Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 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
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 35 of 1034 (691754)
02-25-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
02-25-2013 8:02 AM


Re: Evolution requires increases and decreases in Genetic Diversity
Faith writes:
This is ALWAYS the case. You ALWAYS get genetic reduction when you get new phenotypes
I've been waiting for someone who actually knows how this stuff works to drop by, but as they haven't yet, I'll stick my oar in.
I can't see any reason why this should be true at all. A new feature - such as a small or larger beaked finch could be an addition to the genotype, a deletion, a duplication or simply a change.
Not only that, a change without speciation would increase the genotype at the species level and a change at the species level, by definition, increases the genetic variation of the genus. (Now two species instead of one.)
You seem to be falling into the 'if I evolved from monkeks, why do monkeys still exist' trap. In the finches example, where once we had single type of finch, we now have many - a large increase in both phenotype and genotype diversity.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 8:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 9:19 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
(1)
Message 37 of 1034 (691757)
02-25-2013 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
02-25-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Evolution requires increases and decreases in Genetic Diversity
Sorry Faith, you're wrong - but it'll take someone with a proper genetics education to explain it to you.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 9:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 94 of 1034 (691880)
02-26-2013 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
02-25-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
Now I KNOW it can't prevent it, I know this is all just a theoretical article of faith that has no real teeth, but I don't know how to say it as sharply as it needs to be said.
You have absolutely no education in the sciences but you know that your opinion is right and all of conventional science is wrong.
And not just biology, you did the same with geology.
You personally, with absolutely no training in either disciplines have overturned two of the most important scientific theories in natural science. Theories that have stood up to over a hundred years of testing by litererally millions of proper scientists doing proper science.
And you do it all from your computer, without needing to do any actual science or provide any actual evidence. It's all been done inside Faith's head. Astonishing. Brilliant.
I can't wait til you get round to big physics - don't forget that you need to change the speed of light yet. So much to be put right, so little time.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 02-25-2013 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
(1)
Message 201 of 1034 (692263)
03-01-2013 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
03-01-2013 1:02 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
Sure it can be slow but the whole idea of evolution is that it produces new species, ultimately getting new Species with a capital S. I'm sure you want to include all the other things that go on in nature under the title "evolution" but that just confuses things. The point is that you get new species, because if you didn't you could never get new Species with a capital S if you get my point.
I'm afraid I'm just wizzing straight to the bottom of your posts now because all you're doing is repeating the things that you've made up, have no evidence for and are wrong about - despite the patient attempts of all here to explain the actual science to you.
But that stuff above in your last sentence just demonstrates your ignorance of the entire process.
It is not the 'purpose' of evolution to produce new species. (Amusingly, species names are always in lower case, genus has the qudos of the capital letter - as in Homo sapiens.) Evolution merely allows organisms to develop in different environments and occasionally survive when their environment changes.
Species only exist in our taxonomy - they're a human construct. They're plastic and are changeing from one thing to another over vast periods of time - the snapshot of life that we call an bear - Ursus arctos - was something different a thousand years ago and will be slightly different in another thousand. In truth there's no such thing a species, it's just an organism that breeds with other organisms for a period of time. Just a temporary gene carrying vehicle.
Evolution doesn't give a hoot what a species is, it's simply our name for a differentiated bag of gene carriers that we currently recognise as a bear.
You're trying to jam home learned, childishly understood and incredibly partial knowledge into your 4,000 year model and it simply doesn't fit.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 03-01-2013 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 213 of 1034 (692295)
03-01-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
03-01-2013 5:13 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Also, whilst identical twins look, well, identical, they have different fingerprints.
Faith's nonsense apart, I'm pretty convinced that when we actually begin to really understand molecular genetics - at the moment we really know zip, compared to what there is to be known.- we'll find that a lot of our current ideas about evolution and what we call a species is pretty crude

