Give your best "transitional form"

[DogmaHunter]

Now you are catching on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broccoli
"Broccoli is an edible green plant in the cabbage family"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_sprout
"The Brussels sprout is a member of the Gemmifera Group of cabbages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
"Brassica oleracea is the species of plant that includes many common foods as cultivars, including cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and kai-lan."

Or do you wish to further confirm my claims while overthrowing yours while still denying the truth? You should know better by now to even attempt such strawmen. But like all evolutionists you are simply going to make claims before doing any actual research, which would have informed you you were trying a strawman to begin with and saved us both wasted time.

So, do you think that you could recreate brussels sprouts and brocolli by starting with the original ancestral wild gabbage plant?

That seems to be what you are saying.

Ditto for dogs.

Do you think you could recreate a chiwawa, labrador or rottweiler by starting with the original ancestral wild wolf?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So, do you think that you could recreate brussels sprouts and brocolli by starting with the original ancestral wild gabbage plant?

That seems to be what you are saying.

Ditto for dogs.

Do you think you could recreate a chiwawa, labrador or rottweiler by starting with the original ancestral wild wolf?

EDIT: Sorry DogmaHunter, I may have mistaken the context of your reply. I'll leave mine here as I think I've added useful content to the discussion as a whole, even though it doesn't properly follow your post.

That's a tricky question. To recreate these organisms might not just depend on selective breeding of preexisting traits. It might depend on the random mutations that have occurred during and after domestication. If I tried to reproduce the development of these organisms the same random mutations may never happen, and I couldn't end up with the same end result no matter how hard I tried. E.g. mutations have been important in the development of different apple varieties. http://www.botany.wisc.edu/courses/botany_940/06CropEvol/papers/Harris&02.pdf

I don't know how old the poster you are responding to is. However, even s/he is very young, this kind of development may take longer than a human lifetime. Hence it may not be possible for any of 'us' to do this. If by 'you' you mean the human race, then I beleive that it is possible to develop, from wild cabbage or the wolf, creatures as different from the original source as broccoli or chihuahuas.

The farm fox project in the Soviet Union and now Russia has experimented with domesticating silver foxes. There are already clear signs of how genetic selection for temperament can lead to accompanying other changes such as piebald colouration and floppy ears if I remember correctly. I believe that the original researcher who set up the farm fox project has passed on, but the work has been continued by one of his students. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment EDIT: Interesting - this article says that dogs are a different species from the original wolf - Canis lupus for the wolf, and Canis familiaris for the dog. That's yet another example of mankind creating a new species.

So, if by 'you' you mean the human race, so that you're asking if we could develop wild cabbage into something as different from wild cabbage as broccoli is from wild cabbage, then I think that humans could do it.

However, my argument is that we have selectively bred dogs into creatures so different that if we found them in the wild, we'd call them different species. Even if we couldn't do it again (which I don't believe) my point would still stand.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And that man-made fruitfly is a "listen closely" - subspecies. Adapted by local conditions - or man - it is infraspecific taxa - despite any claims to the contrary. Again - your own science betrays your strawmen.

I missed this. The man-made fruitfly isn't a subspecies, it's a new species. It has been given the species name Drosophila synthetica, as opposed to the species it was developed from: Drosophila melanogaster. http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed

 

[Loudmouth]

Birds that do not breed are separate species. Birds that do breed are separate species. Birds that do interbreed are also the same species. You have no consistency - merely what you decide they should be on any given day.

Your error is in thinking that incipient speciation is permanent. It isn't. The beginnings of speciation can be undone.

You are getting hung up on definitions instead of looking at what scientists focus on which is the mechanisms and the results of those mechanisms. When you have two populations that do not currently interbreed, what does this result in? It results in different mutations accumulating in different populations. This causes divergence over time. This process is what scientists call speciation. If those two populations do start interbreeding before the divergence causes infertility, then that divergence can be undone.

It is your erroneous belief that separate species can interbreed.

Separate species can interbreed. They will remain separate species as long as the amount of interbreeding does not undo the divergence caused by earlier stages of speciation. Again, you are getting hung up on being a dictionary Nazi instead of looking at how populations actually behave.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First, it is not my classification system. The species that I list are all the accepted species names for these organisms. These have been decided by the scientific community, not by me. I've given you species names so you can check this out if you like.

You say that it is '[my] erroneous belief that separate species can interbreed.' It is not an erroneous belief. I have given you names of real species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I've even given you examples of plants from whole different genuses that can crossbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Here's another one, backed up by a reference. The british freshwater fish roach and bream which are different species (not decided by me) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Depending on the history of hybridisation the hybrid fish may even have quite high fertility.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10641269908951360

Here's the abstract.



Note the very relevant (to our discussion) words 'The validity of species concepts with reproductive isolation in their definition is questioned.'

There are loads of examples of different species (not decided by me) that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (not made up by me). Hence, your whole argument that different species cannot breed and produce fertile offspring is demonstrably wrong.

You then discussed 'your claimed Darwin's Finches being separate species. I never said anything about Darwin's Finches, not anything about the Coelacanth, not about quite a few other things you then went on to, so I am going to ignore those irrelevant diversions in this post.

My point is that in selectively breeding both Great Danes and Pugs (replacing Pugs with Chihuahuas makes an even better example) we have produced organisms that are different enough that if they occurred in the wild we would call them different species. You have a counter-argument that since in theory they can produce fertile offspring they cannot be different species. I have given you examples that organisms are often grouped into different species even though they can (and do) hybridise and produce fertile offspring.

Broccoli and Brussel Sprouts are another example. If they were present in the wild, they would be called different species.

And there are examples where we have produced new species. Cross-breeding plants of different genuses have produced new plants of a different species. Finally genetic manipulation has produced a fruit fly of a new species. So, clearly we can and have produced new species.

The concept of a 'species' is far far, less clear-cut than you claim. And there are a LOT of organisms out there that we group into different species even though they are able to (and do) breed and produce fertile offspring. If we had discovered Great Danes and Pugs living in the natural world, we would have assigned them to different species.

And those hybrids are - as you well know - merely infraspecific taxa - brought about by local conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Or are you denying this is what has occurred? They never were separate species by their (your) own definitions. You consistently avoid this topic, because you know there is no defense against ignoring one's own definitions. Or are you so far under the sway of Fairie Dust you can not even admit when claims do not match the scientific definitions? "They" can say whatever they like - as long as "we" both understand nothing "they" say matches up with their own definitions of species - nor what causes speciation.

Probably why you were so eager to avoid taking claim of the science you claim to follow.

We would not call pugs in the wild a separate species - unless you were totally unaware of their lineage. If you did, you would be wrong, and we both know this - since they are merely different breeds of the same species. All man has done is accelerated the natural timetable of possible variation within the Canidae genome, by bringing together what might have taken naturally millions of years by nature through migration from famine, disease, etc.

And is what occurs with every animal in existence. So your attempt to deny the truth that they are all one species - beyond any doubt whatsoever - in an attempt to uphold classifications you know to be wrong - is beyond comprehension. And not worthy of someone claiming to follow science. I could care less what "they" say - they have said many things - and every one of them has proven to be wrong. I'm interested only in what "you" think, as I am not talking to "them."

All I want to know is if you are going to accept the scientific definitions as they are, or is the conversation basically going to go nowhere since we have no agreement of what constitutes what scientifically?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I missed this. The man-made fruitfly isn't a subspecies, it's a new species. It has been given the species name Drosophila synthetica, as opposed to the species it was developed from: Drosophila melanogaster. http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed

I don't care what they say to get their names in the books as the discoverer of a new species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

You can ignore the scientific definitions all you want and believe in Fairie Dust. Just do not expect any rational person to ignore those definitions. Whether by man or nature - it is local conditions which brought it about - it is a subspecies by your very own definitions. Definitions I could care less if they ignore - but since you are in this conversation you can not. You can't even use your own scientific definitions to back up your own claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

And those hybrids are - as you well know - merely infraspecific taxa - brought about by local conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

A rose by any other name will smell as sweet. Again, you are getting hung up on being a definition Nazi.

If two populations do not interbreed, will this cause divergence between their gene pools? Yep, sure will. Does this conclusion go away just because it is possible for these two populations to interbreed in the future? Nope. As long as they don't interbreed, divergence will continue. At some point it will be like the situation between humans and chimps, a complete lack of interbreeding due to an accumulation of differences.

