Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of Evolution only talk of population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck, not global bottleneck vs local bottleneck.

In your all the times, you argue with @Dan From Smithville in the last months this year, not once did you ever bring up "local bottlenecks". This is the first time you mention such thing.

You are the one playing word game, cladking. You are trying to invent a new bottleneck where none exist.

Try reading biology textbook, and stop making up words or modifying the meanings of known words to suit your deluded fantasies.

Plus, your example of dog breeding, isn't Evolution and isn't speciation. Breeding dogs to have certain desired physical traits (hence Artificial Selection), but there are no "changes to species" as you claim. They are still the same species, just different breeds.

Breeding dogs for certain traits, DON'T INVOLVE ANY BOTTLENECKS!

You clearly don't know what a bottleneck is.

Stop pretending you understand biology.

I had go back and look, but all that talk about local and global bottlenecks is nonsense. I see a claim that breeding reduces variation in a population, and that bottlenecks are the source of variation. Neither of those is a correct use of the term bottleneck and neither of those claims have any merit.

Mutation is the primary source of variation, but other sources include recombination, migration and even horizontal gene flow. Breeding would be a source of novel genes and increased variation locally and globally. It would matter if the novel gene or genes increase fitness and selection continues until that variation becomes fixed in the population. If it doesn't increase fitness, then it is not likely to remain in the population for very long or only persist at very low levels.

I'm not sure how someone that is so out of touch with the facts can conceive of these ideas and consider them valid without bothering to even find out or look for some sort of evidence that would support such ideas where they might be possible.

Tossing a poor little assertion, naked, afraid and unsupported into the grinder of critical evaluation seems such a cruel thing to do.

 

[John53]

I had go back and look, but all that talk about local and global bottlenecks is nonsense. I see a claim that breeding reduces variation in a population, and that bottlenecks are the source of variation. Neither of those is a correct use of the term bottleneck and neither of those claims have any merit.

Mutation is the primary source of variation, but other sources include recombination, migration and even horizontal gene flow. Breeding would be a source of novel genes and increased variation locally and globally. It would matter if the novel gene or genes increase fitness and selection continues until that variation becomes fixed in the population. If it doesn't increase fitness, then it is not likely to remain in the population for very long or only persist at very low levels.

I'm not sure how someone that is so out of touch with the facts can conceive of these ideas and consider them valid without bothering to even find out or look for some sort of evidence that would support such ideas where they might be possible.

Tossing a poor little assertion, naked, afraid and unsupported into the grinder of critical evaluation seems such a cruel thing to do.

We had a biologist give a talk at our bird club a couple of years ago, he was researching Long-tailed Finches for a development application of a proposed coal mine. He was saying they compared the DNA of the wild LT finches with captive LT finches and there were a lot of differences. Then he found the wild birds were divided into two different groups by a large dam and there was a lot of genetic difference between those 2 groups even though they were in fairly close proximity. Probably has nothing to do with the conversation here but I found it interesting. The sad part is the mine has gone ahead despite his work and LT finches look like heading to the endangered list. The talk was during covid and was over zoom so it's probably recorded somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We had a biologist give a talk at our bird club a couple of years ago, he was researching Long-tailed Finches for a development application of a proposed coal mine. He was saying they compared the DNA of the wild LT finches with captive LT finches and there were a lot of differences. Then he found the wild birds were divided into two different groups by a large dam and there was a lot of genetic difference between those 2 groups even though they were in fairly close proximity. Probably has nothing to do with the conversation here but I found it interesting. The sad part is the mine has gone ahead despite his work and LT finches look like heading to the endangered list. The talk was during covid and was over zoom so it's probably recorded somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it.

It could indicate the very early stages of allopatric speciation. Speciation where a geographic barrier separates a species into two or more populations with reduced gene flow eventually becoming isolated from each other. The LT finches, a dam and two populations with recognizable distinctions. Of course, gene flow could open back up and shut the process down. Or it might continue until some time in the distant future there are two species. Or, as the endangered designation implies, the species might go extinct or one or both populations could. Or...?

I've been sort of curious about the house finch in the US. It is a western species that was introduced into the east. Over time, the eastern population has been expanding westward. If they meet will they still be able to interbreed? Probably. They haven't been separated that long. But the idea is interesting and any hypotheses regarding the nature of the western and eastern populations would require data to accept or reject. I would bet that there has been the evolution of some notable differences though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We had a biologist give a talk at our bird club a couple of years ago, he was researching Long-tailed Finches for a development application of a proposed coal mine. He was saying they compared the DNA of the wild LT finches with captive LT finches and there were a lot of differences. Then he found the wild birds were divided into two different groups by a large dam and there was a lot of genetic difference between those 2 groups even though they were in fairly close proximity. Probably has nothing to do with the conversation here but I found it interesting. The sad part is the mine has gone ahead despite his work and LT finches look like heading to the endangered list. The talk was during covid and was over zoom so it's probably recorded somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it.

I'm curious what it is about the dam that acts as a barrier to a bird.

I would say that it is an example very relevant to the discussion.

 

[John53]

It could indicate the very early stages of allopatric speciation. Speciation where a geographic barrier separates a species into two or more populations with reduced gene flow eventually becoming isolated from each other. The LT finches, a dam and two populations with recognizable distinctions. Of course, gene flow could open back up and shut the process down. Or it might continue until some time in the distant future there are two species. Or, as the endangered designation implies, the species might go extinct or one or both populations could. Or...?

The mine is going to be the largest mine in the southern hemisphere and they plan on using the dam water to wash the coal so it's both populations.

Conservationists accuse Adani of ‘sidelining’ experts on endangered black-throated finch

Miner says it’s ‘fully compliant’ with obligations to protect species, department rejects accusations

www.theguardian.com

I've been sort of curious about the house finch in the US. It is a western species that was introduced into the east. Over time, the eastern population has been expanding westward. If they meet will they still be able to interbreed? Probably. They haven't been separated that long. But the idea is interesting and any hypotheses regarding the nature of the western and eastern populations would require data to accept or reject. I would bet that there has been the evolution of some notable differences though.

I often wonder a similar thing with introduced species like the House Sparrow. I know the house sparrows in California look different to the ones here. I'd like to compare them to the originals in Europe.

 

[John53]

I'm curious what it is about the dam that acts as a barrier to a bird.

I would say that it is an example very relevant to the discussion.

I'm not sure but I wondered the same thing when he was giving the talk. I'm trying to find out if the bird club kept a record of it. My memory may have forgotten key details.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The mine is going to be the largest mine in the southern hemisphere and they plan on using the dam water to wash the coal so it's both populations.

Conservationists accuse Adani of ‘sidelining’ experts on endangered black-throated finch

Miner says it’s ‘fully compliant’ with obligations to protect species, department rejects accusations

www.theguardian.com

I often wonder a similar thing with introduced species like the House Sparrow. I know the house sparrows in California look different to the ones here. I'd like to compare them to the originals in Europe.

I'm not sure of all the locations where House Sparrows have taken up residence, but a comparison of the native populations with those of the US and Australia could likely be very enlightening regarding evolution in general. You don't get much better barriers than entire continents separated by vast oceans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure but I wondered the same thing when he was giving the talk. I'm trying to find out if the bird club kept a record of it. My memory may have forgotten key details.

I'm trying to remember some tiny little fact gleaned from some past talk I attended, but there was something about a similar sort of barrier that prevented the intermingling of the populations of some species that wouldn't otherwise be thought of as a barrier. I can't recall, but what I remember is that the barrier had been studied and it was some trivial little detail about the barrier that was actually the barrier and not the structure itself.

I have doubts I will recall it, but if I do, I'll mention it here.

Have a good night. I've stayed up much later than I intended and need to get to bed. It was good chatting with you and @gnostic.

 

[John53]

I'm not sure of all the locations where House Sparrows have taken up residence, but a comparison of the native populations with those of the US and Australia could likely be very enlightening regarding evolution in general. You don't get much better barriers than entire continents separated by vast oceans.

I just did some reading on house sparrows and there's 12 subspecies which could account for the differences I noticed.

 

[gnostic]

Fortunately, the empty and extraordinary claims get repeated with severity, so even if you miss it the first 1,000 times, you still will see it come back up. Much like a vultures dinner.

that will give me indigestion.

 

[cladking]

Maybe there's an easier way to explain "artificial bottleneck" to those who don't want to know by using Ancient Language;

Og: Where did you get that dog? I've never heard of such a thing;
Tark; They came from different type of wolves.
Og; There's only one type of wolf.
Tark; Not any more. We bred the tame ones.
Og; Mebbe we can do the same thing with other plants and animals and put down roots.

Tark invented dogs by means of artificial bottlenecks and then Og invented agriculture by means of extrapolation and theory. Of course cavemen were a lot smarter than we are and didn't know everything to blind them or have beliefs to lead them in circles..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe there's an easier way to explain "artificial bottleneck" to those who don't want to know by using Ancient Language;

Og: Where did you get that dog? I've never heard of such a thing;
Tark; They came from different type of wolves.
Og; There's only one type of wolf.
Tark; Not any more. We bred the tame ones.
Og; Mebbe we can do the same thing with other plants and animals and put down roots.

Tark invented dogs by means of artificial bottlenecks and then Og invented agriculture by means of extrapolation and theory. Of course cavemen were a lot smarter than we are and didn't know everything to blind them or have beliefs to lead them in circles..

550,000 hits in .08 seconds indicates that the easier way was defined a long time before you hijacked the term to use in place of selection. Your use of it is simply wrong based on the evidence. You might as well call that nonsense you claim by the name daisy for all the good that would do.

Dogs were bred by choosing those wolves that had less aversion to close ties to humans. It was selection favoring traits that made them more fit in our eyes. Hence it was artificial selection.

There is no indication that agriculture developed as a concerted research effort. More likely it was simple observation and trying by Homo sapiens starting about 14,000 years ago.

You just love to make empty assertions as if they were somehow established facts. Your speculation is not an established fact and you offer no reason and never have for accepting them.

I think cave man was no more intelligent than we are and much, much more ignorant and likely had their own beliefs. That you acknowledge that you think in circles is not evidence everyone does and that answers we find are wrong merely because of your avowed weakness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe there's an easier way to explain "artificial bottleneck" to those who don't want to know by using Ancient Language;

Og: Where did you get that dog? I've never heard of such a thing;
Tark; They came from different type of wolves.
Og; There's only one type of wolf.
Tark; Not any more. We bred the tame ones.
Og; Mebbe we can do the same thing with other plants and animals and put down roots.

Tark invented dogs by means of artificial bottlenecks and then Og invented agriculture by means of extrapolation and theory. Of course cavemen were a lot smarter than we are and didn't know everything to blind them or have beliefs to lead them in circles..

What would be nice would be for you to follow through on what you claim.

1. Present Darwin's assumptions citing references that support they are the assumptions he used and then show us how they were wrong.
2. Provide evidence to support even one of your claims instead of wandering off to avoid the many, many requests for evidence.
3. Present valid reasons you would exclude Lenski's E. coli experiment and support those reasons.
4. Provide evidence that all change in all living things is sudden and not some silly meaningless comparison to star formation. Really!

You court allusions to being an expert in science. Show us the benefit of that expertise.

Empty claims without support are just the expressions of a belief system that can be dismissed without further address.

 

[cladking]

1. Present Darwin's assumptions citing references that support they are and then show us how they were wrong.

Here are some I never thought of before. He thought populations were stable, survival of the fittest changed species, and consciousness wasn't necessary to life or change in life.

I have dozens more but they all might look familiar to you. I even have a few I've never posted before but we can't get past the most obvious things like all observed change is sudden and all of reality occurs in events.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe there's an easier way to explain "artificial bottleneck" to those who don't want to know by using Ancient Language;

Og: Where did you get that dog? I've never heard of such a thing;
Tark; They came from different type of wolves.
Og; There's only one type of wolf.
Tark; Not any more. We bred the tame ones.
Og; Mebbe we can do the same thing with other plants and animals and put down roots.

Tark invented dogs by means of artificial bottlenecks and then Og invented agriculture by means of extrapolation and theory. Of course cavemen were a lot smarter than we are and didn't know everything to blind them or have beliefs to lead them in circles..

What you inappropriately term "artificial bottleneck" already has a description and has been previously identified by the term artificial selection.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you inappropriately term "artificial bottleneck" already has a description and has been previously identified by the term artificial selection.

Just ignore this. But the consequence of variation within a species is what is going on in this thread and many other threads. These threads are the confirmation of human variation and in the end tied to the 4 Fs to us as a social species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here are some I never thought of before. He thought populations were stable,

Wrong. The underlying assumption is that populations were not stable. It wouldn't make sense to see change in a stable population. Do you not think this stuff through at all?

survival of the fittest changed species,

Not an assumption of the theory. Natural selection is a conclusion based on observations and evidence.

and consciousness wasn't necessary to life or change in life.

Not relevant to the theory and an empty assertion presented with out evidence or reason to consider. It has already been established that bacteria do not possess consciousness or the means to house it and the group Prokaryota including bacteria were the first living things. Thus consciousness is not shown to be necessary for life.

There is no evidence that consciousness is required or involved in natural selection even if human consciousness is involved in artificial selection.

I have dozens more but they all might look familiar to you.

If they are your empty claims that is very likely, since you repeat them ad nauseum. If they are evidence and explanation, then no, no one has seen them.

I even have a few I've never posted before but we can't get past the most obvious things like all observed change is sudden and all of reality occurs in events.

It is not my fault or the fault of anyone else that your wild, grandiose and extraordinary claim that all observed change is sudden cannot be supported by anything actually observed.

It isn't us that can't get passed it or accept that some wild idea that you just love is absolutely incorrect.

 

[cladking]

You claim to be an expert in science. Show us the benefit of that expertise.

I never made such a claim. I have no expertise but I am a scientist. More than being a scientist I am a metaphysician. I am a generalist.

Take my word on it ofttimes seems I'd do much better with models just like most people. I make numerous stupid mistakes and have to start all over. I've come up with grandiose theories that were all wrong and alright. Of course mostly I've just tilted against windmills.

But what everyone seems to forget is it doesn't matter what I believe and it doesn't matter what any peer believes. Science, like life, must be practiced by individuals and the results of experiment is the only thing that matters. If Darwin had any experimental support there wouldn't be threads like this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just ignore this.

I don't know why. Your points seem valid, all-be-it rather well known.

But the consequence of variation within a species is what is going on in this thread and many other threads.

Yes. Variation that is not indicative of a stable population and the selection that acts on that variation, whether natural or artificial (human interference).

These threads are the confirmation of human variation and in the end tied to the 4 Fs to us as a social species.

I don't know what you mean by 4F's, but there is certainly variation in views with different levels of support from non-existent to well-supported. And these interactions do indicate we are a social species.

 

[cladking]

to see change in a stable population.

Population" means "number of individuals". Darwin believed the numbers of individuals were stable in species over time.