The Barbarian Posted May 8, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,132 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 983 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 8, 2022 Bioessays 2008 May;30(5):470-9 The reality and importance of founder speciation in evolution Abstract A founder event occurs when a new population is established from a small number of individuals drawn from a large ancestral population. Mayr proposed that genetic drift in an isolated founder population could alter the selective forces in an epistatic system, an observation supported by recent studies. Carson argued that a period of relaxed selection could occur when a founder population is in an open ecological niche, allowing rapid population growth after the founder event. Selectable genetic variation can actually increase during this founder-flush phase due to recombination, enhanced survival of advantageous mutations, and the conversion of non-additive genetic variance into additive variance in an epistatic system, another empirically confirmed prediction. Templeton combined the theories of Mayr and Carson with population genetic models to predict the conditions under which founder events can contribute to speciation, and these predictions are strongly confirmed by the empirical literature. Much of the criticism of founder speciation is based upon equating founder speciation to an adaptive peak shift opposed by selection. However, Mayr, Carson and Templeton all modeled a positive interaction of selection and drift, and Templeton showed that founder speciation is incompatible with peak-shift conditions. Although rare, founder speciation can have a disproportionate importance in adaptive innovation and radiation, and examples are given to show that "rare" does not mean "unimportant" in evolution. Founder speciation also interacts with other speciation mechanisms such that a speciation event is not a one-dimensional process due to either selection alone or drift alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwordMaster Posted August 10, 2022 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 286 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 10, 2022 The Founder Effect has nothing to do with evolution...and there is no such thing as speciation (defined as one species changing into another species), there is adaptation, but adaptation does not equal speciation. There has never been a codified speciation event ever recorded in science...ever. When an organism has "changed" in order (for example) to feed upon nylon where before it could not, that was adaptation - the turning on of a gene the organism already had fully formed within its genome, previously unexpressed - and that is not evolution. We have no clear cut fossils demonstrating speciation, or any change within organisms to match what TOEists claim is evolution and speciation. All of those given by TOEists in their articles and books, when fully scrutinized and examined, are not what they claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted August 11, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,132 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 983 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 11, 2022 On 8/10/2022 at 12:37 AM, SwordMaster said: ...and there is no such thing as speciation (defined as one species changing into another species), Your fellow YE creationists say you are wrong: Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/ On 8/10/2022 at 12:37 AM, SwordMaster said: The Founder Effect has nothing to do with evolution... In fact, it's observed to be an important element. As your fellow YE creationists admit,l the speciation of Darwin's finches in the Galapagos islands were due to small numbers of founders. On 8/10/2022 at 12:37 AM, SwordMaster said: There has never been a codified speciation event ever recorded in science...ever. Here's what Answers in Genesis says: Two species of plump bluish-green Cryptasterina sea stars, similar in appearance, thrive in Australian waters. As distinct species they do not interbreed. In fact, they do not even breed the same way! Their distinctions have prompted a group of evolutionary biologists to analyze their DNA in an effort to decipher their evolutionary history. Researchers were surprised to learn that they diverged from each other rapidly and recently. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-evolution-power/ Scientists have documented lots of those: Genetics 1935 Jul;20(4):377-91 Drosophila Miranda, a New Species T Dobzhansky On 8/10/2022 at 12:37 AM, SwordMaster said: When an organism has "changed" in order (for example) to feed upon nylon where before it could not, that was adaptation - the turning on of a gene the organism already had fully formed within its genome, previously unexpressed - and that is not evolution. You were misled about that: EII has evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitution of another protein EII'. Both enzymes have 345 identical aminoacids out of 392 aminoacids (88% homology). The enzymes are similar to beta-lactamase.[12] The EII' (NylB', P07062) protein is about 100x times less efficient compared to EII. A 2007 research by the Seiji Negoro team shows that just two amino-acid alterations to EII', i.e. G181D and H266N, raises its activity to 85% of EII.[9] The structure of EIII was resolved in 2018. Instead of being a completely novel enzyme, it appears to be a member of the N-terminal nucleophile (N-tn) hydrolase family.[13] Specifically, computational approaches classify it as a MEROPS S58 (now renamed P1) hydrolase.[14][15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria As you see, it was the mutation of an existing gene to produce a new function by making the enzyme functional for degrading nylon. It wasn't "turning on", it was a change in the gene. On 8/10/2022 at 12:37 AM, SwordMaster said: We have no clear cut fossils demonstrating speciation, Your fellow YE creationist, Dr.Kurt Wise, disagrees with you: Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwordMaster Posted August 11, 2022 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 286 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 11, 2022 Quote Your fellow YE creationists say you are wrong: Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/ Wow...apparently, after going through Ken Ham's web site for a little over 30 minutes, it appears that the guy has gone under. He claims to be a young earth creationist yet speaks about 200,000 years and other nonsense, like speciation. This is still the definition of speciation, is it not... Quote Speciation is how a new kind of plant or animal species is created. Speciation occurs when a group within a species separates from other members of its species and develops its own unique characteristics. The demands of a different environment or the characteristics of the members of the new group will differentiate the new species from their ancestors. Seeing as it is...then there is no such thing as speciation; only the unlearned and deceived think there are...like Ken Ham. There is adaptation, but that is NOT evolution OR speciation. A dog is still a dog...whether you point to a wolf, husky, or bulldog, they are all the same animal and can all interbreed (although TOEists are satisfied in their nonsense by claiming evolution when one doesn't mate with the other even though they can produce viable offspring, it is enough to them and their nonsense theory that they don't for whatever reason). As far as your starfisth "example," you don't have to quote anything from Answers in Genesis to me, because seeing how Ham has been compromised, it doesn't do you any good. Quote EII has evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitution of another protein EII'. Both enzymes have 345 identical aminoacids out of 392 aminoacids (88% homology). The enzymes are similar to beta-lactamase.[12] The EII' (NylB', P07062) protein is about 100x times less efficient compared to EII. A 2007 research by the Seiji Negoro team shows that just two amino-acid alterations to EII', i.e. G181D and H266N, raises its activity to 85% of EII.[9] The structure of EIII was resolved in 2018. Instead of being a completely novel enzyme, it appears to be a member of the N-terminal nucleophile (N-tn) hydrolase family.[13] Specifically, computational approaches classify it as a MEROPS S58 (now renamed P1) hydrolase.[14][15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria As you see, it was the mutation of an existing gene to produce a new function by making the enzyme functional for degrading nylon. It wasn't "turning on", it was a change in the gene. Yes, in this case...just like with SCA. And in both cases, the damaged gene is still damaged, just because it might give a certain bacteria the ability to digest a previously non-digestible item doesn't give any evidence for speciation or evolution. This kind of DNA damage does not lead a worm into an elephant, yet that is what you are claiming with out of context examples. Simply put, nice try, but you failed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted August 13, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,132 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 983 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 13, 2022 On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: Wow...apparently, after going through Ken Ham's web site for a little over 30 minutes, it appears that the guy has gone under. He claims to be a young earth creationist yet speaks about 200,000 years and other nonsense, like speciation. Some things, even Ken Ham can't keep denying. It's been directly observed. The Institute for Creation Research now admits the fact of speciation as well. On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: This is still the definition of speciation, is it not... Reproductive isolation. That's it. When two populations can no longer interbreed, they are separate species. Because speciation is normally a gradual thing, we have all sorts of intermediate cases, as Darwin predicted. If there was no speciation, we wouldn't see any of that. You're thinking of the consequences of speciation, not the phenomenon itself. On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: As far as your starfisth "example," you don't have to quote anything from Answers in Genesis to me, because seeing how Ham has been compromised, it doesn't do you any good. You're kind of out on that branch by yourself. I'd think twice before sawing it off. On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: Yes, in this case...just like with SCA. And in both cases, the damaged gene is still damaged, just because it might give a certain bacteria the ability to digest a previously non-digestible item doesn't give any evidence for speciation or evolution. On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: Yes, in this case...just like with SCA. And in both cases, the damaged gene is still damaged, Seems odd to call something that increases the ability to survive, "damage." That should be a tip for you. On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: just because it might give a certain bacteria the ability to digest a previously non-digestible item doesn't give any evidence for speciation or evolution. As you learned it is evolution. A change in allele frequency in a population over time. But the increased survival and the consequent increase of the new gene in the population is natural selection. Creationists often confuse the two. On 8/11/2022 at 3:44 PM, SwordMaster said: This kind of DNA damage does not lead a worm into an elephant More precisely, it led to all living things on Earth. As your fellow YE creationist admits, there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He cites the large number of transitional fossils and transitional series of fossils, but genetics also clearly shows common descent. Would you like to see that? You would be a lot more effective at fighting evolution, if you had a better idea of what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts