Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 457 (708095)
10-04-2013 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 3:28 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Why you keep referring to individuals is beyond me. I'm NEVER referring to individuals, always to POPULATIONS. Change in allele frequencies refers to POPULATIONS. And it used to be a major definition of EVOLUTION.
>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 3:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 4:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 231 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2013 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 457 (708104)
10-04-2013 7:35 PM


Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
No, I have no interest in pursuing the actual topic of this thread beyond what I said in my first response to it.
I also have no interest in pursuing questions about mutations and allele formation because that was a side issue brought up by ramoss in giving the tendentious evolutionist definitions of them, and I answered that to my satisfaction.
The topic we got off on for most of the thread so far was my familiar argument that the development of varieties or breeds or "species" all require reduced genetic diversity, and that was to answer the usual evolutionist insistence that there is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, that there is nothing to stop the one from becoming the other. But the requirement of reduced genetic diversity does indeed bring an end to the processes of phenotypic variation, otherwise known as evolution, bringing an end to the ability of evolution to continue past the genetic content of the particular genome of the Species that is undergoing phenotypic variation/evolution.
As usual everybody wants to add in mutations as if that would change this basic picture, but of course it wouldn't. Eventually if you are going to get new breeds or speciation you are going to run out of genetic diversity. If you aren't getting new breeds or "species" then evolution isn't happening at that point anyway.
Mutations as believed in by evolutionists at best provide the stuff that the selection and isolation processes work on to develop a new breed, variety or "species" but those very processes are what reduce the genetic diversity, so whatever provides the alleles for the traits, whether they are built in or the product of mutations, they all go through this same process if they become part of a new "species" and there we are again at the end of any further ability to vary or evolve.
So I'm happy with my participation on this thread to this point and will probably wrap it up here.
Cheers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 10-04-2013 7:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 225 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 7:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 226 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 7:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2013 2:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 232 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2013 7:51 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 10-05-2013 8:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 227 of 457 (708108)
10-04-2013 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by frako
10-04-2013 7:52 PM


Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
It doesn't matter. All that could happen, as I just said, and it isn't going to do anything more than provide the stuff that gets selected and isolated to form a new "species" and that always requires losing genetic diversity, and that's where evolution comes to a halt, mutations or no mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 7:52 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 8:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 457 (708138)
10-05-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by frako
10-04-2013 8:06 PM


How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Really, I've realized that most of my posts haven't been off topic because they are answering Frako's allegations.
You never explained how a mutation in child of the new species is not an increase in genetic diversity.
It is but it won't counteract the loss of gen. diversity which is what is claimed. The loss is very great if we're talking about its only being a few individuals from the parent population that formed the new "species" with their greatly reduced gen. diversity as a population unto themselves, which was the case with that lizard example you gave. Also, mutations mostly just replace functioning alleles which isn't necessarily a good thing you know, and if you get one mutation that you want to call "beneficial" that would be an extraordinarily high incidence in such a small population, and so on and so forth. And again, you don't NEED mutations to get a new "species" because the new allele frequencies are quite sufficient to accomplish that. And again, even if you DID get quite a few useful ones, when they get selected AGAIN the genetic diversity will be reduced all the more and you'll have FEWER alleles, albeit supposedly NEW alleles, to form the next new breed or species.
this is where evolution continues .
First of all, the idea of evolution "continuing" after such a drastic reduction in a population's gen. diversity needs to be recognized as a far cry from the usual evolutionist picture of continuous increases in gen. diversity as new species continue to be formed. At best you've got a big step back in gen. diversity and then mutations are going to come along and give you what, some very little step forward if at all, in a new addition or two to the diversity? And then if a new selection and isolation occurs you'll have further gen. reduction and so on. Seems to me in this one step forward one step back scenario the reduction always wins in the end. No amount of mutations could ever catch up.
You have a new species filling a whole new nieche possibly outcompeating the old species multiplying and with every new member new mutations increase its diversity. why do mutations suddnely stop in this new species or what.
