Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[xianghua]

It has just been explained to you that they aren't.

Not sure what else to tell you.

and i just explained why they are. and i didnt see any counter evidence so far.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and i just explained why they are. and i didnt see any counter evidence so far.

I'll take the word of actual biologists and geneticists, over the word of a random internet creationist who thinks presenting imaginary evidence somehow has the power to overthrow established science.

 

[xianghua]

I'll take the word of actual biologists and geneticists, over the word of a random internet creationist who thinks presenting imaginary evidence somehow has the power to overthrow established science.

if you consider a scientific evidence as "imaginary evidence" so sure. be my guest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if you consider a scientific evidence as "imaginary evidence" so sure. be my guest.

I was talking about your imaginary robot penguins and whatnot.

You even called it "your BEST argument against evolution".
And the data used in that argument concerns non-existing self-replicating cars, non-existing robotic penguins and non-existing self-replicating watches. And these imaginary things are even defined in a way that renders them logically impossible.

 

[tas8831]

wow. This is so easy to refute, but so time-consuming. I only have 15 minutes to waste, so not sure I will get through it all.

Ridiculous to claim importance....

???

Are you one of those fakers that thinks there is a 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype or not?

Hard to tell.

Now, if creationist claims of a fully-functional genome had merit, you might have a point.

The fact that even if we go by conservative estimates 60% is non functional, evolutionists are still debating if biological activity means function,

No, they really are not.

Even ENCODE had abandoned that.

it just proves that the genome was once more functional.

Not even close - totally unwarranted extrapolation.

It seems that despite the fact that this has been discussed on here probably hundreds of times - well before I came here - that the ENCODE definition re: 'biological activity' merely referred to the presence of binding sites (which, by chance alone, will show up REPEATEDLY in a long string of a limited combination of 'letters'), you still don't get it.

But thanks for yet again shooting down creationist arguments!

I know you prefer fantasy to facts, but to now be a percentage non-functional, it must have once been that same percentage more functional. You can’t reduce functionality if you didn’t start with more functionality.

LOL!

Whoever said that the current level of functionality is the result of a loss of function BESIDES PEOPLE LIKE YOU???

Kimura indicated in some of his papers leading up to his Neutral Theory that the bulk of the genome of a large, slowly-reproducing organism (like a mammal) had to be non-functional in essence to act as a mutation buffer. Smaller-genomed critters with long lifespans and low reproduction rates would die out. Get with the times (from 50 years ago)! That 'absorbing' mutations WAS the function, NOT that it used to be genes (which, by the way, we CAN see - pseudogenes).

Where did Asians come from?

Where did Africans come from?

Which 2 pre-existing 'races' mated to make them?

And where did THEY come from - your scenario is self-defeating at every step.

Only because you refuse to accept the evidence, that humans remain human as far back as you can go, until you get to this non-existent ancestor.

Non-sequitur.

I get that you have no explanation and have realized how truly idiotic your 'hybridization all the way down' farce is, but come on - you aren't even trying any more.

But I hate to point out to you how new variants arose, why it just might be similar to interbreeding.

http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

“Bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance genes from other bacteria in several ways. By undergoing a simple mating process called "conjugation," ...”

But I wouldn’t want to imply similarity of genome exchange. Why yes I would!

Sorry but conjugation is not even remotely like interbreeding. Bacteria are, after all, asexual.

Why not, you still fail to accept all dog breeds came from wolves through interbreeding. If the facts that over 100 breeds can exist this way can’t convince you, nothing will convince you 12-15 races can.

I totally accept that dog breed came from wolves via selective breeding - but unlike you, I understand how the variation from which different traits were selected for are actually formed - and it is NOT interbreeding. You can interbreed all day long, and the act of reproduction itself will not create "new" alleles - at best, interbreeding/inbreeding/hybridizing ONLY re-shuffles the alleles present.

That’s your flawed assumption, because you need to believe they had near identicke genomes.

Then please show me chapter and verse wherein Scripture describes how God put variety into Adam and Eve's "allies." Then provide the actual evidence.

And who said the original pair would be classified as middle eastern?

That is where the myth originated.


What - you think they were white Europeans? You get the same problem - WHERE DID THE FIRST ASIAN AND THE FIRST AFRICAN COME FROM????

