Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

It appears that she has spent her time on her mantra "evolution is going down, diversity is disappearing, there are no mutations."Not once has she set foot in a biology or genetics lab.She could have actually done some actual research and learned something in 8 or 10 years. She could have even gone all the way and become an expert, earned a Ph.D, made discoveries, written papers and books.What a waste, to spend that much time mulling a fantasy in her mind.

Well she could have spent five minutes finding out that she was wrong, and the other 5,259,485 minutes doing something that wasn't stupid.

The "Faith bashing" side comment thing has gone on more than long enough.Adminnemooseus

If I hadn't mulled that fantasy around in my mind for over two years and debated it on various sites, I would never have been confronted with the best evidence for evolution by the most educated people on the subject. That fantasy is what drove me to become a geologist and prove the evolutionists wrong. Since I am not impervious to real evidence over a long period of time, I was eventually turned around in my thinking and I will become a successful geologist one day. Otherwise, I would still be a lowly blue collar worker without much curiosity for anything.

See Message 267, Message 272, Message 282, Message 287 of this thread.Edited by RAZD, : correct linkEdited by RAZD, : ...

It does if you imagine species formation to be God acting as a cosmic breeder and if you completely discount mutations while pretending not to do so. It does if you imagine that every new species cannot have any significant characteristics of the parent species.In short, it is pretty easy to build a straw man version of evolution to attack and dismiss, particularly if the only one you need to convince is yourself.

Only for the traits that define the breed, and even those genes can mutate. How can you even type that stuff without noticing the idiocy? Yes there is some limitation on Mendelian recombination, but evolution is not limited to that.And how does the parent species manage to "breed true" with all of that extra diversity? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Which I'm careful to say. The fact is you do get stable species and those traits don't mutate or the mutations don't spread in the population because if they did you wouldn't have a species. But you do have species. (Mutations and their spread n the population are an article of faith anyway; the probability of this happening at any rate that you would need it to happen to stop the effects of the NECESSARY reduction in genetic diversity that MUST happen for a species to form, is just about nil. Witness cheetah, witness elephant seal. It can't, increased diversity interferes. Nevertheless you do get true breeds. Therefore you aren't getting the increased diversity you think you are, the mutations you think you are getting.

I'll answer this here. The point is that I don't believe this novel variation exists, or if it exists at all not to any extent sufficient to produce viable alleles for the formation of a species. Sometimes I'll allow for the sake of argument that this is happening although I believe it doesn't, because there is no difference as far as the outcome goes: you still are getting changed allele frequencies when there is a population split and the expression of whatever traits are high frequency and dominating in the new population occurs along with the reduction or elimination of competing traits, i.e. competing alleles for other versions of those traits. You aren't going to get a new trait picture without the elimination of competing alleles. If you get an increase in diversity you just don't get the new trait picture, you'll never get a species.For all intents and purposes it really doesn't matter if the variants are produced by mutation or by builtin alleles anyway; in either case selection leads to reduced genetic diversity. Total straw man of course, just a refusal to understand what I'm saying. Mutations would only act as gene flow acts, to produce new variants for selection to act upon. For species to develop requires selection or the culling of traits that are not part of the new trait picture of the species. This cujlling is a decrease in genetic diversity for the new population /subspecies /species. This decrease HAS to happn if you are getting a new trait picture or a new species. This is exemplified easily with domestic breeding: you can't get a distinctive breed when alleles for traits that are not part of the breed you want keep showing up in individuals. These have to go if there is to be a distinctive breed. In the wild you do get distinctive new species, so what has to be happening there is that the traits for these species are developing in the absence of alleles for other traits. It's simple, it's obvious, it has to happen or the species that do in fact occur wouldn't be occurring. But of course it can, I've never said otherwise, all I've been emphasizing is that a new species IS different from the pareht species or it wouldn't BE a newq species. This doesn't mean that it doesn't share a great deal with the parent. It's even easier to build a straw man version of any idea that contradicts evolution because there are so many of you and you have a vested interest in your theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Species do not consist of a homogeneous set of individuals. The diversity of the human race, which is a not just a single species but is a single sub species is a perfect example.Your thesis of " diversity interferes with creation of species" is easily seen as so much bunk even based on your own statements.

Huh?Or: Yeah. So? And? Huh?Or: So? And? Have no idea what you're talking about except that it's some kind of weird straw man.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Which I'm careful to say.

---

But remember that the situation for artificial breeds and natural species is different. The breed is defined by its distinctive traits while a species defines its distinctive traits.A species doesn't even need distinctive traits of its own (cryptic species are identical in appearance, but cannot interbreed)

quote:

---

The fact is you do get stable species and those traits don't mutate or the mutations don't spread in the population because if they did you wouldn't have a species. But you do have species.

---

Only true within limits, as I point out above. A species can lose a formerly distinctive trait and it just ceases to be a distinctive trait.

quote:

---

te or the mutations don't spread in the population because if they did you wouldn't have a species. But you do have species. (Mutations and their spread n the population are an article of faith anyway; the probability of this happening at any rate that you would need it to happen to stop the effects of the NECESSARY reduction in genetic diversity that MUST happen for a species to form, is just about nil. Witness cheetah, witness elephant seal.

---

Perhaps you would actually like to show that rather than picking examples that don,t support your claims.

quote:

---

It can't, increased diversity interferes. Nevertheless you do get true breeds. Therefore you aren't getting the increased diversity you think you are, the mutations you think you are getting.

---

Perhaps you would like to show me one of these parent populations that can't breed true. I'm not aware of any or have any reason to believe that any have ever existed.

The genetic situation is nevertheless the same.

quote:

---

The genetic situation is nevertheless the same.

---

That is, in general false, and not even relevant since the issue is definition and classification rather than genetics.

As is normal for you, you admit forming your opinion without any understanding. So let me spell out my argument for you.Scientists believe that humans evolved from an ancestor names Homo erectus about 2 million years ago. If that is the case, then the target "breed" would be modern humans, including all of the diversity that currently exists. That means that mutations that produce the variations that we find among the current population would not interfere with the creation of the current species.As far as strawmen go, since your stated position is that even given mutations, we cannot obtain new species, only a single example counter example is necessary to prove you wrong. In contrast, disproving single examples that others offer does not prove your point. You must disprove every strategy offered.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.