Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

[Key]

OK, part of this stems from an incorrect interpretation of what is meant by "won't interbreed". When biologists speak of two populations that don't or won't interbreed, they mean that they don't or won't even given the opportunity to do so.

True. but even species that coexist, do not interbreed, because of minor distances, even if they are the same species. Like for example, ants from two different ant hills. If if they are the same species of ant, there will be rejection, and the workers will kill them on site, if they get or try to get any where near the queen, assuming the queen herself won't kill them given half the chance.

But they are the same species of ant.

Canadian cougars and Florida cougars don't interbreed because they can't due to geographical separation. That in and of itself doesn't make them separate species.

True, there is more involved, but mainly, their genetic similarity, is what would keep them, the same species, their ability to produce offspring, even tho naturally, they are genetically isolated.

To consider whether they are separate species one would need to put both together, say in a zoo in Ohio. Now, given the opportunity to interbreed, do they choose mates as readily from the other group as from their own?

Maybe, maybe not, this would be very rough and somewhat crude way to test this. They may have developed social customs or even different fur patterns to blend into their natural surrounding which they would not choose a mate that did not have the same colors, Example: Black Panthers are thrown out of the Leopard pack, because of their color, Ergo, color or pattern would have influence, and thus, if that was why they did not breed, once would be hard pressed to say they were different breed, because of, and only because of fur pattern, and that would prevent them from interbreeding or choosing mates from the other pack.

Are the offspring of cross-matings healthy and viable? In that case they are not different species.

This is the problem. Only because of the limits of what we have to work with.

Maybe some day we might be able to inseminate a fruit fly, right now, I do not think we are able, at least, nothing I have found tells me can do that.

But if, in a favorable environment for cross-mating, they avoid mating outside their own group, they may be separate species.

Maybe, sure, that is why the whole concept of what is a Species is, is in debate.

It's really, not that simple. It's not a cut and dried thing.

If, when a hybrid mating does occur, the offspring tend to be sterile and/or non-viable, they are likely separate species.

This is a cut and dried part, if this happens, then they ARE separate species.

Your human examples don't work because this sort of avoidance is not complete enough. Muslims do not refuse to mate with non-Muslims and vice versa. And while Black and White activists may refuse to mate with each other, both mate with Black and White non-activists who will mate across race lines.

The example was, to show the dividing forces, which may or may not have any bearing on genetic ability to produce offspring.

Say, like Black Panthers, which only in rare cases will they get a mate. In this case, one might say, there is avoidance, and the rare times that mating does occur, would be a ring species.

True enough when they are first separated. The point is that with no gene flow between the two populations, they will not continue to be the same genetically. And the longer they are separated, the more genetic patterns will diverge.

This is still in the Hypothesis stage, but that is a core and founding concept of the Macro aspect of the Theory.

So, eventually, cross-breeding will not occur, not just because they won't but because they can't, even when no longer physically isolated.

Again, purely hypothetical at this point.

I am familiar with most creationist and ID arguments. I do not find any of them offer much in the way of explanation when it comes to such features.

Have you asked as a person trying to learn it, like you approached evolution?

It can be amazingly informative. And offer some really good answers to some really hard questions.

Yet the homologies of the tetrapod limb were noted well before they were attributed to evolution. What the theory of evolution did was provide an explanation for why the homologies existed.

Before? No, they were something Darwin used to support Evolution, however, if you look at this.

It would imply that it started with 5, and then went down, this meaning that it was originated at the complex state, not the simplistic state. Which would go against the Origin Theory as it is proposed right now.

Can you offer a better explanation than common ancestry for the observed homologies?

If we proposed that all life was made in a complex state, IE: Started with 5 Fingers, it would explain why animals have extra "fingers" and such, other then better or more simplistic alternatives were available.

In this front, one would say that a Designer was using a "Common" template, and allowed it to adapt to the environment. As opposed to the fact the most complex hand to develop, and then the mammals divided. In this case, the many generations by witch the predecessor of the mammals was evolving, one would gander that those with less then 5 fingers would still provide distinct branches, but none exist. (IE: five fingers),a and then regress back down to say 1 finger (for a horse)

I'm sorry, I don't understand this question. It was your response to what I said about the nested hierarchy, but I find it too cryptic to determine what you are asking.

Many evolutionist use the Term Evolution too loosely, there is Micro, Macro and Origin. Which aspect where you referring to when you said "Evolution".

God Bless

Key

 

[gluadys]

Changes in Allele are not mutations in any form, they are variables in the genetic code that are supposed to be variable.

I wonder, do you understand that alleles are genes i.e. they are a sequence of genetic code. A change in a sequence of genetic code is, by definition, a mutation.

IE: Blue eyes and Brown Eyes.

These are not alleles. They are character traits. Of course the character traits are what they are because of the genetic code which produced them. But the alleles are the genes, not the character traits per se.

There are many variables that make up the human body, and it's systems and function, anything within these variables is not a mutation, it is a product of proper genetic replication.

Could you define what you mean by "variable" ? Are you using it as a synonym for alternate alleles, alternate character traits, both, neither, other?

In what sense can you get change in variables without mutations? Are you speaking of change in the population or change at the genetic level?

Sure, improper replication of genetic code, that went beyond the variables within the confines as the variables are allowed.

By "improper" do you mean "inexact" as in there is a difference between the copy and the original? I don't know why, biologically speaking, that would be considered "improper". It is not as if one is copying a manuscript.

In any case, an inexact replication is a mutation. And if a variable is an allele, then that mutation must occur in one of the alternate alleles coding for the character trait under consideration. Where else can a mutation occur but in a DNA sequence?

Now, if by "variable" you mean something different than an allele, provide a definition and we can go on from there.

To give an example, a sheep that was born without hoofs, might be an example of progression beyond allele's.

It would depend on the cause. Sometimes such things occur due to problems in embryological development.

If it is due to genetics and is inheritable, then it is not going beyond alleles, because alleles are the genetic base of the change in character trait. The change in the character trait, in such a case, would be due to a change in the allele being expressed.

As Hoofs are a constant in the sheep genome, variants in size, shape, color, and even density would be a product of allowed variants in the alleles, them not being there at all, would be a mutation.

I find the concept of "allowed" variants strange. Allowed by what (whom?). What would disallow a variant or the appearance of a new variant?

I sense too, that you are assuming a mutation has to be something that has a big noticeable effect that is quite different from small changes in character traits. Have you never heard of silent mutations (i.e. mutations which have no impact on character traits)? Even when mutations are not silent, the impact of most is quite negligible. All the items you mentioned (size, shape, colour, density) can be affected by mutations.

It has a direction of decent, IE: The reverse direction, not a foward direction. If you subscribe to the Origin Theory, then life to get to the point it is at this state, followed a specified path to this end result, the objective of Origin Theory is to try and back track the path that was there to start with.

When you are working backwards, you are reconstructing the history on the basis of evidence. That is a different thing than having a theoretical proposition about the direction of any evolutionary pathway. One uses evidence already found to project what further evidence will be found. That is more like plotting a trend on a graph than generating a direction from theory.

From the foundation of this path, as we know it, we can produce forward (effecting the coming generations) paths by which we can shape the "evolution" of life yet to come.

Not really. We can retrodict what pathways did occur, but not predict those that will occur. Given the contigent nature of evolutionary change, there is no point from which one can say where evolution will go from here.

What one can say, providing one already has an alleged ancestor and an alleged descendant is that to get from A to D one must have passed through B and C. That is the sort of prediction which led to the discovery of Tiktaalik.

Many people do not grasp this, but, evolution has a path, at least, in the sense of back tracking it, Where we came from, and what evolved into what from what. Would be the direction of Evolution as stated.

That is correct. But we can only see that path in hindsight.

That was a rub in it, one of the key components of Species is Hybrids, and there validity. Even with mating isolation, the validity of the hybrid, is still sound, IE: They can produce viable offspring, they just won't.

Now, in some cases, animals will mate, but not produce viable offspring, like for example, Lions and Tigers will mate, producing a hybrid that is not a viable off spring.

So in one case, they can produce off spring, but won't, in the other case, they can and do mate and produce offspring, but the off spring is not viable.

Which would make them "Sub Species" not separate species.

The very fact we speak of hybrids means we have separate groups on some level. When hybridization occurs regularly and easily, and steps have to be taken to prevent it in order to maintain the breed, we see that the groups are artificially separated and are really one species. When hybridization occurs seldom by choice, perhaps only when human agency is involved, we have a good case for saying they are at least incipient species---separating if not separated. When problems show up in the offspring, it indicates a wider degree of separation.

Because speciation is a gradual process, we cannot expect to be able to pinpoint an exact moment when one species has become two. So we do often have to make judgment calls.

In this case, the idea, is that everything "branches down" Going from the top to the bottom. In that front, there is a direction, which has been built off the Origin Theory aspect of Evolution, however, then there is the claim that there is no direction. Which the two are mutually exclusive claims. But again, I am not here to try and debunk Evolution, or point out it's faults.

I don't see why the claims are mutually exclusive. One can trace from branch back to trunk without knowing in what direction the next branching away from the trunk will take us. One can see the direction one came from without being able to know in what direction the road will turn next.

However, in the case of say Fruit Flies, they did not have any variation, other then cosmetic and breeding isolation (IE: The same idea as say The Humans in Africa and the Humans in Europe). On the platform of genetics they were still the same thing, but for "what ever reasons" (which is the official technical terms about that issue) won't.

In that front, at that time, one could have said, that when the Europeans met the Africans, they were really meeting a different species of human, and have since then, produced viable off spring, but maintain some pathological and cosmetic difference.

Except that scientists were able to apply DNA analysis to the fruit fly populations and establish how much genetic change had occurred. So the genetics confirmed the behaviour and the correctness of separate species designations.

And with Europeans and Africans, both the behaviour and the genetics confirm they are one species. (Even during the racist days of slavery, there was plenty of mating across class and colour lines.)

And unless the line is drawn at a viable point, of Can Not, and the Genetic Change has been done to this point, the classification of Species, is just arbitrary, and may or may not be viable support for the demand of species division. It needs to progress beyond the arbitrary line.

Not arbitrary, but definitely fuzzy in the case of incipient speciation and/or incomplete speciation. But that is what one would expect from cladistic evolution.

 

[Key]

I wonder, do you understand that alleles are genes i.e. they are a sequence of genetic code. A change in a sequence of genetic code is, by definition, a mutation.

These are not alleles. They are character traits. Of course the character traits are what they are because of the genetic code which produced them. But the alleles are the genes, not the character traits per se.

Allele's are the name for the Coding in DNA that controls Traits.

So yes, Brown Eyes and Blues eyes are variations in allele's.

Genes are the common reference to RNA/DNA strands. If the RNA/DNA gets modified, then you have a Mutation.

Lets start again, after you take some time to read those links.

God Bless

Key.

 

[gluadys]

True. but even species that coexist, do not interbreed, because of minor distances, even if they are the same species. Like for example, ants from two different ant hills. If if they are the same species of ant, there will be rejection, and the workers will kill them on site, if they get or try to get any where near the queen, assuming the queen herself won't kill them given half the chance.

But they are the same species of ant.

Ah, territorial behaviour. Of course, the pattern of insect breeding is quite different from vertebrate breeding and I know too little about it to comment further. With vertebrates, territorial behaviour is not completely isolating. Especially across gender lines. Male wards off male, but not female.

True, there is more involved, but mainly, their genetic similarity, is what would keep them, the same species, their ability to produce offspring, even tho naturally, they are genetically isolated.

No, naturally they are geographically isolated. That is a situation that over time may lead to genetic isolation, but need not do so. That is why tests are needed to determine whether or not genetic isolation has occurred during the period of geographic isolation.

Maybe, maybe not, this would be very rough and somewhat crude way to test this. They may have developed social customs or even different fur patterns to blend into their natural surrounding which they would not choose a mate that did not have the same colors, Example: Black Panthers are thrown out of the Leopard pack, because of their color, Ergo, color or pattern would have influence, and thus, if that was why they did not breed, once would be hard pressed to say they were different breed, because of, and only because of fur pattern, and that would prevent them from interbreeding or choosing mates from the other pack.

All of these are various isolating mechanisms. All produce a situation in which reproductive isolation may occur, but none of them force reproductive isolation. Any isolating mechanism has the potential to cause speciation. But it is only on a case by case basis that we can determine if the potential has been actualized.

This is the problem. Only because of the limits of what we have to work with.

Maybe some day we might be able to inseminate a fruit fly, right now, I do not think we are able, at least, nothing I have found tells me can do that.

Not necessary. Experiments in allopatric isolation have produced verified speciation in fruit flies.


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198007)34:4<730:AMGIOS>2.0.CO;2-J

The example was, to show the dividing forces, which may or may not have any bearing on genetic ability to produce offspring.

Yes, that is what I have been saying. You can have all sorts of isolating factors. Whether the isolation by geography, ecology, behaviour or whatever also leads to genetic isolation is not a given and has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

This is still in the Hypothesis stage, but that is a core and founding concept of the Macro aspect of the Theory.

Oh, that is far beyond hypothesis stage at this point. It is an inevitability and has been observed, in some cases accompanied by speciation (as in link above).

Have you asked as a person trying to learn it, like you approached evolution?

I have tried to be fair-minded. I usually find objections to evolution are a mix of misconceptions about evolution and theological presuppositions.

Before? No, they were something Darwin used to support Evolution, however, if you look at this.

Yes, before. The homologies were noted by many anatomists and paleontologists prior to Darwin. They were discussed in the Bridgewater Treatises of 1834 and Richard Owen relied heavily on them during the 1840s to support his concept of natural theology. He pointed to them as archetypes, much as ID suggests the Designer uses common templates.

Darwin probably learned of them from Owen who was a friend and mentor, but saw how they could be explained as well by natural selection thus obviating the need for intentional design.

It would imply that it started with 5, and then went down, this meaning that it was originated at the complex state, not the simplistic state. Which would go against the Origin Theory as it is proposed right now.

Not really. You are suggesting an original complex creature with five digits (pentadactyl ancestor, and evolutionary phylogeny also presupposes a pentadactyl ancestor. The two theories propose a different origin of that ancestor (de novo creation vs. evolution from a prior ancestor in which the pentadactyl limb had not yet appeared).

But as far as the homologies themselves, you don't seem to be suggesting anything different from the standard evolutionary scenario---unless I have failed to grasp something here.

In this front, one would say that a Designer was using a "Common" template, and allowed it to adapt to the environment.

And just how would it adapt to the environment? If you are suggesting any type of natural descent with modification, how does that differ in any way from evolution by natural selection?

As opposed to the fact the most complex hand to develop, and then the mammals divided.

Actually the pentadactyl limb (or remnants of it) is found in all extant terrestrial vertebrates: amphibians, reptiles and birds as well as mammals.

In this case, the many generations by witch the predecessor of the mammals was evolving, one would gander that those with less then 5 fingers would still provide distinct branches, but none exist. (IE: five fingers),a and then regress back down to say 1 finger (for a horse)

Are you assuming that an evolutionary predecessor of the pentadactyl limb would have fewer than five digits? Not so, the earliest tetrapods had more, not fewer, than five digits. This is consistent with the evolution of digits from the ray fins of fish.

Many evolutionist use the Term Evolution too loosely, there is Micro, Macro and Origin. Which aspect where you referring to when you said "Evolution".

