Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

Faith, you keep forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that there is absolutely no need to speculate about any of this, we can and have simply examined samples of genomes from before the supposed Floods and even before the supposed Fall and we find that the genomes are not much different than today. That is true for humans and lions and tigers and bears and ohmys and mushrooms and cedar and wheat and deer and every single example we have ever examined.You have been shown this evidence repeatedly but simply continue to deny reality.

Your dating methods are highly suspect, and you really haven't "shown" me evidence. Go out and collect some ring species and read the DNA of the populations at different points around the ring. That's where I think the evidence should be. Chipmunks around the Sierra, salamanders in northern California, seagulls around the northern Atlantic, etc.

Hope you're doing well again! I think your argument is very well understood.And you are wrong because you get new breeds NOT from losing genetic material for other breeds and phenotypes.You get new breeds because of the OBSERVABLE GAIN in genetic diversity as shown by the picture of the O. aries variation which ALL comes from breeding the very same ancestor, O. orientalis.That picture shows, all to see before our own eyes, that genetic diversity has INCREASED. Because:
1. ONCE you only had one phenotype, O. orientalis
2. NOW we have MANY phenotypes
3. more phenotype variation means more genetic diversity.It is hardly imaginable how LOSING genetic material could cause MORE phenotype variation.You are comparing one breed with the others.
WE are comparing the ancestral O. orientalis with its very low phenotype differences with the many breeds of O. aries, its descendants, with their GREATLY increased phenotype variation.YOU compare descendant breeds mutually, WE compare the ancestor with its descendant(s). EVOLUTION is about how ancestral species produce descendant breeds that may eventually split up in separate species. This is even the very study object of evolution theory, the thing it tries to explain. Evolution theory is NOT about the relationships between breeds as such. It does so by contending that the genetic variation increases first (I leave the exceptions what they are for this moment) and then speciation occurs.The mere fact that the breeds (or later daughter species) "take away" only a part of the total genetic diversity is NO problem for evolution theory, it was NOT excluded from its postulates. The gain in genetic diversity which is, with exceptions, crucial for evolution is assumed to occur BETWEEN ANCESTOR AND DESCENDANTS, not the distribution of the total genetic diversity among breeds and daughter species.Edited by Denisova, : Fixed dbCodes.

First of all, the ring species cases do NOT need evidence from their DNA.
The mere fact that all subspecies are able to interbreed among each other but only two, suffices completely.It is even, with out current understanding of genetics, not even possible to show genetic isolation by examining the DNA. As far as I know the BEST way to assess it is just observing if two subspecies are still interbreeding and/or produce valid offspring when they still were mating.So, basically, this argument is a red herring.Secondly, EVEN if your opponent was proven to fail to back up his own claims, does NOT dismiss you from your own obligations.

I haven't looked back at the old thread today so I hope you've brought it all over here. But if you mean by "biodiversity" what Dr.A meant by showing all those different breeds of sheep (phenotypes) that evolved from the first population of domestic sheep, you too are confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. I'm arguing that new phenotypes require the loss of GENETIC diversity. There may still be lots of "biodiversity" possible, if you mean by that phenotypic diversity, but each new breed or race formed from it requires a reduction of genetic diversity. Evolution NEEDS a gain in genetic diversity, that's why if in fact its own processes that lead to new breeds and races require a reduction instead, evolution is not possible. Depends on what you mean by "diversification." If what you mean is that you are getting new combinations of genes/alleles from new gene/allele frequencies in new subpopulations, this is true, but that's not the same thing as genetic diversity, which is what I've been talking about. Genetic diversity is basically the genetic variability /diversity within a population, and this is what gets reduced when a new subpopulation forms from relatively few individuals.The only possible source of an increase in genetic diversity, apart from the remixing of formerly separated populations, is mutation, which the ToE requires as the source of all genetic material, which I'm of course disputing. And as I also keep arguing, even if mutation really did accomplish this, any subpopulation that develops new traits or phenotypes can only do it with the reduction of genetic variability in its own collective genome. Whatever the source of the original diversity the formation of new breeds or races requires the elimination from that subpopulation of whatever doesn't contribute to the new breed or race. But since you used the word "diversification" we may not have an argument here anyway, though I'm not entirely sure how you are using the term. As I say above you are probably not saying anything I would disagree with because you aren't addressing my point. All true, nothing I would dispute here: The basic methods are the same but the selective criteria are different. Nope. It apparently has developed more PHENOTYPIC diversity than O.orientalis, meaning simply so many breeds, (although other breeds of O.orientalis have not been discussed, and it could be that O. orientalis lost more genetic diversity in the split than O.aries did), but again, I'm arguing that to get new breeds requires the reduction of the genetic substrate for other breeds.New phenotypes, new breeds, require the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes or breeds. That's how you get new domestic breeds, and Darwin (and followers) still think domestic breeding is the model for natural selection, because they ignore the fact that selection, whether random or intentional, requires the reduction of genetic diversity. This fact has become apparent as breeders realized they had to cope with genetic disease in their breeds when they took their selective methods too far, and conservationists are always having to deal with nature's overselecting and putting species in danger of extinction. Nothing should be more commonplace than this point I'm trying so laboriously to make: selection, the development of new subpopulations from relatively few individuals, HAS to reduce genetic diversity. It isn't a problem where the species has tons of genetic diversity to begin with, as all would have right after the Flood, and some still do, but whenever you get a new subspecies there has to be some loss of genetic diversity. While evidence should be sought, and I'm not in a position to do that, this ought to be common sense. Unfortunatehy the ToE got itself all wrapped up in the wrong assumption that the formation of subspecies is accompanied by greater genetic diversity, which is basically what everyone here is arguing. "First more genetic diversity emerges." From where would it come? What would produce it? And what do you mean "reflecting the selective criteria?" Can't be. First some number of sheep get separated from the original wild population, in this case by human selection. There's nothing different in their general appearance at first, but over time as they inbreed among themselves apart from the original population new traits will begin to emerge, and this is because of the new set of gene frequencies they possess in contrast with those of the original population. (Depending on how big a proportion of sheep were separated out of the original population, that original population could also undergo the development of new traits over time because of its own changed gene frequencies as a result of the split.) The new gene frequencies, which means more of some alleles, fewer of others by comparison with the original population, and even the complete absence of some (which nevertheless remain in the other population) bring out a new set of traits in the subpopulation, which over some time of inbreeding among the individuals get merged into a new breed with a new overall appearance. (Domestic breeds traditionally started with many fewer individuals but the principles are the same). Genetic drift operates the same way as any population split, starting from a random collection of genetic possibilities in a relatively small number of individuals. Migration is just as random a process. There needs to be no selection of particularly adaptive traits for a new subspecies to develop. All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. Its own set of gene frequencies will do the rest. Evolution theory makes too much of adaptive selection it seems to me; most new subspecies form as a result of simple migration and geographic isolation. There certainly are some very nice adaptations in nature, but it's quite likely many of those didn't form by environmental pressures but simply by the creature's own traits leading it to food and other resources it just happens to be suited to: for instance, it isn't necessary to interpret Darwin's finches as evolving to fit the kind of food available. For the most part all the different kinds of food are available anyway. It is more likely that the different kinds of beaks developed as a simple result of the migrations of small numbers out of the larger finch population, and the new subpopulations that resulted specialized in the kind of food their beaks are most fitted for. Eyes and general stamina giving out. Back to the rest of this later.

Haven't got to this part of your post yet but I do want to affirm that you are right about there being so many alleles per gene in some cases, and I figure that had to develop from mutations at some point. But they are VIABLE alleles so it's not the usual kind of mutation with its vast production of disease and "neutral" changes that don't produce a new trait, but merely destroy a functioning allele.ABE: Ooops. Just realized I may be making the mistake of accepting that these many alleles ARE viable alleles, that is, that they do produce functioning unique traits. But perhaps they are merely accretions of the usual deleterious-to-neutral-to-redundant mutations, or many of them are, that are called alleles just because that's what the ToE calls them. Any light on the functions of these many alleles would be appreciated. Or I'll look it up later when my eyes have recovered. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again you simply deny fact and reality. The dating methods are not suspect at all and in fact you rely on those dating methods daily. All of the timing these days are based on the very same principles as used for the dating; the constancy of radioactive decay.And yes, you have been shown evidence and I will happily point you towards Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found as an example.The fact is that you position has been proven to be as wrong as your assertion of the "Fall" and that one of the "Biblical Floods" ever happened.Just as you deny what the Bible actually says you continue to deny what even reality says.But fortunately your fantasies have nothing to do with reality and nonsense like the "Fall" or some imagined "Biblical Flood" have no place in science or a discussion about reality or biology.

The rest of your post although my eyes really aren't recovered. Apparently you think the many different breeds of domestic sheep show that "genetic diversity has been added." But as usual this is confusing phenotypic with genetic diversity. Lots of new breeds (phenotypes) yes, but no evidence whatever of increased genetic diversity, which, as I've been arguing forever, is not how you get new breeds / phenotypes. That takes reducing genetic diversity. So all those breeds of sheep each has its own genome with LESS genetic diversity in it than the original population or the other breeds combined. Of necessity. Yes, as a general statement. However, speciation CAN occur, though not always, but at least an identifiable new subspecies should emerge. I'm happy with genetic isolation myself, it's the concept I usually use. But I think it would cause confusion if you identify speciation with mere genetic isolation because speciation is tied to loss of ability to interbreed with other populations, and genetic isolation doesn't always bring that about, which was the point I was just making. You WILL get a new subspecies but you won't always get speciation. It's not all Mendelian. I did find that interesting discussion of "Exceptions to simple inheritance" a while back, which includes information about traits that have many genes, and the fact that dominance and recessiveness can be affected by other genetic factors. Also, the main influences on my argument are really natural selection and reproductive isolation, which Mendel doesn't get into, the idea being that it's the processes that select and isolate, whether by human intention, nature's selection for adaptiveness, or the simple random reproductive isolation of a part of a population, that form new subspecies by reducing genetic diversity. As I acknowledged in my last post to you I agree that there has to be a source for these extra alleles per gene and I suppose it would have to be some form of mutation. But I also want to know how many of the extra alleles are really viable functioning sources of unique traits, because some of them could be just the usual mutation mistakes, producing nothing at all that contributes to the species except diseases, redundant functions and nonfunctioning changes etc. I agree, but it does depend on the quality of the extra "alleles" as Isaid. They could be explained by a formerly healthy version of mutation that deteriorated over generations into the unhealthy versions we have today. OR it's even possible that all the VALID variation DID come from four alleles per gene, which would produce a huge number of genetic combinations all by themselves especially with many more genes per trait, which really is very likely if junk DNA is what happens to them when they die. This I'm not following. DNA altered how? What would imply mutations? I certainly believe mutations exist, but that except for the rare fluke they do nothing at all beneficial for the organism and are very probably the cause of the death of many genes and so contribute to the junk DNA. Now wait a minute here. If I said anything like this I don't recall it and I can't have meant what you are saying. The initial or at least greatest reduction in genetic diversity as I explained it occurred from the bottleneck of the Flood, not mutations, and the Flood bottleneck would therefore also have contributed the majority of the junk DNA. I don't remember anything about 5% but I did say that the current percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome is about 7%, leading me to suppose it was quite a bit higher just before the Flood, but I don't think of mutations as contributing to all this death in the genome OR the organism until much more recently. Although your 5% and in fact your whole previous paragraph are a total confusion, at least this one ends up correctly representing my view that most of the initial genome is now junk DNA, thanks predominantly to the Flood bottleneck. NOT MUTATIONS. IF and only if the many alleles per gene ARE viable nondeleterious or nonfunctioning, which is still a question, then I agree that is an increase in genetic diversity. But I see no reason to think it's continuing now since the evidence for any valid gain in genetic diversity is nil. Outside of bacteria which do all sorts of weird things sexually reproducing creatures don't do. Absolutely correct. Evolution NEEDS a continuous source of genetic diversity, but I see only the cost in genetic reduction as it plays out its selective and isolating methods. I wonder that too. I think a lot of it must have been functions that enhanced the health and longevity of people and animals, various immunities perhaps, abilities to process foods we don't have. They should have had functioning appendix and gall bladder among other things, both of which aren't very useful to us any more. I think along these lines because of the hundreds of years people lived up until the Flood. But there could have been other interesting traits we have no way of imagining now. If someone would like to finance a well equipped laboratory for raising populations of small sexually reproducing animals that start with high genetic diversity, and help figure out which animals would be the best candidates, and find some good staff for it I'd be happy to outline the experiments I think would show reduced genetic diversity after the development of a series of subpopulations. If those "hominids" are pre-Flood human fossils [abeidn't say that right. Meant people who died in the Flood] they should show more heterozygosity in the genome. But you have to put your information into English and not expect me to deal with gene counts. Please. See above. I think you must have meant "The POSSIBILITY" not "impossibility. My lab experiment would use sexually reproducing creatures if there are any still to be found in the wild with sufficient genetic diversity for the purpose. E. coli isn't going to prove anything about sexually reproducing creatures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That was actually a question, put in order for you to represent your argument clearly. Let me put it again. Would you say that O. aries has less diversity than O. orientalis?

This is well addressed by me in other posts of which I an still awaiting your answer. Indeed.Genetic innovation by mutations, acted upon by natural selection, has been observed and an example of it has been provided by me. I a still awaiting your answer on that. This is well addressed by me in other posts of which I an still awaiting your answer. Read your own answer above on it - and my response. I am still awaiting your answer on that. Your mantra again.
This is well addressed by me in other posts of which I am still awaiting your answer.The rest of your answers are addressing details which are not essential to the points made by me.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

The evidence of genetic innovation has been provided. By others here. They all complain you won't address it. But let's confine myself to the evidence I brought in myself - the Lenski experiment. You just conveniently discarded it. Without any sound argument. But STILL it is neatly demonstrating how mutations bring more genetic variance, which is sorted out by natural selection, ending up in new genetic traits and a different phenotype. Same DNA (biochemically spoken), same kind of mutations (radiation, chemical mutagens, haphazard copying errors), same selective pressure (food sources changing, food deprivation).Until you provide sound arguments why this example should be discarded within the context of the ongoing debate, I will continue to bring it up - and abide your answers.Note, important, that Lenski started with a monoclonal population.The most important changes (in the phenotype) in Lenski's E. coli bacteria were:

• larger cell volume
• lower population density
• in first instance they got specialised in glucose
• later metabolism of citric acid in aerobic conditions emerged.

Now, Lenski performed a genomic analysis on the Cit+ population (the one that managed to evolve metabolism of citric acid). See Blount ZD, Barrick JE, Davidson CJ, Lenski RE (2012-09-27). "Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population". Nature 489 (7417): 513—518.Lenski's team sequenced the entire genomes of 29 clones isolated and stored from various time points in the subpopulation that eventually gave rise to Cit+, using them to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of the subpopulation.He writes: "The evolution of the Cit+ trait involved three successive processes: potentiation, actualization, and refinement." he elaborates on the actualisation step. He observed that a gene duplication had occurred that amplified citrate transport. One reason that E. coli cannot grow aerobically on citrate is its inability to transport citrate.Lenski then continues: "Amplification mutations can alter the spatial relationship between structural genes and regulatory elements, potentially causing altered regulation and novel traits" - as observed in other studies. But that's is not enough to conclude this also happened here. so he tested it experimentally. And indeed it was confirmed.Then he proceeded with the Cit+ refinement stage in the same manner.In this study, Lenki painstakingly identifies and analyses and enumerates the different genes that changed expression, he described the gene that was duplicated and exactly depicts the observed changes in its arrangement: Just plain genetic innovation, introduced by mutations and fixed into the genome by natural selection.And NOTE that bacteria do not reproduce sexually. So no allowance for your allele mixing and frequency changes in a deteriorating genome scenario. And I am still awaiting your evidence of the super genome of Adam and Eve. Or evidence for a loss in genetic evidence in the last 6,500 years (Adam and Eve) or the last 4,500 years (the Deluge).A lack of evidence does not need further evidence. Alleles being added means a gain in genetic diversity.
There's no way around this.The "quality" thing is only relevant when you have empirical evidence for it. Until then, it will be just ignored by me as an argument.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

If you're measuring species genetic diversity by the variety of genes and the variety of alleles for each gene across a species, I don't think #3 is correct. If you're using some other measure of genetic diversity then it would be helpful if that were made clear.

This point would seem central to your position. It seems to be saying that new traits or phenotypes can be produced by novel combinations of existing alleles, but not of mutated alleles. It would be helpful if you could make clear how this could be. If I could more accurately summarize the position of the other side, they do not believe that speciation is dependent upon either an increase or decrease genetic diversity. They believe speciation can be accompanied by either. Certainly the "speciation via isolated subpopulation" scenario that is most often discussed because of its simplicity often begins with a reduction in genetic diversity, but not necessarily so, and it isn't the only scenario leading to speciation.

Since your post is the first to mention the Bible that I've read today I'll take this opportunity to let the thread know that I'm going to be asking everyone in the discussion to avoid touching on Biblical topics. I'll also be asking everyone to avoid supposition and support positions with facts.

I'm asking all participants to avoid references to Biblical topics in this thread.Edited by Admin, : Remove the phrase "or in any science thread" because it turned out to be more broadly interpreted than intended.