What “Was Once Thought to Be Unnecessary ‘Junk’ DNA”

[tas8831]

I predict that 100% of DNA will be found to perform it's intended function.
Though that function is not yet recognised.

Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'

Concession accepted.

When I was in grad school, we would, when it was practical and possible, sequence the same regions from more than 1 individual to confirm the sequence's accuracy, or at least try to compare it with other known sequences, or use multiple PCR products in different sequencing reactions.
One of the things that struck me was the extent of the variation between members of the same species when we looked at introns and intergenic ('junk') DNA.
And not always just the occasional SNP - indels, tandem duplications, etc. One of my old lab's former students had discovered a hybrid gene in a group of monkeys not shared by other members of the genus. It involved the deletion of a few Kb of DNA.

One of the things I've noticed over the years, in this debate, is that creationists very frequently know very little about genes. genetics, etc., to include the 'professional' ones, and that this ignorance tends to make them think genomes are tidy, orderly, pristine 'lines of text'.

 

[tas8831]

You evolutionists are so full of it. I spent years arguing against junk DNA against the very evolutionists you claim never said that. You people cant even keep your stories straight from one year to the next. Just a pathetic attempt at double-talk... I can see this post is going nowhere since none of you can even be the least bit honest about it.

And I am sure that your knowledge base, evidence, and argumentation was as impeccable and unimpeachable in those years as it is today re: your claims about "allies" and mutations=continuous variation and Asian+Asian=African and whatever other child-like gibberish that you insist has merit.

All these years of arguing about genetics - and I had to correct you - what, a dozen times? - just this year about what an "allele" is and how it is spelled.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And I am sure that your knowledge base, evidence, and argumentation was as impeccable and unimpeachable in those years as it is today re: your claims about "allies" and mutations=continuous variation and Asian+Asian=African and whatever other child-like gibberish that you insist has merit.

All these years of arguing about genetics - and I had to correct you - what, a dozen times? - just this year about what an "allele" is and how it is spelled.

What’s funny is you failed to show my interpretation of what occurred was wrong then too, but just made standard claims of incorrectness without any evidence to back up your claims. But when we did do further research we found what I said to be exactly what occurred.

Funny how your mind warps past events.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'

Concession accepted.

When I was in grad school, we would, when it was practical and possible, sequence the same regions from more than 1 individual to confirm the sequence's accuracy, or at least try to compare it with other known sequences, or use multiple PCR products in different sequencing reactions.
One of the things that struck me was the extent of the variation between members of the same species when we looked at introns and intergenic ('junk') DNA.
And not always just the occasional SNP - indels, tandem duplications, etc. One of my old lab's former students had discovered a hybrid gene in a group of monkeys not shared by other members of the genus. It involved the deletion of a few Kb of DNA.

One of the things I've noticed over the years, in this debate, is that creationists very frequently know very little about genes. genetics, etc., to include the 'professional' ones, and that this ignorance tends to make them think genomes are tidy, orderly, pristine 'lines of text'.

Oh no, they are a mess do to mutations damaging the original genome.... Despite that repair mechanism, mutations get through anyways and has rendered the vast majority of the genome no longer able to code for proteins. And of course a lot of it already had regulatory functions to begin with.

 

[tas8831]

What’s funny is you failed to show my interpretation of what occurred was wrong then too, but just made standard claims of incorrectness without any evidence to back up your claims. But when we did do further research we found what I said to be exactly what occurred.

Funny how your mind warps past events.

You mean like these times?

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-22#post-72061959

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-20#post-72058199

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ly-admit-design.8057974/page-21#post-72542926

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-this-cladogram.8038463/page-11#post-72089060

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-26#post-72102913

There are more, I just don't want to trigger some kind of spam alert by having too many links.

I will gladly bump all those for you again - I don't like having to re-explain things all the time. I especially like all those times you linked to papers that actually indicated the opposite of what you claimed. Shows that you wasted all those 'years' debating this stuff. Never learned even the basics.

But I DO like seeing creationists scramble and dissemble and whine, trying to save face.

 

[tas8831]

Oh no, they are a mess do to mutations damaging the original genome.... Despite that repair mechanism, mutations get through anyways and has rendered the vast majority of the genome no longer able to code for proteins. And of course a lot of it already had regulatory functions to begin with.

Funny - you provide no actual evidence for those dopey YEC assertions. Wonder why...

I can almost see you sitting there, brow knit, feverishly doing keyword searches hoping that you can find justification (i.e., going about this backwards)... Soon, you will find something that, due to your inability to understand basic genetics, find something that you think vindicates your yammering, and post it triumphantly. And after I soundly debunk it all, you will drop some lame insults and re-post the same things for the next 5 years.

 

[tas8831]

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Years of debating... Zero learned...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You mean like these times?

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-22#post-72061959

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-20#post-72058199

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ly-admit-design.8057974/page-21#post-72542926

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-this-cladogram.8038463/page-11#post-72089060

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-26#post-72102913

There are more, I just don't want to trigger some kind of spam alert by having too many links.

I will gladly bump all those for you again - I don't like having to re-explain things all the time. I especially like all those times you linked to papers that actually indicated the opposite of what you claimed. Shows that you wasted all those 'years' debating this stuff. Never learned even the basics.

But I DO like seeing creationists scramble and dissemble and whine, trying to save face.

Here highlight the facts that support your contention.

“Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches on the small Galapagos island of Daphne Major in the inclusive years 1976 to 1992. Geospiza fortis bred with G. scandens and G. fuliginosa. Although interbreeding was always rare (< 5%), sufficient samples of measurements of hybrids and backcrosses were accumulated for analysis. Five beak and body dimensions and mass were measured, and from these two synthetic (principal-component) traits were constructed. All traits were heritable in two of the interbreeding species (G. fuliginosa were too rare to be analyzed) and in the combined samples of F-1 hybrids and backcrosses to G. fortis. In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction.”

Go ahead, show us where mutation was greater in the long term? Show us all.....

Even the ones that were weaker due to different allometries led the variation in a new direction.

You got squat except putting your own words in. Nada, zilch, nothing....

Double-talk will get you nowhere.

“... 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.”

Don’t even pretend with me that you have even a grasp of the subject, you’ve ignored it for decades and now the truth is showing your mutations for the useless once in a blue moon garbage that it is....

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

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

To plants....

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

Again, reality shows how false your beliefs are because they neglected the truth.... and some like you still do....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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. ...”

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

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Years of debating... Zero learned...

Agreed you learned nothing from the last time you were shown to be incorrect.

https://isogg.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

“A single-nucleotide polymorphism(SNP, pronounced snip) is a DNA sequence variation occurring when a single nucleotide adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G]) in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a species or paired chromosomes in an individual.”

Yet as we also found out you ignored breeding for decades. But you are still fumbling for a response to what is now decades of research that you have ignored...

But I appreciate your simply reaffirming that it is exactly what I said it was.....

 

[tas8831]

So now I guess you think posting longer quotes will make your bible beliefs valid? Your fantasy beliefs about how an inbreeding pair of phenotypically identical middle eastern humans can pop out Africans, Asians, Nordic folk, etc. - all by "hybridization".

AGAIN - where did those distinct taxa that HYBRIDIZED come from if HYBRIDIZATION creates new species?


'Turtles all the way down' only worked when there were no books to record observations and data and no one to actually study this stuff.

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. ...”

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

Did anyone else hear that? That screeching noise of goal posts being dragged across town?

Is this your creationist non-scientist way of saying that you concede that your gibberish re: the Grant paper is moot?

 

[tas8831]

Ignorance really is bliss for these prideful creationists...

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Years of debating... Zero learned...

Agreed you learned nothing from the last time you were shown to be incorrect.

https://isogg.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

“A single-nucleotide polymorphism(SNP, pronounced snip) is a DNA sequence variation occurring when a single nucleotide adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G]) in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a species or paired chromosomes in an individual.”

Do you know what creates sequence variation, Mr.Science?

Of course you don't. Please try - really try - to process what you pasted. Because you seem to think that you are somehow vindicated, thinking that this is caused by interbreeding or during development. Funny that your quote mentions neither.

SNPs are MUTATIONS. Now Google "mutation".

For once.

What's this? Oh my goodness - why, just a ways down from your quote, we see:

"Single nucleotides may be changed (substitution), removed (deletions) or added (insertion) to a polynucleotide sequence. Single nucleotide polymorphisms may fall within coding sequences of genes, non-coding regions of genes, or in the intergenic regions between genes. SNPs within a coding sequence will not necessarily change the amino acid sequence of the protein that is produced, due to degeneracy of the genetic code.

A SNP in which both forms lead to the same polypeptide sequence is termed synonymous (sometimes called a silent mutation) — if a different polypeptide sequence is produced they are nonsynonymous. A nonsynonymous change may either be missense or nonsense, where a missense change results in a different amino acid, while a nonsense change results in a premature stop codon. SNPs that are not in protein-coding regions may still have consequences for gene splicing, transcription factor binding, or the sequence of non-coding ribonucleic acid (RNA)."​

I highlighted some words that you were likely to ignore if left to your own devices.

And from that same site:

"A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence. Mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes made during cell division, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses. Germ line mutations occur in the eggs and sperm and can be passed on to offspring, while somatic mutations occur in body cells and are not passed on."

What's this? No mention of "And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding..."


I am laughing - at you - for not knowing enough about this stuff to see how frequently you make a fool of yourself, pretending to know more than you do.

But I appreciate your simply reaffirming that it is exactly what I said it was.....

 

[tas8831]

Here highlight the facts that support your contention.

Huh?

“Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches on the small Galapagos island of Daphne Major in the inclusive years 1976 to 1992. Geospiza fortis bred with G. scandens and G. fuliginosa. Although interbreeding was always rare (< 5%), sufficient samples of measurements of hybrids and backcrosses were accumulated for analysis. Five beak and body dimensions and mass were measured, and from these two synthetic (principal-component) traits were constructed. All traits were heritable in two of the interbreeding species (G. fuliginosa were too rare to be analyzed) and in the combined samples of F-1 hybrids and backcrosses to G. fortis. In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction.”

Go ahead, show us where mutation was greater in the long term? Show us all.....

You mean you still think that Adam and Eve gave birth to Asians and Africans and Nordic folk and Inuuit, etc., because a paper documents the importance of hybridization in one case? Where do the alleles come from that allow hybridization again? Oh, right - you can't deal with that stuff. But seeing as how I call your bluff and find that you, um, ignored/omitted stuff to prop up your fantasies below, you might want to dial back the hubris...


Oh wait - more hybridization quotes are coming (it is as if you think I reject hybridization - how dishonest and desperate of you!)!

Even the ones that were weaker due to different allometries led the variation in a new direction.

You got squat except putting your own words in. Nada, zilch, nothing....

Double-talk will get you nowhere.

Project much?

“... 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.”

Don’t even pretend with me that you have even a grasp of the subject, you’ve ignored it for decades and now the truth is showing your mutations for the useless once in a blue moon garbage that it is....

You are very adept - as most YECs are - at creating strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.
Still don't get what additive genetic variance is, do you?


Look, Superstar - you still cannot/will not answer a very simple question - WHERE DO ALLELES COME FROM???

Funny - at what point did you stop reading that new paper you quoted? I'm guessing it was right where you stopped quoting, right (which, I suspect, you left on that last sentence do to cut and paste problems)?


Because - oh my goodness - just a ways down - the next sentence, in fact - that paper explains where alleles come from - something that you have refused to even try to answer:

"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."


Wow...

Totally looks like these 'new alleles' - the ones introduced during hybridization - arise VIA MUTATION!


Just like one of us has been saying all along (and that one of us was NOT you...).

Again, reality shows how false your beliefs are because they neglected the truth.... and some like you still do....

Your lack of introspection causes you to be a poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Keep writing. Though it can be time consuming, it is intellectually fantastically easy to embarrass you on your cherry-picking, out of context quoting, sheer ignorance, etc.

Pity your hubris outpaces your humility.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So now I guess you think posting longer quotes will make your bible beliefs valid? Your fantasy beliefs about how an inbreeding pair of phenotypically identical middle eastern humans can pop out Africans, Asians, Nordic folk, etc. - all by "hybridization".

AGAIN - where did those distinct taxa that HYBRIDIZED come from if HYBRIDIZATION creates new species?

It doesn't create new species. That is simply PR speak because they, like you, refuse to follow scientific definitions.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/biospecies_01

"The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."

So I realize your confusion, being they are breeding right in front of the researchers noses and they incorrectly call them separate species to further their illegitimate belief in speciation....

'Turtles all the way down' only worked when there were no books to record observations and data and no one to actually study this stuff.

Yah it's only too bad you refuse to study breeding......

Did anyone else hear that? That screeching noise of goal posts being dragged across town?

By you? My claim has remained the same from day one. That breeding causes variation, not your blue moon magical mutations. It's you that is unable to accept over 20 years now of research.

Is this your creationist non-scientist way of saying that you concede that your gibberish re: the Grant paper is moot?

Not sure where you come to this conclusion since I just cited papers that support their and my conclusion, while you can't seem to cite any to support yours.......

Your ability to ignore the truth is utterly astounding. Just how deep is that hole you dug in the sand? It must be close to China by now....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Huh?


You mean you still think that Adam and Eve gave birth to Asians and Africans and Nordic folk and Inuuit, etc., because a paper documents the importance of hybridization in one case? Where do the alleles come from that allow hybridization again? Oh, right - you can't deal with that stuff. But seeing as how I call your bluff and find that you, um, ignored/omitted stuff to prop up your fantasies below, you might want to dial back the hubris...


Oh wait - more hybridization quotes are coming (it is as if you think I reject hybridization - how dishonest and desperate of you!)!



Project much?

You are very adept - as most YECs are - at creating strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.
Still don't get what additive genetic variance is, do you?


Look, Superstar - you still cannot/will not answer a very simple question - WHERE DO ALLELES COME FROM???

Funny - at what point did you stop reading that new paper you quoted? I'm guessing it was right where you stopped quoting, right (which, I suspect, you left on that last sentence do to cut and paste problems)?


Because - oh my goodness - just a ways down - the next sentence, in fact - that paper explains where alleles come from - something that you have refused to even try to answer:

"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."


Wow...

Totally looks like these 'new alleles' - the ones introduced during hybridization - arise VIA MUTATION!


Just like one of us has been saying all along (and that one of us was NOT you...).


Your lack of introspection causes you to be a poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Keep writing. Though it can be time consuming, it is intellectually fantastically easy to embarrass you on your cherry-picking, out of context quoting, sheer ignorance, etc.

Pity your hubris outpaces your humility.

Yes, it proves my point, that blue moon mutations are virtually useless, since they occurr infrequently, while no new generation is produced without mating. Did you miss that part?

"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."

And you forgot to bold the last sentence, oh, but you didn't want to call attention to that, did you.

"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."

Oh lord forbid, the conclusion is that an allele introduced by mating on average is more likely to do something good for the organism. Because it happens more frequently.

If the allele was the same one as introduced by the mutation, the conclusion of one introduced by hybridization would not have been made, nor would one more difference between the two be noted. Your so narrow minded though, you cant accept the difference in your own mind. Instead you twist the words as anyone reading it can see.

