real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:djbt wrote:(By the way, mutation is just one small factor, change in allene frequencies is central).
That point bears repeating: "mutation is just one small factor, change in allele frequencies is central".
Too many people still think that mutation is necessary for change. Mutation is necessary for the whole process to have started, and it was more important back when the gene pool was small. However, now that the gene pool is so large and contains so much variation to work with, evolution can occur without much mutation at all. Again, this was covered in at least two other posts on the science forum.
Here we go in a circle.......And what regulates allene frequency?
I'm not addressing your question on randomness within a gene. Allele frequency is something different.
My point is that mutation is not a driving force in most change, simple variation is allele frequency is.
real life wrote:Here we go in a circle.......And what regulates allene frequency?
Your questions are getting better, which is good. Unfortunately, we are going to have to start backing up to make sure you understand some key concepts before we can begin to answer your questions.
PaitoDog can probably answer your question on the relative frequency of change within a DNA segment.
real life is stuck on the concept that there is, (from her readings ) a described difference of 40M points of genic differences between a chimp and a human. Since the bifurcation has reportedly taken place about 6+ million years BP, she has divided the years into the differences and come up with 200 mutations a generation.(This is not really a lot when you consider the number of matings, lengths of generations and how , each day, Mayr said, a population has about 1/1000% mutation accumulation) The mutation gets repaired but the tag remains
She fails to recognize that 40M difference can be the minor difference between aspertine A and B where a single nucleotide defines an entirely different protein. A protein that differs A from B by the equivalent of 2000 nucleotide pairs. So the 40Million difference may be as small as 20 mutations per generation That remain in the exons for each of the orders (hominid and Pongid). It may be more or it may be less, Im not certain , but I know enough that the genic sequencers used to "mulch" the DNA into single proteins will "stack " and collate entire proteins and let them elute on an electrophoresis gel. The differences in the protein are a function of maybe a single nucleotide in an entire protein.
True randomness is patternless , however we were dealing with adaptive, genic drift, and "red queen" (non adaptive evolution ). AS a geologist, Ive always been a fan of adaptive mechanisms because we can see that cataclysms of the earth drive the formation of new species. (I mentioned to ci about the Wallace Line in the history of biogeography) This "line" is a result of closing triple plate junctions where animals on one side are now getting closer to entirely different species on the other side. In a few million years (assuming nothing bad happens) we will see adaptation by competition for ssame niches by entirely different species. This will push the evolutionary button and cause some major specie changes, Ill betcha.
Getting back to real-lifes repetitive points.Her argument of how new anmals do not evolve from stem line species is just a mantra of Creationism. Evidence loudly points out that this "belief" is just flat wrong. We ca
n easily see speciation and genera formation.(The MArtins of Princeton have done a 35 years study of specific Galapogos Finches and have shown speciation of morphology in that short time) As we slowly and inexorably move away from the Linnaean system of nomenclature and take up a more realistic (non Creationist) system (with the exception of paleontological data which can only rely upon morphological differences), we shall design a nomenclature system thatlooks upon gradual and cumulative genetic isolation as the basis for nomenclature, kids will understand that evolution drives all these changes through time.
These arguments that Creationists attempt to cobble out of ignorance and a stubborn adherence to a single model will , unfortunately,probably be around for many years to come, but it wont get in the way of science. The Creationists and IDers have no way to "study" their theories . They only rely upon "the quote mining techniques of the ICR". They only try to chuck monkey wrenches into standard science , but, as anyone can see, they havent made even a dent in the scientific method.
real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:djbt wrote:(By the way, mutation is just one small factor, change in allene frequencies is central).
That point bears repeating: "mutation is just one small factor, change in allele frequencies is central".
Too many people still think that mutation is necessary for change. Mutation is necessary for the whole process to have started, and it was more important back when the gene pool was small. However, now that the gene pool is so large and contains so much variation to work with, evolution can occur without much mutation at all. Again, this was covered in at least two other posts on the science forum.
Here we go in a circle.......And what regulates allene frequency?
Try this:
http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Summaries/PopGen.htm
The Hardy-Weinberg Theorem states that the allele frequencies of a gene in a population will remain constant, as long as evolutionary forces are not acting. H-W therefore provides a baseline (a null expectation) for a population that is not evolving. For a population to be in H-W equilibrium, the following conditions or assumptions must be met:
1. The population is very large; there is no genetic drift
2. Matings are random
3. There is no mutation
4. There is no migration
5. There is no selection
If one of these conditions is broken, an evolutionary force is acting to change allele frequencies, and the population may not be in H-W equilibrium. Natural populations probably seldom meet all of these conditions; H-W provides a nice model to study evolution via deviations from H-W equilibrium.
P
Pauligirl, Welcome to a2k, and thanks for the Hardy-Weinberg Theorem.
cicerone imposter wrote:farmerman, As you well know by now, neologist can only create new phraseology for science that doesn't exist to defend his stance of creationism. It's a wonder that he can show such intelligence, but lacks the ability to accept evolution with its track record of evidence.
Were I trying to create new phraseology, I would not have presented it as a question. I will admit to having trouble grasping the vocabulary of evolution. But, you will find that unlike some on this board, I am not so proud of my own IQ that I might refuse to learn from others.
farmerman wrote:neologist saidQuote:Repetitive or drastic adaptation may result in speciation within a genus.(?)
Im at a loss to understand what the question is. What is "repetitive or drastic adaptation"?
I'm sorry to have confused. But I did admit at the outset I was asking a stupid question. All I am trying to do is understand terms. For example; using Websters Online:
Adaptation: Modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment.
Speciation: The process of biological species formation.
Is there a corresponding term for the formation of a new genus? Also, is the process of genera formation simply a continuum of adaptation upon adaptation?
I guess it all boils down to the question of do we have any examples of adaptation or speciation where a bear has become something other than a bear or a cat something other than a cat? We are now closing in on the biblical definition of the term "kind".
neo, Just ask q's in the simplest form without trying to use 1,000 dollar words from the dictionary, and you'll be just fine - IMHO. Trying to understand terms is one thing. Using terms you don't understand is another.
My questions are all reviewed by Joe Sixpack for clarity.
ahhhh.... in that case, I retract my suggestion.
I am now ready for instruction by sir farmer.
neologist,
Why are you concerned about the biblical definition of "kind"? Were bible verses ever intended for the purpose of making scientific assertions?
Listen well; he has much facts to share in his field of study.
farmerman wrote:real life is stuck on the concept that there is, (from her readings ) a described difference of 40M points of genic differences between a chimp and a human. Since the bifurcation has reportedly taken place about 6+ million years BP, she has divided the years into the differences and come up with 200 mutations a generation.(This is not really a lot when you consider the number of matings, lengths of generations and how , each day, Mayr said, a population has about 1/1000% mutation accumulation) The mutation gets repaired but the tag remains
She fails to recognize that 40M difference can be the minor difference between aspertine A and B where a single nucleotide defines an entirely different protein. A protein that differs A from B by the equivalent of 2000 nucleotide pairs. So the 40Million difference may be as small as 20 mutations per generation That remain in the exons for each of the orders (hominid and Pongid). It may be more or it may be less, Im not certain , but I know enough that the genic sequencers used to "mulch" the DNA into single proteins will "stack " and collate entire proteins and let them elute on an electrophoresis gel. The differences in the protein are a function of maybe a single nucleotide in an entire protein.
True randomness is patternless , however we were dealing with adaptive, genic drift, and "red queen" (non adaptive evolution ). AS a geologist, Ive always been a fan of adaptive mechanisms because we can see that cataclysms of the earth drive the formation of new species. (I mentioned to ci about the Wallace Line in the history of biogeography) This "line" is a result of closing triple plate junctions where animals on one side are now getting closer to entirely different species on the other side. In a few million years (assuming nothing bad happens) we will see adaptation by competition for ssame niches by entirely different species. This will push the evolutionary button and cause some major specie changes, Ill betcha.
Getting back to real-lifes repetitive points.Her argument of how new anmals do not evolve from stem line species is just a mantra of Creationism. Evidence loudly points out that this "belief" is just flat wrong. We ca
n easily see speciation and genera formation.(The MArtins of Princeton have done a 35 years study of specific Galapogos Finches and have shown speciation of morphology in that short time) As we slowly and inexorably move away from the Linnaean system of nomenclature and take up a more realistic (non Creationist) system (with the exception of paleontological data which can only rely upon morphological differences), we shall design a nomenclature system thatlooks upon gradual and cumulative genetic isolation as the basis for nomenclature, kids will understand that evolution drives all these changes through time.
These arguments that Creationists attempt to cobble out of ignorance and a stubborn adherence to a single model will , unfortunately,probably be around for many years to come, but it wont get in the way of science. The Creationists and IDers have no way to "study" their theories . They only rely upon "the quote mining techniques of the ICR". They only try to chuck monkey wrenches into standard science , but, as anyone can see, they havent made even a dent in the scientific method.
Hey FM,
I think the "s" key is stuck on your keyboard. Try using "he" when referring to me.
Never mind the "s" key. Did you learn anything from farmerman's post?
farmerman wrote:.........real-lifes ...... argument of how new anmals do not evolve from stem line species is just a mantra of Creationism. Evidence loudly points out that this "belief" is just flat wrong. We ca
n easily see speciation and genera formation.(The MArtins of Princeton have done a 35 years study of specific Galapogos Finches and have shown speciation of morphology in that short time) ......
Did they end up with something other than birds after 35 years? If not, how can you say that these folks have presented evidence that new animals develop from other species?
farmerman wrote:As we slowly and inexorably move away from the Linnaean system of nomenclature and take up a more realistic (non Creationist) system (with the exception of paleontological data which can only rely upon morphological differences), we shall design a nomenclature system thatlooks upon gradual and cumulative genetic isolation as the basis for nomenclature, kids will understand that evolution drives all these changes through time.
As you and I have discussed before, and as I mentioned to CI earlier today -- any system of nomenclature is very subjective.
I am not surprised that evolutionists feel the need to rearrange the deck chairs on their sinking Titanic. ( It's kinda like how the Democrats all want to be known now as 'Progressives' instead of 'Liberals' because that loses them elections. But they aren't changing any of their positions. Do they think all they need is a new slogan? )
Hey..... maybe this
could sell Evolution to the masses after all. Even after decades of indoctrination in public schools at the public expense, it's still a tough sell, ya know (see
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107 ) Picture a billboard with finches and the slogan:
Evolution -- Even a Bird Brain has to Change Eventually
Can insulting people's intelligence make them buy from you? Well, it seems to work for TV.
But seriously, don't you think some good solid evidence rather than just renaming everything to make it
appear that there has been more evidence found, would be more beneficial?
farmerman wrote:In a few million years (assuming nothing bad happens) we will see adaptation by competition for ssame niches by entirely different species. This will push the evolutionary button and cause some major specie changes, Ill betcha.
Interesting phrase that. What exactly does it mean to push the evolutionary button? Isn't it always supposed to be working? And will you be around to pay off on that bet when you lose? I would definitely be interested in some of that action. How about a few bucks plus interest?
real, Here's a link provided by pauligirl that lists the evidence for evolution. It should keep you busy for a few days if you actually read and learn from it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html
real life wrote:farmerman wrote:.........real-lifes ...... argument of how new anmals do not evolve from stem line species is just a mantra of Creationism. Evidence loudly points out that this "belief" is just flat wrong. We ca
n easily see speciation and genera formation.(The MArtins of Princeton have done a 35 years study of specific Galapogos Finches and have shown speciation of morphology in that short time) ......
Did they end up with something other than birds after 35 years? If not, how can you say that these folks have presented evidence that new animals develop from other species?
Evolution never claimed to work like that on 35 year time span. You seem to have an imaginary view of what evolution claims is possible, so your objections are way off target.
Real life, I apologize for mistaking your gender. I 'd been ouit fishing alot in the last few months and missed entire pages and pages. (probably had I returned and read some I may have caught up on the fact). This is not an area that Id normally use to gain any advantage in a debate. It would be rather childish of me. Once again, sorry.
As far as your gallup pole, Science has never been done by constantly looking over its shoulder.Poles will always be commisssioned by groups wishing to make their support as part of their basis for being. Thereare many people who believe in the Loch Ness monster and Im sure, if someone gave a rats ass, we could cobble a pole together, statistically valid that says that many people believe in Nessie or NOAHS ARK or any popular myth. However, stacking a pole , doesnt make it accurate.
Most of us in the field of geology have no argument with teaching any other myth base upon which t.o estab;ish the historical context by which humanity had begun worrying about its origins. My argument,however, is that it should not be part of the "core" curriculum in science. I dont support teaching our kids a subject that is not based on observation, logic, evidence, or experiment.
As far as nomenclature, the entire existing Linnean system of binomial nomenclature has been on the books for about 300 years. Its what we have now, and , because it predates Darwin , and all the supportive evidence, its been a construct that is pretty much Creationist. Those of us in the sciences have really not objected. We just went along with the system and had our fun naming things with sometimes amuzing LAtinized names. No biggie. NOW since the connections between the proboscidians and relatives goes far beyond Hyraxes, we can see the linneages established in the DENA, so an entirely new nomenclatrure system has been proposed by taxonomists. The fact that its less Creationist is a consequence of the way science just moves along.
As far as the TITANIC references, remember, the political activism of the Creationist Organizations ever since Henry Morris have led to the entire debacle that Creationism harvested in the 1987 US Supreme Court decision.
The recent reemergence of ID, as a noble, but rather lame, "alternative Theory' will , no doubt, gain noteriety and press coverage for a few more years but wont really be able to stand up against the masses of new data and evidence that keeps showing up in field expeditions or in lab studies of DNA , or in the earth sciences that clearly show the movement of continental masses and the resultant species clades that occur in response to these movements. I nor all my colleagues dont live in fear that we shall have to learn some new trade because weve overlooked some critical piece of Creationist data, (mostly because)
1There isnt any Creationist or ID data, just out of context quotes or misrepresentations of real science by phrase twisting "Phds" who are trained spiritualists and not scientists at all.
2The earlier attempts at Creationist reasearch has always ended up in being tossed out because most often , the bases of the research was rather dveloped to "prove a theistic point rather than doing actual science'
I was railing about "Of Pandas and People" a few months ago when the entire Dover case was being formulated. Its position as a valid textbook in science is a perfect example of the lack of objectivity that the IDers propose .
My last point , although repeted herein many times cant be stated enough. The entire point of Creationist or ID being taught in science classes, is just an attack on science by a small but vocal band of , mostly< Fundamental Christians . If we wanted to be catholic about this entire inquiry, we should be teaching the origin legends of the Lakota, the PAmunkey, the Dogong, Jivaros, Australian Original People and countless others. Then, if we had time in science, I actually would endorse such an approach, because its not such a limited ethnocentric interpretation.
Neologist. The ascendance of higher taxa is an area of discussion that cant be explained in a thread. We, from a geologic perspective, usually start from the "top down' Since we deal in fossils, the break down into classification compartments is based upon the simplest of characteristics. heres a link from ASA that discusses, in a brief fashion, how fossils are broken down into taxa based entirely on the preservation of hard parts. If we look at it "top down" its easy to see how we can break things down into
1 plants v animals
2 seed plants v non seed plants
etc etc
Each genera and higher are based entirely upon artificial classification based upon accumulations of similr characteristics. In the newer DNA based classification system we already see that the old Linnean nomenclature disagrees with Genomically based classification.
We now see relationships of biogeographical clades that , when added to the information of spreading continents , the evolutionary developments are more easily interpreted.
HIGHER TAXA IN INTERPRETATION OF INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS
