Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 676 of 908 (817945)
08-22-2017 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by PaulK
08-22-2017 12:25 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
I don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus. All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics. I don't even believe there is such a thing as speciation, not as you all understand it though the fact is no doubt real enough, but since you all do I'm asking what you think brings it about. And please point to an example. It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 12:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 12:38 AM Faith has replied
 Message 689 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 677 of 908 (817946)
08-22-2017 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by Faith
08-22-2017 12:31 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
quote:
I don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus
But you are arguing about it, asking questions and insisting on your own idea of how it happens. And getting angry when people disagree and produce evidence for a contrary view.
quote:
All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics
If that was the case you wouldn't have spent years arguing about it. No, you are arguing about more than that - and that is where the trouble lies.
quote:
It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from.
Maybe it does, but reduced genetic diversity is not even a likely cause of the loss of interfertility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 1:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 678 of 908 (817947)
08-22-2017 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by PaulK
08-22-2017 12:38 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Evidence? Nobody's given any evidence of anything. All you're doing is slinging assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 12:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 1:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 679 of 908 (817948)
08-22-2017 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Faith
08-22-2017 1:06 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Evidence of what ? That reduced genetic diversity is NOT a likely cause of the loss of interfertility ? I provided some in my previous message Message 675

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 1:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 680 of 908 (817951)
08-22-2017 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 669 by DOCJ
08-21-2017 8:55 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
DOCJ writes:
I don't believe the flood was 4500 years ago.
Well you'd be correct about that but are you sure it's biblical?
In an article written by a certain Doc J(ohn), Creation.com has it at 4,285 years ago.
The Date of Noah’s Flood - creation.com

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"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 669 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 8:55 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 681 of 908 (817953)
08-22-2017 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Faith
08-21-2017 11:56 PM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Faith writes:
Gradually accumulating genetic differences in separated populations is what brings about speciation.
Right, so how are those genetic differences accumulated? What brings that about?
...So please explain how you think they are accumulated.
Where were you the first 117 times this was explained?
Mutations occur in every generation. Those that are neutral or beneficial are passed on to the next generation, and the next and the next and the next and onward through time. Gradually these mutations accumulate and spread throughout the population. Separated populations of the same species would acquire and accumulate different mutations and gradually become increasingly genetically incompatible.
My argument accounts for a great deal of genetic difference accumulating between separated populations, but the differences I keep saying accumulate don't do it for you.
Your scenario can never reach the point of genetic incompatibility. The daughter population can only possess genes and alleles already genetically compatible with the parent population.
This is obvious because genetic distinctness is what defines all the species that exist in the world today. Differing allele frequencies do not define species, different alleles and genes do.
Different alleles obviously don't or that would be the case in my scenarios.
You can't get different alleles in your scenarios because you allow no role for mutation. In your scenarios a daughter population can only have alleles the parent population already has. And in your scenarios a daughter population can certainly never acquire new genes, and differing genes is the most distinct difference between most species.
Different genes -- where do they come from? Do you have even a shred of evidence of different genes occurring and causing speciation?
New genes are often copying errors, just like new alleles are copying errors. New genes come about in various ways. A new gene may be formed by gene duplication, where a gene is copied twice instead of just once during gamete formation. Or small mutations could create start/stop codons in a previously inactive region of the genome. Or start/stop codons could mutate to something else, resulting in one gene becoming two, or two genes becoming one, or a sequence of previously inactive DNA being added to an existing gene. Lateral gene transfer might introduce a gene from another species. Or viruses might insert a new gene.
If you do, which I strongly doubt, my guess is you're talking about a severely deleterious situation, just another way further evolution becomes impossible and most likely a step on the way to extinction.
Any offspring experiencing a mutation rendering it meaningfully less fit will not likely pass its genes on to the next generation. Selection filters out deleterious alleles and genes before they affect the population.
Gene duplicates are especially easy to detect, and there are many examples. It is estimated that the human lineage has experienced 100 gene duplicates per million years (Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes). The most familiar example of gene duplication is actually duplication of an entire chromosome with all its genes: Down syndrome. Many plants contain examples of duplication of their entire genomes (polyploid speciation). Ice fish have a gene duplication that provides an antifreeze capability (Gene Duplication), and snakes have a gene duplication that helps provide snake venom (Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A2 genes). The similar MWS/LWS genes in primates arose through gene duplication and provide improved color sensitivity for eyesight (Evolution of colour vision in primates).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-21-2017 11:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 682 of 908 (817957)
08-22-2017 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Faith
08-22-2017 12:04 AM


Faith writes:
Maybe I'll never be able to prove it, though I think it's obvious from everything I've argued about this.
You'll never be able to prove something that is obviously false. Reduced genetic diversity can never cause genetic speciation. At a minimum different species have different alleles (meaning that each species population possesses alleles the other does not have), and most commonly different species have different genes. Simply reducing genetic diversity can never produce alleles in the daughter population that don't exist in the parent population, and without that the two populations can never become genetically incompatible.
There's nothing "religious" about it at all, it's all about genetics, whether anybody gets it or not.
Nobody gets it because there's nothing to get. When one person "talks" for years and receives nothing but the equivalent of blank looks from everyone, including those who share her religious views, the fault doesn't lie with everyone else.
If breeds are developed by losing genetic diversity, so are varieties, races and yes, species.
You cannot transform a daughter population into a new species simply by reducing genetic diversity because the daughter population can only possess genes and alleles already present in the parent population. It's why breeders cannot produce new species.
You are all fooling yourselves that genetic diversity has to increase or that it even could increase when selection has to cut it down over and over again to get a population with a new character.
You're again ignoring the fact that it depends upon the *rate* of selection and the *rate* of mutation. If mutation produces new alleles faster than selection removes alleles, then diversity increases.
The ToE has all of you under a spell, not persuaded by evidence at all, just under a spell.
Says the religious fanatic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 8:22 AM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 683 of 908 (817958)
08-22-2017 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 621 by DOCJ
08-21-2017 9:50 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Science is still Science. ...
Further Science can only do so much in finding reality, it can only study what is observed.
Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up.
So all pretense of neutrality is now dropped and you've moved into full preacher mode. Another one.
... Further Science is not in the business of finding God. ...
Correct, it doesn't study what cannot be tested.
... Science has not been used to show new kinds from different kinds. ...
And, curiously, it never will ... because evolution does not work that way. It seems only creationists, in general, and YECists in particular, seem to make this argument from ignorance.
The way you defined "kind" in Message 396 is essentially the same as a clade (see my Message 615). Evolution says that descendant of any organism in a clade is still a member of that clade, no matter how much or how little it is changed/evolved since the parent organism/s.
... Thus it is not in contradiction to creationism. ...
Until you look at the details, like the fact that all organisms have common ancestors with all other organisms, just at different times in the past. There is no mass stopping point with a bunch of different "kinds" and no ancestors for them.
... And it is a joke to pretend Science can find origin.
We'll see who gets the last laugh, science or mythology ... so far mythology has a pretty poor record of documenting reality.
Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up.
It only has "extreme limits" in the minds of those who want those limits to be there. YECism on the other hand is constrained by their love of convenient lies and comfortable ignorance.
Real science observes all the evidence, including fossils and rocks, and then uses theory to explain those facts and make predictions. The eclipse is just simple celestial mechanics that even school kids can work out.
As an example of looking at all the facts we can observe all the evidence for an old earth and easily see that it exceeds the mythological age of YECism by several orders of magnetude. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 if you disagree.
Perhaps you can explain why there is so much evidence of an old earth that all conforms and correlates with all the other evidence?
If you love science then the pursuit of knowledge on how old the earth is should be of interest.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 9:50 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 684 of 908 (817960)
08-22-2017 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
08-22-2017 12:21 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Faith writes:
Of course it's true that you don't have selection without variation. My argument is that ultimately you WILL completely run out of variation so there is nothing more to select, which means evolution must stop. That would be the point where there is so much homozygosity you've run out of variation. All of it could be recently accumulated mutations but once they've been reduced to enough homozygosity, end of evolution.
As has been explained many times, mutation and selection are simultaneous processes. Both are taking place in every generation. Selection decides which individuals pass their genes on to the next generation, and mutation provides each offspring with a genome slightly different from its parents. The production of new genetic material to select from never ceases.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 8:20 AM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 685 of 908 (817961)
08-22-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 684 by Percy
08-22-2017 8:19 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Yeah you all do keep "explaining" this and completely missing the point.
Whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 8:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 9:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 686 of 908 (817962)
08-22-2017 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Percy
08-22-2017 8:11 AM


You'll never be able to prove something that is obviously false. Reduced genetic diversity can never cause genetic speciation.
Good thing that's not what I'm trying to prove then.
All I'm proving and have proved is that selection brings evolution to a halt. Mutations can't stop it.
The idea that the RATE of mutation makes a difference is an illusion.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 8:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2017 9:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 692 by Percy, posted 08-22-2017 9:37 AM Faith has replied
 Message 694 by herebedragons, posted 08-22-2017 9:48 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 687 of 908 (817963)
08-22-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by DOCJ
08-21-2017 12:26 PM


Re: kinds and clades again
(RAZD: How would you draw a cladogram of chimps and humans?)
Not related. Different kinds. There is not any evidence suggesting the 2 species are related. Having similarities is a weak point to argue evolution.
So are Chimps and Gorillas in one kind or two? Orangutans? Gibbons? How do we know?
Can you tell me which of these are related to Chimps and which are related to Humans?
quote:

I'll help you get started:
Chimp: A, and ...
Human: N, and ...
How can you tell?
I'm not neutral but I can see different perspectives. I have not always been a beleiver. I took anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry and many other courses in college and started realizing the universe is to organized, and life is to organized to not accept creation.
So, then all of creation is a record written in matter and time of the work of the god/s ... would not studying that record to understand it as fully as possible be more likely to find reality than looking in a book of myths and anecdotes, often contradicted by the full record of creation: the earth is older than 10,000 years, the universe is older still, and there was no global flood.
Science does not "prove" things (at best it validates theories that approximate reality) but it does disprove things, like world wide fantasy floods and preposterous young age.
Mythology neither proves nor disproves anything, it is not an exploratory/discovery paradigm. It just provides comfortable ignorance to coddle special people ... imho.
Such as the belief that people are special and different from the other animals.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 12:26 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 688 of 908 (817964)
08-22-2017 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 669 by DOCJ
08-21-2017 8:55 PM


adam, eve, and eden, but no flood ...
Ok. I don't believe the flood was 4500 years ago. I am merely 1 of the millions of old earth creationist ...
So how old is the earth, out of curiosity ...
... And the flood would of been somewhere in the range of a 100,000 years ago.The book of nature has just as much to say about God as scripture and the two sources work together to explain our reality.
And yet you are still wrong about the flood. There is evidence in the "book of nature" that invalidates that date.
... Adam and Eve lived probably a couple hundred thousand years ago which is biblical. ...
Based on what evidence from the "book of nature" ... ? Genetics?
quote:
In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living humans are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally. As with "Mitochondrial Eve", the title of "Y-chromosomal Adam" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but can advance over the course of human history as paternal lineages become extinct.
Estimates of the time when Y-MRCA lived have also shifted as modern knowledge of human ancestry changes. In 2013, the discovery of a previously unknown Y-chromosomal haplogroup was announced,[1] which resulted in a slight adjustment of the estimated age of the human Y-MRCA.[2]
By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time.[3] While estimates as of 2014 suggested the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years),[4] the discovery of archaic Y-haplogroup has pushed back the estimated age of the Y-MRCA beyond the most likely age of the mt-MRCA. As of 2015, estimates of the age of the Y-MRCA range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the emergence of anatomically modern humans.[5]
quote:
In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration,[2] but her age is not known with certainty; a 2009 estimate cites an age between c. 152 and 234 thousand years ago (95% CI);[3] a 2013 study cites a range of 99—148 thousand years ago.[4]
Because mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is almost exclusively passed from mother to offspring without recombination (see the exception at paternal mtDNA transmission), most mtDNA in every living person differs only by the mutations that have occurred over generations in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".
So 200,000 to 300,000 years ago for "adam" and 152,000 to 234,000 years ago for "eve" ... was there a long time before one of "adam's" ribs was transmogrified into "eve" by god-magic?
Or was "eden" 200,000 to 234,000 years ago? and where was it?
There certainly was no world wide flying fantasy flood since then ... (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 7 to Message 9). Or is the "book of nature" lying?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by DOCJ, posted 08-21-2017 8:55 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 894 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 5:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 689 of 908 (817968)
08-22-2017 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by Faith
08-22-2017 12:31 AM


Re: RILs refute your idea of speciation
Faith writes:
I don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus.
Sure speciation is your focus. That's why you keep talking about species. This claim about species is from your Message 645:
Faith in Message 645 writes:
That's how a domestic breed is maintained and it has to be how a species is maintained as well.
This one's from Message 666:
Faith in Message 666 writes:
If severe reduction in genetic diversity doesn't, then although I think that must be the actual genetic situation in most supposedly new species,...
This one is from Message 673:
Faith in Message 673 writes:
If breeds are developed by losing genetic diversity, so are varieties, races and yes, species.
So of course your focus is species, which it has to be because this thread is about macroevolution (change above the species level) versus microevolution (change within a species).
All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics.
That's breeding. There's no disagreement about breeding. The disagreement is about speciation.
I don't even believe there is such a thing as speciation,...
Yes, you do. You believe that after the flood the small set of species from the ark evolved rapidly through loss of genetic diversity to produce the great diversity of species we observe today. But as has been clearly explained many times, loss of genetic diversity in a daughter population cannot produce new species, because the daughter population only possesses genes and alleles already present in the parent population and cannot be genetically incompatible.
...not as you all understand it though the fact is no doubt real enough, but since you all do I'm asking what you think brings it about.
You're repeating the same question over and over again. The answer hasn't changed. New species are produced as mutations occur and are selected. Over time the selected mutations accumulate until the change is sufficient for there to be the genetic incompatibility that characterizes the division between species.
And please point to an example.
Examples of speciation? Sure. This list is from Examples of Speciation, I only include the ones for which I could find information:
  • Hawthorne fly. Sympatric speciation. Split into two populations after introduction of the apple tree to the Americas.
  • Three-spined sticklebacks. The 1964 Alaska earthquake created new breeding sites that resulted in rapid divergence and possibly speciation.
  • Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago. High numbers of species, seem to have high rate of gene duplication.
  • Tennessee cave salamanders. Speciation in the presence of gene flow with parent species.
  • Greenish Warbler. You already know about this one.
  • Ensatina salamanders. Another ring species. Provides examples of many stages of the speciation process.
  • Larus gulls. Another ring species, this one circumpolar.
  • Petroica multicolor. Peripatric speciation.
  • Drosophila. This one's interesting because it was accomplished in the lab.
  • Galpagos finches. Familiar example.
  • Grand Canyon squirrels. Separated by the canyon, they evolved into different squirrel species.
  • Primula kewensis. Example of polyploid speciation in plants.
It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from.
Again, depleted genetic diversity cannot produce speciation. The daughter population will always be genetically compatible with the parent population.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 12:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 690 of 908 (817969)
08-22-2017 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 686 by Faith
08-22-2017 8:22 AM


quote:
All I'm proving and have proved is that selection brings evolution to a halt
You haven't proven that. In fact it's been disproven. Really, why do you come out with these obviously false claims ?
quote:
The idea that the RATE of mutation makes a difference is an illusion.
Hardly. The rate would need to be zero for you to be right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Faith, posted 08-22-2017 8:22 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