frequencies. New gene frequencies sexually recombined over enough generations to create a new homogeneous population distinct from the parent population and other daughter populations. That's basically my view of what happens in "evolution." You don't need natural selection, you don't need mutations, you don't need ecological or any other kind of environmental pressure. New combinations of existing genes in an isolated population is all you need, and this over time will entail loss of genetic diversity. NECESSARY loss, needed to develop new phenotypes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I do. Nope.I may get to Percy's many posts eventually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nope

---

Those differences are obviously not just differences in allele frequency. And if they appear in species you’d consider to belong to the same kind - as they do - they certainly show that something more than differences in allele frequencies is going on.And of course the fact that animal breeding doesn’t produce new species is a major problem for your ideas.The fact that you try to brush these off as Percy not understanding is laughable. Either you can’t see the problems - which would show that you don’t understand - or you are being less than honest.

I don't define species as you do, and breeds do fine as the domestic version of species.

quote:

---

I don't define species as you do, and breeds do fine as the domestic version of species

---

So you changed the definition of species to include domestic breeds and that “proves” that actual species are the same thing. I’m sure you think that’s a clever semantic game, but it’s pretty obvious that that is all it is.

No it's actually the way the word is frequently used, but when it is defined it's something else.

quote:

---

No it's actually the way the word is frequently used, but when it is defined it's something else

---

Apart from you, who else refers to domestic breeds as species ? If it is such a frequent use you should have examples.

Let's break this down with a simple example: two genes each with two alleles This is all you get with Mendelian mixing of genes. The gene pool frequency includes A, a, B, and b. Cut the population down and still have all these phenotypes OR you have a subset of them. Let's say AB is not included in the population split, so you have Nothing new there. A change in gene frequency, yes, but all these phenotypes were in the original population and there is no new combination. The gene pool frequency still includes A, (2)a, B, and (2)b. When they mate you have So you see the shift in gene frequency but no new phenotypes. You still have AB, but Ab and aB are twice as frequent and ab is 4 times as frequent phenotypes.This is what genetic drift does. Selection is not included, mutations are not included. The gene pool frequency still includes (3)A, (4)a, (3)B, and (4)b. Now we go another generation: This is what happens in the generation after genetic drift. Selection is not included, mutations are not included. The gene pool frequency still includes (21)A, (28)a, (21)B, and (28)b. You still have AB, but Ab and aB are 1.333 times as frequent and ab is 1.778 times as frequent phenotypes.The population is trending back to the original frequencies, a process that will continue as more generations are considered. There are no new phenotypes, there are no phenotypes that cannot breed with the other phenotypes in the breeding population. They all existed before, they all interbred before.FAIL. As we can see from the above example, this just does not happen. A "new homogeneous population" forms but it tends to be more and more like the parent population as generations pass. And when we look at the above example -- with no selection, no mutations, and no ecological change -- you just do not get a loss of any genes or any new phenotype.FAILEnjoy

You aren't going to see much of anything with one gene, it's the mixture of new frequencies of hundreds, thousands of genes, that brings out the new phenotypic picture. And there's no need to assume complete loss of any particular allele, just reduction, which probably gets more reduced as the generations pass. Although you could get a new population with nothing but, say, changed striping, say in a raccoon population that split off from another population, in large populations with lots of genetic diversity, like the wildebeests, more than one characteristic is going to change: blue hide, smaller stature, different antlers. The alleles for all those characteristics are in the larger population but they don't get expressed until a new set of gene frequencies allows them to be expressed in the new population.Edited by Admin, : Rerender after changing the regular expressions in Faith's disallowed word list to be less inclusive. For example, she can now use the word "like", which became disallowed as part of the regular expressions for "lie". That regular expression used to be "l\S?i\S?e\S?", now it's "l\W?i\W?e\W?". Also fix a typo.Edited by Admin, : In the above edit comment I forgot that "lie" would be filtered out, so the "***" above should be "lie".

So I guess I can't call these "species" can I? They are the result of breeding pigeons for the same trait generation to generation. I don't know what the genetic principle is here and I don't recall anyone's discussing it here, but getting an exaggerated trait llke this seems to be what happens when a basically normal but slightly enlarged version of the trait gets selected over and over and over. (Llke the "I love you" eyes of the dogs mentioned on another thread perhaps.)The idea then is that it starts out fairly subtle, perhaps just noticeable, but if selected and bred from generation to generation it gets more and more exaggerated.That is what I think must have happened with the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Five pairs of very ordinary lizards were released onto an isolated island where they reproduced for thirty years in that isolation and the result was that after those thirty years the whole population had developed very large heads and jaws, and a different digestive system to cope with the tougher foods it was now eating. It wasn't that their usual food before they were isolated wasn't present on the island, it was that genetically their new gene frequencies had a slight emphasis on larger head and jaw and that over generations of reproduction those traits got exaggerated, very much llke Darwin's pigeons. This probably would only happen when the founding population is very small, probably not in a larger population, because there would be more opportunity for the same trait to get selected in each generation in the smaller population. Or....maybe it's just that it was the greatest gene frequency among the founders?Anyway this is a phenomenon that I think needs some explanation. Mutations don't seem to be involved, or ecological pressure etc., just the genetics intensely selected. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

** Replying to both Message 560 and Message 561 here Come on Faith... someone who has spent so much time studying and thinking about genetics should know that genotypic diversity and phenotypic diversity are connected. Where there is high genotypic diversity, there is also high phenotypic diversity.As I said... diversity is the main biological feature that biologists study. It used to be limited to phenotypic diversity but with the development of genomic tools, we are able to study genomic diversity in more and more detail - to the point where we can do comparisons of whole genomes.The "POINT", the "SO WHAT?" is that this is what we study, day in and day out. If your model were true, we would have published on it. Genomic studies would be EASY. But instead, we are finding the exact opposite to be true; genetic diversity is NOT being reduced in the formation of new species. Well that definitely invalidates my argument and is a typical Faith discussion stopping strategy. Ignoring real world evidence and failing to consider it in your model is a sure way to be right. Have you presented ANY real world genetic evidence in favor of your model? Or have you only presented phenotypic evidence... Blue wildebeests "look"... this or that "looks" homogeneous... What genomic evidence have you presented other than speculation about what MUST happen? It is real hard for us to understand your argument when you don't even understand it yourself. You DO focus on the genome level because you say one gene is insufficient to test your model, but it is allele altered frequencies across a lot of genes, ie. the whole genome, that causes "speciation". Bacteria have small genomes and can be easily worked with. Displaying and discussing Eukayotic genomes is very difficult and would be even harder for you to understand. You are obviously very convinced that your model is correct and I doubt that any amount of real genetic data will convince you otherwise. And what you can do to avoid real world genetic data is just not understand it and make no attempt to understand it. I don't know why I expected anything else...When I get a chance I will do a post describing how changing allele frequencies would look from a genomic perspective. Maybe in the meantime you could give a specific example of what allele frequencies would look like in two very closely related species (ones that developed from a common ancestor). If I provide values, you will just say that it looks nothing like your model, so how about you give me an example? Maybe using allele frequencies for 5 - 10 genes, something manageable?HBD

quote:

---

So I guess I can't call these "species" can I?

---

No. Because they aren’t. I’d call them “freaks of artificial selection”, personally.

quote:

---

The idea then is that it starts out fairly subtle, perhaps just noticeable, but if selected and bred from generation to generation it gets more and more exaggerated.

---

I suspect that it only works like that if multiple genes are involved. Though I am sure you’d agree on that,

quote:

---

That is what I think must have happened with the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Five pairs of very ordinary lizards were released onto an isolated island where they reproduced for thirty years in that isolation and the result was that after those thirty years the whole population had developed very large heads and jaws, and a different digestive system to cope with the tougher foods it was now eating

---

That is what you think but there is no hard evidence. Especially as nobody was breeding them for these traits, which weren’t visible in the original ten pairs. Recessive traits are not generally subject to strong selection because the heterozygotes have no advantage (this is also the reason why genetic diseases tend to hang around - heterozygotes have no disadvantage).

quote:

---

It wasn't that their usual food before they were isolated wasn't present on the island, it was that genetically their new gene frequencies had a slight emphasis on larger head and jaw and that over generations of reproduction those traits got exaggerated, very much llke Darwin's pigeons.

---

That only adds to the problem. The new phenotype is only an advantage with the changed diet. So the lizards would have to change their diet before there was any selection. And you say that they could just have gone on eating their familiar diet.

quote:

---

Anyway this is a phenomenon that I think needs some explanation. Mutations don't seem to be involved, or ecological pressure etc., just the genetics intensely selected.

---

Domestic breeding does involve intense selection. The Pod Mrcau lizards don’t seem likely to have experienced that - and it would only be possible after the lizards changed their diet. And why would they do that if their usual food was freely available ?Edited by Admin, : Correct typo in last para: "see," => "seem"

I know I'm responding too impulsively and I'll probably have to come back and clean it up, but really HBD....really.... Well I guess you believe this but no no no no no. Wildebeests all look alike --- low phenotypic diversity --- but I'm sure they have very high genetic diversity. And again all I can do is point out that to get any kind of domestic breed REQUIRES losing the genetic stuff for all other breeds. Sigh. I honestly do not know what you think you are observing, but I am very very sure it is not what you think it is, or what you think *I* think it is or whatever. You must have some completely different phenomena you are observing than what I'm talking about. Sorry sorry sorry, you are not responding to anything *I* am arguing.NO I AM NOT ENGAGING IN A *STRATEGY* ---I don't know what you are talking about NOW either!Yes I am very convinced.And please do NOT give your genomic perspective. You are wrong that I'm ever talking from the genomic perspective -- we must be using words differently or something -- and no I don't want to try to cope with your illustration of changing allele frequencies. Please.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.