We would not call pugs in the wild a separate species - unless you were totally unaware of their lineage. If you did, you would be wrong, and we both know this - since they are merely different breeds of the same species. All man has done is accelerated the natural timetable of possible variation within the Canidae genome, by bringing together what might have taken naturally millions of years by nature through migration from famine, disease, etc.

How are de novo mutations in the pug population making their way into the wolf population? If there is a lack of genetic flow between the populations, how can this not result in divergence over time?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your error is in thinking that incipient speciation is permanent. It isn't. The beginnings of speciation can be undone.

You are getting hung up on definitions instead of looking at what scientists focus on which is the mechanisms and the results of those mechanisms. When you have two populations that do not currently interbreed, what does this result in? It results in different mutations accumulating in different populations. This causes divergence over time. This process is what scientists call speciation. If those two populations do start interbreeding before the divergence causes infertility, then that divergence can be undone.

Separate species can interbreed. They will remain separate species as long as the amount of interbreeding does not undo the divergence caused by earlier stages of speciation. Again, you are getting hung up on being a dictionary Nazi instead of looking at how populations actually behave.

Your error is to believe speciation ever occurred in the first place - breed mates with breed producing new breeds. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Nothing of what you claim matches observations of the natural world, but exists only in your own mind.

Why do you not call an African a separate species? There is no more genetic difference between mankind as there is between dogs, or those Finches of Darwin's. Your claims sound a little weak to me, being you won't accept the logical conclusion of your own claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your error is to believe speciation ever occurred in the first place

I have the evidence that separate species do share a common ancestor. Specifically, there are 200,000 ERV's shared by humans and chimps which are smoking gun evidence that we share a common ancestor.

Why do you not call an African a separate species? There is no more genetic difference between mankind as there is between dogs, or those Finches of Darwin's. Your claims sound a little weak to me.

None of which are the species under question.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I don't care what they say to get their names in the books as the discoverer of a new species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

You can ignore the scientific definitions all you want and believe in Fairie Dust. Just do not expect any rational person to ignore those definitions. Whether by man or nature - it is local conditions which brought it about - it is a subspecies by your very own definitions. Definitions I could care less if they ignore - but since you are in this conversation you can not. You can't even use your own scientific definitions to back up your own claims.

One person does not decide what is a species and what is not. It's a community effort. And the new fruitfly species has been accepted as a new species. It is not an infraspecific taxa such as a subspecies, it is fully accepted as a species. By the scientific community.

Same as: wolves and dogs are now different species. Canis lupus and Canis familiaris.

Every single example of a species that I have given is the currently accepted species assignment as per the scientific community. If you want to claim that I have them wrong, name one case where I've used the wrong species name. (When you did, it was easy to show that you were wrong. E.g. the fruit fly).

And you say that pugs and great danes wouldn't be assigned different species if they were found in the wild. Yes they would. There is no species in the wild that differs morphologically as much as pugs and great danes which aren't assigned to separate species. If you disagree with this, please name the species with morphological variation between populations as much as great danes and pugs which is assigned a single species.

And yes, I'm following official and widely accepted definitiions of species, species concepts, and officially recognised species names/assignments.

And claiming that they wouldn't be assigned different species names because 'they are different breeds of the same species' ignores the whole point. I am saying that 'great danes and pugs would be assigned to different species if they were found living in the wild.' In which case, they would have appeared naturally by the normal processes of evolution and speciation. And their real-world human mediated history would be irrelevant in that hypothetical situation. I'm not saying that they are different species (they aren't, they are both Canis familiaris), just that humans have been able to selectively breed animals enough to produce results that would be different species had they arisen by natural processes.

Emphasising this bit of what you say:

I don't care what they say to get their names in the books as the discoverer of a new species.

In other words, you don't care what the scientific community says, you prefer your own made-up version of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

EDIT: Sorry DogmaHunter, I may have mistaken the context of your reply. I'll leave mine here as I think I've added useful content to the discussion as a whole, even though it doesn't properly follow your post.

No problem. It was a great post

That's a tricky question. To recreate these organisms might not just depend on selective breeding of preexisting traits. It might depend on the random mutations that have occurred during and after domestication. If I tried to reproduce the development of these organisms the same random mutations may never happen, and I couldn't end up with the same end result no matter how hard I tried. E.g. mutations have been important in the development of different apple varieties.

Yep, that was my point.
The poster I replied to (along with some others) are the kind of people who will claim that the "information" to create a chiwawa was already present in the original species from which it evolved (oeps!! ).

If that is true, then it SHOULD be possible to repeat this process and thus start again with the original ancestral population and have that result in chiwawa's once again.

However, if evolution works like biologists think it does - then this is problematic.
Because indeed, while we can steer the evolutionary path through artificial selection, we have no control over which mutations take place and which not.

I'ld dare to say that if we would try to recreate such breeds / species by starting with the original species.... we would never succeed.

The chiwawa, just like any other species/breed, is the end result of a long line of unique genetic changes that ultimately have random components. We can surely successfully breed for traits like speed, size, strength, taste, etc.
But we have no control on how those traits are produced by the underlying genetics.

That is a direct refutation of the idea that the "information" for chiwawa's was already present in the original wolf.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, do you think that you could recreate brussels sprouts and brocolli by starting with the original ancestral wild gabbage plant?

That seems to be what you are saying.

Ditto for dogs.

Do you think you could recreate a chiwawa, labrador or rottweiler by starting with the original ancestral wild wolf?

Since we did just that, why yes they could. And do over and over and over again without even trying.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Because mutations only work with pre-existing genomes - and never create anything not already contained within. Merely existing information written into new dominant and recessive traits. Information may be lost, but it is never gained. It may be re coded, but only from what exists. This is why those actually working with mutations in plant and animal husbandry - versus theory - have all but abandoned it as a viable factor. For it only ever after a set time, brings recurrent variations that have already occurred before - until nothing new is ever produced. As we are beginning to see the variation possible in dogs begin to play out, due to man's accelerated timetable. And yet we all understand that dogs are all of one species - merely breeds (infraspecific taxa). I would agree that any that possibly are no longer able to mate could be classified as a subspecies of the Canidae species. This event has already been anticipated in the scientific definition of species - instead of everyone's own opinion.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Since we did just that, why yes they could. And do over and over and over again without even trying.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Because mutations only work with pre-existing genomes - and never create anything not already contained within. Merely existing information written into new dominant and recessive traits. Information may be lost, but it is never gained. It may be re coded, but only from what exists. This is why those actually working with mutations in plant and animal husbandry - versus theory - have all but abandoned it as a viable factor. For it only ever after a set time, brings recurrent variations that have already occurred before - until nothing new is ever produced. As we are beginning to see the variation possible in dogs begin to play out, due to man's accelerated timetable. And yet we all understand that dogs are all of one species - merely breeds (infraspecific taxa). I would agree that any that possibly are no longer able to mate could be classified as a subspecies of the Canidae species. This event has already been anticipated in the scientific definition of species - instead of everyone's own opinion.

Your paper describes treating homozygous lines of plants with mutagenic agents. It is found that a finite number of different mutants can be created. You appear to be claiming that this means that it's impossible for mutation to 'break out' of this limited set of mutations.

First, homozygous means that all of the plants have exactly the same DNA. They are clones. So, we have only one genetic sequence.

There are lots of ways in which your claim (if I have paraphrased it correctly) is wrong. Fundamentally the reason is that in the experiment reported in that paper only one generation of one homozygotic plant was mutated. There is nothing wrong with the paper, it's very good, but you appear to be claiming that it says something that it doesn't. I'll explain.

As an example, we are only talking about a single mutation step. The amount of mutation must be limited. Many mutations will be so bad that a plant with that mutation will not grow. Some mutations will be bad but allow the plant will grow. Rarely there will be a mutation that improves fitness. 0.5 to 1% in the paper you reference. Very importantly, the chance that two or more beneficial (or even neutral) phenotype mutations occuring at once is going to be so small that it is incredibly unlikely to be seen in the plants created. Three or more beneficial mutations at once? Four? You can see how unlikely it becomes. As the likelihood of multiple beneficial mutations goes up slightly at a higher mutation rate, the chance of one or more bad mutations increases orders of magnitude faster. So, we can't mutate too much at once.

