Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Kylie]

1. Look and see if they are the same genus.

2. See if they can produce fertile offspring, which can produce fertile offspring.

And since you claim that kind and genus mean the exact same thing, your first step in seeing if they are the same kind is to see if they are the same kind?

Your next step is to see if they can produce fertile offspring, and these offspring can also produce fertile offspring. This has more promise. Let's use the ligers. So you are saying that if lions and tigers are the same kind, then we should be able to get ligers from them, and ligers should be able to produce fertile offspring as well. By this measure, lions and tigers are NOT the same kind, since even though a female liger is fertile, a male liger is completely sterile and thus ligers can't breed with each other.

(Ligers are also at great risk of birth defects, and since they are larger than lions and tigers, giving birth is dangerous and often requires the mother to have a C-section. Lions and tigers pretty much never meet in the wild, so they aren't exactly possible naturally. Liger Facts | Big Cat Rescue)

 

[tas8831]

“Not if they put the apes where they really belong in the genus Hylobatidae and they stop trying to force them into the human genus.”

LOL!

 

[AV1611VET]

Post 148 please, Kylie.

 

[tas8831]

No more than the fallacy of ignoring finches mating right in front of their noses....

Yes, it really is.

 

[tas8831]

No I said: “Not if they put the apes where they really belong in the genus Hylobatidae and they stop trying to force them into the human genus.”

To which you objected.

Any person with relevant knowledge and education of the subject matter would reject that nonsense.

Why would a gorilla belong in a non-existent genus named after the Family that contains gibbons?

 

[tas8831]

Justa - still waiting:

"It [mutation] simply rewrites in a new order what already exists as a possibility within the genome."

What do you mean "rewrites"? What do you mean "in a new order"?

 

[tas8831]

Wow, this is fantastic - unable to accept his own errors, justatruthseeker attempts to accuse me of, I guess, doctoring a quote - a quote HE originally presented.... Incredible!-

No, no, that’s your fallacious rendering, which their conclusion showed as invalid.

So let’s use your fallacy.

The word mutated does not exist in the original. But we will pretend this is the correct interpretation.

Seeing as how justa refers to "their" quote, he can only be referring to this quote:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one 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)."


Please note that he has claimed that the word "mutated" is not in the original quote.

HERE is the source of the quote:

Here is the quote, with additional context (quote in question in italics):

One possible outcome of hybridization is that the introgression of selectively favoured alleles from one population into the other can bring together new adaptive combination of alleles that increase diversification. Abbott et al. (2013) make a five‐point argument for why hybridization may enhance adaptive differentiation. 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. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one 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). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one. The relative distribution of fitness effects of mutated versus introgressed alleles is an interesting empirical question that should be investigated further. Moreover, not only single alleles, but co‐adapted suites of interacting genes could potentially be transferred through introgressive hybridization, leading to rapid origin of complex adaptations and evolutionary novelties. Introgression as a source of new genetic variation is by definition not available for completely reproductively isolated species.​

HERE is the earliest use of this quote I could find using the search feature of this forum - posted by justatruthseeker on July 19, 2018:

"...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..."​

In fact, it is most interesting that justa decided to truncate the quote where he did, for the very next sentence EXPLAINS that the newly introduced allele was the product of MUTATION followed by selection:

"The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one 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)."

So this is your interpretation.

No, this is the interpretation of the authors that YOU have cited and quoted many times.

Rarely is your dishonesty so blatant, but I do find your accusation to be malicious and unwarranted, and the product of desperation and mendacity.

Reported.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So then we are left with the same problem. If I see two animals, what test can I do to check if they are the same kind or not?

You already said mating was a good indicator of same species, so why are you waffling just because we are discussing Darwin’s finches instead of spiders or other animals?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa - still waiting:

"It [mutation] simply rewrites in a new order what already exists as a possibility within the genome."

What do you mean "rewrites"? What do you mean "in a new order"?

What is you comprehension skills suddenly lacking?

Mutations are coding errors. They are simply taking what already exists and transcribing it into an order it was not originally in, but was already a possibility.

What do you mean when you say “transcription error”??????

What do you think is meant by “permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism”

What alteration of the sequence? Rewriting it in a different format????

Don’t try to play your I am suddenly ignorant games and can’t conprehend... it only makes me wonder if you are...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow, this is fantastic - unable to accept his own errors, justatruthseeker attempts to accuse me of, I guess, doctoring a quote - a quote HE originally presented.... Incredible!-

Seeing as how justa refers to "their" quote, he can only be referring to this quote:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one 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)."


Please note that he has claimed that the word "mutated" is not in the original quote.

HERE is the source of the quote:

Here is the quote, with additional context (quote in question in italics):

One possible outcome of hybridization is that the introgression of selectively favoured alleles from one population into the other can bring together new adaptive combination of alleles that increase diversification. Abbott et al. (2013) make a five‐point argument for why hybridization may enhance adaptive differentiation. 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. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one 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). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one. The relative distribution of fitness effects of mutated versus introgressed alleles is an interesting empirical question that should be investigated further. Moreover, not only single alleles, but co‐adapted suites of interacting genes could potentially be transferred through introgressive hybridization, leading to rapid origin of complex adaptations and evolutionary novelties. Introgression as a source of new genetic variation is by definition not available for completely reproductively isolated species.​

HERE is the earliest use of this quote I could find using the search feature of this forum - posted by justatruthseeker on July 19, 2018:

"...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..."​

In fact, it is most interesting that justa decided to truncate the quote where he did, for the very next sentence EXPLAINS that the newly introduced allele was the product of MUTATION followed by selection:

"The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one 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)."



No, this is the interpretation of the authors that YOU have cited and quoted many times.

Rarely is your dishonesty so blatant, but I do find your accusation to be malicious and unwarranted, and the product of desperation and mendacity.

Reported.

You didn’t even read it or comprehend it....

Lets read again:

"One possible outcome of hybridization is that the introgression of selectively favoured alleles from one population into the other can bring together new adaptive combination of alleles that increase diversification."

Hybridization - not mutation...... You know, what happens every time two animals mate, the transfer of traits to the next generation....

Lets read some more:

"Abbott et al. (2013) make a five‐point argument for why hybridization may enhance adaptive differentiation. 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."

You know, mating occurs for every new generation.... It is common....

And read some more:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one (allele) introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one (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)."

They are discussing a differentiated genome in which all mutations (deleterious) have been purged and any beneficial ones already fixed. They are not discussing new mutations, but new alleles introduced through mating......

And we read more which destroys your view.

"Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization " {not mutation}

"on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

Notice they are contrasting an allele introduced by mating and an allele caused by mutation.....

"The relative distribution of fitness effects of mutated versus introgressed alleles is an interesting empirical question that should be investigated further."

Comprehension is your downfall....

Introgression - Wikipedia

"in genetics is the movement of a gene (gene flow) from one species into the gene pool of another by the repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species."

And so we read on:

Moreover, not only single alleles, but co‐adapted suites of interacting genes could potentially be transferred through introgressive hybridization, leading to rapid origin of complex adaptations and evolutionary novelties. Introgression as a source of new genetic variation is by definition not available for completely reproductively isolated species."

Of course, a finch isolated from all the rest would not be able to mate with another "subspecies" of finch and then backcross to one of its parent subspecies... But the finches in the Galapagos have no such reproductive barrier as they are not isolated from the other subspecies...... If it was simply a mutation being passed, it wouldn't matter if there were more than just the one subspecies of finch to mate with..... Your claims can not be supported.... let your incorrect views die.....

Are you really still trying to preach your outdated mutations as a way to obtain new genetic information? Get with the times Tas and give up your unsupported comprehension of the above. The new allele was introduced through introgression, not mutation.... The exchange of genes by backcrossing between subspecies.....

All you are doing is showing me you really do not comprehend. Not because you are incapable of doing so, but because you can't give up your incorrect beliefs.....

 

[tas8831]

Justa - still waiting:

"It [mutation] simply rewrites in a new order what already exists as a possibility within the genome."

What do you mean "rewrites"? What do you mean "in a new order"?

What is you comprehension skills suddenly lacking?

They are not lacking - but thanks for asking.

Mutations are coding errors.

No, they are generally copying errors. Not all mutations occur in exonic or genic loci.

They are simply taking what already exists and transcribing it into an order it was not originally in, but was already a possibility.

What 'already exists'?

The template? The nucleotides? And what "order" are you talking about?


Here is a sequence:

ATCGATGCATGCATGC

"transcribing" it (do you actually know what transcription is?) "into an order it was not originally in" would be something like this:

CATGCATCGATGCATG


whereas this is a mutation:

ATCGATGCATGCATGC
ATCGATGCATTCATGC

Order is irrelevant, and there is no reason to think that this: ATCGATGCATTCATGC
"was already a possibility", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Have you really learned nothing about basic genetics in all these years you've been at this?

What do you mean when you say “transcription error”??????

I didn't say that. But, if I did I would have known that it is an error in transcription, which is different than DNA replication, which is when/where most mutations actually occur.

What do you think is meant by “permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism”

That a mutation has occurred. Which does not happen during transcription. And which has nothing to do with having already been a possibility (whatever that is supposed to mean), nor does it have to do with a 'different order'.

What alteration of the sequence? Rewriting it in a different format????

Not at all.
Transcription and translation are both forms of 'rewriting in a different format', transcription being copying a DNA template into mRNA; translation being using the mRNA template to make primary sequence polypeptides.
Neither of which permanently alter the sequence of the DNA template.

Don’t try to play your I am suddenly ignorant games and can’t conprehend...

It is pretty obviously not a game, and there is no suddenness to it at all. I have been documenting/exposing things like this in your posts for months, and others have been doing it for years..

It is shocking, really.

it only makes me wonder if you are...

Well, I can't see why, for I am not the one that did not know that "allele" was spelled "allele" and not "allie." I am not the one that claims new alleles are produce via reproduction/hybridization. I am not the one that thinks the title of a book about a guy researching his family history proves that a certain term is a scientific term. I am not the one claiming that hybridization produces variation from a non-variable breeding pair. i am not the one claiming that the word "mutated" does not appear in a quote that I presented that clearly does contain the word "mutated." And so on. And so on. and so on.

Your refusal to acknowledge your numerous, repetitive, easily documented errors on simple, introductory-level biology/genetics followed by bombastic insults directed at those who expose you to be later followed by re-posting of the same error-filled assertions makes not just me, but pretty much everyone wonder certain things, as well.

 

[tas8831]

You didn’t even read it or comprehend it....

A wall of irrelevance to hide the fact that you got caught making a malicious false accusation to cover up the fact that you cannot understand the conclusions in the very papers that you crazily think support your ignorant notions.

 

[tas8831]

You didn’t even read it or comprehend it....

Projection.

Lets read again:

"One possible outcome of hybridization is that the introgression of selectively favoured alleles from one population into the other can bring together new adaptive combination of alleles that increase diversification."

Hybridization - not mutation...... You know, what happens every time two animals mate, the transfer of traits to the next generation....

Where do "selectively favoured alleles" come from, pray tell?

Oh, right:

"...whereas 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)."[/quote]

You are really not good at this (science; arguing; defending yourself from an exposure of dishonesty). Not at all.

No need to waste my time exposing even more ignorance/dishonesty in your rant.

You've been exposed - again - on multiple fronts.

Time for some introspection and soul searching on your behalf.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They are not lacking - but thanks for asking.

They are incredibly lacking, as shown by your repeatedly not understanding what introgression is....

No, they are generally copying errors. Not all mutations occur in exonic or genic loci.

I don't care where they ocurr. A copying error is only taking what already exists and writing it in a way it was not before. Hence the word copy.... But one that already existed as a possibility, because copying only uses what already exists....

What 'already exists'?

The template? The nucleotides? And what "order" are you talking about?


Here is a sequence:

ATCGATGCATGCATGC

"transcribing" it (do you actually know what transcription is?) "into an order it was not originally in" would be something like this:

CATGCATCGATGCATG


whereas this is a mutation:

ATCGATGCATGCATGC
ATCGATGCATTCATGC

Order is irrelevant, and there is no reason to think that this: ATCGATGCATTCATGC
"was already a possibility", whatever that is supposed to mean.

It was already a possibility Tas. A G was replaced by a T, and a T already exists. It could just as easily been incorrectly copied with any letter. And all already exist as possibilities....

Have you really learned nothing about basic genetics in all these years you've been at this?

Apparently more than you who are still arguing that alleles passed through introgression are mutated alleles....

I didn't say that. But, if I did I would have known that it is an error in transcription, which is different than DNA replication, which is when/where most mutations actually occur.

And replication is simply producing two identical replicas of an original... Transcription copies the DNA into RNA, Replication copies DNA into DNA.

You are copying what already exists and simply make an error in the copying process.... The combination which is already possible.

That a mutation has occurred. Which does not happen during transcription. And which has nothing to do with having already been a possibility (whatever that is supposed to mean), nor does it have to do with a 'different order'.

It has everything to do with copying. TWO DNA are copied from one original DNA....

Not at all.
Transcription and translation are both forms of 'rewriting in a different format', transcription being copying a DNA template into mRNA; translation being using the mRNA template to make primary sequence polypeptides.
Neither of which permanently alter the sequence of the DNA template.

I know they alter the sequence of the mRNA that was supposed to be made and hence affect the polypeptides....

It is pretty obviously not a game, and there is no suddenness to it at all. I have been documenting/exposing things like this in your posts for months, and others have been doing it for years..

It is shocking, really.

Not sudden? It happens at the moment conception starts and those DNA are being replicated. You have documented your own erroras time and again and every time I seem to have to correct them. Which is why in the end you always bring up your only major claim... a spelling error on my part, because that's all you have....

Well, I can't see why, for I am not the one that did not know that "allele" was spelled "allele" and not "allie." I am not the one that claims new alleles are produce via reproduction/hybridization. I am not the one that thinks the title of a book about a guy researching his family history proves that a certain term is a scientific term. I am not the one claiming that hybridization produces variation from a non-variable breeding pair. i am not the one claiming that the word "mutated" does not appear in a quote that I presented that clearly does contain the word "mutated." And so on. And so on. and so on.

Case in point.... Your only real claim to error is a simple spelling error....

I know, because you refuse to admit the truth that it is introgression which causes it, the backcrossing with the parent subspecies, not a mutation which would not need another subspecies to be passed.......

Your refusal to acknowledge your numerous, repetitive, easily documented errors on simple, introductory-level biology/genetics followed by bombastic insults directed at those who expose you to be later followed by re-posting of the same error-filled assertions makes not just me, but pretty much everyone wonder certain things, as well.

Except every time we only end up documenting your errors except for my simple spelling error.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A wall of irrelevance to hide the fact that you got caught making a malicious false accusation to cover up the fact that you cannot understand the conclusions in the very papers that you crazily think support your ignorant notions.

Totally ignoring the entire post because it showed your ignorance and refusal to accept your error. You can't handle the truth because the truth makes your beloved mutations superfluous.....

Introgression. look it up and study it......

 

[Kylie]

Post 148 please, Kylie.

Post 150 please, AV...

 

[Kylie]

You already said mating was a good indicator of same species, so why are you waffling just because we are discussing Darwin’s finches instead of spiders or other animals?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck....

First of all, we're not talking about SPECIES, we're talking about KINDS.

Secondly, I was very clear that it is not an absolutely foolproof indicator of species. Two species that share a very recent common ancestor may still be able to interbreed, such as lions and tigers, or the finch example you gave.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post 150 please, AV...

Afraid I can't help you then, if you're going to withhold a key piece of information from me.

Your challenge is the equivalent of:

Kylie: Tell me, AV, 2x + y = n
AV: Give me the value for n, and I'll give you the value for y.
Kylie: Nothing doing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And since you claim that kind and genus mean the exact same thing, your first step in seeing if they are the same kind is to see if they are the same kind?

Your next step is to see if they can produce fertile offspring, and these offspring can also produce fertile offspring. This has more promise. Let's use the ligers. So you are saying that if lions and tigers are the same kind, then we should be able to get ligers from them, and ligers should be able to produce fertile offspring as well. By this measure, lions and tigers are NOT the same kind, since even though a female liger is fertile, a male liger is completely sterile and thus ligers can't breed with each other.

Female Ligers can breed with either of its parents.... so female Ligers are still the same Kind as it's parents. Now you may if you wish call the male Liger a separate Kind, although that wont do much good since it is headed only towards extinction.

So since you apparently believe Tigers and lions are separate species (even if producing fertile offspring), then what species is the Liger?????

And don't you remember your own source you presented earlier in another thread????

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

"Male Ligers haven't been involved in any mating to transfer their genes to the offsprings. But according to different lab tests, male ligers do have a certain high degree of testosterone presence within their body...."

Remember, they claimed for decades that Lions and Tigers could also not produce offspring at all. It was that reason alone they were called separate species to begin with. It took repeated attempts over 20 years to finally produce them in captivity.

That is the key word, captivity, where they didn't do well under stress, and it isn't in their nature to mate to begin with.

(Ligers are also at great risk of birth defects, and since they are larger than lions and tigers, giving birth is dangerous and often requires the mother to have a C-section. Lions and tigers pretty much never meet in the wild, so they aren't exactly possible naturally. Liger Facts | Big Cat Rescue)

That's one of the biggest and false rumors there are.

Ligers and C-Section

"The biggest rumor about ligers is that their mother (tigress) has to go through a c-section at the time of birth and normal birth is not possible for the ligers. This is absolutely wrong because there are many cases where the liger cubs are born without c-section. Even there are reports of liger cubs being accidentally born as in the case of Taiwan, Russia and Korea and these cubs were born without c-section. Yes there might have been some rare occasions when liger cubs would have been born as a result of c-section but that does not mean that this incident can be generalized for the ligers."

"Critics also argue that Liger cubs are bigger in size than the tiger cubs. So they claim this bigger size as the key reason for the liger cubs to go for c-section. This is again absolutely wrong because liger cubs are almost equal in size to that of the tiger cubs. Tiger cubs are around 1.6 to 2.0 pounds while liger cubs are also around 1.6 to 2.0 pounds. This small variation within the weights of the liger cubs is marginal and it does not contribute for any sort of c-section within tigresses. Moreover; the size i.e., overall length, width of head and body etc. for liger cubs is also same as that of the tiger cubs. Therefore; whoever says that a liger cub has to go through c-section because of its bigger size is absolutely wrong."

"However; liger cubs after their birth do experience a much faster growth than lion and tiger cubs and this is the key reason that after 4 years a liger reaches a maximum weight of around 1000 pounds. On the other hand; tigers and lions after 4 years gain a weight of around 400 to 500 pounds. So what basically critics did here is that they have associated the bigger size of the liger as also their birth size as well and tried to create a rumor about c-section. But current analysis proves that all such rumors are absolutely wrong."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First of all, we're not talking about SPECIES, we're talking about KINDS.

Secondly, I was very clear that it is not an absolutely foolproof indicator of species. Two species that share a very recent common ancestor may still be able to interbreed, such as lions and tigers, or the finch example you gave.

Then they are still not separate species.... since as you admitted it was a good indicator.

But let's go with your double-talk argument....

If two creatures interbreeding is not a foolproof indicator of same species..... then two creatures not interbreeding is not a foolproof indicator of separate species....

You want x to not always equal x, but y to always equal y. So if x is not always x, then y is not always y......

Which means neither of us can do math anymore since we don't know if x is x and y is y, so all of mathmatics just fell apart because of your arbitrary definitions.....

And hence this is why evolution always falls apart......