Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
(1)
Message 142 of 1034 (692066)
02-27-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
02-27-2013 1:29 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Because I interpret the facts from within a different explanatory system. Paradigm clash.
Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong.
Or because you are trying to shoehorn biological diversity into your biblical timeline?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 1:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 4:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 145 of 1034 (692078)
02-27-2013 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
02-27-2013 4:01 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Then why do you have to speculate that all mutations are deleterious when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?
Why do you insist that new alleles cannot enter a population when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise? How do breeders make new lineages and yet find no trace of these prior existing alleles in the parent populations?
Why do you insist that mutations in growing populations cannot increase genetic diversity when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?
Why do you have to invent baramins as separate creations with no common ancestry when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?
Why do you have to speculate on some past super-genome when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?
By the way, when did this super-genome come into being? Some 6000 years ago at the biblical creation, yes?
The logic you use here and on your blog begins with your conclusions to fit diversity into the biblical time line. When you work backward from the present, every time you encounter an obstacle that leads away from the biblical time line, you have to invent some mechanism (baramins, bad mutations, no new alleles, super-genomes) to bring the path back on line with the conclusions you have already chosen. And this chosen conclusion is that biblical genesis is True.
So, yes, Faith, in answer to ringo's question, you are trying to shoehorn biological diversity into your biblical time line.
Edited by AZPaul3, : mechaniks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 4:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 02-27-2013 5:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 6:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 146 of 1034 (692089)
02-27-2013 5:42 PM


Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
Something to consider, Faith:
There are about 7 billion people on this planet. Assuming an average life span of 80 years and assuming that about 20 years defines a human generation there are about 1,750,000,000 people in each of humanity's 4 present living generations.
The latest study that I have seen shows about 30-50 genetic mutations in each child's genome that were not present in either of the parents genomes.
This is done, by the way, by having the mutations alter the parent's genome in the germ line (reproductive) cells. Each of mom's eggs and each of dad's sperm are not exact faithful copies of their genes. Each mutation is a unique change to one of that parent's genes somewhere in their genome.
So right now there are about 210 billion genetic mutations in the human genome that were not there 80 years ago. And each additional generation adds another 52 billion more mutations to the mix. That's about 2,600,000,000 new mutations entering the human genome each year.
Humans the world over are notorious for getting it on with whoever, whenever, all over the globe. The mixing and re-mixing of these mutations takes place in child after child.
Since not all humans are dead, incapacitated, deformed and sterile then the majority of these mutations in the present world population cannot be deleterious.
These are facts. We know this data for the reality it is. We have been there, we have seen it.
Can you really tell us that this constant infusion of altered genes, by the billions each year, does not increase genetic diversity in the human genome?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 8:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 150 of 1034 (692100)
02-27-2013 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Percy
02-27-2013 5:42 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Advantageous mutations occur only very rarely in the small populations that breeders can handle.
Breeders rely almost exclusively upon selecting desired features for breeding. Faith is correct that in general breeding programs reduce diversity.
And so it is. Well, I suppose she can't be wrong about everything just like I can't be right about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 02-27-2013 5:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
(1)
Message 151 of 1034 (692111)
02-27-2013 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
02-27-2013 6:05 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
No, Faith, the reality is as I stated. We have the studies, we have the observations.
This forum is full of cites to studies, experiments, verified observations, volumes of data on all the points I cited.
These are not wishful thinking on the part of biologists and geneticists but the results of years of concentrated effort that you just so cavalierly dismiss. Insulting.
Not all mutations are deleterious. In fact the majority of them are not. Demonstrable fact.
New altered alleles do enter into populations via mutation. We have seen it in the lab. Demonstrable fact.
We know common ancestry among the majority of lineages. We have both the morphology and the ever increasing accuracy of genetics to show, with as close to certainty as we can get, the relationships among the species, genus, family, order, class and beyond.
Unlike you, these scientists did not pre-plan their conclusions. These things are where the data lead. And you insult them as incompetent, ignorant fools.
For the last 20 years of thousands of geneticists studying all manner of genome from virus to human uncovering the operations, the exons, telomeres, introns, finding the details of promoters, enhancers, control genes, endogenous retroviruses, do you really think they would have missed or ignored something like any evidence of some super-genome?
Meanwhile you have no proof for your paradigm either, all you have is a consensus of belief.
By the thousands with lab work, published articles, studies, facts, data , evidence ...
Just how damn stu*pid do you think these people are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 6:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 7:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
(1)
Message 156 of 1034 (692121)
02-27-2013 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
02-27-2013 7:14 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
And no one else, of the thousands that have studied the facts in extreme detail ever recognized:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A SERIES OF POPULATION REDUCTIONS/ISOLATIONS/SELECTIONS OCCUR AND I REALIZED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Only you did. Why?
Because they are not trying to form a process that leads to the conclusion that biblical genesis is Truth.
You can scream as loud as you want and till the cows come home it doesn't matter. Your motive is to make the story fit genesis and whatever off-the-wall illogical BS bending, folding and mutilating of reality necessary to accomplish that is what you will adopt as true.
You don't have a clue that if studies are done within a biased theoretical framework you are going to get biased conclusions.
This from someone who's "theoretical framework" is not only so biased that reality cannot get through but is totally un-evidenced in even the most minor way.
I will not accept your faith-based biased reasoning and you will not accept any reality that challenges your bible. We can continue to throw sand at each other all day long, Faith, and will accomplish nothing.
What I will do for you, M'lady, now that I have made you scream, is to get you a cup of relaxing tea ...
(_)?
... and let you have the last word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 161 of 1034 (692127)
02-27-2013 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
02-27-2013 8:31 PM


Re: Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
I'd guess such sleeper mutations as it were constitute the majority of the mutations out there.
Except this has been going on for many hundreds of generations now and we have yet to see this accumulation of deleterious "sleeper" mutations. If your speculation is correct we should have seen this quite some time ago. Given the large number of mutations involved I wouldn't think there should be any humans left after all that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 8:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-27-2013 8:58 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 164 of 1034 (692135)
02-27-2013 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Coyote
02-27-2013 9:45 PM


Re: Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
If I may add my two cents worth
Hey! That's 4 cents worth. You owe each of us another penny!
... eh ... your'e not Canadian are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 9:45 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 10:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 166 of 1034 (692137)
02-27-2013 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Coyote
02-27-2013 10:29 PM


Re: Constant Increase In Genetic Diversity
Canada is doing away with their penny, you see. If you were Canadian you wouldn't have the additional two pennies that you owe us. But you are not Canadian so when may Faith and I expect our payments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 10:29 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2013 11:03 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 210 of 1034 (692284)
03-01-2013 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
03-01-2013 2:48 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
If the new trait occurs only in the individual and is not selected it may stay in the population and be passed on to other individuals but it will not contribute to the formation of new species.
If a new trait (allele) occurs only in the individual (which, of course, it must) and is not selected for then it cannot stay in the population since it cannot be passed on. That is what "selected" means ... getting passed on to the next generation. Selection works only on the whole individual, the entire genome. If the individual is not selected for then none of its genes get passed on, no unique new allele or any other allele.
Traits are not individually selected for or against. Only the full genome of an individual can be subject to selection. On a population basis alleles will increase or decrease their numbers in the greater genome of the whole population and over time some will disappear from the population. This is not because they were "selected against" but because their reproductive advantage was weaker than the others.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Will I ever learn to proof read first?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 2:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 7:16 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 11:11 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 217 of 1034 (692300)
03-01-2013 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Faith
03-01-2013 5:38 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
What does "germline" mean?
Reproductive cells. Sperm and egg. As differentiated from somatic cells which are the ones making up the rest of your body - skin, bone, nerve, muscle, etc.
What is a "trio" offspring?
They studied two "trios" each consisting of mom, dad and kid. Two different families.
I have NO idea what difference it could possibly make to this discussion whether a "DNM," which is still a mysterious entity to me, is from the maternal or paternal "germline" which is also a mysterious entity.
DNM is "de novo mutation". One that appeared in the kid but was not present in either of the parents. These mutations are base-pair differences in the gene (allele) between parent and kid.
The kid has a brand new, never before seen allele that was not a part of either parent's genome.
What is an SNV?
Single Nucleotide Variation. A nucleotide is one of those letters we use to describe a gene sequence, A,T,C, G and sometimes U.
So the kid had an allele that differed from the parent's allele by one letter.
human intergeneration mutation rate of 1.110-8 per position per haploid genome.
Science speak for saying that for any letter in the genome there is a .0000011 that letter will change in the next generation. Over the entire gennome of billions of letters that comes out to be about 40 mutations per person per generation.
And again nothing is said to clearly identify these whatever-they-ares AS mutations, OR to identify WHAT they do, what genes they affect, what traits, etc. etc etc.
You're right. They don't. A single mutation does not require a change in phenotypic trait. The vast majority do nothing. Generations later in combination with other mutations there may be a difference.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 6:26 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 220 of 1034 (692303)
03-01-2013 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
03-01-2013 6:26 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Well, you did say DNM was a mysterious entity to you so I thought you were asking what it was.
Were the rest of your questions answered adequately?
No need to answer now. Enjoy the tea first. I'm having a nice cabernet myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 6:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 225 of 1034 (692329)
03-01-2013 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by NoNukes
03-01-2013 7:16 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith's statement while badly phrased, gets at some truth that isn't expressed in your statement. If a new trait occurs in one individual, it can still be passed to offspring without being selected for.
I disagree. If a new allele arises it can only be passed on if the whole of the individual is selected for. Even a bad gene can be passed on if the whole genome of the individual allows it to pass through natural selection and breed. A most excellent mutation will be stopped dead if it pops up first in an individual whose remaining genome causes the individual to get caught in the sieve of natural selection.
All changes, whether a new mix of alleles or a mutation to some alleles, whether good, bad or neutral, are at the mercy of the whole genome's combined ability to breed.
Thanks, NoNukes, for the kind words. I'll try to be worthy of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 7:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by sfs, posted 03-01-2013 9:50 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 10:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 228 of 1034 (692348)
03-01-2013 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by sfs
03-01-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
sfs,
I agree with all the above. But I object to characterizing a trait as "selected for" or "against" when it is the entire genome of the individual that is the sole subject of selection. Any allele that lessens fitness may very well be countered by another that enhances fitness. It is the sum total of all the pluses and minuses that determines fitness and thus selection of the individual, not any trait.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : I'll get it right some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by sfs, posted 03-01-2013 9:50 PM sfs has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 231 of 1034 (692355)
03-01-2013 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by NoNukes
03-01-2013 10:58 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
What if of a group of similar individuals with the trait, the rate of survival is substantially the same as for a group of individuals without the trait. It would be incorrect to say that individuals with trait Y are selected for or to say they are selected against.
Exactly. Individuals are selected for or against based upon the whole genome, not any specific trait (gross deformities excepted).
Further if a trait does contribute to or detract from the survival of individuals to propagate heirs on a statistical basts {basis}, I don't think it is incorrect to speak of the trait itself as being selected for or against at least with respect to the general phenotype.
We have specific technical language for this. Traits enhance, detract or are neutral to fitness. "Selection" is still at the individual, whole genome level.
Now, among us girls, since we know what each other mean even if the technical talk is not quite accurate, this may pass. But in this case there are too many lurkers who may assume from careless talk that specific traits are the items that natural selection, in all its various forms, operates by. This is not the case. We should not be leaving that impression.
Am I being too strict?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 10:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by herebedragons, posted 03-02-2013 12:38 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 12:49 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024