Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

You're stepping out of line here.Also, I generally encourage participants to repeat their arguments as many times as necessary. Discussion boards are notoriously difficult for getting one's point across.

I was guessing it happens when a daughter population forms a new set of traits from the pool of alleles, eliminating alleles that underlay a different set of traits in the parent population. How this works genetically I'm not sure but it would be two completely different arrangements of alleles, the parental set for instance producing black and gray long hair, floppy ears, green eyes, and a different combination of alleles in the daughter population, probably involving the pairing of recessives in a condition of very limited genetic diversity, producing black and tan short hair, short upright ears, black eyes etc. The idea is it wouldn't be merely an incompatibility of particular alleles of particular genes but of a whole combination of different alleles for those genes, and exactly why I'm not sure, since as you say alleles should be interchangeable. But then I found someone else saying what sounds like pretty much the same thing on another message board: Do you think speciation requires mutation?: I'm not entirely sure this is saying the same thing I had in mind. I don't think different selection pressures is necessary: a random collection of alleles with new frequencies brought about by a population split in a population with limited genetic diversity could do it, making a sufficient genetic difference for breeding incompatibility between parent and daughter populations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Based on the discussion, incompatible refers to combinations that produce viable offspring that cannot mate with the parent group. What you describe here sounds nothing like that because in theory, the parent group does not have a pool limited to the unreinforced recessives.I'm not sure why you continue to pursue this nonsense. You cannot produce speciation in the way you describe, but you don't believe speciation is real anyway. Your basic argument is that evolution 'tries' to produce species in this way but fails. And that argument is totally nonsense even if we ignore the continually anthropomorphisms (i.e. why would nature want to do that? Why are mutations needed when we can get breeds without them) that you spout in defense of the argument.You've been given mechanism for producing speciation and also allowing diversity to increase both before and after the speciation event. If you cannot demonstrate that such mechanisms do not work, then you are not about the business of proving that evolution requires a reduction in overall diversity such that evolution must run out of diversity. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I was entering this thread three weeks ago.
Since then I am still awaiting answers by Faith.
Not a single question or point by me is answered by her.
She's just evading, dodging and not answering.
When she answers. it's only minor points or only the things she (think) she's able to address.
And now she's mentioning things do not exist while those were exactly the points I am awaiting her to answer for three weeks.THAT is, according to all standards of debate, out of line.
It's basically just "La, la, la, I don't answer those".I think EVC is no place for me.
I am looking for debate and not the usual and habitual dodging and ignoring.
I don't like people virtually stretching their middle finger out to me, it is FAR MORE impolite than just saying what bothers you.

I'm not really "pursuing" it, just speculating at this point because it's come up again. My argument is that what is called speciation and regarded as the springboard to further evolution is an illusion. Of course the situation called speciation exists but it isn't speciation and more to the point, when this condition is reached, genetic diversity is likely to be so limited there is no possibility of further variation, making the whole theory false.The event is quite real though, and serves to prove the creationist view instead, which is that all evolution is only microevolution preprogrammed into the genetic system of each separate Species. This system of built-in variation will reach its built-in limits if pursued to that point called Speciation, or even close to it, where the ToE absurdly assumes a new species has formed with further evolutionary possibilities. In reality what has happened is that evolution has come to its genetic outer limits. So this whole scenario is evidence for the Creationist view against the ToE. What? Nature want to do what? What about mutations?Perhaps what I just described above will clarify. And I've answered both, what speciation really is just now again, and how increases in diversity have to end up radically decreased wherever evolution is actively proceeding as I keep describing. But I've demonstrated this many times already.

Let us consider Faith's position. The executive summary is that she is pursuing a hypothesis for which she has no evidence, in a subject in which she has no expertise. She acknowledges that scientific papers confuse her, and she is incapable of using terms correctly.You expect her to provide answers that don't exists or alternatively to admit that she is wrong. The former is asking for the impossible, and you are never going to get an explicit admission that species were not specially created from Faith. So the obfuscation, avoidance, and selective responding is the admission.You can leave or threaten to leave as you will, but there aren't many other games available.Haven't you found the discussion and disagreements with the non-creationists more satisfying? Why not continue to explore stuff you know and what to know with some scientists actually doing life science work. Where else can you find that?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps you are right that EvC is no place for you. But your attitude is mostly what causes me to leave you alone and address other posts instead. Also I thought I had answered your questions only to be told I hadn't without any further explanation and that is hardly encouragement to give it another shot. Requiring me to backtrack to reconsider your posts is asking too much, sorry. At this point I am engaged in other arguments anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, you haven't addressed the question being put to you. Since you are 'allowing' mutations, then you are obligated to address mutation scenarios as they are posed to you. Instead of addressing those with arguments, you go off on tangents and ignore the scenarios as presented or simply assert that they do not work.I've given clear examples of scenarios where diversity is increased prior to and after either isolation or speciation. You have ducked directly addressing every single scenario. I'm not going to pose anymore scenarios. I'm satisfied that you have no answers.

Then you should stop spending all your efforts trying to get an honest answer from the most dishonest person at the site.There's plenty of other people to type to and many of them are very smart and generous with their time.If you're really looking for debate, then you need to stop replying to the same old person over and over again... like 90% of your posts have been.

I HAVE ANSWERED ALL THE POINTS ABOUT MUTATIONS MANY TIMES OVER. Your inability to grasp my argument, which you've demonstrated time and time again without ever acknowledging the fact, along with your attitude, which is even more obnoxious than Denisova's, doesn't deserve half the attention I've given your posts already.

You better pay attention to your own miserable attitude here.
The REAL reason for you not to answer me is because you have no answers.
And NOT answering PERFECTLY normal and relevant questions is NOT MY TRADE.
Requiring you to backtrack to reconsider my posts is asking too much, sorry????
I served you SEVERAL times post where I NEATLY provided links to those posts, so you didn't even need to trace them backs. At your service.
DAMN IT.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

SHOW ME.

The point to this forum is debate. I don't personally deserve any of your attention. You should instead view opposition as an opportunity to strut your stuff, so to speak. If you have answers to questions, then post them.It simply is not the case that everyone here except Faith, the single most uninformed poster in the debate, does not understand what you say in every single thread, on every single topic. There is a far simpler, and much more likely answer. We understand your simple wrong stuff perfectly, and understand exactly where the holes in your arguments lay.I cannot wait until summary time for this BS thread.

Well thank God that you have come along to inform us that all those stupid scientists that have spent their lives in the labs and out in the field dedicating themselves to understanding the evidence laid out before them have been getting it wrong for all these decades.If only we were smart enough to comprehend your arguments and understand what you were saying, then we could get past all this evolution nonsense and get to a real understand of the way the world works.Am I right, or what?

I am a graduate student studying Plant Pathology (plant diseases) and will also have a degree in EEBB (ecology, evolutionary biology and behavior). The emphasis of my research is the diversity of a pathogenic fungi, Rhizoctonia solani but I am not trying to argue from authority. Not at all, I am simply convinced that the things I have studied and learned are true. I would change anything I accept as true in regards to science should it be shown to be false. The math can get rather complicated, but it is not all that necessary to understanding the principles. Most of the basic ideas can be explained with simple mathematical representation. The difficult part comes with the statistics, but you can get by without knowing how to do the statistics as long as you can understand what they mean. Very likely so. However, your reaction is usually defensive and accusatory rather than explanatory. That certainly doesn't help the situation at all. I think there is something about genetic diversity that needs to be clarified. You probably do understand this, but there are two broad ways in which genetic diversity is important. One is diversity within a population and the other is diversity between populations. Diversity within a population provides the raw material for populations to diverge and differentiate and so increase diversity between populations. This is what you seem to be disputing actually happens.But, I think you have worded your argument all backwards. I think your argument should be "Evolution requires an increase in genetic diversity but what happens in natural populations is that diversity is actually reduced."When a subpopulation splits off of the parent population it must then become different from the parent population. The diversity between populations must increase. You can think of diversity as variation or differences so that the question we are asking is how much diversity or how much difference is there between a parent population and a daughter population. This diversity or difference must increase before these two populations are considered differentiated or considered to be different species or subspecies.Take a look at the table below and see what you think. We have already talked about migration and you have already recognized that migration would slow evolution or in other words would decrease differentiation between populations. See if your idea of drift fits with what the table shows.

	Variation within subpopulation	Variation between subpopulations	Affect all loci
Mutation	increase	increase	No
Migration	increase	decrease	Yes
Drift	decrease	increase	Yes
Selection	increase/decrease	increase/decrease	No

(Adapted from: Conner and Hartl (2004). A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer Associates)If you have any questions or are in disagreement with how these processes affect diversity I think it important to discuss them.Also pay attention to whether these processes affect all loci or not. This will be important to our discussion on how to measure and interpret genetic diversity.HBD