Degradation leads to adaptation and speciation.

[MarsCydonia]

So has to not clutter up another discussion, I hope Dandan will consider moving the discussion concerning his points here. I have issues to some of his claims and I would like an explanation:

1. Degradation leads to adaptation and to speciation.
I would like to understand how a few unidentified "kinds" from the ark have lead, through degradation, to the biodiversity we see to day, species adapted to their environment.

2. Extinction is more frequent than speciation.
I would like to understand how, if extinction is more frequent than speciation, biodiversity went from a few "kinds" to many more species in around 4,000 years.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If one is going to have this discussion, one might as well have the numbers and relevant links.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]However, MarsCydonia brings up a great point. Dandan claims that all the land animals (excluding amphibians and arthropods) are descended from 4,000 - 16,000 kinds. Yet, dandan also claims that there are ~16,100 species of land animals (counting only mammals, birds, and reptiles). Thus, based off your own argument, extinction has happened little to none since the time of Noah (if anything speciation is the norm if you take the low count of kinds). I am guessing that dandan does not believe non-avian dinosaurs and other “proto-mammals” made it onto the ark, thus explaining their extinction, but where is he getting this idea that extinction is dominant if his own numbers do not establish that. This is also before we factor in animals, such as the dodo and thylocene, which we know went extinct in recorded history.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Premise 2: Natural selection selects against detrimental effects

Interestingly, Gilbo12345 argues a point, in another forum, in opposition to Dandan as to why evolution does not happen. He is arguing that additional traits, cumulative changes of thses leading to over-expression of these traits, become detrimental and as such they cannot happen as natural selection would select against them.

So we have:
- Dandan who argues that detrimental changes are not selected against by natural selection.
- Gilbo12345 who argues that detrimental changes are selected against by natural selection.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So we have:
- Dandan who argues that detrimental changes are not selected against by natural selection.
- Gilbo12345 who argues that detrimental changes are selected against by natural selection.

Yet another example of the creationists not agreeing on what they deny. Yet, they still believe that we silly evolutionists should just know what they mean when they state they do not believe in evolution. One wonders when they will start cleaning up their own camp.

 

[Rumraket]

Premise 2: Natural selection selects against detrimental effects

Interestingly, Gilbo12345 argues a point, in another forum, in opposition to Dandan as to why evolution does not happen. He is arguing that additional traits, cumulative changes of thses leading to over-expression of these traits, become detrimental and as such they cannot happen as natural selection would select against them.

So we have:
- Dandan who argues that detrimental changes are not selected against by natural selection.
- Gilbo12345 who argues that detrimental changes are selected against by natural selection.

In this case Gilbo is right. Tautologically right.

If a mutation is detrimental, that means it has a negative effect on fitness. By definition. Detrimentality is by definition selected against, that's what we mean when we say it is detrimental: Selection is working against it.

What can complicate the picture is when a detrimental mutation piggybacks on an otherwise healthy genome also containing beneficial mutations. Given these preconditions selection cannot "pick out" the detrimental mutation, it can obviously only see the combined effect of the genome as a whole. It should be pretty obvious why - natural selection kills individual organisms (the carriers of mutations), it doesn't kill individual mutations. So if you have a genome containing both detrimental and beneficial mutations, the net effect might be just about neutral, obviously depending on how detrimental and how beneficial all the individual mutations are.

When we say a mutation is detrimental, but is not being selected against, we are simply stating that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, that mutation WOULD have a detrimental effect on the organism. But in reality it is rarely that simple with such idealized situations, there are always multiple mutations happening, and different organisms have different allelic combinations that offsets the effect of individual deleterious mutations.

 

[Rumraket]

With respect to Dandan's assertion that speciation and adaptation happens through degradation, there is actually some empirical precedence that this can take place. The mistake is thinking this is how all evolution can and does happen.

If Dandan seriously asserts that this is how all of extant biodiversity originated and adapted from a few original "kinds", I hope he will join me in testing the predictions of that hypothesis against a few simple observations.

 

[dandan]

So has to not clutter up another discussion, I hope Dandan will consider moving the discussion concerning his points here. I have issues to some of his claims and I would like an explanation:

1. Degradation leads to adaptation and to speciation.
I would like to understand how a few unidentified "kinds" from the ark have lead, through degradation, to the biodiversity we see to day, species adapted to their environment. .

This is not an extraordinary claim, this is known to be at least possible, and has been observed, for example a Chihuahua dog is basically a “degradeted wolf” for example Chihuahuas are small because they have a broken gene responsible for growth.

Degradation can cause an increase in diversity, that is not a controversial fact

2. Extinction is more frequent than speciation.
I would like to understand how, if extinction is more frequent than speciation, biodiversity went from a few "kinds" to many more species in around 4,000 years

Yes multiple lines of evidence suggest that extinction is more frequent than speciation, this represents a problem for both evolution and creation, because both models require the opposite to be true.
However as a creationists I have 2 solutions for this problem

1 speciation is itself a consequence of degradation*
*Consider this analogy, pretend that you have a complex cake with 100 ingredients, now pretend that you remove 1 ingredient every day, if you keep this trend then eventually you will end up with nothing but a uneatable piece of junk. However in the meanwhile you will have lots of different verities of cakes.

Uneatable piece of junk = extinction
Different varieties of cakes = different species

2 speciation is not cause by random mutations, as claimed by evolutionists but rather trough other nonrandom mechanisms such as NGE, gene transfer, plastic responsesetc.

As an evolutionists how would you solve this problem?

Just to be clear in this thread I will only answer to your comments

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is not an extraordinary claim, this is known to be at least possible, and has been observed, for example a Chihuahua dog is basically a “degradeted wolf” for example Chihuahuas are small because they have a broken gene responsible for growth.

What about a great Dane. Do they have a defective gene responsible for smallness?
And how do you know that the cause is a defective gene or otherwise?

2. Extinction is more frequent than speciation.
I would like to understand how, if extinction is more frequent than speciation, biodiversity went from a few "kinds" to many more species in around 4,000 years

Yes multiple lines of evidence suggest that extinction is more frequent than speciation, this represents a problem for both evolution and creation, because both models require the opposite to be true.

Allow me to disagree. Sorry, allow me to fundamentally disagree with the statement that extinction is more frequent than speciation.
The fact that are still species is a dead give away, (no pun intended).
How could there be species to go extinct if they haven't speciated into that species to begging with?

So everything that follows is just not applicable.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

2 speciation is not cause by random mutations, as claimed by evolutionists...

:facepalm:

This is false. We know what causes speciation; it is not caused by just random mutations. Moreover, we have observed it so often that we have different names for all the different types. Yet another example of dandan exposing his ignorance of basic facts when it comes to biology. One wonders how many times dandan can do this before he realizes that he is in need of an education and not a discussion.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Well, with some forms of allopatric speciation for instance the cause of speciation might not be any mutations but simply the fact that they don't recognize each other anymore as potential mates. Some years back I read a paper explaining this phenomenon for a certain species of bird that changed it mating song slightly.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well, with some forms of allopatric speciation for instance the cause of speciation might not be any mutations but simply the fact that they don't recognize each other anymore as potential mates. Some years back I read a paper explaining this phenomenon for a certain species of bird that changed it mating song slightly.

Ring species - this was dealt with in another thread with Gilbo: here, and here, with little-to-no success.

A more recent article shows that it's quite complicated:

Researchers map the epic evolution of a 'ring species'

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

This is not an extraordinary claim, this is known to be at least possible, and has been observed, for example a Chihuahua dog is basically a “degradeted wolf” for example Chihuahuas are small because they have a broken gene responsible for growth.

Degradation can cause an increase in diversity, that is not a controversial fact.

This does not answer the question, the chihuahua example seemingly displaying that you have not understood it so I will rephrase it.
Your claim is that a few "better genomed but less adapted "kinds"" have become "worse genomed but better adapted" species over time through degradation (if you allow me "genomed" as a word, I am sure you understand the intent).

"Evolutionists" would and certainly claim that natural selection as one of the mechanism that leads to a specie becoming adapted to its environment. You claim that degradation of the genome does the same. What I would like is an example where deterioration leads to better adaptation. You could continue with your chihuahua example, I am not even asking you to identify from which animal species degraded from and what were those degradations.

I really want to know how a "kind", through degradation, has descendants that have gained characteristics that help them survive to their environments which would have killed their "kind" ancestor.

Yes multiple lines of evidence suggest that extinction is more frequent than speciation, this represents a problem for both evolution and creation, because both models require the opposite to be true.
However as a creationists I have 2 solutions for this problem

1 speciation is itself a consequence of degradation*
*Consider this analogy, pretend that you have a complex cake with 100 ingredients, now pretend that you remove 1 ingredient every day, if you keep this trend then eventually you will end up with nothing but a uneatable piece of junk. However in the meanwhile you will have lots of different verities of cakes.

Uneatable piece of junk = extinction
Different varieties of cakes = different species

This does not answer the question either (although it is hilarious). Your claim is that extinction is more frequent than speciation. In other words, species disappear more than they appear. Another claim is also that there were fewer "kinds" on the ark than there are species today.

To you use your analogy, how can one cake become a hundred cakes if we eat more cakes than we cook? Even if the first cake is baked from one recipe with many ingredients and the subsequent cakes are cooked from recipes derived from the first, if there is more eating (or throwing away of uneatable cakes) than there is cooking, where does the cakes come from?

Saying that speciation is a consequence of degradation is not answer to point 2. It can be answer to point 1 but you would have to demonstrate it.

2 speciation is not cause by random mutations, as claimed by evolutionists but rather trough other nonrandom mechanisms such as NGE, gene transfer, plastic responsesetc.

Random mutations are only one of the mechanisms of speciation. If you know what evolution says, you should know the others (which are non-random) but if you intend to replace the theory of evolution, your mechanisms too would need to be demonstrated and I think there will be a Nobel prize in it for you if you do.

 

[dandan]

This is not an extraordinary claim, this is known to be at least possible, and has been observed, for example a Chihuahua dog is basically a “degradeted wolf” for example Chihuahuas are small because they have a broken gene responsible for growth.

Degradation can cause an increase in diversity, that is not a controversial fact.

This does not answer the question, the chihuahua example seemingly displaying that you have not understood it so I will rephrase it.
Your claim is that a few "better genomed but less adapted "kinds"" have become "worse genomed but better adapted" species over time through degradation (if you allow me "genomed" as a word, I am sure you understand the intent).

"Evolutionists" would and certainly claim that natural selection as one of the mechanism that leads to a specie becoming adapted to its environment. You claim that degradation of the genome does the same. What I would like is an example where deterioration leads to better adaptation. You could continue with your chihuahua example, I am not even asking you to identify from which animal species degraded from and what were those degradations.

I really want to know how a "kind", through degradation, has descendants that have gained characteristics that help them survive to their environments which would have killed their "kind" ancestor.

Yes multiple lines of evidence suggest that extinction is more frequent than speciation, this represents a problem for both evolution and creation, because both models require the opposite to be true.
However as a creationists I have 2 solutions for this problem

1 speciation is itself a consequence of degradation*
*Consider this analogy, pretend that you have a complex cake with 100 ingredients, now pretend that you remove 1 ingredient every day, if you keep this trend then eventually you will end up with nothing but a uneatable piece of junk. However in the meanwhile you will have lots of different verities of cakes.

Uneatable piece of junk = extinction
Different varieties of cakes = different species

This does not answer the question either (although it is hilarious). Your claim is that extinction is more frequent than speciation. In other words, species disappear more than they appear. Another claim is also that there were fewer "kinds" on the ark than there are species today.

To you use your analogy, how can one cake become a hundred cakes if we eat more cakes than we cook? Even if the first cake is baked from one recipe with many ingredients and the subsequent cakes are cooked from recipes derived from the first, if there is more eating (or throwing away of uneatable cakes) than there is cooking, where does the cakes come from?

Saying that speciation is a consequence of degradation is not answer to point 2. It can be answer to point 1 but you would have to demonstrate it.

2 speciation is not cause by random mutations, as claimed by evolutionists but rather trough other nonrandom mechanisms such as NGE, gene transfer, plastic responsesetc.

Random mutations are only one of the mechanisms of speciation. If you know what evolution says, you should know the others (which are non-random) but if you intend to replace the theory of evolution, your mechanisms too would need to be demonstrated and I think there will be a Nobel prize in it for you if you do.

Let me clarify some things.

I wouldn´t say that the original kinds where “less adapted” than modern species, the original kinds where adapted to their environment, then the flood changed the environment, and they were forced to readapt to the new enviroment.

I am not saying that there was no natural selection, organisms where forced to overspecialize in order to adapt. Natural selection selected overspecialized traits.

It’s a fact that speciation can occur as a consequence of degradation, evolutionists won´t deny this fact.

Back to the cake analogy. (please let me know exactly on what point you have problems)

1 pretend that you have a cake with 100 ingratiates (this cake is analogous to a created kind)
2 pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the original cake (say ingredients A,B,C,D,E,F)
3 from the original cake (not cake 2), pretend you remove other 5 ingredients (say ingredients G,H,I,J,K)
4 Cakes 2 and 3 are different form the original cake and different form each other (analogous to different species)
5 Cakes 2 and 3 are deteriorated versions of the original cake
6 variety increased as a consequence of deterioration
7 if you remove other 5 ingredients from cakes 2 and 3, and then other 5 ingredients and then other 5 ingredients..., eventually you will end up with a piece of trash (analogous to extintinton)
8 The same process that caused extinction is the same process that caused diversity
9 So basically what I am saying is that extinction is more frequent than speciation, but only on the long term. (not a problem for a YEC)
10 Evolutionists can´t use the same analogy, you believe in molecule to man evolution, you can´t have a man, by deteriorating a molecule.
So of all these 10 points which one do find problematic?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Let me clarify some things.

I wouldn´t say that the original kinds where “less adapted” than modern species, the original kinds where adapted to their environment, then the flood changed the environment, and they were forced to readapt to the new enviroment.

I am not saying that there was no natural selection, organisms where forced to overspecialize in order to adapt. Natural selection selected overspecialized traits.

It’s a fact that speciation can occur as a consequence of degradation, evolutionists won´t deny this fact.

Back to the cake analogy. (please let me know exactly on what point you have problems)

1 pretend that you have a cake with 100 ingratiates (this cake is analogous to a created kind)
2 pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the original cake (say ingredients A,B,C,D,E,F)
3 from the original cake (not cake 2), pretend you remove other 5 ingredients (say ingredients G,H,I,J,K)
4 Cakes 2 and 3 are different form the original cake and different form each other (analogous to different species)
5 Cakes 2 and 3 are deteriorated versions of the original cake
6 variety increased as a consequence of deterioration
7 if you remove other 5 ingredients from cakes 2 and 3, and then other 5 ingredients and then other 5 ingredients..., eventually you will end up with a piece of trash (analogous to extintinton)
8 The same process that caused extinction is the same process that caused diversity
9 So basically what I am saying is that extinction is more frequent than speciation, but only on the long term. (not a problem for a YEC)
10 Evolutionists can´t use the same analogy, you believe in molecule to man evolution, you can´t have a man, by deteriorating a molecule.
So of all these 10 points which one do find problematic?

Your idea about "degradation" is what's wrong.

I asked this question of you in the onceforgivennowfree topic - I'll ask it again;

If, as you claim, dandan, the "(human) genome is losing 5% per generation", I have a couple of mathematics questions for you:

1) How many generations before there isn't enough of our genome left to be classed as "human"? (In other words, how long before we're no longer the "special kind");
2) How many generations before there isn't enough genome left for a viable organism?

Also, with regards to your claim about "extinctions exceeding speciation", did you not read my earlier post, where I clearly quoted the conclusions from a book's chapter on this?

Please do the calculations for humans, based on your claim from a paper you earlier cited as "proof" of "deterioration" of the genome.

Kindest regard,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

Let me clarify some things.

I wouldn´t say that the original kinds where “less adapted” than modern species, the original kinds where adapted to their environment, then the flood changed the environment, and they were forced to readapt to the new enviroment.

I am not saying that there was no natural selection, organisms where forced to overspecialize in order to adapt. Natural selection selected overspecialized traits.

It’s a fact that speciation can occur as a consequence of degradation, evolutionists won´t deny this fact.

But I am not asking about the cases of speciation occuring because of degradation in the general sense. I am asking about cases where degradation lead specifically to better adaptation.

We have example of species devlopping traits that their ancestors did not have in order to survive. What should be inferred from your claim and the evidence is that degradation leads to specialized traits granting a better chance at a survival.

I would love to see this conversation continue with Gilbo12345 because as a creationist, he says exactly the opposite of what you wrote.

Again, we have:
- Dandan who argues that Natural selection selects overspecialized traits.
- Gilbo12345 who argues that Natural selection selects against overspecialized traits.

Back to the cake analogy. (please let me know exactly on what point you have problems)

1 pretend that you have a cake with 100 ingratiates (this cake is analogous to a created kind)
2 pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the original cake (say ingredients A,B,C,D,E,F)
3 from the original cake (not cake 2), pretend you remove other 5 ingredients (say ingredients G,H,I,J,K)
4 Cakes 2 and 3 are different form the original cake and different form each other (analogous to different species)
5 Cakes 2 and 3 are deteriorated versions of the original cake
6 variety increased as a consequence of deterioration
7 if you remove other 5 ingredients from cakes 2 and 3, and then other 5 ingredients and then other 5 ingredients..., eventually you will end up with a piece of trash (analogous to extintinton)
8 The same process that caused extinction is the same process that caused diversity
9 So basically what I am saying is that extinction is more frequent than speciation, but only on the long term. (not a problem for a YEC)
10 Evolutionists can´t use the same analogy, you believe in molecule to man evolution, you can´t have a man, by deteriorating a molecule.
So of all these 10 points which one do find problematic?

All of them. You have not yet answered the question. I will rephrase it once again, and again use a cake analogy:

1. Pretend that you have baked two cakes with a 100 ingredients. Cake 1 and cake A

2. Pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the recipes of cake 1 and cake A, you now bake the two news cakes: cake 2 and cake B.

3. Pretend that you eat cake 1, A and B.

4. Pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the recipes of cake 1, cake 2, cake A and Cake B, you now bake the four news cakes: cake 3, cake 4, cake C and cake D.

5. Pretend that you eat cake 2, cake 3, cake 4, cake C and cake D.

This represents your claim that extinction is more frequent than speciation. How many cakes were you left with? How can one cake become a hundred cakes if we eat more cakes than we bake cakes?

Does this represent reality? It does not. Although cakes 1 and A may have been eaten and cake 2 and B may have been thrown away because they were uneatable, we still observe a diversity of cakes which include 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, C, D, E, etc.

So again, how can we see the biodiversity of life that we see today, numerous thousands species even if we exclude arthropods and amphibians (which we should not) from a few "kinds" if extinction is more frequent than speciation.


And are you sure you do not want to revise your "the human genome loses 5% per generation" claim?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Once again, here is Darwin to tell us what the original cake/Adam looked like based on genetics.

​

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It’s a fact that speciation can occur as a consequence of degradation, evolutionists won´t deny this fact.

I don't even know what you mean when you talk of "degradation". What exactly do you mean when you say degradation?
Well actually I do know but it doesn't make any sense. You would think that this would be an obvious thing, but sorry, it isn't it does make sense when you know exactly what you want, and if you knew exactly what you want you would answer your own question.
So apart of your homework to try and define what degradation means, try to answer as well the following:
1. Could an organism perform more tasks with less DNA?
2. Can a DNA insertion cause an organism to decrease in fitness?
3. If as you say "evolutionists won't deny that speciation can occur as a consequence of degradation", isn't it also true that "evolutionists won't deny that speciation can occur as a consequence of improvement"? And if so, isn't this statment without consequence and as such a logical fallacy to try and argue as if this mean that the "only way that speciation can and does occur is trough degradation"?

 

[dandan]

MARS

All of them. You have not yet answered the question. I will rephrase it once again, and again use a cake analogy:

1. Pretend that you have baked two cakes with a 100 ingredients. Cake 1 and cake A

2. Pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the recipes of cake 1 and cake A, you now bake the two news cakes: cake 2 and cake B.

3. Pretend that you eat cake 1, A and B.

4. Pretend that you remove 5 ingredients from the recipes of cake 1, cake 2, cake A and Cake B, you now bake the four news cakes: cake 3, cake 4, cake C and cake D.

5. Pretend that you eat cake 2, cake 3, cake 4, cake C and cake D.

This represents your claim that extinction is more frequent than speciation. How many cakes were you left with? How can one cake become a hundred cakes if we eat more cakes than we bake cakes?

Does this represent reality? It does not. Although cakes 1 and A may have been eaten and cake 2 and B may have been thrown away because they were uneatable, we still observe a diversity of cakes which include 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, C, D, E, etc.

So again, how can we see the biodiversity of life that we see today, numerous thousands species even if we exclude arthropods and amphibians (which we should not) from a few "kinds" if extinction is more frequent than speciation.


And are you sure you do not want to revise your "the human genome loses 5% per generation" claim?

This is the order of events

1 First you have a “Genomed” kind

2 Then you have degradation, the descendants of the kinds lose genetic material, each descendent loses a different portion of genes, therefore you have diversity

3 if this trend continues you have extinction, because too much genetic material would be lost

In other words in the long term degradation leads to extinction, but in the meanwhile you can have some diversity and speciation.
These would be my hypothetical time line:

4,000 years ago there where these genomed kinds
3,000 years ago, these genomed kinds started to deteriorate, and as a consequence diversity increased
2,000 years ago these kinds became too deteriorated and a trend toward extinction started,

Today we are still in this trend toward extinction.

This is why extinction is more common than speciation TODAY, but I provided reasons to think that things were different in the past… ¿How do you solve this problem?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is the order of events

1 First you have a “Genomed” kind

2 Then you have degradation, the descendants of the kinds lose genetic material, each descendent loses a different portion of genes, therefore you have diversity

3 if this trend continues you have extinction, because too much genetic material would be lost

In other words in the long term degradation leads to extinction, but in the meanwhile you can have some diversity and speciation.
These would be my hypothetical time line:

4,000 years ago there where these genomed kinds
3,000 years ago, these genomed kinds started to deteriorate, and as a consequence diversity increased
2,000 years ago these kinds became too deteriorated and a trend toward extinction started,

Today we are still in this trend toward extinction.

This is why extinction is more common than speciation TODAY, but I provided reasons to think that things were different in the past… ¿How do you solve this problem?

:facepalm:

Extinction today is caused by human impact, not degradation of the genome. Once again, your prediction is wrong before you made it. You are starting with a faulty premise, which leads you to an extremely wrong conclusion.

 

[dandan]

This is the order of events

1 First you have a “Genomed” kind

2 Then you have degradation, the descendants of the kinds lose genetic material, each descendent loses a different portion of genes, therefore you have diversity

3 if this trend continues you have extinction, because too much genetic material would be lost

In other words in the long term degradation leads to extinction, but in the meanwhile you can have some diversity and speciation.
These would be my hypothetical time line:

4,000 years ago there where these genomed kinds
3,000 years ago, these genomed kinds started to deteriorate, and as a consequence diversity increased
2,000 years ago these kinds became too deteriorated and a trend toward extinction started,

Today we are still in this trend toward extinction.

This is why extinction is more common than speciation TODAY, but I provided reasons to think that things were different in the past… ¿How do you solve this problem?

:facepalm:

Extinction today is caused by human impact, not degradation of the genome. Once again, your prediction is wrong before you made it. You are starting with a faulty premise, which leads you to an extremely wrong conclusion.

What about the fossil record? The fossil record also shows more extinction than speciation

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans, the point is that extinction is more common than speciation weather if you remove humans from the equation or not.