Login

Join for Free!
118326 members


Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:46 pm

If some allele becomes lower in frequency, over time ( generations) , is it not evolution ?
If my "kind" got reduced by one, it's a change. If it increases by ten, it's a change. Of course, this is not taking into account that the scenario of allele "frequency change", might be balanced out elsewhere and thus no change overall. Nonetheless, if it's not balanced out elsewhere, it is evolution.

Correct ? I get killed, it might be evolution.
If the population is my family, and I get killed, and so my very nicest, my most prized allele - which coincidentally no living relative shares - becomes less frequent, it is evolution.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:59 pm

Breaking news! Well, it was last spring.

I've been talking in general terms about this melanism business without having updated my knowledge about it. (Shame on me.) I've just done so and have come across a publication in the journal Science from last May. The abstract reports:

"The rapid spread of a novel black form (known as carbonaria) of the peppered moth Biston betularia in 19th-century Britain is a textbook example of how an altered environment may produce morphological adaptation through genetic change. However, the underlying genetic basis of the difference between the wild-type (light-colored) and carbonaria forms has remained unknown. We have genetically mapped the carbonaria morph to a 200-kilobase region orthologous to a segment of silkworm chromosome 17 and show that there is only one core sequence variant associated with the carbonaria morph, carrying a signature of recent strong selection. The carbonaria region coincides with major wing-patterning loci in other lepidopteran systems, suggesting the existence of basal color-patterning regulators in this region."

Now, the title of the paper is "Industrial melanism in British peppered moths has a singular and recent mutational origin." I haven't read the paper itself, only the abstract, so I don't know what the authors mean by "recent". Maybe the melanism was due to a new mutation in the population that occurred in historical times (although "recent" in evolutionary time can mean a long, long time ago). Does anyone out there have free access to this article? (I'm retired and no longer have library or free online access to journals).
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:01 pm

It's the combination of alleles that make us all individuals.
giving short shrift to twins.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am


Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:07 pm

Crucible wrote:If some allele becomes lower in frequency, over time ( generations) , is it not evolution ?
If my "kind" got reduced by one, it's a change. If it increases by ten, it's a change. Of course, this is not taking into account that the scenario of allele "frequency change", might be balanced out elsewhere and thus no change overall. Nonetheless, if it's not balanced out elsewhere, it is evolution.

Correct ? I get killed, it might be evolution.
If the population is my family, and I get killed, and so my very nicest, my most prized allele - which coincidentally no living relative shares - becomes less frequent, it is evolution.


Correct, although your use of the word "evolution" needs clarification. The removal of your alleles will have an effect on allele frequencies within the population, and your unique allele will be gone if you don't pass it on.
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:15 pm

Gavin wrote:
Crucible wrote:If some allele becomes lower in frequency, over time ( generations) , is it not evolution ?
If my "kind" got reduced by one, it's a change. If it increases by ten, it's a change. Of course, this is not taking into account that the scenario of allele "frequency change", might be balanced out elsewhere and thus no change overall. Nonetheless, if it's not balanced out elsewhere, it is evolution.

Correct ? I get killed, it might be evolution.
If the population is my family, and I get killed, and so my very nicest, my most prized allele - which coincidentally no living relative shares - becomes less frequent, it is evolution.


Correct, although your use of the word "evolution" needs clarification. The removal of your alleles will have an effect on allele frequencies within the population, and your unique allele will be gone if you don't pass it on.
I think more people could accept that kind of example and explanation first- it's merely any change that gets passed on to some descendants. Further evolution could then occur as frequencies change further.

Accepting that change can and does happen, is key.
"How much change is possible", is then open for debate with no backtrack course left open.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:23 pm

Gavin wrote:
Crucible wrote:If some allele becomes lower in frequency, over time ( generations) , is it not evolution ?
If my "kind" got reduced by one, it's a change. If it increases by ten, it's a change. Of course, this is not taking into account that the scenario of allele "frequency change", might be balanced out elsewhere and thus no change overall. Nonetheless, if it's not balanced out elsewhere, it is evolution.

Correct ? I get killed, it might be evolution.
If the population is my family, and I get killed, and so my very nicest, my most prized allele - which coincidentally no living relative shares - becomes less frequent, it is evolution.


Correct, although your use of the word "evolution" needs clarification. The removal of your alleles will have an effect on allele frequencies within the population, and your unique allele will be gone if you don't pass it on.
My sister though, then gets married to a guy who has it and is homozygous. After they have a baby, then the change in frequency is reversed. Back to square one. Ahhh ! No evolution occurred, then...or else we'd have to say that evolution, followed by de-evolution, occurred.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:38 pm

Crucible wrote:My sister though, then gets married to a guy who has it and is homozygous. After they have a baby, then the change in frequency is reversed. Back to square one. Ahhh ! No evolution occurred, then...or else we'd have to say that evolution, followed by de-evolution, occurred.


That's why I tried to stress that YOUR alleles, the DNA molecules that are in YOUR germ cells, are removed, and why I said that your alleles are shared by others in the population (barring a new mutation in your alleles).
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:41 pm

Gavin wrote:
Crucible wrote:My sister though, then gets married to a guy who has it and is homozygous. After they have a baby, then the change in frequency is reversed. Back to square one. Ahhh ! No evolution occurred, then...or else we'd have to say that evolution, followed by de-evolution, occurred.


That's why I tried to stress that YOUR alleles, the DNA molecules that are in YOUR germ cells, are removed, and why I said that your alleles are shared by others in the population (barring a new mutation in your alleles).

But Brother-in-Law was not part of the population when I got run over. It didn't exist in my family any more except for my copy.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:49 pm

Crucible wrote:But Brother-in-Law was not part of the population when I got run over. It didn't exist in my family any more except for my copy.


Sure he was, unless he had not yet been born when you got run over. He may not have been part of your family, but he was a part of the population.
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:06 pm

Gavin wrote:
Crucible wrote:But Brother-in-Law was not part of the population when I got run over. It didn't exist in my family any more except for my copy.


Sure he was, unless he had not yet been born when you got run over. He may not have been part of your family, but he was a part of the population.
I defined the population as "my family".
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Evolutionists Show of Shutting Down the Debate

Postby Crucible » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:08 pm

and it's :mrgreen: a bit late to start complaining
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Postby Gavin » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:40 pm

Complaining? Who's complaining? About what? Families are not generally considered to be populations, but nice try. If your future brother-in-law has the same allele as you have, then it is elsewhere in the population (not referring to your family). He marries your sister and is now part of your family. You get killed by a bus. The allele, in your brother-in-law, still exists in the population. YOUR copy of the allele is gone. The frequency of the allele in the population has changed.
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests