Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry about the way I worded the question, guys.
I meant to ask is evolution (or has it ever been) a proven fact of science?
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.
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 is a link for "Pack" on Google... the first five pages have nothing to do with "wolves" or even animal (non-human) groups or gatherings, so, did you have a point at bringing this up?And here are the Google results for leopard+pack. No hits, except for backpacks and some weird roll playing lycanthrope sites.
Umm let me see if I have this right...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.
First, thank you for the links, but I have to ask.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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Fruit Fly.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.
3%. Now, forgive me, this is something I have not studied too much, and see this a lot, with the % different, but what does 3% differential translate into in practical means?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.
Yes, as an Allele is a fixed location with variable information to start with.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?
Because, the affects as perceived, or witnessed, would need to be first classified as a non genetic drift effect, to be considered a mutation.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.
I am not suggesting anything beyond Adam had a perfect genetic code, and we currently today do not.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?
A mutation is a mutation. A copy error has got to affect something.Glad to hear that. Like Deamiter, I was getting the impression from your posts that you denied that alleles mutate.
Quite a bit more complicated, to tell the truth.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.
Sounds like a fun Hypothesis.You've got it. The variation was caused in the first place by a mutation to the gene.
You do realize that Alleles come in pairs, right?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.
Taken from: Biology-Online.Org"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?
Allow me to say this again, you stated that any change is a mutation, which is not true, changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next, is not. It is Genetic Drift.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.
This is what we have evidence to back up, so I would say this is supported.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.
an Allele is two (or more) genes (blah blah about location and all that stuff), not singular, as such, the pair of Genes that make an allele, would be the trait. An Allele is not singular. Which is what you seem to be implying.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.
The model.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.
Nahh the Earliest for North America is 170,000 years ago. I gave a really mid ground date, to try and being it closer for the mix, make things easier.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.
Still a respectable amount of time.Dates more frequently cited for Australia are 40,000 years ago and for North America 15-20,000 years ago.
So, we really have no idea. I would like it more the people that made this stuff up, would just come out and say that.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.
These are proposed models (more guesses, to put it bluntly), that may or may not be true, and in some cases do not agree at all with the land migration model, or each other, they are not evidence of non-isolation, but could be evidence that in the end of things, we really have no clue.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.
I wonder of the Cats should feel ignored?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.
No, go read the link again. Out Crossing is not adding in a different breed to the mix.Actually, your source supports me. I just didn't know the correct terminology. They call what I was referring to as out-crossing.
Which one is the necessity, and which one is the possibility in your view of things.Common design cannot be logically equivalent to common descent because it substitutes a mere possibility for a necessity.
Key said:However, it may have been a fault on my part, not to look deeper into ring species.
First off, I'm not sure any species of fruit fly has been known as a ring species. I'd suggest simply looking up "Ring Species" in google. Wikipedia explains the issue very clearly:I have been trying to find it again, I found it when I was looking up the "fruit fly to meat fly experiment" which, when I tried to look it up again, I could not find what I had found before, I'll try to see what I can find for you, it was very informative. However, it may have been a fault on my part, not to look deeper into ring species.
The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.
That sounds exactly right. Does this not demonstrate that divergence due to a buildup of mutations can slowly lead to an inability to interbreed? Remember, while you have focused on insects, the mammals and amphibians we've cited never display the extreme colony-based territorial behavior you've brought up.It is in relation to the mating in a biomass, Just gonna use ants to be cute, I know beetles would be a better choice, but meh, it's late, I don't wanna think to hard, and that the swam of ants span for miles, but, those at one end of the ant line, do not/can not breed with the ants at the other end of the line. However, all the ants in between, at intervals, do breed, but there is a "gray" areas, between each interval, where, the ants can breed in each direction. It was quite informative, and I am sure the same concept applies.