Well, you are implying that all these mutations are changing things for the better but in reality it is recognized that beneficial mutations are very rare for one thing, and again, to get a new "species" all you need is the new allele frequencies that are brought about by the mere fact that fewer individuals make up the new population.
What you are picturing is a completely hypothetical scenario anyway. I've been pondering that video you put up back in Message 41 about the lizards because it's such a perfect example of just what I've been talking about in general, and it may be an opportunity to clarify some things about mutations too, I don't know.
This is a typical case of evolutionists getting all excited about "evolution" while a creationist looks at it and says uh uh, just another typical case of microevolution, or getting a new breed from a relatively small number of individuals.
You present the usual view this way:
So i cant place a few say 5 pairs lizards on an island and watch them evolve in to a different SPECIES (unable to breed with their ancestor species), because they will never be enough geneticly diverse to EVOLVE
And you seem to think this would be regarded by creationists as a "miracle" too, but in fact it's exactly what we'd expect.
What I've been arguing is that in order to GET evolution, that is, a new species characterized by new traits, you need REDUCED genetic diversity, NOT an increase as you are saying. Your five pairs of lizards microevolved due to their small numbers, which brings out new allelic combinations which brings out new traits. THAT is how those lizards formed a new "species" on their isolated island. If another ten had been taken out of the same original population and put on yet another island to inbreed you'd most likely have gotten a new "species" there too but with different characteristics because it would have had a different mix of alleles, that is, different allele frequencies.
But that's not how evolutionists see it. Here's the video with Dawkins giving the usual explanation:
The changes observed in the new lizard as compared to the original (assuming the original was still present on the original island and had not also evolved as they point out) mostly have to do with a larger head with a larger jaw that makes eating vegetable matter easier, and in fact these new lizards do eat more vegetable matter although they also eat insects as the original population did. They also seem to have a change in their digestive system that tends to go with a vegetarian diet.
Now, Dawkins doesn't say exactly but isn't the usual evolutionist understanding of these things that somehow the ENVIRONMENT brought about the changes? But he doesn't say if there is either more abundant or more desirable vegetable matter on the new island; presumably it's about the same. Apparently there are also insects there so it isn't a dearth of that kind of food that drove the changes either.
A creationist view of it is simply that the new allele frequencies brought about the changes in the lizards themselves, and since these changes are conducive to eating and digesting vegetable matter that's what they naturally do more of. It's all driven by the new allele frequencies brought about by the reduced genetic diversity brought about by the smaller number of individuals that originated the new population. Very straightforward, requiring no mutations.
And of course although Dawkins is impressed that it only took 37 years for these new traits to be established in the new "species" this is exactly what would be expected of a new mix of alleles, and in reality it probably took a lot less than those 37 years to establish the new breed, but apparently nobody checked on them earlier to find out. All it should take is enough generations for all the individuals to thoroughly inbreed among themselves.
In the laboratory experiment I described a while back, that would be designed to demonstrate the loss of genetic diversity from new breed/species to new breed/species, you'd now take five pairs out of the NEW population of lizards, put them on another lizard-free island with similar lizard food and let them inbreed for some number of generations and see if you get a new breed/species there too. One thing is certain, since the vegetarian lizard was formed from less gen. diversity than the original population, taking ten from it to form a new one is going to reduce that gen. diversity all the more and that SHOULD bring out new traits, or a new "species."
I don't see any role in all this for mutations, or if they occur they'd be rather superfluous it seems to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 8:06 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-05-2013 2:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 10-05-2013 5:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 457 (708142)
10-05-2013 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Faith
10-05-2013 12:19 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Seems to me if you want to make mutations the big influence in this scenario you have to first calculate how big the population is going to have to become for a single beneficial mutation to arise, and what the effect of the other mutations that aren't so beneficial might be as well, because it seems to me they might succeed in interfering with this new phenotype. And then you'll have to figure whether a given beneficial mutation is dominant or recessive because if it's recessive it won't contribute anything to the trait picture until after a few generations of its being passed on. And then you have to calculate the odds of the new mutant allele's being favored among the others, selected for its particular trait. And so on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 10-05-2013 12:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 239 of 457 (708159)
10-05-2013 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Percy
10-05-2013 5:47 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Faith writes:
But that's not how evolutionists see it [speciation]. Here's the video with Dawkins giving the usual explanation:
This error goes back to Frako in Message 41 where he claims the video is about speciation. It's not. Right at the one minute mark the video says that DNA analysis shows that the population on the new island was still the same species as on the old. The Dawkins video is about evolutionary change, not speciation. Frako was wrong to present it as an example of speciation.
Evolutionary change is enough for it to be about for my purposes in responding to Frako. But since you bring it up it seems to me that Frako got the right idea about it if the lizards can no longer interbreed with the former lizard population on the original island, which I thought was said, but maybe I'm misremembering. Inability to interbreed has been THE defining characteristic of a new species as I've understood it.
Also as I've understood it speciation isn't really presented as something all that special. Wikipedia gives that familiar little chart that shows four different ways speciation occurs and all four of them have in common that they involve a smaller population being reproductively isolated from a larger. That seems to be the basic formula and that's certainly what happened with the lizards on that video.
Then if you look up the definition of Speciation you'll find it described as two new species forming from a former single species. That begs all sorts of questions I'm not sure we need to get into yet.
But it does suggest something closer to what you keep saying, that DNA analysis shows that the new species is clearly not the same as the former species. So let me ask: where do you get this information, please supply a source.
And again, you don't NEED mutations to get a new "species" because the new allele frequencies are quite sufficient to accomplish that.
But scientists don't believe a breed with all the same alleles as the parent species, just at different frequencies, is a new species, nor even a new "species", whatever you think putting quotes around it means, so you're wrong.
Yet that certainly looks like the case in that chart of the four ways speciation occurs. However, I don't think a breed is a species either, of course, and the reason I put "species" in quotes is to show that I don't believe what scientists call a species is a species either. It looks to be a new variety that's formed by the usual isolation of a small number of individuals, that just happens to be unable to interbreed with the former population after some generations of inbreeding. Nothing different about HOW it occurs from how all the other kinds of varieties, breeds etc. occur.
And you *do* need mutations to produce a new species, because otherwise the daughter population has merely a subset of the alleles as the parent population, and DNA analysis would quickly reveal that they're the same species. So you're wrong again.
Only if DNA analysis identifies any population formed in this way as a different species in very clear terms. Do you have a source for this?
First of all, the idea of evolution "continuing" after such a drastic reduction in a population's gen. diversity needs to be recognized as a far cry from the usual evolutionist picture of continuous increases in gen. diversity as new species continue to be formed.
Increasing genetic diversity is not what evolutionists believe is the driving force behind speciation. Descent with modification (involving both allele remixing and mutation) and natural selection are the driving forces behind speciation, so you're wrong again.
I didn't say it is considered to be the "driving force" behind speciation or anything else. I was referring back to the discussion where people keep insisting that genetic diversity and phenotypic variation go hand in hand on down the supposed chain of descent from species to species without anything to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution. I believe it may have been PaulK who made that equation somewhere back there, when he was so astonished at the idea that evolution or phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity.
Allele remixing only occurs when you get a population split. Descent with modification either by allele remixing or mutation, and natural selection, amounts to the processes I'm describing, that form new phenotypes by reducing genetic diversity. Anything that selects and isolates a portion of a population has this effect: it creates new allele frequencies and if the population is small enough it creates a reduced genetic diversity, and this creates a new trait picture or phenotype that becomes population wide after some number of generations of inbreeding.
Sure you'd need mutations if you ever really did get a new species, but most mutations are just substitutions for alleles that are part of the species genome and couldn't do anything other than vary that one trait for that species in any case. Seems to me you need some special kind of mutation if you're ever going to get speciation as you envision it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 10-05-2013 5:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 12:01 AM Faith has replied
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 457 (708163)
10-06-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by NoNukes
10-06-2013 12:01 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
I was using Percy's phrase and I assumed he meant what happens when you get a change in allele frequencies, which you get when you have a population split.
I don't attribute population genetics to Mendel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 12:01 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 9:16 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 247 of 457 (708179)
10-06-2013 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-06-2013 8:48 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Evolutionary change is enough for it to be about for my purposes in responding to Frako.
No, it isn't enough for your purposes, unless one of those purposes is to never admit error. I called it Frako's error, you don't need to make it your own.
WHAT I MEANT WAS that the video didn't have to be about speciation for me to answer Frako since I'm objecting to ALL forms of "evolution" as understood in the way Dawkins presents this, as if microevolution and macroevolution are all the same, which is the main thing I've been answering.
But since you bring it up it seems to me that Frako got the right idea about it if the lizards can no longer interbreed with the former lizard population on the original island, which I thought was said, but maybe I'm misremembering.
You're definitely misremembering. It's right there at minute 1 in the video. They're the same species on both islands, and the definition of species is related organisms capable of interbreeding. Here's the video, take 6 seconds of your time and start listening at the 1 minute mark:
WHAT I SAID WAS I might be misremembering that the new lizards were unable to interbreed with the original population. THAT's what I thought was said. I remember that it said they were the same species, because they wanted to be sure it wasn't some other lizard that happened to be on the island, but since I EXPECT it to be the same species I didn't even blink at that. Of course if speciation WERE true it wouldn't be the same species, but oddly enough I've never seen anything said on that until your remarks.
My computer is acting up so I am going to post this and come back to the rest later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 2:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 249 of 457 (708187)
10-06-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
10-06-2013 2:14 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
WHAT I MEANT WAS that the video didn't have to be about speciation for me to answer Frako since I'm objecting to ALL forms of "evolution" as understood in the way Dawkins presents this, as if microevolution and macroevolution are all the same, which is the main thing I've been answering.
The video says nothing about microevolution or macroevolution,
I never said it did. It is merely a typical example of what *evolution* is considered to be, which according to Frako and just about everyone else here, makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution, the latter just naturally going on from the former, certainly without anything like reduced genetic diversity to interfere. For my purposes it is an excellent example of MICROevolution, which didn't even occur to Frako, who just accepts, as does Dawkins, that ANY "evolution" confirms the ToE.
and especially it doesn't say they're the same thing.
And again I did not say it said that. However, I meant they are same only in the sense that they are considered to be brought about by the same processes, and continuous one from the other as far as how they come about, so that my claim that variations in the phenotype tend to reduce genetic diversity, which shows how they can't be continuous, definitely opposes this common viewpoint, which has been expressed by MANY here. ("What's to stop microevolution from going right on to macroevolution").
The video is not about speciation either. It's about how surprisingly rapid the pace of evolution can be when environment changes.
Uh huh, you made your point that it's not about speciation (although there's no real reason why it couldn't be that I've seen yet), and I already commented that the rapidity is exactly what creationists would expect although it surprises Dawkins, and that's because the ToE customarily talks in terms of huge lengths of time. But breeding doesn't take all that much time, which continues to be the comparison that I find most useful; bringing about a new population with new traits from the previous population really does not take much time. All that's happened here is that we have an undeniable example of the fact that such changes within the genome of a Species do NOT require great swaths of time.
WHAT I SAID WAS I might be misremembering that the new lizards were unable to interbreed with the original population.
And I confirmed for you that you were definitely misremembering.
Excuse me but you did NOT refer to my misremembering a statement about inability to interbreed, you referred ONLY to that statement in the beginning of the video about the DNA test showing that the lizard was the same species as the original, which I remembered just fine.
It is very uncommon (though certainly not unheard of) for populations of the same species to be unable to interbreed, and had that been the case then it would have been featured prominently since it would require explanation.
Not in any discussion I've encountered about Speciation, which pretty much makes the inability to interbreed between mother and daughter populations the DEFINITION of Speciation. You seem to be trying to redefine everything from what others here have said at various times and what one normally finds on the internet about these things, AND all you are doing is asserting, not giving evidence.
Of course if speciation WERE true it wouldn't be the same species...
Wrong again. Why ever would you think that evolution requires that phenotypic change be accompanied by species change.
That's quite a nonsequitur there. Surely SPECIATION should produce something recognizably not the same species as that it evolved from, and it sure sounded like that's what YOU were saying until now too.
Neither this statement of mine nor anything else I've said EVER stated that evolution requires that phenotypic change be accompanied by species change. All kinds of phenotypic changes occur and are merely CALLED "evolution" as in the Dawkins video, and celebrated as if they demonstrated the ToE, whereas all they demonstrate is MICROevolution which creationists and everybody else back for millennia recognize as occurring within the genome of any given Species. Darwin of course originated this error, when he called the various finch types "species" and compared Natural Selection to Domestic Selection. Evolutionists have co-opted this common variation, which is how breeds form etc., and called it "evolution" which keeps requiring Creationists to point out that it ISN'T evolution in the sense that validates the ToE.
Have you somehow forgotten that evolution is well aware that there can be a great degree of phenotypic variation in some species?
See above. Certainly t'wasn't I who made such an error.
Have you forgotten the very familiar examples of dogs and pigeons? There are some significant phenotypic differences between the populations on the two islands, but these lizards are still the same species.
Of course they are. Where did I say otherwise? The problem is only that Frako regarded it as the formation of a new species which implies Speciation (and for all I've known that is often how such a situation IS described by evolutionists) but there is no problem whatever if it is NOT intended to be an example of Speciation but ONLY an example of "evolutionary change," period. Except of course the problem that Dawkins and Frako seem to think it would surprise a Creationist to see such "evolution" in action, because for some reason they absolutely miss the point that it reflects the commonest argument of Creationists about Microevolution, which is ALL this video demonstrates. (Even if it was about Speciation that would be the case).
After all, only 37 years had passed, so speciation is completely unexpected. But phenotypic change in response to environmental change is precisely what evolution expects, and there are some very familiar examples like the peppered moth, and these lizards are just another example.
Which I've certainly not treated otherwise. You seem to be bending over backwards to find me *wrong* about something, anything, but most of it is wildly off the mark of anything I've actually said. But isn't it rather interesting that Dawkins is so surprised at how little time it took for these lizards to develop their new characteristics among themselves?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 2:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 457 (708190)
10-06-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-06-2013 8:48 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Continuing to answer the post I didn't finish earlier:
Wikipedia gives that familiar little chart that shows four different ways speciation occurs and all four of them have in common that they involve a smaller population being reproductively isolated from a larger.
The diagram can be misleading. Only one of them requires a smaller population. Don't just look at the diagram, read the descriptions: Wikipedia article on Speciation.
It really doesn't matter if the new population is appreciably smaller except that if it is then the trend to reduction of genetic diversity is more obvious, and I focus on that because it best makes my point about what happens down lines of breeding and this very common way new populations form in the wild.
But such reduction may not even occur with a fairly equal division into two populations, as both populations may have all the same alleles -- but they will have them in different proportions or allele frequencies. Any population split means new allele frequencies for each of the new populations, and that's how you get new phenotypes.
The simple dictionary definition would by necessity leave out the details and say, as does Answers.com, "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, *usually* by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." But as the definition makes clear, division of a parent species into two new species is not the only way.
The problem with this is that you are not ever going to get an actual new Species from the mere division of one population into two. You are going to get new allele frequencies in both populations and therefore also new phenotypes, and if the populations are reproductively isolated from each other and other populations, then over generations of inbreeding each will develop its own new characteristics different from each other and from all other members of that Species. BUT this is still only microevolution. There is absolutely nothing about this situation that could possibly make new Species in any real sense.
Because reproduction is imperfect genomes are not fixed, and evolution over time is inevitable and unstoppable.
Of course, there is always going to be variation. Even from one generation to another there is observable variation, this is undisputed. But calling it "evolution" to imply that it validates the ToE is tendentious in a discussion like this one, when Creationists have no problem whatever with this level of variation but expect it.
Because of this species are not unchanging and cannot be unchanging, and even a population in a stable environment will still undergo evolutionary change over time and eventually become a different species genetically distinct from and incapable of breeding with their distant ancestors (who no longer exist).
It depends on the level of genetic diversity in the population. Your description is true if the gen. diversity is high; it is not true if it's very low, and especially at the extremes such as the cheetah and the elephant seal whose gen. diversity is pretty much nil.
Again I'm going to have to stop and come back later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 457 (708205)
10-06-2013 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
10-06-2013 6:05 PM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
deleted
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 6:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 457 (708208)
10-07-2013 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-06-2013 8:48 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
When the answer isn't obvious we often turn to DNA analysis.
I asked for a source not a generalization.
Certainly in the case of the lizards the answer isn't obvious as in the case of lions versus Chihuahuas.
One simple approach is genetic distance, and from there the analyses can become more detailed and complex, comparing genomes to see which genes are present in each population, and which alleles for each gene are present in each population.
What I wanted to know was whether cases of Speciation have been tested in this fashion and if you have a source of that particular specific information. Obviously you don't, you don't have any real evidence of whether Speciation produces a recognizable new Species or not.
And even DNA analysis can be inconclusive. For example, several DNA studies have been unable to conclusively demonstrate whether the bush elephant and the forest elephant are separate species.
That being the case one would expect it to be far from conclusive concerning the lizards, which are obviously the same species by your first criteria of judging by appearance anyway. If that one isn't considered Speciation there are plenty of similar cases of what are obviously to the naked eye the same Species that are called Speciation nevertheless. The whole thing about Speciation is a gigantic delusion. What you have is merely a variation of the same Species that has stopped being able to interbreed with its former population.
I believe it may have been PaulK who made that equation somewhere back there, when he was so astonished at the idea that evolution or phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity.
Now you're misstating your own claim. Your claim is not that "phenotypic diversity requires a reduction in genetic diversity." Your claim is that new phenotypic types only emerge after a reduction in genetic diversity
I've said it both ways many times.
In sexual reproduction, allele remixing occurs with every reproductive event.
That is correct. But I was thinking population level genetics.
But without mutation it's still the same species. You haven't explained the origin of species. You're claims are equivalent to denying speciation.
Even WITH mutation it's still the same species. It's nothing but BELIEF that says otherwise. Yes indeed I AM denying speciation. It does not happen. What is called speciation is just normal variation that has produced a variety that can no longer interbreed with the parent population. And since the vast majority of such cases, even most likely all of them, are going to be characterized by reduced genetic diversity there is no way you are ever going to get another "speciation" event from that same population. End of evolution for that line of variation.
Again, all you have is the article of faith that mutations EVER make enough of the right kind of difference to power any aspect of the ToE at all.
When belief instead of fact drives understanding there will always be contradicting facts that must be ignored. Your views will have no persuasive power until they are factually inclusive instead of exclusive.
Exactly. So where is your actual evidence as opposed to mere belief, that speciation has ever occurred at all, by DNA analysis which is what you claimed, and that mutations do what you say they do?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-06-2013 8:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:50 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 10-07-2013 9:18 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 457 (708209)
10-07-2013 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
10-07-2013 5:28 AM


Re: How about revisiting the lizards for a bit?
Oh and one other piece of evolutionist lore is the idea that the lizards in the Dawkins video developed their big heads and jaws as an adaptation to their new environment, but not one word was said about the environment being different from the previous environment. This is just the usual evo creed. The most likely explanation for their developing their larger heads and jaws is just that they had the new allele frequencies that over generations of inbreeding brought out that trait picture. And since they HAD the ability to eat vegetable matter they did so. The very same kind of vegetable matter that was on the previous island where their ancestors didn't happen to have the larger heads so they preferred insects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 5:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 255 of 457 (708210)
10-07-2013 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by frako
10-01-2013 10:12 AM


Back to Frako's claims for speciation
Since speciation has become the topic of the moment here's Frako's list from Message 86:
1. Observed instances of new species forming
Observed beneficial mutations and speciation in Anolis lizards
Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse
Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.
A new species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas
Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella
A new species of mosquito in London Culex pipiens
Finch speciation in the Galapagos
Darwin's Galapagos finches are clearly nothing but variations that happened to get isolated from each other that led each new population to a new kind of food that its beak was best adapted for.. They are not new Species, they are varieties (the wild equivalent of breeds) of Finches.
The same is no doubt the case for most of the rest on the list. Any proof otherwise? Or just an article of belief and definitional word magic that it's speciation etc etc etc.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 10:12 AM frako has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 457 (708254)
10-07-2013 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Percy
10-07-2013 1:46 PM


Environment-driven evolution
Right, and the National Geographic article seemed to indicate that the scientists were leaning the same way. Gene plasticity measures a genome's responsiveness to environmental changes. Faith is correct when she guesses that the individual lizards chosen for the founder population will have an influence on what happens during subsequent adaptation to the different environment of the new island, but her dismissal of the role of environment and natural selection is just bizarre.
Thanks for the acknowledgment that sometimes I get something right.
1) "Gene plasticity" sounds something like a throwback to Lamarckianism the way you define it. The only way a gene could "respond" to environmental change is by having alleles in the population (mutant or not, ok?) that bring out traits that are useful in that environment, which we would then expect to be selected. But unless it's a drastic sort of selection in which all the maladapted individuals simply die off leaving those with the helpful alleles, that is going to take a lot of time, many generations, so the environmental pressure can't be too severe.
2) I don't recall that the Dawkins video said anything about the environment being appreciably different and therefore the cause of the changes in the lizard, it merely focused on the changes to the lizard that made them capable of eating vegetation. Which makes me wonder if those who wrote the Nat Geog article were perhaps just assuming it. Also, perhaps I misremember the video in many different ways despite listening more than once but I also don't recall that there were already lizards on the new island, I had the impression that there definitely weren't.
Darwin's finches that developed a number of new populations with different capacities to eat different sorts of foods due to different beak design, were all in the same environment, all on the same island, were they not? So there's no reason to think the food itself drove the changes. Seems to me it happened this way: Somehow different populations of them got reproductively isolated from one another and through inbreeding of their particular allele frequencies developed their different beak styles characteristic of each isolated population, which caused them to gravitate to the sorts of foods their beaks were best adapted to. Some beaks being best for catching and eating insects that's what that population did; some being suited to crunching hard nuts that's what those did, and so on.
3) If the environment is pretty much the same as on the first island, and I had no reason to think it wasn't, you are still going to get changes in the lizards because of the small number* of individuals that were transported to the new island. AGAIN this is because of their new allele frequencies which are naturally going to bring out new traits which will become characteristic of the new population over some number of generations of inbreeding. In this case the new traits happened to favor eating vegetation so the later generations ate vegetation. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if another ten lizards had been taken out of the same first population and put on yet another island with the same basic sorts of lizard food you could expect the development of a completely different new set of traits because that subset of lizards would have its own new allele frequencies to play out. The result would be a lizard with new characteristics that may or may not be particularly adapted to the environment in some special way. It might be or it might just be an interesting new variation.
I don't deny the role of environment and natural selection in ALL cases, I just think that in MOST cases it isn't what is bringing about the phenotypic (trait) changes in a new population because all that takes is the new allele frequencies. And again, nothing was said on the video to imply an appreciably changed environment. Also, as I said, it would take much longer, probably much much longer than the 37 years in this case.
------------
* ANY population split will produce a new population with new traits due to new allele frequencies, it doesn't have to be a small population, it's just that in that case the differences will show up sooner as the new frequencies won't take as long to work their way through the entire population and reduced genetic diversity will also more clearly characterize that smaller population. If the two populations are roughly equal then both should show changes from changed allele frequencies but over a much longer period of time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Percy, posted 10-07-2013 1:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 10-07-2013 5:31 PM Faith 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