|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9219 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,755 Year: 1,077/6,935 Month: 358/719 Week: 0/146 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Faith writes: What you are calling the "scientific facts" I'm supposedly "admitting I can't explain" are what I've been saying are relevant to the ToE but not to Creationism. That being the case there is nothing for me to explain. The reason that reality is not relevant to the creation model is because the creation model is not a part of reality. You have confirmed that your creation model is false since it can't explain what we see in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Saying it's not relevant to the creation model is not the same thing as saying I can't explain it. I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, a lot of mutations have arisen. Most of them doing nothing at all. And your point is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So every species that has more than two alleles per gene NOW has them because they are beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations. That's a lot of beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations. Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
After you've posted it it's probably best not to break it up.
But I'm having the usual problem with the glaring white diagrams. I'll see if I can improve the situation by copying it all into Word. ABE: I don't know how to make them easier to see. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: But it is saying that the creation model has no explanation. If the creation model dismisses facts as irrelevant then surely they are outside the model.
quote: But you aren’t being asked to describe the source of individual changes. You are being asked to explain patterns of genetic similarity - patterns which can obviously be explained by common ancestry, but have no obvious alternate explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can't get "patterns of common ancestry" from random mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: The patterns are there. Common ancestry is the best explanation. If they are outside the creation model as you claim then you have a problem. Ignoring them for an obviously spurious reason is not a sensible response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, I'm going to wait for RAZD to continue this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Indeed, microevolution is one part of macroevolution, and the other part is time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution. But this is just the ToE assumption. In reality microevolution can't lead to macroevolution because the processes of variation require the loss of genetic variability. Domestic breeding always seems to be the best illustration: You can't get a Great Dane without losing most of the genetic material for Dachsunds and Chihuahuas and Golden Retrievers. When Darwin formulated his theory based on Natural Selection he assumed it was open ended and didn't realize it requires genetic loss, and neither does anyone today it seems. You all talk about Natural Selection as if it could add something or at least not subtract, I guess because it does result in new phenotypes, but it HAS to subtract. And then of course when you do recognize it you try to make up the difference with mutations but all mutations could do is add to the pool of alleles, and it's only by reducing that pool with new gene frequencies that you get new phenotypes. Yes I know I say this over and over and you deny it over and over but it's the only way it can happen. Getting a new population with new characteristics either in breeding or in the wild requires loss. That's what selection IS and DOES, it's a process of isolating a new set of individuals for a new set of gene frequencies and that's the ONLY way you can get new phenotypes. You get new gene frequencies with each isolation of a portion of the parent population, and it's the isolation that brings out the new traits, leaving other traits behind. This is a random process in the wild though intentional in breeding. I know you have the usual ToE assumptions about all this but they don't work. In a ring species what REALLY happens is that a population multiplies for some time and then individuals migrate from it to a new location and start a new population. These individuals carry a new set of gene frequencies from the set that formed the first population, so if they are have reproductive isolation, which may not be perfect but for the sake of discussion we can assume it is, then after some generations of breeding within this new population you'll have a completely new "species" that may have some dramatic new characteristics simply because it is combining a new and probably smaller set of alleles. It can probably interbreed with the original population. And then after this second population is well established and its numbers have grown a great deal, individuals migrate away from it and establish a third population and the process repeats: new phenotypes from new gene frequencies and NO mutations necessary at all. And of course all this is microevolution, it's all the product of the same species genome losing alleles from population to population, until finally it should develop fixed loci for most of the salient characteristics of the last population. This is oversimplified but should hold up generally. In reality there will be some gene flow, maybe resumed gene flow, hybrid zones and so on and so forth. So you are going to go on with an entirely different scenario which I'll come back to. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Do you mean Taq ? Because this doesn’t seem to be one of Razd’s subtopics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1729 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. ... But they do change the genotype and they do add to the pool of hereditary DNA for a breeding population. And that also means that they can be included in later mutations (as is true for all mutations that don't kill the bearer). We actually saw this happening with the e-coli citrus experiment, where the bacteria could consume the citrus after two mutations occurred, where one built on the other.
In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm. Which fails to explain the e-coli citrus experiment beneficial results. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1729 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 431 I explain why evolution leaves a pattern of descent due to evolution, including nested hierarchies, and Faith is currently muddling through that post. That could be what she means.
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: That’s your opinion, and one that is almost certainly wrong.
quote: Even domestic breeding makes use of mutations, if the breeder likes them. However, because of the shorter timescales and strong selection it is certain to underestimate the importance of mutations. Moreover, it does not seem to produce new species.
quote: As you know perfectly well we believe that mutation replaces genetic variation. And the evidence supports us.
quote: Interestingly the most rapid evolutionary change occurs while selection is weak. And, of course, we all know how selection works.
quote: I think you mean that you don’t like them because they do work.
quote: Of course you do not know what really happens, you just assume. And you do not explain why more distant populations lose the ability to interbreed. That is what makes it a ring species rather than a collection of subspecies.
quote: If you remove the intermediate populations, a ring species would become two species. That’s a good example of how microevolution can lead to macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1768 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. ... But they do change the genotype and they do add to the pool of hereditary DNA for a breeding population. Yes, but again, adding to the genotype doesn't change the phenotype, which is what you are more or less acknowledging here. You have to subtract to get new phenotypes. When you add mutations you may or may not get a new allele, usually all you get doesn't change the phenotype at all, and if you do get something new it's only going to be a variation on what the gene already does. I'm talking about sexually reproducing creatures here though I know you are going to go on to e coli which to my mind is a wholly different kind of situation. Anyway, ADDING to the pool of alleles, even if mutations did do that, which is highly suspect to my mind, certainly extremely rare in any case, at the very very best it could only supply a slightly different trait to a new set of gene frequencies, which might or might not be incorporated into a new isolated population. But to get a new "species" meaning a new look to a new population, requires subtraction, so the odds of getting a mutation incorporated into it aren't very high anyway. Just to repeat, it takes SUBTRACTION of alleles to get new phenotypes.
And that also means that they can be included in later mutations (as is true for all mutations that don't kill the bearer). "Can," but not likely.
We actually saw this happening with the e-coli citrus experiment, where the bacteria could consume the citrus after two mutations occurred, where one built on the other. And that has to be the result of a loss too, the loss of whatever the allele did that was replaced by the mutation. But could we please stik to sexually reproducing creatures? E coli doesn't say much about them.
In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm. Which fails to explain the e-coli citrus experiment beneficial results. That's still an accident to my mind, as would be the very occasional similar function brought about by a mutation in other creatures. But if you get a whole population of citrus-eating e coli they will have lost whatever function the mutation replaced and maybe that ends up being some kind of harm. But just because a mutation gets something functional in e coli doesn't make it a model for sexually reproducing organisms and again could we please stik to those. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025