However, there were mutants created. If we have not just one new generation of plants produced, then there is a much higher chance that multiple beneficial and neutral mutations can build up. Let's say that the experimenters took all the mutants that could grow after the first round of experiments, created homozygotic populations, and applied the mutagenic agent again. There now should be a similar probability to the first experiment of producing mutated plants that are able to grow, and have beneficial mutations. Second generation mutants that had two (or more in the rare case that two or more mutations occurred in one generation) mutations that affected the phenotype would show a much wider range of possible mutations. A third generation could be grown, which would now be how many possible mutations. Over generations, with growing of new populations of homozygotic mutated plants (massive numbers of separate populations) beneficial (or neutral or in this situation not too bad) mutations can accumulate. As each generation clenses the bad mutations, as they won't germinate or grow.

As the organism changes due to mutations, then the range of possible mutations will change. E.g. if a mutation turns on an inactive gene for a protein, then the organism will have two functioning genes. It's then possible that a mutation in one of these that changes the function for the protein will be selectively neutral (or beneficial) when previously it would have made the organism unable to grow. Hence, not just accumulation of mutations can occur in multiple generations, the possibility of new mutations can arise.

BTW: There are other ways in which genetic novelty can occur. E.g. introgressive genes due to hybridisation.

TLDR; even if the range of mutations that is feasible in one mutation step is limited, that is no reason to believe that the range of mutations possible in endless generations with natural selection in action is limited.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your paper describes treating homozygous lines of plants with mutagenic agents. It is found that a finite number of different mutants can be created. You appear to be claiming that this means that it's impossible for mutation to 'break out' of this limited set of mutations.

First, homozygous means that all of the plants have exactly the same DNA. They are clones. So, we have only one genetic sequence.

There are lots of ways in which your claim (if I have paraphrased it correctly) is wrong. Fundamentally the reason is that in the experiment reported in that paper only one generation of one homozygotic plant was mutated. There is nothing wrong with the paper, it's very good, but you appear to be claiming that it says something that it doesn't. I'll explain.

As an example, we are only talking about a single mutation step. The amount of mutation must be limited. Many mutations will be so bad that a plant with that mutation will not grow. Some mutations will be bad but allow the plant will grow. Rarely there will be a mutation that improves fitness. 0.5 to 1% in the paper you reference. Very importantly, the chance that two or more beneficial (or even neutral) phenotype mutations occuring at once is going to be so small that it is incredibly unlikely to be seen in the plants created. Three or more beneficial mutations at once? Four? You can see how unlikely it becomes. As the likelihood of multiple beneficial mutations goes up slightly at a higher mutation rate, the chance of one or more bad mutations increases orders of magnitude faster. So, we can't mutate too much at once.

However, there were mutants created. If we have not just one new generation of plants produced, then there is a much higher chance that multiple beneficial and neutral mutations can build up. Let's say that the experimenters took all the mutants that could grow after the first round of experiments, created homozygotic populations, and applied the mutagenic agent again. There now should be a similar probability to the first experiment of producing mutated plants that are able to grow, and have beneficial mutations. Second generation mutants that had two (or more in the rare case that two or more mutations occurred in one generation) mutations that affected the phenotype would show a much wider range of possible mutations. A third generation could be grown, which would now be how many possible mutations. Over generations, with growing of new populations of homozygotic mutated plants (massive numbers of separate populations) beneficial (or neutral or in this situation not too bad) mutations can accumulate. As each generation clenses the bad mutations, as they won't germinate or grow.

As the organism changes due to mutations, then the range of possible mutations will change. E.g. if a mutation turns on an inactive gene for a protein, then the organism will have two functioning genes. It's then possible that a mutation in one of these that changes the function for the protein will be selectively neutral (or beneficial) when previously it would have made the organism unable to grow. Hence, not just accumulation of mutations can occur in multiple generations, the possibility of new mutations can arise.

BTW: There are other ways in which genetic novelty can occur. E.g. introgressive genes due to hybridisation.

TLDR; even if the range of mutations that is feasible in one mutation step is limited, that is no reason to believe that the range of mutations possible in endless generations with natural selection in action is limited.

No, the paper clearly told you that mutation only brings about a limited set of variations before new ones are no longer seen. Why do you refuse to accept over 80+ years of experimental evidence in actual mutations in breeding plants and animals?

All you are spiting at me is theory - what you "believe" will occur. I showed you over 80 years of the actual mutations and you still wont accept the data. What was shown was that mutations are not a viable source of creating new genes - After a period of time could not be made to produce anything new at all, because all the possible variations were used. No new phenotype could then be mutated. And so they went back to the only way known to create new breeds of plants and animals - crossing two breeds to make a third. Whether by mating - cross-pollination or splicing. Because mutations were found to be useless.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No, the paper clearly told you that mutation only brings about a limited set of variations before new ones are no longer seen. Why do you refuse to accept over 80+ years of experimental evidence in actual mutations in breeding plants and animals?

All you are spiting at me is theory - what you "believe" will occur. I showed you over 80 years of the actual mutations and you still wont accept the data. What was shown was that mutations are not a viable source of creating new genes - After a period of time could not be made to produce anything new at all, because all the possible variations were used. No new phenotype could then be mutated. And so they went back to the only way known to create new breeds of plants and animals - crossing two breeds to make a third. Whether by mating - cross-pollination or splicing. Because mutations were found to be useless.

Your paper specifically deals with 'homozygous lines'. The paper does show that there is a limited set of variations that will be seen when a homozygous line is treated with a mutagenic agent. The paper says very little about mutation in evolution, because evolution does not deal with homzygous populations, and also because mutations can be cumulative over generations.

I suspect that you don't understand what a homozygous line is. And so that therefore you fail to understand the consquences of the research (the research in the paper iteself is good and interesting) for evolution.

Here's an important clue for you. The genetic analysis of closely related organisms such as chimps and humans shows that large numbers of mutations have built up over time. E.g. http://www.livescience.com/46300-chimpanzee-evolution-dna-mutations.html If there was only a small set of mutations available in total, then it would be impossible for chimps and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. It's the action of repeated mutation then selection over generations that allows mutations to build up cumulatively, rather than what we see in a single step as in your experiments, that allows organisms to change much more than was observed in your experiment.

BTW, mutations are a viable way of producing new genes. 0.5 to 1% of observed mutations were found to be beneficial. That's the figure from your paper. All we need is a way of getting more mutations, and that's cumulative accumulation of mutations over many generations, unlike the single generation in the experiment described in your paper.

BTW: I am not rejecting any research, I am rejecting (and I believe conclusively rebutting) your interpretation of the consequences of the paper.

PS: Why do you reject well over 100 years of research into evolution?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your paper specifically deals with 'homozygous lines'. The paper does show that there is a limited set of variations that will be seen when a homozygous line is treated with a mutagenic agent. The paper says very little about mutation in evolution, because evolution does not deal with homzygous populations, and also because mutations can be cumulative over generations.

I suspect that you don't understand what a homozygous line is. And so that therefore you fail to understand the consquences of the research (the research in the paper iteself is good and interesting) for evolution.

Here's an important clue for you. The genetic analysis of closely related organisms such as chimps and humans shows that large numbers of mutations have built up over time. E.g. http://www.livescience.com/46300-chimpanzee-evolution-dna-mutations.html If there was only a small set of mutations available in total, then it would be impossible for chimps and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. It's the action of repeated mutation then selection over generations that allows mutations to build up cumulatively, rather than what we see in a single step as in your experiments, that allows organisms to change much more than was observed in your experiment.

BTW, mutations are a viable way of producing new genes. 0.5 to 1% of observed mutations were found to be beneficial. That's the figure from your paper. All we need is a way of getting more mutations, and that's cumulative accumulation of mutations over many generations, unlike the single generation in the experiment described in your paper.

BTW: I am not rejecting any research, I am rejecting (and I believe conclusively rebutting) your interpretation of the consequences of the paper.

PS: Why do you reject well over 100 years of research into evolution?

So you are going to outright lie to people and try to convince them that all humans or not of a homogeneous line?

That all pea plants are not of a homogeneous line?

That all red tailed deer in nature are not of a homogeneous line?

Show me a population of related individuals that isn't?

Take your Fairie Dust and excuses for accepting the science elsewhere please. And a sad attempt at a strawman at that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homogeneous

Shoe me a breeding population in nature which does not fit this category? That's what I thought, your strawmen do you no good - and only shows your unwillingness to accept the real science in front of you in favor of Fairie Dust. Becasue your claims of homozygous lines are strawmenr - since that is not the conventional way to produce plant hybrids in plant husbandry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubled_haploidy

"The main disadvantage with the DH population is that selection cannot be imposed on the population. But in conventional breeding selection can be practised for several generations:"

And what they do not tell you is that after those several generations - nothing new can then be produced.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since we did just that, why yes they could

We did it once.

I asked if you think you could do it again.

And do over and over and over again without even trying.

Because mutations only work with pre-existing genomes - and never create anything not already contained within.

Do you realise that this is demonstrably false?

When a mutation duplicates a gene, then it has just created a gene in a place where it did not exist before.

When a mutation changes a C into a T, then it just created a T where there was a C before.

Merely existing information written into new dominant and recessive traits. Information may be lost, but it is never gained. It may be re coded, but only from what exists. This is why those actually working with mutations in plant and animal husbandry - versus theory - have all but abandoned it as a viable factor. For it only ever after a set time, brings recurrent variations that have already occurred before - until nothing new is ever produced. As we are beginning to see the variation possible in dogs begin to play out, due to man's accelerated timetable. And yet we all understand that dogs are all of one species - merely breeds (infraspecific taxa). I would agree that any that possibly are no longer able to mate could be classified as a subspecies of the Canidae species. This event has already been anticipated in the scientific definition of species - instead of everyone's own opinion.

I guess you can put your money where your mouth is.
Inform me once you have successfully reproduced broccoli starting with the ancestral gabbage plant.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since we did just that, why yes they could. And do over and over and over again without even trying.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Because mutations only work with pre-existing genomes - and never create anything not already contained within.

Where does the evidence in that paper support that claim?

Merely existing information written into new dominant and recessive traits.

If it was already existing information, then why weren't there dominant and recessive traits before that?

Why do you think humans and chimps look different from each other? Do you agree that it is due to the differences in the DNA sequences within their respective genomes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We did it once.

I asked if you think you could do it again.

I answered you:

"Since we did just that, why yes they could. And do over and over and over again without even trying.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf"

They just ain't doing it in plant and animal husbandry anymore except on the rare occasion.

I'm sure you can't do it again either - being none of us have a plant or animal husbandry lab handy. But they can and do - every time they mutate things. Over and over they produce only the same limited variations.

Do you realise that this is demonstrably false?

When a mutation duplicates a gene, then it has just created a gene in a place where it did not exist before.

Which is a duplicate with only minor differences from the original. Not because things were added - but because it was transcribed into a different combination.

When a mutation changes a C into a T, then it just created a T where there was a C before.

Except it didn't do that, it wrote the T into the spot where the C went - and wrote the C into the spot where the T went - in this two letter strawman game of yours. C did not magically become T. T might have been duplicated and rewritten into the C spot and the C deleted out of the chain. But in the end it used only what already existed.

Mutations create nothing - only mutate what already exists into a format different than before - which the genome does naturally every time male and female chromosomes are combined.

I guess you can put your money where your mouth is.
Inform me once you have successfully reproduced broccoli starting with the ancestral gabbage plant.

I guess you still refuse to read and understand.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Every plant they mutate shows only the same variations over and over. But you are still praying and hoping for that one out of a gazillion aren't you. Strong is your faith in the force Obi Wan.

Or are you saying they classified everything incorrectly?

 

[Loudmouth]

I answered you:

"Since we did just that, why yes they could. And do over and over and over again without even trying.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf"

They just ain't doing it in plant and animal husbandry anymore except on the rare occasion.

How does the data in that paper support that conclusion?

Which is a duplicate with only minor differences from the original. Not because things were added - but because it was transcribed into a different combination.

Huh? "Transcribed into different combinations"? What does that even mean?

Except it didn't do that, it wrote the T into the spot where the C went - and wrote the C into the spot where the T went - in this two letter strawman game of yours. C did not magically become T. T might have been duplicated and rewritten into the C spot and the C deleted out of the chain. But in the end it used only what already existed.

No, it isn't what existed. It is different now compared to what it was.

Mutations create nothing - only mutate what already exists into a format different than before - which the genome does naturally every time male and female chromosomes are combined.

Then please explain why chimps and humans look different. The scientific explanation is because our genomes are different. Are you saying this isn't the case?

Every plant they mutate shows only the same variations over and over.

Are you saying that humans and chimps are the same variation?