""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.""

I know you think your twisting what the words means will fool people, but twisting words to try to fool people is all you have.... and those not lost in fanaticism will see your attempts for exactly what they are.. attempts at trickery because the science does not support you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes, it proves my point, that blue moon mutations are virtually useless, since they occurr infrequently, while no new generation is produced without mating. Did you miss that part?

"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."

And you forgot to bold the last sentence, oh, but you didn't want to call attention to that, did you.

"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."

Oh lord forbid, the conclusion is that an allele introduced by mating on average is more likely to do something good for the organism. Because it happens more frequently.

If the allele was the same one as introduced by the mutation, the conclusion of one introduced by hybridization would not have been made, nor would one more difference between the two be noted. Your so narrow minded though, you cant accept the difference in your own mind. Instead you twist the words as anyone reading it can see.

""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.""

I know you think your twisting what the words means will fool people, but twisting words to try to fool people is all you have.... and those not lost in fanaticism will see your attempts for exactly what they are.. attempts at trickery because the science does not support you.

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...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Also, Justa, how did I get Triops with longer tails when I started with a generation all with shorter tails and no member of the population could cross with another at all? You cannot claim that Triops X mated with Triops Y to get Triops Z because my initial population was all Triops X and none of them can even fertilize each other.

If you cannot counter these results, then consider yourself defeated. No, claiming that I had some mistake in my experiment is not a counter because you have no evidence that this is the case, and you seem unwilling to accept my offer of sending you eggs and hatching some for yourself so you can see that they don't breed with each other. If you aren't willing to actually test my results, you have no right to even consider claiming that my experiment had some flaw that makes it illegitimate.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Also, Justa, how did I get Triops with longer tails when I started with a generation all with shorter tails and no member of the population could cross with another at all? You cannot claim that Triops X mated with Triops Y to get Triops Z because my initial population was all Triops X and none of them can even fertilize each other.

If you cannot counter these results, then consider yourself defeated. No, claiming that I had some mistake in my experiment is not a counter because you have no evidence that this is the case, and you seem unwilling to accept my offer of sending you eggs and hatching some for yourself so you can see that they don't breed with each other. If you aren't willing to actually test my results, you have no right to even consider claiming that my experiment had some flaw that makes it illegitimate.

This is Awesome! @Justatruthseeker , you can finally test your assertion scientifically and show us all how it's not possible to do what @PsychoSarah has done without crossbreeding after all! ..... or not ..... but then, that would be dishonest to continue asserting that crossbreeding is the only way it could be done without testing it for yourself, given this clear opportunity to disprove what has already been demonstrated, right?

It'd also be an ample opportunity for you to show off your awesome skills at Science too...

 

[Jimmy D]

It doesn't create new species. That is simply PR speak because they, like you, refuse to follow scientific definitions.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/biospecies_01

"The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."

LOL, did you bother reading past the first sentence of that article?

So I realize your confusion, being they are breeding right in front of the researchers noses and they incorrectly call them separate species to further their illegitimate belief in speciation....

I don't really think anyone is confused - what with ring species, the gradual process of speciation etc, the classification process is somewhat arbitrary, as is explained in a manner children could understand in the article you posted above.

The only confusing thing is your bizarre insistence that the slightly subjective groupings biologists put organisms into has any bearing on common descent.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is Awesome! @Justatruthseeker , you can finally test your assertion scientifically and show us all how it's not possible to do what @PsychoSarah has done without crossbreeding after all! ..... or not ..... but then, that would be dishonest to continue asserting that crossbreeding is the only way it could be done without testing it for yourself, given this clear opportunity to disprove what has already been demonstrated, right?

It'd also be an ample opportunity for you to show off your awesome skills at Science too...

Doesn't look like Justa is willing to get Triops eggs from me, he seems to leave threads when I bring them up now.

-_- meaning he doesn't actually have a counter to my experimental results or a desire to test them.