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 5:13 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
(1)
Message 251 of 1034 (692396)
03-02-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-02-2013 12:23 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
Yes I keep saying this but so far I don't have the impression anybody gets it, and when you start arguing with me using my own points things are getting really crazy.
Of course we get it. We completley understand what you're saying because it's really simple. And sadly, really wrong.
Like Percy said a million posts ago, of course a subset of a population will be less diverse than the total population.
If 2 animals get washed onto an island in a storm and completely seperated from the total population of 98, then the offspring of those two animals will obviously contain less genetic diversity that the offspring of the other 98.
But you're missing the next step. The 2 seperated animal will almost certainly die. There's a minimum size population needed to realistically survive. But if they do survive, they will adapt to their new environment and develop increasing diversity of their own. If the two environments are different it's possible, like the Finches, that they'll eventually become a species. But genticists will be able to see the bottleneck in the sepearted species for millenia. This is how biologists can 'age' species.
You don't get new breeds by reducing genetic diversity, reduced gentic diversity is a result of genetic isolation.
We're not struggling to understand you, we're struggling to get you to see that what you are saying is wrong headed.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 12:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:58 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 4:20 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
(1)
Message 258 of 1034 (692405)
03-02-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
03-02-2013 3:58 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:
Genetic isolation is what brings about reduced genetic diversity and in fact with small populations is almost synonymous with reduced genetic diversity.
There is no-one on this thread that disagrees with that. It's purely an arithmetic truth. It's been said over and over. So maybe we can stop agreeing.
It's the next step that you're all screwed up on.
You think that simply having a subset of an existing population somehow allows the smaller group to adapt to a different environment. That doesn't make a lot of sense does it?
Now to be fair, in some cases this might work. If you read the 'how novel features evolve' thread you'll find the interesting case of the wall lizards. They were isolated and changed their diet from insectavore to vegitarian and developed valves in their bowel to enable the digestion of cellulose. The biologists studying them claim that this was caused by gentic mutation, but as yet, photypic plasticity can't be ruled out.
But either way, you're simply not bringing anything new to the party - you're just saying what we all know and is obvious - then adding an error.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 3:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:18 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 262 of 1034 (692411)
03-02-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
03-02-2013 5:20 PM


Re: Semi-summary
Faith writes:
Right. Which point I've made here more than once. Apparently Tangle can't read.
For God's sake Faith - everyone in this thread agrees that a subset of a population has less genetic diversity that the population it came from.
If a breeder artificially selects for a trait, the resultant selection must have less genetic diversity than the population it came from. If two organisms are separated from the population their offspring will necessarily have less genetic diversity than the population.
No-one, but no-one is arguing that point.
But that is NOT evolution. That's just selection; the first artificially by people and the second naturally by isolation.
Evolution happens after that step. The organism adapts or dies. It can adapt either because there is sufficient variation in the organism's genome to allow for a plastic response to it or the organism has a beneficial mutation.
It's not evolution that reduces diversity, it's the mechanistic effects of isolation (and other things too messy to contemplate here). Mutation comes along afterwards and gradually builds back diversity.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 5:20 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 6:22 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
(1)
Message 274 of 1034 (692438)
03-03-2013 9:21 AM


A QI phenomenon where mutation has been proven to create speciation AND increase diversity is 'instant speciation'
Figure 2: The history of the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor, is an example of mutation and its potential effects. When an ancestral Hyla chrysocelis gray treefrog failed to sort its 24 chromosomes during meiosis, the result was H. versicolor. This treefrog is identical in size, shape and color to H. chrysocelis but has 48 chromosomes and a mating call that is different from the original H. chrysocelis.
Of course, it's still a frog ;-)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:25 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
(1)
Message 293 of 1034 (692496)
03-04-2013 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
03-03-2013 9:29 PM


Re: Questions
Faith writes:
Far as I know or would suppose, there is probably yet a great deal of genetic diversity in many of the Species or Kinds.
Science's view is that the mammal 'kind', from mice to whales, to elephants descended from a tiny shrew like critter. According to your 'theory', which of the existing mammalian beasts was on the ark? Did the mouse contain all the diversity from which was whittled the elephant or vice versa?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 9:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 300 of 1034 (692543)
03-04-2013 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by nwr
03-04-2013 6:06 PM


Re: Faith is done with this thread ???
it's a common trope. when you can't win by debate, retreat to the pulpit.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by nwr, posted 03-04-2013 6:06 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 398 of 1034 (757751)
05-13-2015 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by Tanypteryx
05-12-2015 9:39 PM


Re: genetic diversity
As far as I understand what she's saying, she's been trapped by a simple truism when applied to a single over-dramatised idea of speciation.
If a population of say, 10,000 animals are traveling and 10 of them get permanently separated by some weird event, the two populations will diverge over time and may eventually speciate. But at the point of seperation the 10 animals will have less genetic diverty than the remaining 9,990.
I doubt anyone would argue that - it's a genetic bottleneck.
What she's missing of course, is that that isn't the only way speciation happens (and that such small populations are unlikely to survive), and when it does happen that way variation is built up again over time by mutation and population growth. Additionally, after the speciation event the total genetic variation in both populations is greater that in the single one before the event.
But Faith doesn't have time for mutation, nor it seems any other non-reductive speciation models - such as drift. As usual, she's got an oversimplified, single and wrong model in her head which she's hanging on to because she thinks it works for her.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.
Edited by Tangle, : Sums

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-12-2015 9:39 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2015 2:06 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 401 of 1034 (757759)
05-13-2015 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by NoNukes
05-13-2015 2:06 AM


Re: genetic diversity
NoNukes writes:
Faith's argument is that evolution is just like making a new type of dog out of existing dog.
Yes, the second part of her simple understanding is that every species contains the genetic 'information' to create the next species. The new variant is therefore caused by selection of an already existing trait.
it's all seemingly simple and obvious. But nevertheless, wrong. And never having had to formally study evolution so as to understand the facts that it's built on, she can imagine whatever she needs to.
You can also re-use that sentence by changing 'evolution' to genetics geology, astronomy, chemistry, palaeontology, radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, biblical historicity etc etc
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2015 2:06 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 446 of 1034 (757908)
05-16-2015 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by RAZD
05-15-2015 5:07 PM


Re: dating methods and consilience of evidence
RAZD writes:
This is an ongoing process in the greenish warblers, genetic isolation has not occurred at this point and each population still interbreeds with the neighboring population in the hybrid zones. We do not see one population with more alleles than the others.
The modern idea of ring species is that they don't exist. In fact some people said that many years ago when I was learning about evolution but now there's genetic evidence that shows that they all seem to have had a geographic isolation event at some or at several points in their evolution. See
There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True
It's still proof of evolution, just not the neat story we'd like it to be. Shame, I was very fond of the gull ring.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2015 5:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Denisova, posted 05-16-2015 7:35 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 449 by Faith, posted 05-16-2015 11:56 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 455 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2015 5:57 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 451 of 1034 (757933)
05-16-2015 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Faith
05-16-2015 11:56 AM


Re: ring species, gene flow, etc
faith writes:
Of course I particularly like ring species because they make my anti-evolution argument: you are getting a series of subspecies by the reduction of genetic diversity from subpopulation to subpopulation rather than "speciation" at any point as evolution defines it.
Just saying that there is a reduction of genetic diversity doesn't make it true you know. In order to make that statement you require evidence for its own sake but also because science is against you. A ring species would be exactly the wrong place to look for a bottleneck as there is no apparent difference between populations at any single point in the chain. If you compared both ends of the chain, logically you would not find reduced genetic diversity in one or the other - and you wouldn't even know which end of the chain to expect it in.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Faith, posted 05-16-2015 11:56 AM 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