Never once said mutations can not affect skin color, eye color, hair color, or even cause birth defects. I see no contradiction at all since I have repeatedly stated mutations caused variation in skin color. But as was pointed out to you by your own biologists, such mutations have no bearing on ancestory.

No biologists pointed out any such thing.

YOUR original claims were that mutation played no role in getting the different 'races' - or are you trying to engage in a little historical revisionism to avoid looking 100% foolish?

Self evident. A perfect genome would contain all variations possible within them.

Special pleading and question begging - amazing!

Evidence? ZERO.

It is always the same, regardless of which creationist makes this kind of claim. I had read on another forum of a creationist claiming that God created "fully front-loaded genomes", possessing all the needed alleles (nearly identical to what you just claimed). That creationist - like you - was never able to provide anything approaching evidence in support of his claim. It was just a silly just-so story.

That’s why we got 100 breeds of dog from merely interbreeding wolves, even if they are not even the original pair.

Brick wall....

The SELECTIVE breeding of wolves and their mutant offspring to get all the dog breeds today is only possible BECAUSE of mutation producing new alleles producing variation.

Yah I know, I’m your world things don’t mate I guess. Well let’s see. African mates with Asian. Nine months later a Afro-Asian is born.

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU THINK THAT MUTATION DOES NOT CREATE NEW ALLELES?????

No I’m not equating evolution with anything, it doesn’t exist. Just the combining of genomes to create that new variant.

Merely combining genomes only produces mixing of alleles present in the gene pool.

According to your naive folk genetics, mutations have no bearing on this, so no new variation.

Without such variation, you could inbreed middle easterners until the camels come home, and you will not get an Asian or an African.

That you are incapable of grasping that is incredible.

We certainly don’t need mutation and evolution to explain them.

“The aortic arches are formed sequentially within the pharyngeal arches and initially appear symmetrical on both sides of the embryo,[1] but then undergo a significant remodelling to form the final asymmetrical structure of the great arteries.”

All done by existing code within the genes. But we do know mutations lead to defects....

If that is so, then are you saying that mutations that alter skin color are defects?

Tell me all about this existing code within the genes - it is so totally amazing that you think that quoting wiki after having heard a term for the first time makes you think you understand something.

You don't even know where I was going with aortic arches (since I did not explain it) - so why did you counter with 'don’t need mutation and evolution to explain them.'?

Did your Wiki font of knowledge explain the differing patterns observed during development? How they are co-opted to produce different adult structures in different groups of taxa - and how these alterations can be traced back to alterations (mutation, duplications, etc.) in various patterning genes (such as HOX or Pax)?


So I take it that you have conceded that the Grants did not claim what you insist that they did, and that is why you fail to provide a citation?

How about a retraction?

Silly me - I forgot. that is not how creationists operate.

 

[tas8831]

That was a great post, if I do say so myself

Apologies for the thread resurrection - but why re-explain the same things to these folks?

Blah blah blah.


Apparently, in your quest to save face, you didn't notice that all of that is only about the alleles for eye color. That is, they all deal with a continuously varying trait.

This is interesting and all, but 100% irrelevant to the point I had made (and lost on you):

"You truly seem to think that any allele can recombine or mix and match with any other allele, no matter what the alleles are - that is the ONLY way your fantasy could even hope to have merit.

But reality does not operate that way."
​

Your own link indicates:


"A number of groups surveyed associations of single-nucleotide polymorphisms with eye color, with fairly consistent results: variation in the HERC2 and OCA2 genes, which are next to each other on chromosome 15, plays a major role in determining eye color."

Tell us all, won't you, what is meant by "single-nucleotide polymorphisms "?

And your link also mentions this paper:

"Genetics of human iris colour and patterns"
Richard A. Sturm and Mats Larsson

in which we see:


"Nevertheless, it has been estimated that 74% of the variance in human eye colour can be explained by one interval on chromosome 15 that contains the OCA2 gene. Fine mapping of this region has identified a single base change rs12913832 T ⁄C within intron 86 of the
upstream HERC2 locus that explains almost all of this association with blue-brown eye colour. A model is presented whereby this SNP, serving as a target site for the SWI ⁄SNF family member HLTF, acts as part of a highly evolutionary conserved regulatory element required for OCA2 gene activation through chromatin remodelling. "

and one can also note the paper's Table 1. Human pigmentation gene polymorphisms associated with eye colour -

tell us all what is meant by "gene polymorphisms", won't you?

And tell us all, with your amazing genetics expertise (bolstered by keyword searches to find quotes that can be taken out of context to try to save face), HOW such things as "gene polymorphisms" and SNPs come to be?

Must be by interbreeding and hybridization, right?


LOL!!!


My gosh...

No, a continuously variable trait is something like height. There is HEIGHT, then within that trait, we have short, medium, tall, etc. I know of many people that are my exact same height. Don't you?

So, in your Grant paper, where they talk about these sorts of traits being influenced more by hybridization than mutation, it is because different combinations of alleles play a greater role than individual birds experiencing mutations and - wait for it - generating new alleles, since these would be of lower frequency in the population. Mixing and matching the relevant associated alleles that already exist (and already exist due to mutation) via hybridization has a greater short-term impact than new allele generation and waiting for them to increase in frequency sufficiently to have an impact on phenotype.

I think you confuse alleles with phenotype?

Do you still think they are called "allies"?



Not at all.

You continue to look at these issues like a middle schooler.

Let us say for the sake of argument that height at the shoulders for wolves is governed by 10 loci.

A breeding pair will possess a maximum of a total of 40 possible alleles at these 10 loci.

Why a maximum? Because some could be identical, right?

So if we mix and match 40 alleles (4 per locus, 10 possible combinations per locus - remember? ABCD = AA,AB,AC,AD,etc.?), we can get a maximum of 100 unique combinations (or is it 400? My head hurts...).

Other factors influence height, such as nutritional status, etc. - we will ignore that for simplicity.
Wow! Justa population genetics is saved!


Or is it -


With 400 possible allele combination at 10 loci at which both member of a breeding pair had different alleles - we just populated a continuum with individuals of differing height.

We did NOT get a Mastiff and a Chihuahua - we just got wolves of differing heights.



But wait - you say that Adam and Eve had "perfect" genomes, that is, no mutation, so all of their alleles at these 10 loci had to have been identical (since that is how alleles arise - mutation).

That is right - creationists seem to believe that mutation was the result of the Fall - a curse. A punishment. So genetic variation - new alleles - is a punishment, if we accept creationist logic.

Creationist urologist Barney Maddox writes:

"The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there."


Creationist John Mackay has a GREAT totally sciencey take on mutations - a must read. He demolishes the 'all hybridization all the time' model of Justa is seconds flat.

"So did God invent mutations? An analogy will help. God did invent gravity without which life would not be possible. Your bits wouldn’t stick and we wouldn’t have a planet to live on. But once gravity is invented, you can choose to jump out of a plane at 30,000 feet, but don’t you dare argue God pushed you! Obey the law of gravity and live, but the default setting of the law of gravity will kill you, specially when de-fault is yours. Likewise God did invent genes, but disobey his law and the default settings which do involve gene degeneration will bring about your death."


And this Bible and genetics expert writes:

"...explains all the phenomena and genetic mutations in species we see today and can be traced back to our roots and the fall of man in the Garden of Eden."


Amazing insights.
So no new alleles in Adam and Eve - all loci =A (AA,AA,AA,AA).

Thus, no Africans, Asians, etc. to hybridize to get Afro-Asians.

Just following Justa's scientific model's logic here, folks.




Right - because I understand where 'interbreeding' gets its raw material from.

You refuse to.



Ummm... OK - so you DON'T think that mutations producing new alleles that affect height will influence height?

So what DOES affect height? Mixing up the "allies" that affect height via hybridization.

OK - where did those new "allies" come from?

Interesting.



From the fellow that STILL thinks alleles are called "allies", and who simultaneously declares - without evidence - that Adam and Eve had "perfect" genomes, but through the 'interbreeding' of their inbred, perfect-genome-having offspring, we get NEW combinations of alleles (that arose via???) producing all extant phenotypes (only to be washed away in a big flood (for which there is also no evidence) leaving only 4 inbreeding pairs to, yet again, re-populate and re-diversify all of humanity in only a couple hundred generations)...


I stand totally refuted.... A dude on the internet, who thinks alleles are called "allies", has totally refuted not only all of population genetics, but all of standard classical and transmission genetics as well!

LOL!!

Not patting myself on the back, just pointing this out as one of several instances of people on this forum showing creationists that what they believed to be scientific evidence supporting their claim was, in simple obvious fact, the very opposite - keep in mind folks, this creationist claims to have 'debated' genetics-related issue for YEARS, yet linked to a paper clearly and repeatedly outlining MUTATIONS as the impetus for eye color variation to support his claim that it ISN'T mutations that produce variation!

Such is creationist "expertise" and "experience".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And these magical splits from inbred middle easterners creating Africans - evidence please.

Going to misrepresent the Grant paper some more?

Going to conflate continuous variation with mutations again?

Going to claim additive genetic variance means that hybridization creates new 'allies'?

I am curious - who exactly do you think you are impressing with your continual gaffes and errors?

Who's misrepresenting the Grant's paper but you yourself?

Apparently other biologists have no problem understanding what it means.

“... In short, they argue that hybridization may act as a possibly more abundant source of adaptive genetic variation than mutation because mutations are rare and hybridization common. They cite Grant & Grant (1994) who estimated that the amount of new, additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that introduced by mutation in Darwin's finches. We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234156635_The_unpredictable_impact_of_hybridization

But as noted before the grants found the truth, such was neglected in studies, so I understand your beliefs stem from studies that failed to take into account the reality of breeding....

“During this non-equilibrium phase, inter-individual variation in traits affecting dispersal becomes spatially assorted because, at each generation, the best dispersers aggregate at the expanding front, seeding new populations. Notably, inter-individual variation is an inherent property of all natural populations, with profound implications for non-equilibrium processes such as range expansion and hybridization that have long been neglected, most often for the sake of simplicity [19]. As the expansion wave advances, the process of spatial sorting can promote rapid directional evolution of traits favoring dispersal, thus further accelerating the establishment of populations in newly colonized areas.”

And has been shown to be true in every species tried, even fish.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation. "

To plants....

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation

"... This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate pheno-types, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presentation, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations (Stirton pers. ..."

As one said it best....

“Hybridization is a biological process that, through the cross-breeding between individuals from distinct but closely related taxa, or between discrete entities that exchange genes, can deeply affect their genetic make-up, long-term survival and evolution ( Parham et al. 2013;Saetre 2013;Gompert and Buerkle 2016). Natural hybridization is no longer viewed as a sporadic and undesirable evolutionary dead-end, but rather as a relatively frequent and potentially creative process ( Mallet 2008;Larsen et al. 2010;Bailey et al. 2013;Stern 2013;Rius and Darlin”

Your blue moon mutation belief is dying. Just accept reality and get over it.

“... Hybridization may contribute directly to the origin of species , either as a result of reinforcement or hybrid speciation (Servedio and Noor 2003; Mallet 2007; Abbott et al. 2010 Abbott et al. , 2013). Some proponents of this view, like many of their colleagues, invoke the specter of Mayr (1942) and suggest that hybridization has traditionally been viewed as an " evolutionary dead end " (Seehausen 2013), or together with gene flow, as " mainly destructive forces with little evolutionary consequence " (Saetre 2013). Homoploid hybrid speciation involves the formation of novel genetic combinations and novel adaptations that allow persistence of the hybrid lineage , often in an environment distinct from that of either parent. ...”

As I said in another post.....

Update your scientific knowledge. Stop following dead beliefs from 1942....

But I noticed all you did is make claims and could not support your stance with a single source.......

Sorry, but biologists are replacing your useless blue moon mutations with the reality of breeding being the prime mover in variation. Get with the times, stop your useless PR.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Who's misrepresenting the Grant's paper but you yourself?

Apparently other biologists have no problem understanding what it means.

“... In short, they argue that hybridization may act as a possibly more abundant source of adaptive genetic variation than mutation because mutations are rare and hybridization common. They cite Grant & Grant (1994) who estimated that the amount of new, additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that introduced by mutation in Darwin's finches. We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234156635_The_unpredictable_impact_of_hybridization

But as noted before the grants found the truth, such was neglected in studies, so I understand your beliefs stem from studies that failed to take into account the reality of breeding....

“During this non-equilibrium phase, inter-individual variation in traits affecting dispersal becomes spatially assorted because, at each generation, the best dispersers aggregate at the expanding front, seeding new populations. Notably, inter-individual variation is an inherent property of all natural populations, with profound implications for non-equilibrium processes such as range expansion and hybridization that have long been neglected, most often for the sake of simplicity [19]. As the expansion wave advances, the process of spatial sorting can promote rapid directional evolution of traits favoring dispersal, thus further accelerating the establishment of populations in newly colonized areas.”

And has been shown to be true in every species tried, even fish.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation. "

To plants....

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation

"... This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate pheno-types, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presentation, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations (Stirton pers. ..."

As one said it best....

“Hybridization is a biological process that, through the cross-breeding between individuals from distinct but closely related taxa, or between discrete entities that exchange genes, can deeply affect their genetic make-up, long-term survival and evolution ( Parham et al. 2013;Saetre 2013;Gompert and Buerkle 2016). Natural hybridization is no longer viewed as a sporadic and undesirable evolutionary dead-end, but rather as a relatively frequent and potentially creative process ( Mallet 2008;Larsen et al. 2010;Bailey et al. 2013;Stern 2013;Rius and Darlin”

Your blue moon mutation belief is dying. Just accept reality and get over it.

“... Hybridization may contribute directly to the origin of species , either as a result of reinforcement or hybrid speciation (Servedio and Noor 2003; Mallet 2007; Abbott et al. 2010 Abbott et al. , 2013). Some proponents of this view, like many of their colleagues, invoke the specter of Mayr (1942) and suggest that hybridization has traditionally been viewed as an " evolutionary dead end " (Seehausen 2013), or together with gene flow, as " mainly destructive forces with little evolutionary consequence " (Saetre 2013). Homoploid hybrid speciation involves the formation of novel genetic combinations and novel adaptations that allow persistence of the hybrid lineage , often in an environment distinct from that of either parent. ...”

As I said in another post.....

Update your scientific knowledge. Stop following dead beliefs from 1942....

But I noticed all you did is make claims and could not support your stance with a single source.......

Sorry, but biologists are replacing your useless blue moon mutations with the reality of breeding being the prime mover in variation. Get with the times, stop your useless PR.

Where did all those entirely different genomes you speak of come from in the first place, Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Africans? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Asians? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Anglo-Saxons?

Same with Dogs, Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Mastiffs? Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Huskies? Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Poodles? and so on...

 

[tas8831]

Almost 8 months later, and our hero is STILL making the same false claims, and STILL relying on the same couple of papers to do so despite the fact that they CONTRADICT what he thinks they mean....

Yet he still claims that it is interbreeding/hybridization that produced the 'original' variation that produced Asians from middle easterners.

And you still reject that the Grants came to the conclusion that interbreeding affected numerous genetic loci simultaneously and was 2 to 3 magnitudes more important than mutations.

No, I reject your earlier depiction of it.

Mutations affect one gene loci,

Loci is plural.

if they even manage to do anything, as we all understand the majority are neutral, then harmful, then in rare circumstances beneficial. So one mutation may take effect every 20,000 generations (E coli), while interbreeding affects those multiple genetic loci with every single mating.

Every single mating?

Interesting.

That’s how you get from wolf to chiwawah [sic] in a few thousand years.

No, it really isn't.

i am surprised that you linked to the fox paper - did you not read it, or did you not understand it? For I saw several mentions of mutant genes and the like - things which you say are irrelevant.

From the paper you linked:

"As Morey pointed out, inbreeding might well have been rampant during the early steps of dog domestication. But it certainly cannot explain the novel traits we have observed in our
foxes, for two reasons. "

and, in a figure caption:

"Piebald coat color is one of the most striking mutations among domestic animals. The pattern is seen frequently in dogs (border collie, top right), pigs, horses and cows. Belyaev's hypothesis predicted that a similar mutation he called Star, seen occasionally in farmed foxes, would occur with increasing frequency in foxes selected for tamability."

And in your Grant paper - something I suppose you ignored (or never got to, since you had already found your juicy quote):


" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."


2 populations became MORE SIMILAR due to sharing of alleles... Hmmm... doesn't bode well for your claim of Asians and Africans and Inuit and Aborigine and Nordic from a perfect-genomed pair of middle easterners...


And where do alleles come from, again?

Ah yes:

where do alleles come from? - Google Search



But no, you go on asserting (with zero evidence) your fantasies.

That’s how ground finch mating with tree finch got to a new variation.

How did ground finch and tree finch come to possess different alleles in the first place?

I find it simultaneously frustrating and hilarious that you keep digging your own hole deeper yet refuse to even try to see it.

And while I can provide and have done so, numerous examples of change in form through interbreeding, you have yet to provide any.

That is fantastic.

What you still cannot do is provide evidence that we can get an Asian or an African from a middle easterner with 'perfect' created genomes via interbreeding, since, by definition, they would be interbreeding with other middle easterners with no new alleles.

 

[tas8831]

As you didn't respond first time I'll try again.

So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?

From the paper you linked to....

Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).

In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).

To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.

It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?

Bah! Those are just facts based on the papers that the YEC presented. Facts shmacts.

 

[tyke]

Almost 8 months later, and our hero is STILL making the same false claims, and STILL relying on the same couple of papers to do so despite the fact that they CONTRADICT what he thinks they mean....

The Grant's paper really seems to be a thorn in the side of some creationists. As you say, after eight months he is still (unsuccessfully, I might add) trying to argue against speciation being observed in the wild. I am pleased that so many people have taken the time to put these people straight and try to alleviate the Dunning-Kruger that seems rampant!!

 

[Aman777]

The Grant's paper really seems to be a thorn in the side of some creationists. As you say, after eight months he is still (unsuccessfully, I might add) trying to argue against speciation being observed in the wild.

Speciation/evolution is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds and is Scripturally correct. Changing the name from descent with modifications in a population over time, into the trashy word "evolution" brings increased punishment for those who force teach that Lie to little children. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2 So WHY would a Creationist disagree with that? In the end, Justice comes to those liars who try to brainwash our children. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Speciation/evolution is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds and is Scripturally correct. Changing the name from descent with modifications in a population over time, into the trashy word "evolution" brings increased punishment for those who force teach that Lie to little children. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2 So WHY would a Creationist disagree with that? In the end, Justice comes to those liars who try to brainwash our children. Amen?

Evolution literally means "change over time". The phrase "modifications in a population over time" is just a longer way of saying the exact same thing. If the theory of evolution was originally called "the theory of modifications over time", you'd call that trashy instead.

 

[pshun2404]

And yet they are all still finches...hmmm!

 

[Kylie]

Speciation/evolution is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds and is Scripturally correct. Changing the name from descent with modifications in a population over time, into the trashy word "evolution" brings increased punishment for those who force teach that Lie to little children. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2 So WHY would a Creationist disagree with that? In the end, Justice comes to those liars who try to brainwash our children. Amen?

But given that you can change one species into another with a sufficient amount of change, then there must be some limiting mechanism if what you say is true, to make sure they don't change too much. Do you have any evidence of such a mechanism?

 

[tas8831]

No be honest with yourself. You brought up single-nucleotide polymorphism. Which I showed was nothing more than a single letter replaced by another existing letter.

Wow, thanks for that, I had no idea... But...

What do you mean by "letter"?

And how does this jive your claims, earlier in this very thread, that 'genetic polymorphism' is the same thing as SNP?

You then got upset because you thought you were going to prove single letters had nothing to do with it.

What do you mean by "letter"?

I'm sorry, but is it not YOUR contention that SNPs and all other mutations have nothing to do with new "allies"? That new "allies" arise by hybridization? Is it not you that repeatedly posts a quote mentioning the "introduction" of new alleles which you (and only you) clearly interpret as meaning "production of"?

Why are you projecting YOUR naivete onto me?

So I quoted your own scientific definition, which confirmed I was correct, and you just can’t admit you were wrong in your false claims.

I must have missed it - please show me where you quoted my "own scientific definition" of "mutation" and "allele" that indicates that hybridization is the source of all new alleles and that mutation does not exist* - because that is actually in effect what you have been claiming all along, and it looks like you cannot even understand your own claims (or are trying to run away from them).

SNPs are but one type of mutation. You know this, yes? No? Alleles are variants of a gene - you keep insisting that 'new' alleles arise via hybridization and that mutation plays no role in variation or speciation. Right?
Then, you post a quote about the importance of hybridization in speciation, which actually mentions that the 'new' alleles introduced via hybridization are themselves the result of mutation and selection and then declare that I cannot understand that this somehow vindicates your claims.

As I have written - you have got to be a Poe or a troll at this point.

Now your going to go pout because you lack any knowledge of what you claim to understand and it was shown to all.

OK, bro... You remind me of those obese sports nuts that yell from the stands "You suck!" at a major league pitcher when an opponent gets a base hit...

But let’s reiterate that definition to make your lack of inderstanding clear, so people will stop being fooled by your pretend knowledge.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia

“For example, at a specific base position in the human genome, the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals, but in a minority of individuals, the position is occupied by an A. This means that there is an SNP at this specific position, and the two possible nucleotide variations – C or A – are said to be alleles for this position.“

So you bring up SNP, then go on a rant when I show they are nothing more than single letters being replaced by single letters that already existed.

Please forgive me, I failed to recognize that I was in the presence of scientific greatness.

Please indulge me, oh Genetics master, and expand upon a conundrum I find myself in. I, gosh, just cannot comprehend this - from your Wiki link:

"For example, a single-base mutation in the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene is associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease."

Why did your SNP wiki page mention this - that an SNP in a gene does something when you have declared that alleles are really just one letter difference that was already there?

When I clicked on the 'gene' link on your SNP wiki page, I strangely saw the following:

"Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population"

and - oh my stars - the wiki page on "gene" has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to mutation! And - gulp! - it discusses them in reference to the creation of NEW ALLELES! I mean, ALLIES!

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population.​

And - oh my, the vapors are a-comin' - the Google takes me to a site that makes this outrageous claim:

How are new alleles created?
Occasionally, DNA mutations occur in germ cells – cells destined to become eggs or sperm. In this case, the DNA mutation is copied into every new cell of the growing embryo following fertilisation. In this way, new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new version of that gene – a new allele.​

Please correct these lies! Tell the TRUTH that alleles are just a different letter that was already there!

Then please tell the Grants what an allele REALLY is! Won't you? Because the Grants and their wicked co-conspirators say this about alleles:

"...the [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."​

And to think about this great offense - it is found in the very link you use to claim the opposite! They must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth!

Take a break, and read up on what you clearly fail to understand in the meantime.

Yes sir, thank you sir. I will definitely take the time to understand the writings of scientists and genetics people to mean the opposite of what they actually do such that my new lernin' will conform to your great creationist intellect's desires...


*except when mutations mutate all the old genes of the 'perfect' genome into junkDNA - which other creationists claim does not even exist. I love it when YECs argue against each other without even realizing it!

 

[tas8831]

And yet they are all still finches...hmmm!

Brilliant!

But the question is, do the finches have a ganglion impar which, despite being a sympathetic ganglion, receive parasympathetic innervation as you have declared?

 

[tas8831]

The Grant's paper really seems to be a thorn in the side of some creationists. As you say, after eight months he is still (unsuccessfully, I might add) trying to argue against speciation being observed in the wild. I am pleased that so many people have taken the time to put these people straight and try to alleviate the Dunning-Kruger that seems rampant!!

Sadly, to no avail... I do hope that perhaps some of the 'silent majority' (judging by the number of views a thread gets compared to the number of active posters) see how creationists operate.

 

[Aman777]

Evolution literally means "change over time". The phrase "modifications in a population over time" is just a longer way of saying the exact same thing. If the theory of evolution was originally called "the theory of modifications over time", you'd call that trashy instead.

My point is that godless people stole the term changes within kinds by using the word "evolution". What makes it trashy are the people who force teach it as fact and God's Holy Word as Myth. Do you like thieves?

 

[Aman777]

But given that you can change one species into another with a sufficient amount of change, then there must be some limiting mechanism if what you say is true, to make sure they don't change too much. Do you have any evidence of such a mechanism?

Sure, but ONLY with creatures made from water. Humans are limited between His (Jesus-temporary) kinds and Their (Trinity-Eternal) kinds.