Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 1034 (691927)
02-26-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
02-22-2013 6:14 PM


Have you considered plants at all? People have been breeding them too. Look what we did with maize becoming corn. That wasn't a loss of genetic diversity. Or how about all the amazing flowers that have been made? There's no way all that stems from some super flower genome that gets chipped away into all the breeds we have today.
And crazily enough, all the plant developments fit perfectly with the Theory of Evolution's mutations and selection mechanism.
It really is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 02-22-2013 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 1034 (691937)
02-26-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-26-2013 12:53 PM


In order to GET corn the plant genome had to lose the genetic atuff that produced maize instead.
No, the genome had to gain the genetic stuff that produced corn. It still has all the genes to make maize, but now it has the additional genes that turn the maize into corn.
If you keep breeding for a particular trait you will keep favoring the alleles that produce that trait, maybe for multiple genes even, and the more you favor the more that trait is emphasized. AND at the same time the more you lose the alleles for other kinds of flowers that you DON'T want.
No, you just keep building more and more into the genome, without loosing much if anything.
They also fit very well with my scenario as I'm describing it here, either mutation or built-in genetic diversity supplying the material for selection to work on, and selection bringing about the desired form which also requires the loss of the genetic material for the undesired forms.
No, you don't have to loose the genetic material for the undesired forms. Corn is just like maize, except it has extra genes to make the kernels bigger. There is no keep-the-kernels-small gene that has to be lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 1:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-26-2013 1:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 1034 (691946)
02-26-2013 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
02-26-2013 1:21 PM


Re: Plant Breeding
Nope, it always had the genetic capacity to produce corn but that capacity had to be brought out by selection.
No, it did not have the capacity to produce corn until it gained the proper mutations to its genome, which increased its diversity.
You think by simply choosing plants with the biggest flowers you are going to get a mutation for even bigger flowers? Don't think so. I think the favoring of the flowers simply selects the alleles/genes for the flower part of the plant and if you keep favoring them and selecting them and breeding them that's all it takes to make them into big cauliflower heads. Where does mutation play into that scenario?
Not all the plants have the exact same flower size. Mutations to the gene that causes the flower size makes some of them bigger and some of them smaller. When you pick the largest of the flowers, you are selecting for the mutated genes that cause larger flowers. Those larger flowers are going to have more mutations that make their flowers both bigger and smaller. When you pick the biggest of the largest flowers, you are selecting for the mutated genes that cause the big large flower. Those bigger larger flowers are going to have more mutation that make some of their flowers smaller and some of their flowers even more bigger and larger. When you pick the even more bigger and larger flower, you are selecting for the mutated genes that cause the even more bigger and larger flowers. Each of these steps is increasing the genetic diversity by including more and more mutated genes that cause bigger and bigger flowers and you don't have to loose any genes because there weren't any that keep the flowers smaller in the first place. Some genes might be replaced by the new ones, but they don't all have to.
Where does mutation enter into that? The genes/alleles for the big beautiful flower were already there but in the wild they weren't being favored so they never developed.
No, if the genes for the even bigger and larger flowers were already in there, then the flowers would already be even bigger and larger. It wasn't until after the mutation occured that they became a part of the genome.
If extra genes are involved, those are what keep getting favored by the selection of the best looking plants, of the biggest kernels and so on. You ALWAYS lose the undesired genes/alleles by doing that. That's the way it happens in dog breeds and cattle breeds, I see no reason it isn't how it would happen in plants as well.
The way it happens in dog and cattle breeds is a tiny subset of all the ways that evolution can happen. It does not represent the totality of evolution.
As an analogy, you're saying that because ceviche is cooked with lemon juice instead of heat, then you have no reason to think that any food is cooked with heat.
All I'm doing is emphsizing a ppart of the known processes of breeding that doesn't usually get emphasized although it's central to its working. It's crucial for the question of the validity of evolution.
Domestic breeding is actually a special case of evolution. It still fits within the model of the Theory of Evolution, but it does not represent how things work outside of domestic breeding. In fact, the the wiki page on breeds has this to say:
quote:
Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry, no scientifically accepted definition of the term exists. A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.
There's no reason to think that breeding results in ONLY the loss of genetic material. In fact, there's plenty of reason to doubt it. The wolf does not have some super genome with the genes to make its skull both the tiny size of a chihuahua and also huge size of a mastiff. Those skulls were the result of mutations to the wolfs genome that added to its genetic diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 02-26-2013 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 120 of 1034 (691947)
02-26-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
02-26-2013 1:48 PM


Well thanks, but I wasn't under the impression that we were going to let facts get in the way of this discussion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-26-2013 1:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 714 of 1034 (758910)
06-05-2015 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by Denisova
06-05-2015 1:48 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
I think EVC is no place for me.
I am looking for debate and not the usual and habitual dodging and ignoring.
I don't like people virtually stretching their middle finger out to me, it is FAR MORE impolite than just saying what bothers you.
Then you should stop spending all your efforts trying to get an honest answer from the most dishonest person at the site.
There's plenty of other people to type to and many of them are very smart and generous with their time.
If you're really looking for debate, then you need to stop replying to the same old person over and over again... like 90% of your posts have been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Denisova, posted 06-05-2015 1:48 PM Denisova has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 719 of 1034 (758919)
06-05-2015 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 710 by Faith
06-05-2015 1:56 PM


Re: speciation
My argument is that what is called speciation and regarded as the springboard to further evolution is an illusion.
Well thank God that you have come along to inform us that all those stupid scientists that have spent their lives in the labs and out in the field dedicating themselves to understanding the evidence laid out before them have been getting it wrong for all these decades.
If only we were smart enough to comprehend your arguments and understand what you were saying, then we could get past all this evolution nonsense and get to a real understand of the way the world works.
Am I right, or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Faith, posted 06-05-2015 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 812 of 1034 (759303)
06-10-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
06-10-2015 3:04 PM


Re: macroevolution not impossible -- it has been observed.
This is really how evolution proceeds, it ALWAYS involves the loss of alleles as a specific set of allleles becomes the basis for a new population.
No, mutation can lead to new alleles that didn't exist before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 814 of 1034 (759321)
06-10-2015 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 813 by Faith
06-10-2015 3:59 PM


Whenever that occurs you get reduced genetic diversity and that's always the last word.
No, that is completely, horribly, and fatally incorrect and wrong.
It doesn't matter how many time you repeat yourself, or re-explain it, or whatever, when you're wrong then you are wrong.
You're wrong, Faith. You're wrong.
Random mutation and natural selection do, in fact, lead to an increase in genetic diversity.
That increase in genetic diversity is what has caused all the phenotypic diversity that we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 815 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 818 of 1034 (759336)
06-10-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 815 by Faith
06-10-2015 4:10 PM


Oh well, you don't get it and that's that.
Oh, no, I get it. It's as plain as day, Faith.
You're trying to come up with a way to square your religious beliefs in creationism with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
You've been stripped down to accepting that the processes behind evolution actually do occur, but you've had to invent this nonsense about "only reducing genetic diversity" in order to save your religious beliefs.
You have literally zero evidence for it other than your wishful thinking.
Your entire position is a just a giant deduction - from the minimum amount of evolution that you have to accept because it is undeniable - coupled with your relentless efforts to absolutely refuse to give up your per-conceived religious beliefs in creationism.
This has lead you to the inescapable place of evolution only being able to reduce genetic diversity.
There's no reason to think it other than you have to.
Obviously you have no interest in even trying to get it.
I get it. I really do.
Its just painfully and terribly incorrect and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by Faith, posted 06-10-2015 4:10 PM 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