Originally posted by Mindship
You mean Steve? I liked Steve; he was like the Sagan of evolution.
before Dawkins became the "atheist guy", we was a renown scientist (a little tangential, but possibly the most depressing thing about his new atheist books might be that they aren't his older science based books, which are magnificent).
During, I think the mid 80s, there was a fairly large debate about the best way to interpret evolution, Gould said species level, Dawkins gene level
but ya, Gould was fantastic, the prof I work for got to take courses with him
Originally posted by Ordo
No. Its not.1. Micro/macro evolution are NOT scientific concepts. They are NOT part of the Theory of Natural Selection. They are NOT part of the modern scientific understanding of evolution.
2. What you described are types of mutations. That is all. Mutation is NOT evolution. Mutation occurs on the organismal level. Evolution occurs on the species level and requires natural selection (reproduction)...neither of which are involved in mutation. So, correlating two types of mutation (of which there are many more) to two random outdated scientific concepts is just plain wrong. "DICK" to "DUCK" is a substitution mutation. "DICK" to "DICKHEAD" is an insertion mutation. Neither qualifies as evolution...at all...let alone the non-scientific concepts of "macro" and "microevolution."
So, not only did you use scientifically outdated concepts (do you believe in alchemy too?) you couldn't even properly define your inappropriate terms.
wth?
so "chromosomal mutation" is suddenly an outdated concept?!?
1. they ARE scientific concepts, although not in the way that creationist propagandists try to portray them
2. mutation IS the mechanism for evolution to occur, dont u know anything. the only other mechanism is faulty meiosis/faulty heploid pairings. dick to duck is substitiution i admit, but its still EVOLTION, as it can be passed to the offspring and make the species more adaptable to a current enviornment{i.e. myriad of eyecolours/skin colours/bone structure in the SAME SPECIES etc}. dick to dickhead is NOT an insertion evolution, its a CHROMOSOMAL MUTATIONS where the stop codon is deleted and bases are allowed to enter beyond the initial length of the chromosome , another example wud be creation of a whole new chromosome with its end made sticky enough by mutation to meet with the chromosomes of a cell}.
i dont beleive in alchemy. btw, are u a creationist?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Actually micro and macro evolution terminology is still used in anthropology.
Thats not surprising. However, the terms have no modern day relevance in the biological world. Evolution (Natural Selection) is indeed a biological concept, though obvisously anthropology and archeology (old school (pre?) biology) provide evidence for said phenomenon.
Originally posted by inimalist
Ah, you're one of them Gould boys then, hmmm?
He had some good ideas (punctuated equilibrium) and some bad ones (minimalizing natural selection). Natural selection as a concept is measured only in populations (I should have specified that term as opposed to species). I do agree with him more that evolution is more than just the sum changing gene freqencies.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so "chromosomal mutation" is suddenly an outdated concept?!?
No. However, "chromosomal mutation" is not "macroevolution" (as you defined it). Macroevolution is the outdated concept.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
they ARE scientific concepts, although not in the way that creationist propagandists try to portray them
No. They are SCIENTIFICALLY dead concepts.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
mutation IS the mechanism for evolution to occur
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the only other mechanism is faulty meiosis/faulty heploid pairings.
Originally posted by leonheartmmNo. It is a mutation. 99% of the time DICK to DUCK doesn't change anyhting and isn't passed on to offspring. Its changing a gene...in one cell...in one individial. Evolution can only happen amongst populations. An individal cannot "evolve." You can mutate it all you want.
dick to duck is substitiution i admit, but its still EVOLTION
Originally posted by leonheartmm
as it can be passed to the offspring
Originally posted by leonheartmmWell, most often mutations are detrimental or have no effect. You've made about 37 jumps in this argument.
make the species more adaptable to a current enviornment
Originally posted by leonheartmmSee...I actually understand that there is more to evolution than skin color (bone structure doesn't vary practically at all). Most mutation affect things like protein structure. You don't just evolve a new eye color. Thats creationist-thinking.
i.e. myriad of eyecolours/skin colours/bone structure in the SAME SPECIES etc}.
Originally posted by leonheartmmit is indeed an insertion. DICK is a gene, not a chrmosome...as evidenced by vvv
dick to dickhead is NOT an insertion evolution, its a CHROMOSOMAL MUTATIONS
Originally posted by leonheartmm
where the stop codon is deleted and bases are allowed to enter beyond the initial length of the chromosome
Originally posted by leonheartmmYes, and usually this results in death.
another example wud be creation of a whole new chromosome with its end made sticky enough by mutation to meet with the chromosomes of a cell}.
REGARDLESS...THIS IS NOT "MACROEVOLUTION" which is what you tried (and failed) to claim.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont beleive in alchemy.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
btw, are u a creationist?
No...which is why I spend my time arguing that the theory of evolution and natural selection should be articulated CORRECTLY as opposed to not at all.
Thats not surprising. However, the terms have no modern day relevance in the biological world. Evolution (Natural Selection) is indeed a biological concept, though obvisously anthropology and archeology (old school (pre?) biology) provide evidence for said phenomenon.He had some good ideas (punctuated equilibrium) and some bad ones (minimalizing natural selection). Natural selection as a concept is measured only in populations (I should have specified that term as opposed to species). I do agree with him more that evolution is more than just the sum changing gene freqencies.
[QUOTE]
No. However, "chromosomal mutation" is not "macroevolution" (as you defined it). Macroevolution is the outdated concept.
chromosomal mutation = speciation = macroevolution . its very hard to evolve a new species without chromosomal mutation, the only other processes, like i said are faulty heploid pairings or inter species mating producing a fertile offspring.
No. They are SCIENTIFICALLY dead concepts.
only in the sense that creationists use them, that is NOT the way im using them.
mutation is A mechanism for evolution to occur. It is NOT evolution. You mutate when you walk outside in the sun. You're not evolving.
natural selection can not of itself ADD alleales or chromosomes, only the three processes i stated can do that{im open to you showing me if im missing other mechanisms}
No. Natural selection is judged on reproduction and survival. Thats the main mechanism for evolution. Mutation has nothing to do with it.
No. It is a mutation. 99% of the time DICK to DUCK doesn't change anyhting and isn't passed on to offspring. Its changing a gene...in one cell...in one individial. Evolution can only happen amongst populations. An individal cannot "evolve." You can mutate it all you want.
i was referring to when it happens in gametes or meiotic cells of an individual. and "dick" was supposed to represent the entire genome. it was a simplified example for ushom/jia. also, im open to you presenting me with ur view on the mechanics of evolution.
If that mutation happens in a skin cell, its not going to be passed on to the offspring.
read above.
Well, most often mutations are detrimental or have no effect. You've made about 37 jumps in this argument.
no i havent, uve misunderstood.
See...I actually understand that there is more to evolution than skin color (bone structure doesn't vary practically at all). Most mutation affect things like protein structure. You don't just evolve a new eye color. Thats creationist-thinking.
it is indeed an insertion. DICK is a gene, not a chrmosome...as evidenced by vvv
not when the 4 spaces represent the entire genome, forgive me for not drawing out 23 chromosomes each with its individual code, i was representing a concept, not giving a genetics lecture.
Chromosomal mutations are massive an often fatal. inserting 4 base pairs isn'st a chromosomal mutaion...it is...indeed...an insertion mutation.
but i didnt insert 4 base pairs, i inserted a new chromosme to the genome, were minimizing, not magnifying in the example. i have a pretty thorough understanding of how genetics work, so i understand what your saying, however, my example was to show to a layman what the terms they were throwing around actually meant. and chromosomal mutation are one of the three basic mechanisms for speciation, do u deny this?
Yes, and usually this results in death.
which is why speciation is hard to observe in the lab. still doesnt deny the fact that rarely, they lead to a new species which can live, now does it. it remains a mechanism for speciation.
REGARDLESS...THIS IS NOT "MACROEVOLUTION" which is what you tried (and failed) to claim.
macroevolution is speciation. ive described the DIFFERENCE between inter specie and intra species evolution, genetically by using simplistic examples. i didnt claim that the process described, gives good results, EVER, and yet, the rare exceptions ARE the way such alleales and species evolve. natural selection working on a gene pool with no passable mutation/no faulty meiosis will eventually wipe the entire gene pool OUT due to there being no variety and change introduced into the genepool.
Then why do you believe in outdated science like "micro" and "macroevolution"?
i, DONT, i know there is no clear line divinding the two since even alleale mutations can make gametes unable to combine with others of the same species etc. i am MERELY defining what these terms are/were USED to describe in genetics so that the creationists who throw them around atleast have an UNDERSTANDING of what they are saying and what that implies{i.e. the silly argument of there isnt enough INFORMATION to change into a new species}. and these terms are not ENTIRELY useless similar to how the term SPECIES is similarly vague and hard to define as its borders are hazy at best, and yet, the term is still used in modern genetics to convey a general concept even though intra species mating like horse+donkey=pony throw doubt on the very concept of species. etc
No...which is why I spend my time arguing that the theory of evolution and natural selection should be articulated CORRECTLY as opposed to not at all.
so not only do u misunderstand from start to finish, but u try and crucify me for explaining things to laymen? nice.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
micro evolution is mutation of ALLEALES...macro evolution is CHROMOSOMAL mutation, which is adding to or subtracting from the number of chromosomes in a specied...
where did these definitions come from?
EDIT: I've even been trying to work this out in my head... For this to be true, no one species could evolve from another AND have the same number of chromosome pairs. Though, the fact that a species is an entirely anthropic concept makes that weird, because we demarc where that change from one species to another occured. I can't be sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems almost silly to think there were never two groups of the same species which became so geographically separated that they evolved independantly of eachother, such that they can no longer mate, yet had no major chromosomal additions or subtractions (had the same number of chromosomes). Come to think of it, bird species along the arctic circle are almost assuredly an example of this.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
chromosomal mutation = speciation = macroevolution . its very hard to evolve a new species without chromosomal mutation, the only other processes, like i said are faulty heploid pairings or inter species mating producing a fertile offspring.
So Down Syndrome is macroevolution?
Seriously. This is about you skipping steps and not understanding this process. ANY mutation is only relevant if it is 1. passed on to offspring and 2. subject to selection pressures. Then you have natural selection and there are still other steps before you get to speciation.
Your argument is straight BS. There is no evidence that changing the number of chromosomes creates new species. Most plants, even a fair number of reptiles and amphibians have various forms of polyploidy...we do not consider these to be new species.
And all of this ignores the point that you are ignorant about the definition of "macroevolution." But given your understanding of the rest of this concept, this isn't surprising.
MUTATION is NOT the driving force of evolution. NATURAL SELECTION IS. SELECTION deals with the prevelance of genotypes. MUTATION determines the range. I dont know how many times I need to restate scientific dogma, but you're ignoring it as much as any creationist. Just because a new genotype exist does not constitute speciation. I am a fricking new genotype (somewhere somehow) though I do not constitute evolution. I can list the syndromes associated with chromosomal mutations: (ignoring 99.whatever% of the mutations that are actually happening in the body) Downs, Turners, Wolf-Hirschhorn, Jacobsen, etc. None of these demonstrate any sort of evolutionary potential to me.
Why is this? Because a mutation (no matter how big) in a single individual does not qualify as a species. Ever. Populations can become species. Individuals can't.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
only in the sense that creationists use them, that is NOT the way im using them.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
natural selection can not of itself ADD alleales or chromosomes, only the three processes i stated can do that{im open to you showing me if im missing other mechanisms}
Originally posted by leonheartmm
of COURSE it does, as iv e stated, death or inability to produce offspring doesnt= new information in the genome {and NO im not using information here like creationists do}
This still ignores your lack of understanding about "macroevolution," despite your attempts to dodge that.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i was referring to when it happens in gametes or meiotic cells of an individual. and "dick" was supposed to represent the entire genome. it was a simplified example for ushom/jia. also, im open to you presenting me with ur view on the mechanics of evolution.
Ushom and JIA are not well served by you feeding them cr@p. First they aren't open to the truth anyway. Secondly, if you want to convince them of the truth, tell them the truth and not some half-truth, partial-truth, or in your case, some mutated child-like understanding of it.
Btw...if DICK is the entire genome, then the only way HEAD could originate is from interspecies fertilization. Thus...not a mutation. Essentially what you have presented is every chromosome duplicating AND mutation...which is a lot to ask in one specific example.
Also, if DICK represents a genome, its best not to use DICK as an allele in the next example...could be confusing eh?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so do i, the example was for people who know nuthing about evolution and throw terms around like micro and macro evolution without knowing what they signify.
You may know something about evolution, but it is clearly not enough to articulate it.
You, also, throw around terms like micro and macro evolution without knowing what they signify. This is not helpful because not only do you teach misunderstanding to others, but you look foolish when people poke holes in your argument.
Originally posted by leonheartmm chromosomal mutation are one of the three basic mechanisms for speciation, do u deny this?
Yes, because speciation does not occour on the basis of simple mutation. I have LISTED examples in this thread of chromosomal mutations (Fragile X syndrome is yet another) that clearly do not qualify speciation. In most cases that we know of, individuals with sever chromosomal mutation end up dead, even before coming to term. Ok, so you say its not a method (always) its a mechanism (sometimes). Still, a chromosomal mutation is not suffcient in itself to create a new species (especially in any speices with sexual reproduction). You need other qualities/changes to classify as a new species. Evolution takes place on the level of populations...NOT individuals. If you need a sexual partner to reproduce, you're just SOL. Even with one, you're at a popultion of 2...which isn't really great and even then may not constitute a new species..
In fact, the three basic mechanisms for speciation I learned are allopatric, sympatric, and parapatric...but I guess as a bio major I was taught biology.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
which is why speciation is hard to observe in the lab. still doesnt deny the fact that rarely, they lead to a new species which can live, now does it. it remains a mechanism for speciation.
Speciation is hard to observe in the lab because its hard to get 1. a large enough population, 2. that reproduces fast enough, 3. to respond to specific selection pressures, 4. in a controlled environment.
If chromosomal mutation doesn't work most of the time (never) as you admit, perhaps its (almost) irrelevant? Hmm?
If you want to teach people, perhaps we should be teaching them relevant science as opposed to the (defunct) science of the 1920s.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
macroevolution is speciation.
No.
Macroevolution doesn't exist. And whatever it is, its sure as hell not speciation.
And this confuses, me...
Creationists/IDers claim:
1."macroevolution is speciation" (your argument, which if you complain about creationists making bad arguments, why are you making the same?)
2. Speciation has not been observed (or if they have some knowledge of science, they'll claim that no new "kind" of organism has ever been observed)
"microevolution" cannot constitute speciation.
3. Therefore evolution does not exist.
Thus, it makes no sense that if you are against their argument you continue to perpetrate half of it (including their misunderstanding of disproven concepts like "macro" and "microevolution." On top of that, you try to equate mutation (on whatever level) in a single generation as speciation, which is kind of like jumping from Karachi to London (25 years in the future) in a single leap.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yet, the rare exceptions ARE the way such alleales and species evolve.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
describe in genetics so that the creationists who throw them around at least have an UNDERSTANDING of what they are saying and what that implies {i.e. the silly argument of there isnt enough INFORMATION to change into a new species}. and these terms are not ENTIRELY useless similar to how the term SPECIES is similarly vague and hard to define as its borders are hazy at best
The problem is this, you claim that a chromosomal mutation can create a new speices. Fine. Great. Whatever. The problem is is that you 1. have no evidence of this. 2. ignore the entire population dynamic and actual evolution that CONSTITUTES the process of speciation. 3. You do it using terms and outdated definitions that are not relevant to science. All this does is give them an argument full of holes, holes which they can easily find. Once they've found them, they figure it out and then point out that your argument sucks. Thus concluding that your effort at persuasion is just another attempt by delusional evolutionists to sell them junk ideas.
Speciation is much more than the quantity and diversity of information...and it certainly should never involve the term "macroevolution"
You know some things about this stuff. Your nod to the species problem was nice. However... vvv
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so not only do u misunderstand from start to finish, but u try and crucify me for explaining things to laymen? nice.
Originally posted by inimalist
For this to be true, no one species could evolve from another AND have the same number of chromosome pairs.
Nor exactly. He's not giving good examples (insisting that you have to have some sort of massive meiotic failure)...but say you had a translocation. You'd have the same # of chromosomes...but different ones.
However, his argument is still incorrect..so I dunno why I wrote this lol.
Originally posted by Ordo
He had some good ideas (punctuated equilibrium) and some bad ones (minimalizing natural selection). Natural selection as a concept is measured only in populations (I should have specified that term as opposed to species). I do agree with him more that evolution is more than just the sum changing gene freqencies.
ha, I was just trying to have a laugh
Gould is awesome, though, the genes-eye-view stuff really makes sense to me.
Originally posted by Ordo
Nor exactly. He's not giving good examples (insisting that you have to have some sort of massive meiotic failure)...but say you had a translocation. You'd have the same # of chromosomes...but different ones.However, his argument is still incorrect..so I dunno why I wrote this lol.
fair enough 🙂
this is getting pretty over my head anyways...
Originally posted by inimalist
ha, I was just trying to have a laughGould is awesome, though, the genes-eye-view stuff really makes sense to me.
Yes. I would just make the following point. The gene-level view is a nice basic one to take, unfortunately, there are bigger forces at work. Genes only exist at the individual level, and while we can bypass that stuff by studying gene frequencies and the survival of individuals within a population, there are accessory forces at work.
For example, (Gould appreciates this)...in a mass extinction event (asteroid impact) the whole ecosystem is exposed to pressures that very few populations are designed to survive (high sulfur, slow sunlight, high CO2, intense cold). Thus you get massive events where mulitple populations of multiple species move in the same direction: smaller (lower food input), furrier (warmer)..etc, etc. Natural selection doesn't account well for this phenomena.
Also, Gould was (imo) right on on "spandrels." Say you select for a specific protein conformation, one less prone to damage from UV light. If this gene was associated with another one, that feature could be selected for as well, even though it is evolutionarily deleterious or just plain irrelevant.
I think its important to point out these forces are relevant, but they're not the basis of natural selection. That (for now) is reserved for genes. Though like Gould and unlike Dawkins (perhaps why I'm also a history major?) I don't think that everything in biology can be "atomized." Especially in the study of life, the whole is definitely more than the sum of its parts, and I think evolutionary theory should reflect that.
ok this is going nowhere. so let me just summarise and hope u will understand. {and please, insisting that i dont know the concept well enough is u being stubborn, i didnt pass my bio/genetics exams with completely faulty understanding of the evolution and the terms and mechanisms associated}
microevolution/macroevolution = terms presented by creationists to differentiate between the emergence of new traits inside a species{which is impossible to deny as there is direct observational evidence for it} to the emergence of new species from older ones{which hasnt been observed in the lab due to the rarity of it but is accepted by scientists nonetheless based on the fossil record and the genetic similarity of species. this ofcourse is vehemently denies by creationists, hence their need to distinguish between inter species variety and speciation, the later of which they still CAN deny due to lack of positive observation}. - in this sense, speciation=macroevolution. i was merely giving the scientific background to what such differences would imply, i dont beleive the terms shud be used exclusivley of the other but i also know that chromosomal changes wud have to occur for "speciation"{which IS a scientific term}.
species is widely defined as orgnisms with rougly the same phenotype capable of mating and producing fertile offspring. again, exceptions are there between things like horses and donkeys who can mate but produce sterile ponies. and many more in unicellular or prokaryptic organisms which are involved in mitotic reproduction and bacterial sexual reproduction etc.
barring unicellular organisms and viruses, the three MECHANISMS that occur to me which CAN cause speciation are new compatible chromosomes being added to the genome through mutations {concerning sticky ends etc}, a faulty meotic process which ends up wit combineable dna chains, or inter species mating which produce a fertile offspring.
again, im not claiming that these processes produce results which adds to the genome in a way that is favourable to its survival EVERY TIME. im saying that these are just the mechanism where such an occurance is a POSSIBILITY. again, if you have other mechanism which work without mutation/faulty meiosis/intra species mating, and add new base combinations, id love to hear about them.
allopatric, sympatric, and parapatric speciation are TRENDS in the speciation which tell us about the "selective pressures" which are responsible for bringing about the evolution of species and the types of changes in the ENVIORNMENT which made certain traits favourable or not for survival and reproduction. that is COMPLETELY different from the MECHANISMS which are responsible for bringing ABOUT those different traits from the initial traits in the ORGANISMS.
the way i see it, ur having a ball of a time trying to tear apart anything im saying but not giving any alternatives that wud just shut me up{i.e. alternate mechanism for adding new base combinations which are exclusive of the methods i describe}.
as for the two examples, well, mutation in alleales is easily seen by the diversity in features such as noses, which are larger and closer to the face with proportionately large nostrils in people who live in very cold areas like mongolia. another example wud be the amount of melanin present which wud darken skin colour and pupils colour and hair colour in people who live in places with a lot of sunshine{darker pupils to aborb a lot of light to avoid whiteout, darker skin and hair to absorb uv rays at the surface to avoid skin cancer}. an example of speciation was one i read about a certain wild grass, but ill have to look it up in my old books again.
in the end evolution "mechanisms" are responsible for all the inter and intra species diversity that we see, which our ancesters progressively lacked, going back in time.
Originally posted by Ordo
Yes. I would just make the following point. The gene-level view is a nice basic one to take, unfortunately, there are bigger forces at work. Genes only exist at the individual level, and while we can bypass that stuff by studying gene frequencies and the survival of individuals within a population, there are accessory forces at work.For example, (Gould appreciates this)...in a mass extinction event (asteroid impact) the whole ecosystem is exposed to pressures that very few populations are designed to survive (high sulfur, slow sunlight, high CO2, intense cold). Thus you get massive events where mulitple populations of multiple species move in the same direction: smaller (lower food input), furrier (warmer)..etc, etc. Natural selection doesn't account well for this phenomena.
Also, Gould was (imo) right on on "spandrels." Say you select for a specific protein conformation, one less prone to damage from UV light. If this gene was associated with another one, that feature could be selected for as well, even though it is evolutionarily deleterious or just plain irrelevant.
I think its important to point out these forces are relevant, but they're not the basis of natural selection. That (for now) is reserved for genes. Though like Gould and unlike Dawkins (perhaps why I'm also a history major?) I don't think that everything in biology can be "atomized." Especially in the study of life, the whole is definitely more than the sum of its parts, and I think evolutionary theory should reflect that.
to me, the only inconcistancy ur finding with the gene view is due to lack of adding chaos theory. genes ARE the basis but just not the practical way to go to look at the relationship between pheontypic traits and the survival reguirements of the enviornment.
mass extinctions are still part of natural selection though. they are just a temporary and severe selective pressure. infact, drastic changes in the enviornment can account for gould's punctutated equilibrium theory.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
ok this is going nowhere. so let me just summarise and hope u will understand. {and please, insisting that i dont know the concept well enough is u being stubborn, i didnt pass my bio/genetics exams with completely faulty understanding of the evolution and the terms and mechanisms associated}
If you look back, I want to make clear I never said you didn't know the concept at all. I said you have some misconceptions about evolution. I've also said that you have brought up concepts that show you have a greater knowledge.
However, even disregarding misconceptions you have about the theory, popularizing science and explaining it to others is a WHOLE different ball game. (especially to creationists) I think you have definitely failed there.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
microevolution/macroevolution = terms presented by creationists to differentiate between the emergence of new traits inside a species{which is impossible to deny as there is direct observational evidence for it} to the emergence of new species from older ones{which hasnt been observed in the lab due to the rarity of it but is accepted by scientists nonetheless based on the fossil record and the genetic similarity of species. this ofcourse is vehemently denies by creationists, hence their need to distinguish between inter species variety and speciation, the later of which they still CAN deny due to lack of positive observation}. - in this sense, speciation=macroevolution. i was merely giving the scientific background to what such differences would imply, i dont beleive the terms shud be used exclusivley of the other but i also know that chromosomal changes wud have to occur for "speciation"{which IS a scientific term}.