Well, I don't divide evolution into aspects in quite the same way. I like Michael Ruse's division of evolution into fact, cause and path. My personal terms, before I found his were fact, process and history.

Ruse's path and my history would coincide with your Origin aspect. But fact and process (or cause) would both apply equally to micro and macro evolution.

By process I mean the mechanisms (mostly mutation with natural selection) which produce what Darwin called "descent with modification" or change in species over time. One could also include cladisitic speciation in the process side of things.

Now as to the path/history/origin side of things it is an established fact that both present day species and fossil species fit into a phylogenic pattern with the characteristics of a nested hierarchy.

So the sense of my question is "What other process could produce this historical pattern?"

or "How else could you get a nested hierarchy?"

 

[gluadys]

Allele's are the name for the Coding in DNA that controls Traits.

So yes, Brown Eyes and Blues eyes are variations in allele's.

Genes are the common reference to RNA/DNA strands. If the RNA/DNA gets modified, then you have a Mutation.

Lets start again, after you take some time to read those links.

God Bless

Key.

Yes, I am familiar with all this. Perhaps you did not mean to, but I got the impression you thought that alleles could not mutate. If so, that is clearly incorrect from the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on alleles.

(pronounced al-eel or al-e-ul) is any one of a number of viable DNA codings that occupies a given locus (position) on a chromosome. Usually alleles are DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence. An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess. In a diploid organism, one that has two copies of each chromosome, two alleles make up the individual's genotype. The word came from Greek &#945;&#955;&#955;&#951;&#955;&#959;&#962; = "each other".​

Leaving aside the non-gene sequences also called alleles, let’s note that an allele is a DNA coding or sequence. A change in a DNA sequence such as the insertion, deletion, duplication, inversion or transposition of one or more base nucleotides in the sequence is a mutation. So an allele can mutate.

(continued from Wikipedia)
An example is the gene for blossom colour in many species of flower—a single gene controls the colour of the petals, but there may be several different versions (or alleles) of the gene. One version might result in red petals, while another might result in white petals. The resulting colour of an individual flower will depend on which two alleles it possesses for the gene and how the two interact.​

This is the concept which I am not sure you have grasped. An allele is not a different thing than a gene. An allele is one of several slightly different versions of the gene. Note that different alleles all appear at the same locus on a chromosome. So for any chromosome, only one allele can be at that locus. That is the gene on that chromosome. On a different chromosome you have the same gene, but it may have a different coding sequence. That is what makes it a different allele.

Any mutation affecting any gene necessarily affects the allele, because the allele is the gene and vice versa. I suppose one could get picky and say the allele is the information and the gene is the physical carrier of the information, but the same mutation affects both. It changes the physical structure of the gene and in doing so changes the coding sequence or allele.

 

[USincognito]

Maybe, maybe not, this would be very rough and somewhat crude way to test this. They may have developed social customs or even different fur patterns to blend into their natural surrounding which they would not choose a mate that did not have the same colors, Example: Black Panthers are thrown out of the Leopard pack, because of their color, Ergo, color or pattern would have influence, and thus, if that was why they did not breed, once would be hard pressed to say they were different breed, because of, and only because of fur pattern, and that would prevent them from interbreeding or choosing mates from the other pack.

There's a lot in this post that bothers me, but this particular paragraph I must comment on.

Leopards don't travel in packs. They're solitary. And the black coloration tends to be abenificial mutation in some environments. In fact in the jungle environment of the Jaguar, it is due to a mutation in a dominant gene.

 

[Key]

Yes, I am familiar with all this.

Ok, because you were making it sound at first, that the Allele, was the Gene sequence.

Leopards don't travel in packs.

Yes they do, for a limited time when the mother is nursing the cubs. When the cubs get old enough, they are encouraged by the mother to find their own way in life.

the black coloration tends to be abenificial mutation in some environments.

It's not a mutation, it is a simple variant of Allele, that is allowed by the code itself, with out the necessity of mutation for it to happen.

The Black coloration, of the leopard, would be no different then say, two brown eyed parents havening a blue eyed child. It is just a code variant of the melanin. The code by which the Panther received had high levels of black, IE: Over abundance of melanin, which, we can not validate would have been a replication error, or caused by a mutagen. In this case, the genetic code of either of the parents, very well was not mutated at all, but simple division of which color code the offspring received.

IE: Two brown eyed parents having a child with amber eyes.

Secondly, that does not change the fact that the mother will remove the cub from her "pack" at a very early age, because of this coloration.

I wonder, do you understand that alleles are genes i.e. they are a sequence of genetic code. A change in a sequence of genetic code is, by definition, a mutation.

No, not at all, a replication error in the genetic code, is Mutation.

These are not alleles. They are character traits. Of course the character traits are what they are because of the genetic code which produced them. But the alleles are the genes, not the character traits per se.

This is what got me, as the Alleles are the Traits, Per Se.

But I hope we have gotten past that.

By "improper" do you mean "inexact" as in there is a difference between the copy and the original? I don't know why, biologically speaking, that would be considered "improper". It is not as if one is copying a manuscript.

Well, the truth is, that is exactly what our code it doing, copying a blue print, or a manuscript, or a recipe, or how ever you would like to look at it.

But the DNA/RNA is the Code, of which the life from is built and maintained by.

Mutations are Errors in this code, nothing else. They are not just changes, they are errors. The affect of the error, may be in dispute, that fact that is it an error, is not.

Not really. We can retrodict what pathways did occur, but not predict those that will occur.

This is 100% inaccurate. Many of the processes we use today in the medical research it built off the premise of making a prediction regarding how life will adapt to the environment, and applying it.

This is what makes Micro Evolution Theory the effective tool that is today, and one of the reasons why it is such a well founded and strongly supported Aspect of the Evolution Concept.

So prediction in progression, are not only done, they are depended on as tool for many of the advancements we have accomplished using the Micro Theory.

The very fact we speak of hybrids means we have separate groups on some level. When hybridization occurs regularly and easily, and steps have to be taken to prevent it in order to maintain the breed,

Nope, not at all. That would be the very nature of the fact that Hybreds are almost always, with very few selecet and isloated incidents that they are able to give birth. In the few cases that it does happen, the resulting offspring is also non-viable, but contains more traits of the viable species. IE: Mules that have given birth to foals, the foal takes on more traits of the viable species (IE: They are either more horse like, or more donkey like).

Because speciation is a gradual process, we cannot expect to be able to pinpoint an exact moment when one species has become two. So we do often have to make judgment calls.

yes, but these judgment calls, are what would constitute weak support, at best. and have issues.

And with Europeans and Africans, both the behaviour and the genetics confirm they are one species. (Even during the racist days of slavery, there was plenty of mating across class and colour lines.)

I am not talking bout when the Africans were bought as slaves, I am referring to the "first contact" where they killed each other on sight.

Yes, that is what I have been saying. You can have all sorts of isolating factors. Whether the isolation by geography, ecology, behaviour or whatever also leads to genetic isolation is not a given and has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

But it does not provide a viable distinction or proof of genetic differential, not does lack of breeding make for a separate species.

again with the two cougars.

They do not breed "for what ever reasons", in this case, just a land barrier.

Oh, that is far beyond hypothesis stage at this point. It is an inevitability and has been observed, in some cases accompanied by speciation (as in link above).

No, it's still far into the Hypothesis stage. As we can document isolated animals of the same species, in different climates, with varying diets, all over our planet, cougars for example, who have genetic isolation, (Darwin's finches), and are still the same animal, with just different character traits, or changes in alleles.

IE: People in Arica have a higeher amount of melanin, where those in Europe did not. But they were still the same species, even after thousands of years of genetic isolation.

How much of a test do we really need?

We have roughly over a 10,000 year test done to cats, and they are still, just a Felis silvestris catus with no new species coming to be.