As I'm sure you're aware, you can't simply translate a percentage into "practical means." A single mutation (say, a duplication of a chromosome) can cause two populations to be incapable of interbreeding. That's not likely (by any stretch of the imagination) but it's possible. Similarly, if the vast majority of the mutations are in non-coding DNA, you could get much more than 3% divergence without causing problems with interbreeding. The point here is showing that the eight populations starting from a single ancestor population ended up with different genomes. You'd previously claimed that their genomes would be identical but in reality, mutations do build up in EVERY population and when populations are isolated, their genetic codes will diverge.3%. Now, forgive me, this is something I have not studied too much, and see this a lot, with the % different, but what does 3% differential translate into in practical means?
I'm not sure quite what you don't understand -- I'm not being condescending, just I'm not exactly sure where to start. Do you acknowledge that every individual has some unique mutations caused by copy errors? Research has shown humans have (on average) over 100 each. These mutations build up over time and lead to the divergence cited. Do you agree with all of this or are there specific points you disagree with or would like sources on etc?Can you provide me a link that would explain this, or if you feel up to it, you could explain it yourself.
This seems imprecise -- a single allele is a single version of a gene. A single allele does not have variable information because it is a single copy. I'm not sure if this was a mistype since you're quite right that different alleles (a synonym for versions) of a single gene have varied DNA sequences.Yes, as an Allele is a fixed location with variable information to start with.
Okay, so Adam had one or at most two alleles (or versions) of each of his genes right? I mean, a single person can't have more than two alleles of each gene right? All we're saying is that every other allele must have been initially produced by mutation. Once the allele is established via mutation, it is then available in a population's genome and can be spread through genetic drift.Because, the affects as perceived, or witnessed, would need to be first classified as a non genetic drift effect, to be considered a mutation.
I am not suggesting anything beyond Adam had a perfect genetic code, and we currently today do not.
Wait, where do YOU think all the variations of our genes came from? Adam couldn't have had more than two right? And as for the type of mutations, any mutation of a gene produces another allele of that gene. Any insertion, deletion, transposition etc... changes the gene and makes a new allele. Where do you think all the alleles came from if Adam couldn't have had more than two?Sounds like a fun Hypothesis.
Which type of Mutation would this be classified as?
(so I can look it up.)
Well, the pairs aren't connected or anything. Every human has two copies of each gene -- since the chances of us inheriting (or inheriting a slightly mutated form of) two identical alleles is pretty low since they are so varied. Anyway, aside from the XY chromosomes, we receive one copy of each gene (one allele) from our mother and one allele from our father.You do realize that Alleles come in pairs, right?
Right. Sperm each take one allele of each gene from the father's two and eggs take one allele of each gene from the mother's two. This is pretty random which is why children are genetically different (except for identical twins of course).And this would prove... 1 copy, Not 2 towards the subsequent generations. Assuming that this did not cause, some major problems to start with.
From the same page, same definition:Taken from: Biology-Online.Org
Allele: (Science: genetics) Any one of a series of two or more different genes that occupy the same position (locus) on a chromosome.
If you are trying to pass off that an allele is a Gene, you are wrong, and I would for you to stop trying to dance around and try to say that it is, if you thought it was, please correct yourself, and lets carry on.
As the page says, an allele is an alternate form of a gene. They "come" in pairs because each human has two of each chromosome -- one from the father, one from the mother. In a population, there are many, MANY alleles or "alternate forms" of genes.biologyonline said:One of two alternate forms of a gene that can have the same locus on homologous chromosomes and are responsible for alternative traits; some alleles are dominant over others.
Very true. Where do the alleles come from in the first place though? Adam could only have had two alleles (one on each chromosome). To get the many alleles that vary in frequency due to genetic drift, you'd need the original alleles (carried by Adam) to mutate. Otherwise, there'd be two and only two versions of a gene in the entire human population. Does that make sense?Allow me to say this again, you stated that any change is a mutation, which is not true, changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next, is not. It is Genetic Drift.
The wording in that first sentence on biologyonline might be a bit misleading. An allele is NOT two genes, each copy of the gene (each organism gets two) is an allele. Note that your definition said that the allele is "any ONE of a series of two or more genes" not that it IS two genes. Again from Wikipedia:an Allele is two (or more) genes (blah blah about location and all that stuff), not singular, as such, the pair of Genes that make an allele, would be the trait. An Allele is not singular. Which is what you seem to be implying.
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.
Wait a second, there is evidence that the earliest humans crossed to North America 170,000 years ago. There is further evidence that they CONTINUED to cross until the land-bridge was severed 12,000 or so years ago. You can't say they were genetically isolated when there is evidence that there was continuing back-and-forth migration! And it's far from a wild guess... You seem to want the migration to have happened only once but when the land bridge stayed open for over 150,000 years, you can hardly claim that a group of humans ONLY came over when they first found it. Especially not when there is evidence of repeated migrations of humans to North America.Nahh the Earliest for North America is 170,000 years ago. I gave a really mid ground date, to try and being it closer for the mix, make things easier.
Still a respectable amount of time.
So, we really have no idea. I would like it more the people that made this stuff up, would just come out and say that.
There are many guesses involved especially going far back to the earliest migrations. However, the nearer to the present one gets, the more evidence is found. In particular, the article makes it clear that there is quite a lot of archaeological evidence for a migration about 12,000 years ago that reached the tip of South America about 11,000 years ago. No matter when the first humans reached North America, they were not genetically isolated until after the Bering Land Bridge melted and became the Bering Strait.These are proposed models (more guesses, to put it bluntly), that may or may not be true, and in some cases do not agree at all with the land migration model, or each other, they are not evidence of non-isolation, but could be evidence that in the end of things, we really have no clue.
Given that genomes accumulate mutations slowly and speciation is a very slow process that takes many generations, evolution predicts that populations that have only recently been isolated will not be completely unable (or even unwilling) to interbreed. I mean, this isn't even particularly controversial -- it has been observed that as populations become more genetically different, they often refuse to interbreed and after long enough, will have difficulty and then be unable to interbreed. This is a simple consequence of mutations (which are present in every single individual) building up in sexually isolated populations.I wonder of the Cats should feel ignored?
Yes I have heard about the dog thing, however, that would just serve to prove the line of "Species" was a murky as a polluted mud puddle, and only place doubt on the validity of the claim of species devision that is presented as evidence of evolution.
I have been trying to find it again
It is in relation to the mating in a biomass, Just gonna use ants to be cute, I know beetles would be a better choice, but meh, it's late, I don't wanna think to hard, and that the swam of ants span for miles, but, those at one end of the ant line, do not/can not breed with the ants at the other end of the line. However, all the ants in between, at intervals, do breed, but there is a "gray" areas, between each interval, where, the ants can breed in each direction. It was quite informative, and I am sure the same concept applies.
Yes, the Fruit Fly.
3%. Now, forgive me, this is something I have not studied too much, and see this a lot, with the % different, but what does 3% differential translate into in practical means?
Yes, as an Allele is a fixed location with variable information to start with.
Because, the affects as perceived, or witnessed, would need to be first classified as a non genetic drift effect, to be considered a mutation.
I am not suggesting anything beyond Adam had a perfect genetic code, and we currently today do not.
A mutation is a mutation. A copy error has got to affect something.
Which type of Mutation would this be classified as?
(so I can look it up.)
You do realize that Alleles come in pairs, right?
And this would prove... 1 copy, Not 2 towards the subsequent generations.
If you are trying to pass off that an allele is a Gene,
Allow me to say this again, you stated that any change is a mutation,
changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next, is not.
It is Genetic Drift.
The result of the error, is what Theory of Macro rests on.
an Allele is two (or more) genes (blah blah about location and all that stuff),
not singular,
as such, the pair of Genes that make an allele, would be the trait.
gluadys said:]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?key said: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.
key said: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.
So, we really have no idea. I would like it more the people that made this stuff up, would just come out and say that.
Yes I have heard about the dog thing, however, that would just serve to prove the line of "Species" was a murky as a polluted mud puddle, and only place doubt on the validity of the claim of species devision that is presented as evidence of evolution.
No, go read the link again. Out Crossing is not adding in a different breed to the mix.
Which one is the necessity, and which one is the possibility in your view of things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?