A few changes. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" used to be scientific terms, broken down by scientists to explain what they thought were different phenomena (and to dodge religious criticism). The difference is these terms were dropped by the scientific community decades ago with the Modern synthesis (and modern genetics). The creationist movement, however, never updated their arguments or their use of these terms. They are not scientifically relevant today and using them both unhelpful and unscientific.
As far as speciation...the chromosomal change argument is just wrong. The three METHODS of speciation are allopatric, sympatric, or parapatric. If you take a population and split it, exposing each population to different pressures over time they will diverge, no chromosomal change necessary.
I've already pointed the holes in your chromosome argument. In order to be a new species...it has to reproduce. A chromosomal mutation is a one time thing. if it happens in ONE individual, there is still no partner for that individual to mate with. If it IS a new species (no fertile offspring form mating with the original species) it needs to 1. FIND an individual of the opposite sex in its lifetime, 2. that individual has to have the exact SAME chromosomal mutation (what are the odds), 3. MATE with it, and 4. PRODUCE fertile offspring that aren't going to inbreed themselves into extinction.
I've never heard of an example where a species founder are TWO individuals, let alone 2 with the same freak...survivable....CHROMOSOMAL...mutation. Its always populations that evolve...and you really don't get populations of 2. On this aspect you are dead wrong. Your ideas are not corroborated in any papers or textbooks I have ever read. They're not even sensical and practically flatly deny natural selection itself.
As further evidence, you use these definitions of species (which you and I both know are severely flawed)..but your other mechanisms are "intra-species mating." This is just nuts. Look up these terms. ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION, SYMPATRIC SPECIATION, and PARAPATRIC SPECIATION....see if you fine any reference to "chromosomal mutation" as a source of speciation. You wont. These things are not trends...species are not created in one karking generation. Responding to changes in the environment is called natural selection and is the driving process behind both evolution and speciation.
Both have been observed.
Originally posted by leonheartmmActually, its a complete waste of my time...
the way i see it, ur having a ball of a time trying to tear apart anything im saying
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but not giving any alternatives that wud just shut me up{i.e. alternate mechanism for adding new base combinations which are exclusive of the methods i describe}.
Originally posted by leonheartmmThis is borderline Lamarckian and deterministic...hardly evolutionary. Its not people who "live" in an area. Its descendants of various races. And since there is no difference in species here...I think this is irrelevant. Quit thinking in terms of flower colors and start thinking in terms of protein sequences. It'll help your arguments.
as for the two examples, well, mutation in alleales is easily seen by the diversity in features such as noses, which are larger and closer to the face with proportionately large nostrils in people who live in very cold areas like mongolia. another example wud be the amount of melanin present which wud darken skin colour and pupils colour and hair colour in people who live in places with a lot of sunshine{darker pupils to aborb a lot of light to avoid whiteout, darker skin and hair to absorb uv rays at the surface to avoid skin cancer}.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
in the end evolution "mechanisms" are responsible for all the inter and intra species diversity that we see, which our ancesters progressively lacked, going back in time.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
to me, the only inconcistancy ur finding with the gene view is due to lack of adding chaos theory. genes ARE the basis but just not the practical way to go to look at the relationship between pheontypic traits and the survival reguirements of the enviornment.
Medelian genetics is over. The days of studying fur color and expecting a di- or trichotomous phenotype are gone. Genes are the basis and it is becoming practical to study each genotype as its one phenotype. Thats the goal because its the only accurate way to study natural selection ad any decent resolution.
As to chaos theory...its a principle and not a law like natural selection. We will never know most initial conditions for evolution, thus complaining that they are not included is well..redundant. Everyone knows we dont have initial conditions. The point is you dont have them with phenotypic models either. Phenotypes were crucial in anthropology. In modern biology, the line between phenotype and genotype is blurred because we "can" determine every changed base pair, amino acid, and change in protein structure and study its effects.