So, in reality, it is a hypothesis, if it is even that.

I have tried to be fair-minded. I usually find objections to evolution are a mix of misconceptions about evolution and theological presuppositions.

Well, see the problem here is you are "trying to be fair minded" but you also know and believe they are wrong.

See, when I first looked at evolution, I believed it, I embraced it, and I studied it. Because I thought it was right. So I looked at in that manner. Since then, you can see I have changed my mind.

Yes, before. The homologies were noted by many anatomists and paleontologists prior to Darwin. They were discussed in the Bridgewater Treatises of 1834 and Richard Owen relied heavily on them during the 1840s to support his concept of natural theology. He pointed to them as archetypes, much as ID suggests the Designer uses common templates.

I am going to have to look that up.

Not really. You are suggesting an original complex creature with five digits (pentadactyl ancestor, and evolutionary phylogeny also presupposes a pentadactyl ancestor. The two theories propose a different origin of that ancestor (de novo creation vs. evolution from a prior ancestor in which the pentadactyl limb had not yet appeared).

Are you assuming that an evolutionary predecessor of the pentadactyl limb would have fewer than five digits? Not so, the earliest tetrapods had more, not fewer, than five digits. This is consistent with the evolution of digits from the ray fins of fish.

Have you looked at that?

So the sense of my question is "What other process could produce this historical pattern?"

or "How else could you get a nested hierarchy?"

The appearance of it. Would come from a common template By which each "Kind" came from, with adaptation after that.

What is a kind? Well that is fuzzy, it still has the same issues as what is a species.

One of the biggest problems with defining "kind" is the fact that there is a demand to use the existing "classification of Life" which, may or may not be correct, nor may it reflect the aspect of what the designer intended.

As it stands, if Creation is true, we are just trying to reverse engineer the car, while we are driving it.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Deamiter]

Key, you seem to claim that there are changes in our genetic code that are allowed and CANNOT be attributed to mutations (which you seem to claim are always errors).

What mechanism allows variability? How is allowed variation in the DNA different from mutations (or non-allowed variation)? What causes allowed variation and what causes non-allowed variation?

Do you perhaps have a source that explains these differences, because my biology textbooks that discuss mutations NEVER make a distinction between allowed variation and error-mutations.

Perhaps more basically, how do you know some changes in DNA are allowed and others are not? Scientists call all changes in DNA a mutation by definition -- have you redefined this term or do you have a source that contrasts mutation with allowed variation? Has a specific allowed variation been identified or is it just an untested hypothesis based on your understanding of the existence of "Kinds"?

 

[Key]

Key, you seem to claim that there are changes in our genetic code that are allowed and CANNOT be attributed to mutations (which you seem to claim are always errors).

Not my claim. This is the Definition, as it is applied to Biology, The Change, as you put it, caused either by copy error, or mutagen.

The layman application would be just "change" but such, does not apply to the fields of biology, and does not apply as per the intention as stated in the Macro and Origin Theory aspects of Evolution.

What mechanism allows variability? How is allowed variation in the DNA different from mutations (or non-allowed variation)?

I suppose to could start to explain dominant and recessive gene pairing. But, that is Micro, which is well founded, and has no bearing on Macro.

What causes allowed variation and what causes non-allowed variation?

Gene pairing, allows for viable or allowed variations with parameters, copy errors, can modify anything.

IE: Changes in Gene Pairing, or Alleles, could produce near any color eyes. However, it would require a mutation, to produce no eyes at all.

Do you perhaps have a source that explains these differences, because my biology textbooks that discuss mutations NEVER make a distinction between allowed variation and error-mutations.

Well I provided links above. Please take the time to read them. If you would like, I'll provide them again.

Perhaps more basically, how do you know some changes in DNA are allowed and others are not? Scientists call all changes in DNA a mutation by definition

To some extent yes, and the fact that they do not apply the necessary definition of "copy error" or effects of Mutagens, gives misleading ideas and results to try and provide support or evolution.

In this case, it like saying "They won't mate, Ergo, they are a different species, we have proved Evolution" but in the reality of is, they are the same life from, with identical genetic codes.

Have they really proved anything, or just given people the idea that have, with out providing evidence. Apply or changing terms, does not provide support, it only offers confusion.

In the Macro Evolution Theory, the "Mutation" required, must be a Copy Error, (Either the addition of, or removal of Genetic material) for it offer any support for the Theory.

As it stands, what passes for "Mutations" in many cases, only offers more support for Micro (as if it needs more support, I mean it's almost set in stone as it is)

-- have you redefined this term or do you have a source that contrasts mutation with allowed variation?

No I am applying it, as it is required for the Macro and Origin aspect of Evolution to have any authenticity.

Has a specific allowed variation been identified or is it just an untested hypothesis based on your understanding of the existence of "Kinds"?

Huh?

Sorry I do not understand this question.

Hope this helps.

God Bless.

Key.

 

[Deamiter]

I think I see where you're coming from. I have read those links (multiple times actually) and I find it a bit odd that unlike the links, you do not consider copy errors to be mutations.

Anyway, a similar question -- you claimed that all eye colors can be attributed to gene paring. If all the genes in the human population were present in Adam and Eve (a maximum of 4) how do you account for the wide variation in the genes that produce hundreds of different eye colors today? As there are now more than four genes for eye color wouldn't these additional genes be attributed to mutations (caused by copy error, mutagen, whatever)?

In other words, don't mutations build up in a population to create small new alleles? If so, why do you deny that mutations can affect alleles?

You claimed that if two parents with brown eyes had a child with blue eyes it'd be a case of simple variation. In fact, there are only two ways this could happen -- if the parents BOTH had recessive blue eyes (or one had an even MORE recessive trait like albino etc...) or if a mutation caused it. Certainly we agree that in the vast majority of cases, it is simply gene paring that accounts for variation.

The question then is what CAUSED the variation in the first place? As I said before, Adam and Eve can account for only 4 variations at a maximum (i.e. if they each had genes for two different eye colors). How do you account for the many other eye colors that could only have arisen in the population due to mutations? Do you admit that mutations can change eye color and add new colors into a population?

 

[Deamiter]

Key -- do you acknowledge that each human has over 100 unique mutations (uncorrected errors) in their genetic code? You said (quoted below) that two different populations would have "identical genetic codes" but genetic testing that is used to identify species and subspecies denies this by showing that even a small number of generations in genetic isolation leads to a significant and measurable difference in the genome of the two populations. It is this difference that eventually leads to two populations being incapable of (not just unwilling) interbreeding. This has been demonstrated with observation of ring species. Do you deny the possibility that two populations COULD diverge enough so that they could no longer interbreed? Do you really claim (as quoted below) that the genetic code of two sexually isolated populations that derived from a single population is always identical and always will be identical?

In this case, it like saying "They won't mate, Ergo, they are a different species, we have proved Evolution" but in the reality of is, they are the same life from, with identical genetic codes.

 

[KerrMetric]

Knock it OFF!​

Address the
Topic
not the
Poster!​

Insults and belittling statements are subject to deletion. ​

If it continues,
it will result in thread closure. ​

Carry on....NICELY​

Er..... not if supported Gweny.

Just like you guys are allowing questioning of faith if supported then we can post what may be considered insulting statements if supported.

CF cannot have it both ways.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes that was very informative, it seems (by the link you provided) he started the whole idea. Which would not really make him an IDer, any more then it would make say The Buddha a Buddhist.

At first from my understanding it seems ID was just a critic of Darwinism (which Denton would fit right in) which didn't really define itself until Behe came alone with his book "Darwin's Black Box". I could see Denton agreeing with Behe until Chapter 8 "Publish or Perish". From there I can easily see Denton departing with how Behe define ID which seems to be how ID defines itself today. So the question would be was Denton an ID how it's define now in which I have serious doubts he ever was.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, because you were making it sound at first, that the Allele, was the Gene sequence.

Indeed it is. On any particular chromosome at any particular gene locus, there is a sequence of DNA base nucleotides which we call a gene. In reference to that particular chromosome we can also call it an allele. We call it an allele when the DNA sequence on one chromosome can differ from the DNA sequence at the same locus on a different chromosome. Each allele is a particular genetic sequence that can be found on at least one chromosome at that locus. In effect an allele is a variant form of the gene. The variation consists in variations in the DNA sequencing code.

It's not a mutation, it is a simple variant of Allele, that is allowed by the code itself, with out the necessity of mutation for it to happen.

It sounds strange to speak of a variant of the allele. The allele is a variant of the gene. When a mutation occurs, it creates a new variant, which of course, is a new allele of the gene.

In this case, the genetic code of either of the parents, very well was not mutated at all, but simple division of which color code the offspring received.

You are quite right. You are overlooking two things. The fact that alleles are usually inherited intact does not mean they cannot mutate. And the origin of the allele in the first place was a mutation in a former allele. In this sense an allele is an inherited mutation, just not a mutation that occurred in this particular generation, but in an earlier generation and has since been passed on by ordinary inheritance.

No, not at all, a replication error in the genetic code, is Mutation.

To the extent the original DNA sequence is considered correct, any change in the sequence is of course an error. Since the point of replication is to reproduce a sequence without change, a reproduction with change is of course a replication error.

I don't think we are talking about different things here. If the parental DNA sequence was ACGTTCGA and the sequence received by the gamete on completion of meiosis is ACGTCCGA that is a replication error, and the change is called a mutation because it is a change from the original. (Btw I haven't memorized the DNA code, just throwing up letters randomly.)

Both complete genetic sequences are alleles.

This is what got me, as the Alleles are the Traits, Per Se.

But I hope we have gotten past that.

No, the traits are the phenotypes produced by the alleles. The alleles are variant DNA sequences for a gene. Did you not read the Wikipedia link you gave me? Even after I bolded the type?

"An allele (pronounced al-eel or al-e-ul) is any one of a number of viable DNA codings"

"there may be several different versions (or alleles) of the gene "

Allele

Any of a number of alternative forms of a gene. Allele is a contraction of allelomorph, a term used to designate one of the alternative forms of a unit showing mendelian segregation. New alleles arise from existing ones by mutation.

http://www.answers.com/topic/allele?cat=health
(emphasis added)

But the DNA/RNA is the Code, of which the life from is built and maintained by.

Specifically it is the sequence of base nucleotides that forms the code. Amino acids are coded by triplets of base nucleotides.

Mutations are Errors in this code, nothing else. They are not just changes, they are errors. The affect of the error, may be in dispute, that fact that is it an error, is not.

Perhaps we could agree that mutations are changes in the DNA sequencing of a gene/allele caused by replication errors. (or in some cases caused by mutagens).

This is 100% inaccurate. Many of the processes we use today in the medical research it built off the premise of making a prediction regarding how life will adapt to the environment, and applying it.

After many, many years of observing the typical patterns of adaptation. This is combining theory and observation, not straight deduction from the theory.

Nope, not at all. That would be the very nature of the fact that Hybreds are almost always, with very few selecet and isloated incidents that they are able to give birth.

Not when the groups are breeds within the species. Darwin had no trouble getting viable offspring when crossing different breeds of pigeons. Farmers and gardeners depend on hybrid seeds which are crosses of breeds, not crosses across species lines. Mendel's hybrids were all types within the same species.

Perhaps you object to using the term "hybrid" for these types of within species crosses, but it is a common usage.

You get difficulty with sterility/viability when the hybrid is the offspring of parents whose lineages have diverged more widely than what we typically find within species or which have developed some sort of reproductive barrier.

In the horse-donkey cross, you typically get a problem with chromosome pairing.

I am not talking bout when the Africans were bought as slaves, I am referring to the "first contact" where they killed each other on sight.

But that wasn't first contact either. It may have been the first contact of that ship's crew with that African tribe, but not the first contact of Europeans with Africans (such contacts go back into antiquity). Europeans and Africans never been genetically isolated.

But it does not provide a viable distinction or proof of genetic differential, not does lack of breeding make for a separate species.

That is what I am saying. No type of non-genetically based isolation guarantees that the isolated groups are different species. They can only become different species when in addition to the other isolating barriers, reproductive barriers also appear. The existence of reproductive barriers has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Assortative mating can be an indication that reproductive barriers are becoming established. In any case, it makes it more likely that they will eventually be established.

As we can document isolated animals of the same species, in different climates, with varying diets, all over our planet, cougars for example, who have genetic isolation, (Darwin's finches), and are still the same animal, with just different character traits, or changes in alleles.

The cougars AFAIK are not different species in spite of geographical isolation, yet Darwin's finches are different species in spite of proximity. Yes, they are all finches, but the cactus finches don't breed with the ground finches and neither group breeds with the warbler-type finches. And the genetic differences have been well-verified.

IE: People in Arica have a higeher amount of melanin, where those in Europe did not. But they were still the same species, even after thousands of years of genetic isolation.

What thousands of years of genetic isolation? Human groups have never been completely isolated genetically.

We have roughly over a 10,000 year test done to cats, and they are still, just a Felis silvestris catus with no new species coming to be.

Again, domestic cats have never been genetically isolated. You get some partial isolation to maintain artificial breeds, but even breeders know that from time to time you need to maintain the health of the breed by permitting some crossing with other breeds. Otherwise you get the problems associated with in-breeding.

Have you looked at that?

Sure. Look up Eight Little Piggies by Stephen J. Gould.

Also check out the attached image of the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae. You can see the combination of digit and fin bones.

The appearance of it. Would come from a common template By which each "Kind" came from, with adaptation after that.

There are many ways to use a common template. How do you get from a common template to a nested hierarchy? Why do we see no other possible pattern of using common templates?

What is the rationale for using a common template only to produce a nested hierarchy and never functional modules--as is the case when human intelligence uses templates?

This sort of answer also betrays ignorance of the meaning of scientific prediction.

I will explain that further if you like.

 

[gluadys]

Hmmm. Don't know what happened to the image of the Tiktaalik fin. It was there when I previewed the post. Anywhooo. Try again.

 

[Deamiter]

Key -- gluadys has addressed and asked my questions much better than I ever could. I wouldn't mind continuing our short conversation, but if you're feeling like we're ganging up on you (or if you are just not interested in multiple identical conversations) do feel free to ignore my brief interruption and simply continue the discussion with gluadys.

 

[USincognito]

Leopards don't travel in packs. They're solitary. And the black coloration tends to be abenificial mutation in some environments. In fact in the jungle environment of the Jaguar, it is due to a mutation in a dominant gene.

Yes they do, for a limited time when the mother is nursing the cubs. When the cubs get old enough, they are encouraged by the mother to find their own way in life.

Now you've redefined pack to something completely different from what you were referring to previously.

Example: Black Panthers are thrown out of the Leopard pack, because of their color, Ergo, color or pattern would have influence, and thus, if that was why they did not breed, once would be hard pressed to say they were different breed, because of, and only because of fur pattern, and that would prevent them from interbreeding or choosing mates from the other pack.

A mother and her cubs is a family, not a pack. Words mean things Key.

It's not a mutation, it is a simple variant of Allele, that is allowed by the code itself, with out the necessity of mutation for it to happen.

No. Variants come about due to mutations. This is known from studies of the DNA of these animals, its not just ad hoc hand waving which is all you're offering.

The Black coloration, of the leopard, would be no different then say, two brown eyed parents havening a blue eyed child. It is just a code variant of the melanin. The code by which the Panther received had high levels of black, IE: Over abundance of melanin, which, we can not validate would have been a replication error, or caused by a mutagen. In this case, the genetic code of either of the parents, very well was not mutated at all, but simple division of which color code the offspring received.

IE: Two brown eyed parents having a child with amber eyes.[/quote]

I wish I could talk out my rear with such confidence. Unfortunately I can't, and I don't think you're interested, having read some of the other replies today to you on this, for me to waste my time trying to correct you.

Secondly, that does not change the fact that the mother will remove the cub from her "pack" at a very early age, because of this coloration.

That's not a "fact" nor is a family of a mother and her cubs a "pack" nor did you use "pack" to refer to a mother and her cubs. You used pack as a noun of association meaning a group larger and more permanent than a mother raising a litter of cubs.

That's the one thing about a written debate - you words, and the context you used them in, can come back and haunt you.

 

[Key]

This has been demonstrated with observation of ring species. Do you deny the possibility that two populations COULD diverge enough so that they could no longer interbreed?

Ring Species, are a lump in the mix. Allow me to explain, since you brought it up. A Ring species, which is most normally common among insects, due to their very complex reproductive organs, are a product that the Hypothesis, as proposed, is not true.

Do you really claim (as quoted below) that the genetic code of two sexually isolated populations that derived from a single population is always identical and always will be identical?

We don't have anything to say otherwise, or any means by which we have validated this claim. It falls into the category of 'Hummmm could be true".. but nothing more then that.

I find it a bit odd that unlike the links, you do not consider copy errors to be mutations.

You then missed what I said, I said, Copy Errors are Mutations.

Allow me a moment to explain this, Changes in Alleles are Genetic Drift, which is one aspect of the Evolution Concept, it affects all Aspect Theories however, just as does Natural Selection.

The third sub aspect is Mutations, Changes in the Genetic code that are not Genetic Drift, IE: Copy Errors. and affects caused by mutagens.

If all the genes in the human population were present in Adam and Eve (a maximum of 4) how do you account for the wide variation in the genes that produce hundreds of different eye colors today?

That would be if the impression was that Adam was as limited as we are in his Genetic Code.

In other words, don't mutations build up in a population to create small new alleles?

Not that I am aware of. No. but I am open to learn.

If so, why do you deny that mutations can affect alleles?

I don't. As a matter of fact, it might be near impossible for them not to affect alleles, in some manner of another.

You claimed that if two parents with brown eyes had a child with blue eyes it'd be a case of simple variation. In fact, there are only two ways this could happen -- if the parents BOTH had recessive blue eyes (or one had an even MORE recessive trait like albino etc...) or if a mutation caused it. Certainly we agree that in the vast majority of cases, it is simply gene paring that accounts for variation.

Well I would remove the mutation, unless proven otherwise. genetics, is not a cut and dried field, there is a lot of, stuff, that goes on.

The question then is what CAUSED the variation in the first place?

You do realize that I believe in Creationism.

However, I would love to hear an Evolutionist answer to this question.

As I said before, Adam and Eve can account for only 4 variations at a maximum (i.e. if they each had genes for two different eye colors). How do you account for the many other eye colors that could only have arisen in the population due to mutations?

again, this would be under the impression that Adam and Eves code was as limited as ours.

Indeed it is. On any particular chromosome at any particular gene locus, there is a sequence of DNA base nucleotides which we call a gene..........The variation consists in variations in the DNA sequencing code.

Yup.

It sounds strange to speak of a variant of the allele. The allele is a variant of the gene. When a mutation occurs, it creates a new variant, which of course, is a new allele of the gene.

There is Genetic Drift (flow), which would be changes in Allele frequency from generation to generation in individuals (populations). This is in no way, a mutation.

It seems if that is what you are trying to imply, but that would be a gross deception or at the very least drastically misleading.

You are quite right. ........ by ordinary inheritance.

It almost sounds as if you are trying to say Genetic Drift, is a Mutation. Please tell me that is not your intent.

I don't think we are talking about different things here. If the parental DNA sequence was ACGTTCGA and the sequence received by the gamete on completion of meiosis is ACGTCCGA that is a replication error, and the change is called a mutation because it is a change from the original. (Btw I haven't memorized the DNA code, just throwing up letters randomly.)

If a replication error occurs, there is no demand that new genetic material needs to be added, or that any needs to be removed. Only that there is an error, or some mutagen effect. and that the effect is not the product of genetic drift.

No, the traits are the phenotypes produced by the alleles. The alleles are variant DNA sequences for a gene. Did you not read the Wikipedia link you gave me? Even after I bolded the type?

According to the theory of Mendelian inheritance, variations in phenotype - the observable physical and behavioral characteristics of an organism - are due to variations in genotype, or the organism's particular set of genes, each of which specifies a particular trait. Different genes for the same trait, which give rise to different phenotypes, are known as alleles. Organisms such as the pea plants Mendel worked on, along with many plants and animals, have two alleles for each trait, one inherited from each parent. Alleles may be dominant or recessive; dominant alleles give rise to their corresponding phenotypes when paired with any other allele for the same trait, while recessive alleles give rise to their corresponding phenotype only when paired with another copy of the same allele. For example, if the allele specifying tall stems in pea plants is dominant over the allele specifying short stems, then pea plants that inherit one tall allele from one parent and one short allele from the other parent will also have tall stems

Please read and enjoy.

Perhaps we could agree that mutations are changes in the DNA sequencing of a gene/allele caused by replication errors. (or in some cases caused by mutagens).

Not my definitions, it is the requirements of what the Theory of Macro has placed upon it, for it to have any merit to the Evolution Concept.

You can split hairs with me all day on this, regarding definitions, but when it all settles, the demand, of what a mutation must be able to produce for Macro and Origin, does not change.

Not when the groups are breeds within the species. Darwin had no trouble getting viable offspring when crossing different breeds of pigeons. Farmers and gardeners depend on hybrid seeds which are crosses of breeds, not crosses across species lines. Mendel's hybrids were all types within the same species.

Perhaps you object to using the term "hybrid" for these types of within species crosses, but it is a common usage.

Yes, it is a common usage, IE: Mixing a Dairy Cow, with a Long Horn, Etc. But, that is not what a hybrid, is when referring to biology, and the evolution concept.

Swapping terms, does not provide support, changing the meanings does not provide support. So, as much as one may "apply" the different ways a word can be used, it does not change the overall necessity of what that word must apply to, for it have any authenticity, in regards in the Evolution Concept.

if I used "bulublizt" as opposed to "Mutation", to mean a copy error, or external stimuli that could provide for the addition or removal of genetic material, it would not change what was required of this process for there to be "support" for Macro and Origin.

Have I made this clear?

In the horse-donkey cross, you typically get a problem with chromosome pairing.

Yup

But that wasn't first contact either. It may have been the first contact of that ship's crew with that African tribe, but not the first contact of Europeans with Africans (such contacts go back into antiquity). Europeans and Africans never been genetically isolated.

I'll deal with this further down.

That is what I am saying. No type of non-genetically based isolation guarantees that the isolated groups are different species.

fair enough.

They can only become different species when in addition to the other isolating barriers, reproductive barriers also appear. The existence of reproductive barriers has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Umm, not sure if I agree with this. this sounds tricky.

Assortative mating can be an indication that reproductive barriers are becoming established. In any case, it makes it more likely that they will eventually be established.

Social reproductive barriers, and even physical reproductive barriers, do not imply, or even hint at any from of genetic barrier.

The cougars AFAIK are not different species in spite of geographical isolation, yet Darwin's finches are different species in spite of proximity. Yes, they are all finches, but the cactus finches don't breed with the ground finches and neither group breeds with the warbler-type finches. And the genetic differences have been well-verified.

That was my point.

The Finches were in Close Proximity, in this case, they should have maintained some level of "interbreeding", and thus, not become different species, where the cougar, should have, due to the vast physical barriers to generate genetic isolation. In all models, there first needed to be isolation, and then change would occur.

That was my whole point to start with.

What thousands of years of genetic isolation? Human groups have never been completely isolated genetically.

Are you sure about that?

Because since the "human migration" from the cradle of humanity, till say recent years, when technology allowed humans to cross these vast borders more freely, it would have been very hard, for say, the people in Australia to have social interaction with the people in North America.

As it stands, the Human migration started around 170,000 years ago, with supposed humans hitting Australia 70,000 to 60,000 years ago, and the America (north) some time before that.

So that would be, what? 50,000 years of genetic isolation, at least?

I guess if you could provide source, to prove that they could have, had some kind of "trade" then that would prove that there was no isolation.

It's just the facts, that I have, and what I am given to work with.

You can look it up yourself, regarding the human migration. See the time frames, and note the massive land barriers that would generate isolation, just as it would for any other land bound animals on this planet.

Again, domestic cats have never been genetically isolated.

They haven't? You sure about that? The Abyssinian, is one of the oldest breeds of Feline, dating back to The Pharaohs of Egypt, which, when we (Humans that is) make a breed, by default, we generate genetic isolation (IE: We are the barrier). This, we generate genetic isolation all the time. It's a stock and trade tool of farmers for the last several thousand years.

You get some partial isolation to maintain artificial breeds, but even breeders know that from time to time you need to maintain the health of the breed by permitting some crossing with other breeds. Otherwise you get the problems associated with in-breeding.

This is entirely untrue.

Line Breeding, just to cite a source for you.

sure. Look up Eight Little Piggies by Stephen J. Gould.

Also check out the attached image of the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae. You can see the combination of digit and fin bones.

Ok.

There are many ways to use a common template. How do you get from a common template to a nested hierarchy? Why do we see no other possible pattern of using common templates?

Huh?

What is the rationale for using a common template only to produce a nested hierarchy and never functional modules--as is the case when human intelligence uses templates?

Huh Again?

This sort of answer also betrays ignorance of the meaning of scientific prediction.

Enjoy the Link

Key -- gluadys has addressed and asked my questions much better than I ever could. I wouldn't mind continuing our short conversation, but if you're feeling like we're ganging up on you (or if you are just not interested in multiple identical conversations) do feel free to ignore my brief interruption and simply continue the discussion with gluadys.

Your being civil and you have viable questions, I am enjoying discussing this with you.

Now you've redefined pack to something completely different from what you were referring to previously.

Pack -noun: "a group of certain animals of the same kind, esp. predatory ones"

Nope, that definition looks the same as the one I started with.

A mother and her cubs is a family, not a pack. Words mean things Key.

I agree 100% !
Family, is most commonly only associated with humans, when applied to gatherings, or groups.

You would not say a Family of Ducks, when you watch a duck leading her ducklings across the street, you would call it a flock.

and it seems it is also something you should work on learning.

That's the one thing about a written debate - you words, and the context you used them in, can come back and haunt you.

Yes, and you should pay close attention to that, the color shift of leopards as I explained was or could be nothing more then genetic drift (flow).. which you supported, with your little bit about the jaguar. I suggest that in the future, when you desire to discuss evolution, that you learn the difference between genetic drift, and a mutation.

God Bless

Key

 

[USincognito]

Pack -noun: "a group of certain animals of the same kind, esp. predatory ones"

Nope, that definition looks the same as the one I started with.

How can one be so arrogantly wrong. Pack is used primarily in describing large groups of canines, not just a mother and her pups. And here are the Google results for leopard+pack. No hits, except for backpacks and some weird roll playing lycanthrope sites.
Conversely leopard+solitary gets all sorts of hits including The African Leopard: Ecology and Behavior of a Solitary Felid.

You do understand the solitary is NOT a noun of association right?

I agree 100% !
Family, is most commonly only associated with humans, when applied to gatherings, or groups.

You would not say a Family of Ducks, when you watch a duck leading her ducklings across the street, you would call it a flock.

How can you agree 100%? You're saying the opposite of reality, not just what I'm saying. You might not say a family of ducks, but apparently people who know what they're talking about do.

and it seems it is also something you should work on learning.

What is it like to live without a sense of irony.

Yes, and you should pay close attention to that, the color shift of leopards as I explained was or could be nothing more then genetic drift (flow).. which you supported, with your little bit about the jaguar. I suggest that in the future, when you desire to discuss evolution, that you learn the difference between genetic drift, and a mutation.

No irony... what a way to live...
Melanism and abundism are often the result of genetic mutation, but can result from other stimuli, such as exposure to abnormal temperature changes during gestation which transiently alter gene transcription or translation.
And.
Mutants are natural variations which occur due to spontaneous genetic changes or the expression of recessive (hidden) genes. Recessive genes show up when there is too much inbreeding. White tigers and white lions are uncommon in the wild as they lack normal camouflage. Albinism (pure white), chinchilla (white with pale markings) and melanism (black) are the commonest mutations.

 

[gluadys]

Ring Species, are a lump in the mix. Allow me to explain, since you brought it up. A Ring species, which is most normally common among insects, due to their very complex reproductive organs, are a product that the Hypothesis, as proposed, is not true.

Can you cite an example of an insect ring species? I have never heard of one before. All the previous examples I have seen have been birds or salamanders.

Also, why do you connect reproductive organs with ring species? I get the sense that you are not using "ring species" to refer to the same phenomenon as Deamiter and I are, so we may not be talking about the same thing. In none of the ring species I am familiar with do the reproductive organs factor significantly into forming the ring.

We don't have anything to say otherwise, or any means by which we have validated this claim.

Actually, we have a great deal of evidence that validates the claim that genetic codes change from ancestor to descendant. I linked you earlier to the 1979 Multi-factorial Study on Drosophila.

This study began with a single population with a mapped genetic sequence. It ended with eight separate populations each with different variations from the ancestral sequences. In one case the daughter population showed an overall 3% genetic difference from the ancestral population.

Allow me a moment to explain this, Changes in Alleles are Genetic Drift,

There is Genetic Drift (flow), which would be changes in Allele frequency from generation to generation in individuals (populations).

Please clarify the difference between the bolded sections of the upper and lower statements. In the upper statement you refer to "changes in alleles" in the lower to "changes in allele frequencies". Was it simple oversight to omit "frequencies" in the first statement?

Genetic drift (which is not the same thing as gene flow) does produce changes in allele frequency, but not changes in the alleles themselves. It is mutations that produce changes in the alleles themselves.

I am not certain why you introduced genetic drift in response to Deamiter's question. Genetic drift is in a totally different category to the molecular changes in genes/alleles. Genetic drift is a species level mechanism as opposed to a molecular level one like mutations.

That would be if the impression was that Adam was as limited as we are in his Genetic Code.

What I would be interested in here is an clarification of the physical differences between Adam and his descendants that would allow him to be less limited in his genetic code. Are you suggesting he had more chromosomes than humans today? Or that he had more than one pair of each type of chromosome?

I don't. As a matter of fact, it might be near impossible for them not to affect alleles, in some manner of another.

Glad to hear that. Like Deamiter, I was getting the impression from your posts that you denied that alleles mutate.

Well I would remove the mutation, unless proven otherwise. genetics, is not a cut and dried field, there is a lot of, stuff, that goes on.

In a specific case, of course one would look for other causes as well as a mutation and determine what best fit the evidence. But as a general statement Deamiter is right. A blue eyed biological child of a brown eyed couple occurs either when both parents were able to pass on a recessive allele for eye colour or (failing that explanation) when a mutation has occurred in one of the alleles they did have. This is basic Mendelian genetics. Of course, eye colour is not determined by one gene acting alone, so the big picture is more complicated.

You do realize that I believe in Creationism.

However, I would love to hear an Evolutionist answer to this question.

You've got it. The variation was caused in the first place by a mutation to the gene. This introduced a variant of the gene, placing two forms of the gene into the species gene pool. Those two gene forms are called alleles.

Ok, because you were making it sound at first, that the Allele, was the Gene sequence.

Indeed it is. On any particular chromosome at any particular gene locus, there is a sequence of DNA base nucleotides which we call a gene..........The variation consists in variations in the DNA sequencing code.

Yup.

"Yup"??? You seemed to object to me identifying an allele with a gene sequence, yet when I confirm that is exactly what I am doing, you seem to approve. Could you clarify either why you initially raised the issue or why you are now apparently agreeing with me?

This is in no way, a mutation.

No Genetic drift is not mutation, but since no one claimed it was and it was you who introduced the concept of genetic drift for the first time in your response, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

It seems if that is what you are trying to imply, but that would be a gross deception or at the very least drastically misleading.

It almost sounds as if you are trying to say Genetic Drift, is a Mutation. Please tell me that is not your intent.

No, not at all. I don't know why you are reading genetic drift into what I am saying. I did not use the term and I did not intend to imply it. How did you come to infer it from what I said?

If a replication error occurs, there is no demand that new genetic material needs to be added, or that any needs to be removed. Only that there is an error, or some mutagen effect. and that the effect is not the product of genetic drift.

Mutations don't occur on demand in any case. But two types of mutations are insertion and deletion, which refer respectively to the addition of material to the gene or the subtraction of material from the gene. Such mutations do occur irrespective of need or demand.

No, the traits are the phenotypes produced by the alleles. The alleles are variant DNA sequences for a gene. Did you not read the Wikipedia link you gave me? Even after I bolded the type?

According to the theory of Mendelian inheritance, variations in phenotype - the observable physical and behavioral characteristics of an organism - are due to variations in genotype, or the organism's particular set of genes, each of which specifies a particular trait. Different genes for the same trait, which give rise to different phenotypes, are known as alleles. Organisms such as the pea plants Mendel worked on, along with many plants and animals, have two alleles for each trait, one inherited from each parent. Alleles may be dominant or recessive; dominant alleles give rise to their corresponding phenotypes when paired with any other allele for the same trait, while recessive alleles give rise to their corresponding phenotype only when paired with another copy of the same allele. For example, if the allele specifying tall stems in pea plants is dominant over the allele specifying short stems, then pea plants that inherit one tall allele from one parent and one short allele from the other parent will also have tall stems

Please read and enjoy.

Are you suggesting that the paragraph you cited in response refutes my statement? If so could you please indicate how it does, as I see no difference in it from what I stated. The alleles are the variant forms of the gene i.e. variant DNA sequences. The character traits are the phenotypical expressions of the allele pairing. The character traits are not the alleles.

Not my definitions, it is the requirements of what the Theory of Macro has placed upon it, for it to have any merit to the Evolution Concept.

You seem to be referring to macro-evolution as something other than speciation. I am not aware of macro-evolution in any form other than speciation. Could you clarify what you consider requirements of macro-evolution. i.e. how would you identify macro-evolution if not through speciation?

You can split hairs with me all day on this, regarding definitions, but when it all settles, the demand, of what a mutation must be able to produce for Macro and Origin, does not change.

I don't know what demand you envisage. What is it you see that a mutation must be able to produce to make macroevolution possible. As far as I am aware macroevolution is an accumulation of numerous microevolutionary changes + speciation. I don;t see that making any special demand on mutations. So if I am to understand where you are coming from, I need your assistance in explaining some of your assumptions/definitions/models -- not sure what to call them.

I know you must find this frustrating. Apparently you assumed we were talking the same language from the get-go, but it is increasingly obvious that we are not. So you must not assume I understand even what seem like very basic and obvious matters to you. And I will also have to take that advice myself. Do feel free to question me when I seem to be using a term in an unusual way.

Yes, it is a common usage, IE: Mixing a Dairy Cow, with a Long Horn, Etc. But, that is not what a hybrid, is when referring to biology, and the evolution concept.

Well, breeding is a part of biology, but since in our context we are looking at what hybridization says about speciation, we do not really need to refer to the in-species crossing of breeds.

Have I made this clear?

Yes, that's why definitional matters become crucial. What is an allele? What is a mutation? What demand is placed on a gene to accomplish macroevolution?

Social reproductive barriers, and even physical reproductive barriers, do not imply, or even hint at any from of genetic barrier.

Assortative mating is the "won't breed" rather than the "can't breed" pattern. It often occupies a sort of middle point in the process of speciation. Somewhere between the initial isolation (before which the two groups freely mated) and the final definitive separation produced by reproductive barriers.

The Finches were in Close Proximity, in this case, they should have maintained some level of "interbreeding", and thus, not become different species, where the cougar, should have, due to the vast physical barriers to generate genetic isolation. In all models, there first needed to be isolation, and then change would occur.

Yes, in all the models isolation of some kind (not necessarily geographical) need to occur first. But beyond that it is pretty difficult to say what evolution "should" occur. We are much better at reconstructing what did occur.

Whether the finches should have continued interbreeding or not, the fact is that they did not and they are now separate species. And we can't really establish a basis for saying that they should have maintained interbreeding solely on the basis of proximity. After all, they were adapting to some significantly different ecological niches, and that is also a sort of isolation. It is also a good survival strategy as it reduces the competition that would otherwise obtain in a homogeneous group.

Are you sure about that?

Because since the "human migration" from the cradle of humanity, till say recent years, when technology allowed humans to cross these vast borders more freely, it would have been very hard, for say, the people in Australia to have social interaction with the people in North America.

As it stands, the Human migration started around 170,000 years ago, with supposed humans hitting Australia 70,000 to 60,000 years ago, and the America (north) some time before that.

So that would be, what? 50,000 years of genetic isolation, at least?

I guess if you could provide source, to prove that they could have, had some kind of "trade" then that would prove that there was no isolation.

It's just the facts, that I have, and what I am given to work with.

You can look it up yourself, regarding the human migration. See the time frames, and note the massive land barriers that would generate isolation, just as it would for any other land bound animals on this planet.

Yes, I am sure, and no that is not 50,000 years of isolation. The dates you give are among the earliest suggested for migration to Australia and North America. Dates more frequently cited for Australia are 40,000 years ago and for North America 15-20,000 years ago. But while the earliest date is debatable, the most recent date for regular land-based migration is not. That is the end of the Pleistocene about 11,000 years ago when the land bridges were inundated. So these populations only became fairly isolated then.

And even then there is evidence of some continued across the water contact for both areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_history_of_Australia

So, no complete isolation even in remote areas.

They haven't? You sure about that? The Abyssinian, is one of the oldest breeds of Feline, dating back to The Pharaohs of Egypt, which, when we (Humans that is) make a breed, by default, we generate genetic isolation (IE: We are the barrier). This, we generate genetic isolation all the time. It's a stock and trade tool of farmers for the last several thousand years.

The very reason they are breeds and not species is that breeds have never been completely isolated. Yes, there can be a high degree of human-imposed isolation, and there is some thinking today that it has produced speciation in dogs, but I have never heard that suggested for cats, not even as venerable a lineage as the Abyssinian.

This is entirely untrue.

Line Breeding, just to cite a source for you.

Actually, your source supports me. I just didn't know the correct terminology. They call what I was referring to as out-crossing.

Huh?

Huh Again?

If these questions do not make sense to you, it may be that you are unfamiliar with the concept and significance of nested hierarchy. May I suggest that you do some research on the term?

Enjoy the Link

Not what I had in mind at all. I was referring to the logical form of scientific prediction.

Common design cannot be logically equivalent to common descent because it substitutes a mere possibility for a necessity.

Again, I will clarify if need be.