Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the phylogeographic challenge to creationism
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 298 (266320)
12-07-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by TimChase
12-06-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Ring Species
Wow, I see my attempts to post this last night did take after all, rather too many times, despite my getting the message many times that the site was down. Since then I corrected some things and added to it as well. Sorry, this will be a little different from the original(s), but not by much.
=================================================================
Faith writes:
It's just a variation on the same theme. Subpopulations merely differ from one another because of having different frequencies of alleles from other populations of the same species/kind due to reproductive isolation from the other groups for one reason or another*. Why is this treated as something special? The accidents AND selectively determined incidents of reproductive separation predictably produce new phenotypes by shuffling the alleles at the very least, often reducing the genetic possibilities too. Nothing is necessarily added in order for this to occur. Same situation as in the OP really**, with somewhat different reasons for the variations.
---------------
*"One reason or another" could be natural selection or geographical isolation or bottleneck or anything of that sort.
quote:
Well, what is neat about it is the fact that it demonstrates speciation in action in a way that in a certain sense is frozen in time, so that any time one visits the place, one can see the living evidence.
But evidence of what? Of the fact that populations may vary quite a bit from one another under certain circumstances, sometimes to extremes? This is commonplace. The processes that bring it about are the subtractive processes under discussion, contradicting the idea that these very processes of variation and selection demonstrate evolution.
Wipe out that which connects the two extremes and they are no longer members of the same species -- but are they members of the same species while the bridge exists? Well, yes and no. Is cyan blue or is it green? At this point, we are asking the wrong question.
That's not a question I'm asking. While I'm sure it is possible to judge the limit of speciation from phenotypes somehow or other I'm not looking for it there. I expect to find the limit to speciation at the point where the subtractive processes that act on populations, known as Evolutionary Processes, put a stop to it naturally, which I would consider to be the genetic limit of a Kind.
Additionally, oftentimes those who deny the reality of macroevolution will do so at the level of species, claiming that one species cannot evolve into two. Or maybe they pick a somewhat higher level, such as denying that an autocatalytic RNA strand (essentially, a viroid with the ability to reproduce) could ever evolve into a human being. But once one admits speciation, the rest is largely just a matter of degree.
So goes the theory, but if the processes that bring about speciation simultaneously reduce the genetic diversity that evolution requires (beyond the commonplace variation on given genetic allotments), and mutation turns out not to be a sufficiently effective counter to this subtraction process, then this theory of an open-ended evolution is falsified.
As for the generation of "new information," this is something which occurs principally in terms of the populations. For example, a single nucleic polymorphism ("snip") will result in a new allele, one which didn't exist in the population before -- and that is the generation of new information, but simply noise until it passes through the filter of natural selection into the general population.
This is a side issue but presumably even a deleterious allele could be selected, because of its association with others, no? The perennial question of course is How often are these "new alleles" of any benefit? And, one I've asked before here that I don't believe has yet been answered, How do you KNOW a "new allele ... didn't exist in the population before?" How do you know it is not a rarely occurring event that has always been part of the genetic picture of this species?
However, the more interesting ways of generating new information consists of gene duplication, segmental duplication, chromosomal duplication, and polyploidy -- or the mutation of regulatory DNA which is responsible for determining when, where and how much a given gene gets expressed.
All these are bascially varieties of mutation, right? And the same questions apply. How many are of any real use to the species as opposed to a disease process? If they seem to confer some benefit or at least do no harm, how do you know they are unique to the species?
