When I have understood from reading tertiary literature is that duplication may be followed by modifications. One gene (call it the original) would accumulate very few changes due to selection pressure (it must sustain important functionality), but the other (call it the copy) would not have that same selection pressure. Thus the copy could accumulate significant mutations, and support new functionality.
Have I understood that evolutionary mechanism correctly? And does it apply in the case of the cetaceans?
I apologize in advance if I have not used terminology correctly or understood the finer points. Iâm trying hardâŚ
For me, itâs the combo of your criticizing Steveâs language while making a hash of terms yourself.
[quote=âgbrooks9, post:306, topic:548â]
But if we have a new physical trait⌠we are almost CERTAIN that we have a change in alleles.
[/quote]How so? Canât environmental factors change phenotypes with no change in genotype?
[quote=âChris_Falter, post:307, topic:548â]
When I have understood from reading tertiary literature is that duplication may be followed by modifications.[/quote]
Absolutely!
It COULD support new functions. It also could accumulate insignificant mutations (drift) but have no change in function beyond the change in copy number.
Partially, but you were missing the non-Darwinian possibility.
From what Iâve seen, we donât know yet. The striking thing is the extent of duplications.
[quote]I apologize in advance if I have not used terminology correctly or understood the finer points. Iâm trying hardâŚ
[/quote]No apologies necessary. Youâre definitely trying harder than George is!
My answer to the first is YES, Environmental factors CAN change phenotypes with no change in genotypes. But as I said before, this is not the primary process for developing whales from a land mammal.
Your second question "what does âchange in allelesâ mean, anyway?
I suppose I should have used this phrase: " changes in allele frequencies in populations over time ". But frankly, I donât like the more complete phrasing much either. Again, my objection is that this language seems to dance around the idea of MUTATIONS.
If an allele is âone of a number of alternative forms of the same gene or same genetic locusâŚâ then we can see
that we donât get a âwhale from a badgerâ just by re-arranging alleles.
Thatâs why I prefer the phrase âEvolution is any change in a gene pool.â < < This can be a change in percentages ⌠or the addition or loss of genetic information.
Please explain to me how there is latent recessive âwhalenessâ in the chromosomal material of a badger? (Or use whatever pre-whale land-based mammal you like.) - - and that you can make a whale without any new genetic molecules⌠all we need to do is re-shuffle the existing DNAâŚ
[quote=âgbrooks9, post:310, topic:548â]
My answer to the first is YES, Environmental factors CAN change phenotypes with no change in genotypes.[/quote]
Then youâve falsified your claim:
What does âdevelopingâ mean in this context?
[quote]Your second question "what does âchange in allelesâ mean, anyway?
I suppose I should have used this phrase: " changes in allele frequencies in populations over time ".[/quote]
I donât see that those mean the same thing.
[quote]But frankly, I donât like the more complete phrasing much either. Again, my objection is that this language seems to dance around the idea of MUTATIONS.
[/quote]The focus on mutations dances around the idea that thereâs plenty of heritable variation already present for natural selection to act upon.
The phrase âwe are almost certainâ was used to mean âin most casesâ⌠not that it is the ONLY outcome.
Most of disputes about speciation are not about juggling existing genomes ⌠but about the cumulative effect of NEW genomes⌠i.e. MUTATION.
I am perfectly happy with your sentence: âThe focus on mutations dances around the idea that thereâs plenty of heritable variation already present for natural selection to act upon.â
But you canât make a whale from a badger from ONLY heritable variation.
I understand what you wrote. But is it true in most cases?[quote=âgbrooks9, post:314, topic:548â]
Most of disputes about speciation are not about juggling existing genomes ⌠but about the cumulative effect of NEW genomes⌠i.e. MUTATION.[/quote]
I think youâre completely wrong there. Your language (juggling existing genomes vs. NEW genomes) makes no sense.
Great. Letâs build on that, because it contradicts your bizarre claim about âNEW genomes.â If 3 mutations occur every time a human cell divides, does every cell in your body have a NEW genome?
[quote]But you canât make a whale from a badger from ONLY heritable variation.
[/quote]Itâs sad that you resort to using a creationist construct implicitly affirming TWO falsehoods (single animals evolving into each other, both of which exist today).
Do you really not see that evolution only happens to populations?
[quote=âgbrooks9, post:312, topic:548â]
Please explain to me how there is latent recessive âwhalenessâ in the chromosomal material of a badger? (Or use whatever pre-whale land-based mammal you like.)[/quote]
Hello George,
Why on earth would you resort to a creationist straw man?
Why wouldnât you answer my question about basic population genetics?
What are âgenetic molecules,â and how do you define ânewâ ones? Why do you resort to so many neologisms instead of using words with agreed-upon meanings?
[quote]. all we need to do is re-shuffle the existing DNAâŚ
[/quote]Are you now thinking that entirely new chunks of DNA are being created?
I think what is TRUE is that Evolutionists and Evangelicals arenât engaged in a life-or-death struggle over the issue of change by re-arranging genomes.
While re-arranging genomes may be the numerical PREPONDERANCE of what happens in the average population ⌠such changes are not what drives speciation âŚ
I would propose that speciation in general ⌠and creating a whale out of a land mammal SPECIFICALLY ⌠can only happen after millions of years of MUTATIONS ⌠in addition to re-arranging alleles.
And tell me how much of the difference between you and a mouseâprobably thousands of speciation events away from a common ancestor and representing different ORDERSâis rearrangement vs. ânew genetic molecules.â
I think you should be proud of yourself⌠you have provoked @Eddie enough to defend my less-than-perfect descriptions against your virtually senseless criticisms. I am in total awe⌠(of both you and Eddie, for different reasons).
I will have to admit that my choice of the phrase âgenetic moleculesâ was unwise - - because it allows some readers (aka you, Ben) to think I just mean the raw materials of genes. In fact, I was trying to specify the molecule chains that make up specific genomes. So this convinces me that I should stick to the term âgenomeâ⌠at least for now.
While all the DNA complexities on earth are fully expressed by a surprisingly small number of amino acids it still seems quite clear to me that the âactive genomes which make a mammal a whaleâ NEVER existed in land mammals before a chain of MUTATIONS created these genomes in whales.
The only way we can conceivably ever think that âwhale genomesâ are hidden away in a land-based mammalian population is if, millions of years from now (and maybe not even then), a branch of whales somehow returned to the Earthâs continents and re-adapt to living on the land. But it is hard to say how much of the unique whale genomes may get âconsumedâ in the process.
It makes sense that bird DNA may have a considerable load of Dinosaur genomes buried in their chromosomes⌠because birds EMERGED out of the dinosaur matrix.
Equally so, it makes very little sense to think that bird DNA is ALSO âpre-loadedâ with a hidden set of genomes that would make a kangaroo if only they were switched âONâ⌠because during the rise of dinosaurs there was NO SUCH THING as a Kangaroo.
To construct the argument so as to enlist a genetic theory of âkangaroo DNA in bird DNAâ is to abuse the term genome ⌠and to ignore the common sense meaning of the phrase âkangaroo DNAâ to mean âthose parts of kangaroo DNA that make a mammal a kangarooâ.
Falsehood: single or âindividual animals evolving into other animalsâ âŚ
Could anyone REALLY argue for this? Itâs an EXTRAORDINARILY MAGICAL idea ⌠in a mysterious Universe which realy does not seem to have THIS much magic.
Iâm not sure why the paucity of the truncated definition is so difficult to comprehend. If I say that an elephant is an elephant leg⌠I mean, really. So we have a change in allele frequency in a population. Not even any new alleles over time, just a change in frequency. And the purists want to say⌠âlook, there is evolution!!â Instead of dogs with a whole bunch of colors, now they are all white!! wow!! evolution! Evolution! Look! Evolution!" You can argue this all you want. You can say that everyone else is wrong, it is indeed evolution! but it is like saying that white people are the human race, or that we define animals as dogs, or that we define cars as wheels, or define travel as acceleration. It is an unscientific definition, or, it is deceptive in the sense that even if there is no evolution, no common descent, no long ages, no speciation, no transitions, no selection, no mutations, then this definition still applies. Which makes the whole concept of the definition rather meaningless. Instead of being scientifically clear and comprehensive, it is useless, and I would also say it is manipulative and deceptive, arguing from the part to the whole in a very non-scientific manner.
âItâs sad that you resort to using a creationist construct implicitly affirming TWO falsehoods (single animals evolving into each other, both of which exist today).â
This is pure pedantry, seizing unfairly on Georgeâs naked words. Everyone here understands the shorthand form of expression George is using.[/quote]
JohnZ doesnât:
Are you saying that JohnZ is not one of âeveryone hereâ?
Repeating a false claim doesnât make it true.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:280, topic:548â]
The statement that individual organisms do not evolve is absurdâŚ
[/quote] [quote]Real scientists only correct others on language when an actual scientific error is being made, not when an expression is used which, read in context, is adequate to the purpose.
[/quote]I find it fascinating that you didnât address the second falsehood George is propagating, which is that evolution involves one modern species âevolving intoâ another in a ladder, not a bush, metaphor.
Could that be because your hero Denton based his first book on that falsehood? Or because Doug Axe based an awful Bio-Complexity paper on the falsehood applied to proteins? Or do you not understand that it is false?
Indeed. So why are you paying it lip service here? JohnZ portrays evolution this way to make it easier to attack. Itâs a central creationist tactic, George.
Now, what about your apparent failure to understand that whales and badgers have a common ancestor, not that one evolved into the other?
When I used the term âbadgerâ ⌠I should have said âbadger-likeâ. I certainly donât think whales evolved from the modern badger.
I brought up the issue of âso-called evolutionâ of a single being evolving from one kind to another to invest a little time making a DISTINCTION of ârealâ from ânon-realâ.
Youâre constructing an argument and falsely attributing it to me. I, on the other hand, am directly addressing yours.
And âkangaroo DNAâ does not mean âthose parts of kangaroo DNA that make a mammal a kangaroo,â it means âa kangarooâs DNA.â This reflects your fundamental misunderstanding of both evolution and genetics.
Think, George. Why am I dragging you away from whales toward the even LARGER distance between humans and mice? Could it be that in that comparison, there is abundant EVIDENCE that falsifies your misunderstanding of the relative importance of reshuffling existing genes vs. ânew genetic moleculesâ or whatever you want to call them today?
