Science only Evolution Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sideline
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most leading scientists reject God:

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

No bearing on their work? You might think it shouldn’t but when they do use their work to argue for their beliefs, that is an abuse of their credentials and prestige among the public at large.

Peace,
Ed
 
Let’s first say what evolution isn’t:
  1. It’s not about the origin of life
It is. There can be no evolution of species without the origination of individual lives.
What it is:
It is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.
That’s variation within a population based upon the inherited variables of the genetic material. No evolution of genetic substance,just quantitative change of genetic variables.

Changes in allele frequency in a population does not amount to any evolution beyond what the alleles of the population allow for.
Populations evolve; individuals do not.
If individuals don’t evolve,then neither can populations,since they are composed of individuals.
 
Barbarian observes:
Let’s first say what evolution isn’t:
  1. It’s not about the origin of life
No. It never has been about the origin of life. Even Darwin only remarked that God created the first living things.
There can be no evolution of species without the origination of individual lives.
There can be no chemistry without atoms, but chemistry is not about the way atoms first appeared. Tough lesson, but you might as well get used to it.

Barbarian observes:
What it is:
It is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.
That’s variation within a population based upon the inherited variables of the genetic material.
No, that’s wrong. There certainly is recombination, but ultimately, it’s all produced by mutation. If, for example, you believe that we are all descended from Adam and Eve (and we are) then you have to account for the dozens of alleles for each gene locus, because Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles between the two of them. All the rest came about by mutation.
No evolution of genetic substance,just quantitative change of genetic variables.
Changes in allele frequency in a population does not amount to any evolution beyond what the alleles of the population allow for.
Now you know better.

Barbarian observes:
Populations evolve; individuals do not.
If individuals don’t evolve,then neither can populations,since they are composed of individuals.
If you really can’t figure out how a population can change in gene frequencies even if individuals never change their genome, I’m not sure anyone can help you.
 
If individuals don’t evolve,then neither can populations,since they are composed of individuals.
Utter rubbish. You are showing your ignorance of biology here.

Start with a population of 100 people, 50 male and 50 female. Now leave the population for a few years, some people die from old age, accidents or disease and some babies are born. The population is now 103 with 50 males and 53 females. The genetic makeup of the population has changed with a reduced proportion of X chromosomes and an increased proportion of Y chromosomes, yet none of the individuals changed sex. Every death removes some genes from the gene pool of the poplation. Every birth adds some new mutations to the gene pool of the population, as well as some new combinations of existing genes. Each birth and each death changes the gene pool of the population.

Individuals are born and die. Individuals have different genomes. That is enough to change the genetic makeup of a population over time.

rossum
 
Utter rubbish. You are showing your ignorance of biology here.

Start with a population of 100 people, 50 male and 50 female. Now leave the population for a few years, some people die from old age, accidents or disease and some babies are born. The population is now 103 with 50 males and 53 females. The genetic makeup of the population has changed with a reduced proportion of X chromosomes and an increased proportion of Y chromosomes, yet none of the individuals changed sex. Every death removes some genes from the gene pool of the poplation. Every birth adds some new mutations to the gene pool of the population, as well as some new combinations of existing genes. Each birth and each death changes the gene pool of the population.
Proportional changes in the gene pool of a population do not equate with material changes in the genetic inheritence. The different codified expressions of genetic inheritance do not necessarily mean that there is a difference in substance.

It doesn’t matter how low the proportion of X chromosomes falls,the genetic material for X chromosomes will always be latent in the species.

Fluxuations in the proportion of chromosomes do not amount to addition or subtraction in the substance of the genetic inheritence itself.

As for mutations,they are themselves determined by the latent content of the alleles. And as Barbarian knows,mutations don’t do much of anything.
Individuals are born and die. Individuals have different genomes. That is enough to change the genetic makeup of a population over time.
The change is only quantitative,not an change of genetic substance. Organisms can only modify the genetic information that they are given. They are slaves to their genetic inheritence.
 
Proportional changes in the gene pool of a population do not equate with material changes in the genetic inheritence.
You are not addressing the question. The remark of yours that I objected to was:
If individuals don’t evolve,then neither can populations,since they are composed of individuals.
That talked about evolution. You are now moving the goalposts and talking about “material change in genetic inheritance”, whatever that might be. Your denial of the possibility of evolution is incorrect and betrays an ignorance of basic biological terms. Changes in the proportion of genes in a population is evolution - that is the definition of evolution. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of why that change in proportions of genes happens.

Of course some genes change from a low proportion to zero and other genes change from zero to a low percentage, but that is not the only possibility. A change from 49% to 50% is just as much evolution.
The different codified expressions of genetic inheritance do not necessarily mean that there is a difference in substance.
Correct. Most mutations are neutral; they are still mutations and changes in their proportions still counts as evolution.
It doesn’t matter how low the proportion of X chromosomes falls,the genetic material for X chromosomes will always be latent in the species.
Again your ignorance of biology is showing. If the proportion of X chromosomes in a poplation drops to zero then there cannot be any males in that population and it is likely to go extinct very shortly afterwards. There are no genes “latent” in an extinct species.
As for mutations,they are themselves determined by the latent content of the alleles. And as Barbarian knows,mutations don’t do much of anything.
Please do not use biological terms which you do not know the meaning of. Mutations result in the formation of new alleles: alleles are determined by mutations not the other way round.

I strongly suggest that you either cease to discuss biological topics, or cure your ignorance of biology by learning something about it first, before continring this discussion. If you do want to learn then you may want to find a copy of Biology by Miller and Levine. Ken Miller is both an excellent biologist and a Catholic.

rossum
 
You are not addressing the question. The remark of yours that I objected to was:

That talked about evolution. You are now moving the goalposts and talking about “material change in genetic inheritance”, whatever that might be.
I’m not moving the goalposts – I take it as a given that a population can only “change” within the limits of the given genetic inheritance. But in substance,nothing is changed.

For macro-evolution to happen,the genetic substance of a population would have to change,in the sense of silver changing into gold,not merely in the sense of a higher or lower proportion of an element within silver. Changes of allele frequency can only leads to variation within the general species,resulting in sub-species.
Your denial of the possibility of evolution is incorrect and betrays an ignorance of basic biological terms. Changes in the proportion of genes in a population is evolution - that is the definition of evolution. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of why that change in proportions of genes happens.
Reducing the theory to quantitative factors is an erronious way of thinking. Macro-evolution would involve material change within genes themselves,not just proportional change of the genes. There are total genetic barriers to reproduction between similar species which cannot be explained in terms of allele frequency but rather in terms of the incompatibility of the contents of the alleles.
Of course some genes change from a low proportion to zero and other genes change from zero to a low percentage, but that is not the only possibility. A change from 49% to 50% is just as much evolution.
It doesn’t amount to the *theory *of evolution.
Correct. Most mutations are neutral; they are still mutations and changes in their proportions still counts as evolution.
But it doesn’t lead to macro-evolution.
Again your ignorance of biology is showing. If the proportion of X chromosomes in a poplation drops to zero then there cannot be any males in that population and it is likely to go extinct very shortly afterwards. There are no genes “latent” in an extinct species.
It will go extinct,but not for a loss of essential genetic substance.
The X chromosomes are formed from pre-existing genetic material,and the material is still there in each member,whether or not X chromosomes are formed from it.
Please do not use biological terms which you do not know the meaning of. Mutations result in the formation of new alleles: alleles are determined by mutations not the other way round.
Mutations take place within alleles. Alleles have genetic variability within themselves. Mutation is not a separate entity acting upon alleles. Mutation cannot go beyond the given genetic material.
 
I’m not moving the goalposts – I take it as a given that a population can only “change” within the limits of the given genetic inheritance. But in substance,nothing is changed.
And that assumption is demonstrably wrong. We have many examples of mutation producing novel features that did not exist before, with alleles that did not exist before the mutation.
For macro-evolution to happen,the genetic substance of a population would have to change,in the sense of silver changing into gold,not merely in the sense of a higher or lower proportion of an element within silver.
No. All that has to happen is for reproductive isolation to occur. This can happen in many different ways. No alchemy necessary.
It can happen with a single mutation, although it usually takes quite a few more.
Changes of allele frequency can only leads to variation within the general species,resulting in sub-species.
No, again, that is demonstrably wrong. Observation of new species shows you are wrong.
Reducing the theory to quantitative factors is an erronious way of thinking.
That’s what science is about. You can, if you like, insist that it is not valid, but that is how you can sit in your chair and send messages around the world.
Macro-evolution would involve material change within genes themselves,not just proportional change of the genes. There are total genetic barriers to reproduction between similar species which cannot be explained in terms of allele frequency but rather in terms of the incompatibility of the contents of the alleles.
Sounds very mysterious. Show us one.

Again your ignorance of biology is showing. If the proportion of X chromosomes in a poplation drops to zero then there cannot be any males in that population and it is likely to go extinct very shortly afterwards. There are no genes “latent” in an extinct species.
It will go extinct,but not for a loss of essential genetic substance. The X chromosomes are formed from pre-existing genetic material,and the material is still there in each member,whether or not X chromosomes are formed from it.
Hint: Look up what X chromosomes do in mammals.
 
And that assumption is demonstrably wrong. We have many examples of mutation producing novel features that did not exist before, with alleles that did not exist before the mutation.
Mutations happen within existing alleles. Mutations don’t just come out of nowhere. They draw from the genetic substance that they mutated from.
No. All that has to happen is for reproductive isolation to occur. This can happen in many different ways. No alchemy necessary.
It can happen with a single mutation, although it usually takes quite a few more.
Reproductive isolation doesn’t lead to macro-evolution. Polyploids are totally genetically isolated from their diploid relatives,but they don’t evolve beyond the diploid relatives. They have the same genetic information. And as you said once,mutations don’t do much of anything.
No, again, that is demonstrably wrong. Observation of new species shows you are wrong.
All the new species are just sub-species.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Speciation never goes beyond partial genetic isolation,infertile hybrids,and polyploids.
That’s what science is about. You can, if you like, insist that it is not valid, but that is how you can sit in your chair and send messages around the world.
Quantitative thinking is appropriate for purely technical science,but it isn’t adequate for biological science,because genetic substance can’t be quantified.
Sounds very mysterious. Show us one.
Surely you know about gametic incompatibility.

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33700

mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/4/732
Hint: Look up what X chromosomes do in mammals.
What does that have to do with my comment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top