The duplications make possible sub-functionalization (which is responsible for the dichromatic vision of our ancestors becoming our own trichromatic vision) and neo-functionalization (which is responsible for an enzyme involved in digestion being co-opted for the coagulation of blood).
Again, what makes you so sure that these functions originated from novel events?
And the mutation of regulatory DNA? A great deal more, evidentally. 99% of our 25,000 genes are homologous to the 25,000 genes found in mice. 96% of those genes are in the same exact relative order. So it would seem that the majority of evolution does not occur as the result of mutations in the genes themselves but in terms of the DNA which regulates gene expression.
Such similarities are just as well explained by similarities of design as by descent. Probably at least 99% of all internal combustion-powered vehicles have parts with basically the same function despite vast differences in appearance and speed and so on. The same principle does just as well for living things, needing no appeal to genetic descent.
In any case, mutations take time. Natural selection will reduce the genetic diversity for a while when there exist strong selective pressures, but then new mutations will occur within the population, replentishing its genetic diversity.
So I've heard. But I haven't seen that this actually occurs, it is merely asserted to be the case. A lot is assumed here but not demonstrated.
Moreover, once the two populations have been separated (for whatever reason), the mutations which occur in one population will no longer be communicated to the other population. The two populations will diverge, then tend to adapt to different environments and different pressures.
Yes, again, so goes the theory. But even without mutation, with the portion of the given complement of alleles taken from the parent population, a great deal of divergent changes are not only likely but inevitable. The adaptations, the selection, all the processes work the same way without mutations being assumed. Again, how do you know that any beneficial mutations ARE mutations, that is, how do you know they are novel events rather than predictable events that occur normally and repeatedly in the population?
At some point, even if the two species come into contact with one-another, they will no longer be able to produce fertile offspring -- and they will continue to diverge. Quite simple, actually.
Yes, but the fact that they become unable to interbreed is simply a definitional point for evolutionists, supposedly marking a new "species," although it doesn't in itself demonstrate anything except that subpopulations of a species may vary to the point that interbreeding becomes difficult to impossible between them. (Creationist explanation: The Kinds were designed to vary enormously and the loss of the ability to interbreed would tend to preserve the varieties. In a fallen world unfortunately they tend to extinction at the extremes, but in the original Creation they would merely demonstrate its creative exuberance.)
Of course, if you are looking for really good smoking guns as far as demonstrating the reality of evolution, some of the best I am aware of are pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. Not exactly what you would call conclusive -- nothing is in empirical science. As Duhem's thesis shows, it is always possible for someone to choose a less reasonable interpretation of the empirical evidence over a more reasonable interpretation -- indeed, one can coherently maintain that the world is only five minutes or five seconds old without fear of self-contradiction. But for the good majority of people who understand what they are and how common they are, I suspect pseudogenes and ERVs would be enough. (Additionally, I am rather fond of the idea of having 30,000 retroviruses in every one of my haploid genomes -- quite a collection!, or the idea that nearly fifty percent of my genome appears to be retroviral in origin [e.g., consists of retroelements].)
I'm sure this would be a fertile subject for creationist investigation, but it is off topic, so maybe you could start a new thread for it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 12:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by TimChase, posted 12-06-2005 2:16 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by TimChase, posted 12-08-2005 9:50 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 212 of 298 (266321)
12-07-2005 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by TimChase
12-06-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Ring Species
Sorry, duplicate post.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 12:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by TimChase, posted 12-06-2005 2:16 PM TimChase has not replied

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


Message 213 of 298 (266322)
12-07-2005 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by TimChase
12-06-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Ring Species
Sorry, triplicate post.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 12:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by TimChase, posted 12-06-2005 2:16 PM TimChase has not replied

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


Message 214 of 298 (266323)
12-07-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by TimChase
12-06-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Ring Species
Sorry, quadruplicate post.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 12:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by TimChase, posted 12-06-2005 2:16 PM TimChase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by mark24, posted 12-07-2005 6:36 AM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 215 of 298 (266324)
12-07-2005 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
12-06-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Evolution=Random Mutaion + Selection (E=1+x-y)
Well but I dare say it WOULD be a meaningful result if I could demonstrate that evolution cannot happen
I don't think it would be even then. Whatever you used to demonstrate evolution cannot happen would be meaningful.
People really do think that these subtractive processes lead to evolution
Who? Whenever I see debate about mutation or natural selection it is the creationists which seem to think that only one or the other is meant to lead to evolution.
I beg to differ. The current definition does describe devolution because the mere change in frequency of alleles adds nothing genetically. [AbE: Without mutation] it either reshuffles or it subtracts, it adds nothing, and that is what I'm calling DEvolution. It is all I'm talking about. [AbE: MOST changes in the frequency of alleles are this type, either a reshuffling or a subtraction of diversity].
This is wierd. The current definition does not describe devolution. You then go on to clarify: The current definition if we ignore part of the definition (ie mutation) describes devolution. I fail to see your point? This is like saying that digging foundations does not create a skyscraper, therefore digging foundations is not a construction process.
Fecundity does nothing but increase NUMBERS OF PHENOTYPES, it does not affect genetic diversity [AbE: it is mutation that increases diversity; fecundity merely spreads the result in the population and fecundity doesn't apply to all species either]
Fecundity is coupled with the fact that all offspring carry unique mutations. Once again, only if we decide to randomly ignore a major element in ToE then you'd be barking up the right tree.
SELECTION, again, is one of the SUBTRACTIVE processes I'm talking about, it adds nothing, it merely chooses one allele over another, sometimes by the actual elimination of the one rejected.
I'm not denying that. However, it may seem paradoxical to you, but it can be shown that random mutations coupled with a selection process can lead to an increase in informaiton.
And what do you mean by "variability?" It is just another word for diversity it seems to me, and I've been showing that genetic diversity is reduced
You haven't shown that genetic diversity is reduced. You have only tautologically shown that if we ignore the mechanism(s) for the increase in genetic diversity and only look at the things which reduce or maintain genetic diversity then genetic diversity reduces or is maintained. Hardly a breakthrough there.
Variability is a function of mutations, epigenesis and possibly other processes we haven't touched on.
When you say at the end of your post, "If evolution is just mutation and selection and we remove mutation, then all we have is selection" you are agreeing with me that the trend of all the selective subtractive processes is a genetic reduction.
Right, and its tautological. If we look at a system that has nothing new coming into then nothing new is coming into it.
I've been backing it up all along. It is a matter of thinking through the logic of it.
No it isn't. It would be a matter of logic if you weren't making the claim that 'OVERALL, as a TREND, no, the direction is to reduced numbers of alleles, and reduced diversity' you have to back it up. You have not shown that the trend is to reduced number of alleles. You have stated that the trend (without mutation) is to reduction, but you have not shown that the overall (ie including mutation) trend is to reduction.
You try to add fecundity as a counter to this but it adds nothing genetic
Unless of course, each new offspring carries with it a unique set of genetic mutations.
To show this overall trend, you are going to need to discuss the weight of each part of the equation, not just the subtractive parts.
I keep restating it so it won't get lost, but since you have acknowledged that it occurs I don't see how I haven't supported it.
I have agreed that the trend of the subtractive parts leads towards stasis or reduction. I have not agreed that the overall trend leads to the same, as you are aware, it is my position that the additive parts of this equation more than balance the subtractive element.
And here you are acknowledging it again. Thank you very much, but you are also denying it in this post despite your acknowledgment.
NO! I am denying that the overall trend is to reduction because I refuse to simply ignore a major element in evolutionary theory. However, I accept that if we do decide to discount this element (ie the mechanisms of variability such as genetic mutation and epigenises) the remaining parts are reductive in nature.
You will acknowledge it but try to claim that fedundity, selection and variability counter it, although they do no such thing.
Can you show that to be true? This is your bare assertion, you are making an absolute claim and you are not backing it up.
The Theory of Evolution says that this is the way it is, which sets it up for a falsification. Every test of this nature that has been thrown at it, has not falsified it (as far as I know anyway). It might be falsified yet, but it remains unfalsified for the moment.
I've just wanted the fact to emerge that really ALL the evolutionary processes are (genetically) subtractive in this way EXCEPT mutation (and you add "epigenetics" which I don't get yet) although they are called evolutionary processes.
The reason is that all the evolutionary processes are required before they are evolutionary processes. In isolation they do not lead to evolution, but they do not exist in isolation.
A quick analogy. Topiary: the art of shaping hedges, requires selection (cutting away parts of the hedge). If this is all that happens then the hedge will either reduce in size over time or will remain in stasis and never change. It turns out that the hedge continously grows. If we didn't cut it (select it) this growth (mutation) will result in the hedge becoming an amorphous blob. If we both have a growing hedge and selection then the shape of the hedge can change over time, it will evolve. On their own the processes are not evolutionary, together they are.
You repeat at the end that fecundity increases diversity but in itself it does not. You are assuming mutation, so that fecundity increases the numbers of mutations in a population, but the factor that does the increasing genetically speaking is mutation and mutation alone.
I'm not assuming mutation, mutation is an observed fact. Fecundity, mutation, selection work as a team.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 12-06-2005 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 216 of 298 (266326)
12-07-2005 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
12-06-2005 12:58 PM


Fecundity
Again, fecundity does not CAUSE an increase in genetic diversity. Mutation does that.
Fecundity and mutation mean that there is a massive amount of diversity increase from which to select the 'fittest' from.
fecundity does not describe a great many species, especially the ones higher on the food chain as it were.
I beg to differ. Most species can be described to have fecundity, very few are not. Humans are the highest on the food chain and can easily have 10 offspring from each couple. Most other mammals have litters of 6 or more each birth.
And while selection may "take the population back to its stable size but in a different genetic "direction" this is accomplished at the expense of genetic diversity
How can this be? Fecundity and mutation ensures a massive increase in genetic diversity, from which the fittest organisms are selected.
Now IF mutation really does produce truly new alleles that can confer survival benefits on a population at a high enough rate to counter the diversity-reducing effects of all these subtractive processes, THEN you MAY have an engine capable of driving evolution. But it is ONLY mutation that the whole thing relies upon, as everything else works in the opposite direction, works against the genetic diversity that evolution surely must depend upon.
Well, as well as mutation and fecundity some other factors may be involved. As stated earlier, this is where ToE is falsifiable.
Why do I bring fecundity up? Fecundity ensures a lot of mutations occur in a population. We can assume that a small number of these will be beneficial, many will be neutral and a fair amount will be harmful.
A good number of those harmful mutations will be immediately selected out (some won't even make it to term) and so we are a left with a small number of harmful mutations, small number of beneficial ones and many neutral ones. This is an increase in genetic diversity. The chances are that some of the beneficial ones will reproduce, which increases the frequency of that allele.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 07-December-2005 01:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 12-06-2005 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 1:42 PM Modulous has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 217 of 298 (266329)
12-07-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Faith
12-07-2005 3:46 AM


Re: Ring Species
Faith,
So goes the theory, but if the processes that bring about speciation simultaneously reduce the genetic diversity that evolution requires (beyond the mere variation on given genetic allotments), and mutation turns out not to be a sufficiently effective counter to this subtraction process, then this theory of an open-ended evolution is falsified.
It's falsified if you can show that mutation isn't an effective counter. This requires evidence. But then at the time that the population levels are crashing it probably isn't a counter, only afterwards.
Hall (Hall 1982) removed the ability for a single bacteria to metabolise lactose. He removed the genes that coded for the enzyme, the permease, & the expression control. As far as your scenario is concerned the situation could not reduce the populations diversity more, it was first reduced to a single organism, then even more was removed. All three functions re-evolved in the susequent grown culture.
quote:
Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations. [DJ Futumya, Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
In other words, reduction of diversity to a single individual did not prevent evolution.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 12-07-2005 06:42 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 3:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 12:13 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 247 by TimChase, posted 12-08-2005 9:54 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 218 of 298 (266367)
12-07-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by mark24
12-07-2005 6:36 AM


Re: Ring Species
Faith,
So goes the theory, but if the processes that bring about speciation simultaneously reduce the genetic diversity that evolution requires (beyond the mere variation on given genetic allotments), and mutation turns out not to be a sufficiently effective counter to this subtraction process, then this theory of an open-ended evolution is falsified.
quote:
It's falsified if you can show that mutation isn't an effective counter.
Isn't this what I said? But just a point of logic: Whether I personally can show it or not, if it isn't an effective counter then it's falsified. Evolutionists really should be testing this.
This requires evidence. But then at the time that the population levels are crashing it probably isn't a counter, only afterwards.
If at all. And of course it requires evidence. But we have to start by getting the idea into people's heads. As Randman asked in Message 210 have evolutionists done the calculations to see whether mutation really can overcome the effects of the genetic-reduction processes?
Hall (Hall 1982) removed the ability for a single bacteria to metabolise lactose. He removed the genes that coded for the enzyme, the permease, & the expression control. As far as your scenario is concerned the situation could not reduce the populations diversity more, it was first reduced to a single organism, then even more was removed. All three functions re-evolved in the susequent grown culture.
Which doesn't suggest mutation to me, but something predictable from the genetic structure, therefore in a sense "built in."
Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations. [DJ Futumya, Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
Not sure what you think this would prove? {AbE: This is just definitional word games.}
In other words, reduction of diversity to a single individual did not prevent evolution.
But that is most likely not evolution at all, meaning not mutation-driven, simply a feature of the genetic structure that isn't yet known. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't mutation random? If a loss is regenerated so specifically how can we be talking about mutation or anything random at all? But if what is called mutation should turn out NOT to be random in its rare survival-enhancing manifestations, then it's something else, something built in, something given to the species for its ability to survive.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 12:19 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 12:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by mark24, posted 12-07-2005 6:36 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 12:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 224 by mark24, posted 12-07-2005 3:20 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 219 of 298 (266368)
12-07-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by randman
12-07-2005 3:28 AM


Re: good points
People do have the erroneous idea that somehow natural selection, genetic drift, migration and other "evolutionary processes" could lead to evolution, and the fact is that they do not, they work against the possibility of evolution.
quote:
This is a huge problem for evolution if you ask me.
Thanks for the support.
If this were acknowledged, if students weren't made to absorb this erroneous idea, we could go on to the next topic which is the only genetically additive process, mutation.
quote:
Have evos ever gone about to quantify the effects of the first set of factors with observed rates of mutation, one wonders?
I gather not from the way they are answering. Clearly this has to be the next step in this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by randman, posted 12-07-2005 3:28 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 298 (266371)
12-07-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
12-07-2005 12:16 PM


Re: good points
I gather not from the way they are answering.
What are you talking about? I did that almost 200 posts ago in this thread. You pleaded total ignorance of what I was talking about, called me some names, and stopped talking to me.
Look, Faith, if you don't understand how evolution works, and how evolutionists model the changes in genetic diversity that stem from the additive and subtractive mechanisms, thatt's fine. But please don't pretend like we don't understand either, or that we haven't been trying to present exactly what you're asking for. We've been doing nothing else for an entire thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 298 (266374)
12-07-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
12-07-2005 12:13 PM


Re: Ring Species
Which doesn't suggest mutation to me, but something predictable from the genetic structure, therefore in a sense "built in."
Well, we know it wasn't built-in - as part of the experiment, it was taken out.
It wasn't present anywhere in the original organism. In subsequent organisms, it was present. That proves mutation. The only "genetic potential" for these sequences to arise was the unlimited potential for genetic change that mutation represents.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't mutation random? If a loss is regenerated so specifically how can we be talking about mutation or anything random at all?
There was nothing specific about it. Most organisms did not mutate the same way, but mutated in other ways; and they died. The mutation was random, not specific; but the conditions selected one particular mutation and eliminated thousands of others.
It only appears specific because we're only looking at individuals with a specific mutation. Other individuals with other mutations were not selected and not observed. It only appears specific because selection was used to limit our field of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 12:13 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 222 of 298 (266419)
12-07-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Modulous
12-07-2005 5:59 AM


Re: Fecundity
I guess if ten offspring is fecundity, fine, I had in mind rather more than that. The question is still whether the mutations offset the subtractions, it can't merely be asserted that they provide a "massive increase" even with the aid of fecundity, considering that beneficial mutations are very few and far between and I could say in return that the selecting and reducing factors produce a "massive decrease" over time. Crashfrog claims he provided evidence for this a long way back and if you didn't comment on his evidence, would you please?
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 02:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2005 5:59 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 2:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 246 by TimChase, posted 12-08-2005 9:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 298 (266445)
12-07-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
12-07-2005 1:42 PM


Re: Fecundity
The question is still whether the mutations offset the subtractions, it can't merely be asserted that they provide a "massive increase" even with the aid of fecundity, considering that beneficial mutations are very few and far between and I could say in return that the selecting and reducing factors produce a "massive decrease" over time.
Well, by definition, the selection doesn't tend to decrease the beneficial mutations.
Crashfrog claims he provided evidence for this a long way back and if you didn't comment on his evidence, would you please?
Maybe you could? It's not really his job to comment on my arguments for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 1:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 224 of 298 (266472)
12-07-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
12-07-2005 12:13 PM


Re: Ring Species
Faith,
Evolutionists really should be testing this.
It has been tested, reducing a populations diversity to a single individual didn't prevent evolution.
If at all. And of course it requires evidence. But we have to start by getting the idea into people's heads. As Randman asked in Message 210 have evolutionists done the calculations to see whether mutation really can overcome the effects of the genetic-reduction processes?
Again, the point of my post seems to have escaped your notice. A gene pool with the minimum diversity of one individual didn't prevent evolution. The maths are irrelevant.
Which doesn't suggest mutation to me, but something predictable from the genetic structure, therefore in a sense "built in."
Genetic changes occurred, therefore mutation occurred. It was mutation, there is no evidence of preordained change. The vast majority of the bacteria died when only sucrose was available as food.
Not sure what you think this would prove?
Don't be obtuse. It quite obviously demonstrates that evolution occurred in spite of minimum diversity.
But that is most likely not evolution at all, meaning not mutation-driven, simply a feature of the genetic structure that isn't yet known. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't mutation random? If a loss is regenerated so specifically how can we be talking about mutation or anything random at all? But if what is called mutation should turn out NOT to be random in its rare survival-enhancing manifestations, then it's something else, something built in, something given to the species for its ability to survive.
There is no evidence of anything other than common or garden mutation being at work. If it were something else, then we would expect all bacteria to get the same preordained corrective mutations. They didn't. Of the billions/trillions of individuals involved almost all died when the cultures were transferred to an all sucrose substrate. Exactly what we would expect of a random process, & exactly the opposite of what we would expect if the proccess were "in built".
In any case, this is ad hoc speculation on your part. Whichever way you look at it, diversity recovered from an absolute minimum. This falsifies your stance that diversity reduction prevents evolution.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 12:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 12-07-2005 3:45 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 225 of 298 (266482)
12-07-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by mark24
12-07-2005 3:20 PM


Re: Ring Species
It has been tested, reducing a populations diversity to a single individual didn't prevent evolution.
I never said it would. That is no test. You are reading something of your own into the subject. It is only at the extremes of reduction that you'd encounter a complete inability to regenerate a (somewhat) diverse population. Some species have more genetic potential than others because of not having been subjected to the most extreme reductions.
But please don't reduce this conversation to bacteria. That's another whole subject. Let's talk about sexually reproducing animals. Take two offspring of the same parents and breed them and repeat the process with their offspring and so on, and they will still produce diverse offspring for some generations before the effects I'm talking about bring them to a genetic brick wall.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-07-2005 03:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by mark24, posted 12-07-2005 3:20 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 4:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 227 by mark24, posted 12-07-2005 4:27 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