Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

Pure ToE, purely hypothetical. If this really happened in reality nobody would survive.

I've acknowledged that natural selection occurs in some cases (peppered moths for instance) but at the same time I've argued that I think it is far less often the cause of adaptive changes than mere reproductive isolation of a randomly assembled smallish daughter population. I've argued this in relation to Darwin's finches for instance, and the large-headed lizard on the island in Croatia.

I know you'll think I'm just being difficult for no good reason, but really I'm not. Even though you haven't used any highly technical language it's still too technical for me to follow easily, there's too much detail and I really wish you would just boil it down to simple English.OF COURSE THERE ARE ADAPTATIONS. Darwin's finches' beaks are certainly adapted to their chosen food sources, the large-headed lizard is certainly adapted to its food source. The question is how these adaptations came about. The usual idea is that the creature changed to adapt to the environment or in this case food source, but I suspect the creature evolved its characteristic first, due to simple change in allele frequencies brought about by a population split, and then found the food that suited its characteristic best.I can't tell from your example if this possibility has been addressed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First I'd point out that even if this is true there's nothing in creationism to object to it and I don't know where you get that. I'm sure there are instances where it is true but I'm questioning it as a general rule. This appears to be the case I admit but there are some racial groups where the rule doesn't hold which calls the theory into question. The Inuit and Mongolians for instance have darkish skin which doesn't fit with their high northern location; the pygmies have quite light skin for their African environment. Is it possibly that the adaptations came about more through people with certain traits being comfortable or not in their chosen locations?People by the way can develop an adaptation to altitude, and also temperature and humidity changes over time. Lungs adapt, sweat system adapts etc. Not genetic adaptation, just the flexibility of the organism. Well the adaptations do appear to be fact except for some of the exceptions, but I'm not sure the standard interpretation has been demonstrated to be fact. Plausible theory, yes, but fact?

First I'd point out that even if this is true there's nothing in creationism to object to it and I don't know where you get that. I'm sure there are instances where it is true, though not very likely among human beings, but I'm questioning it as a general rule. (certainly people die of lethal genetic diseases before reproductive age, but the adaptations that characterize races don't make a survival level difference. We're human beings, we make clothing to adapt us where needed. [/qs]This appears to be the case I admit but there are some racial groups where the rule doesn't hold which calls the theory into question. The Inuit and Mongolians for instance have darkish skin which doesn't fit with their high northern location; the pygmies have quite light skin for their African environment. Is it possibly that the adaptations came about more through people with certain traits being comfortable or not in their chosen locations?ABE: Saw an article recently about a baby deer that had been abandoned by its mother, which its rescuers interpreted as due to its white face which would make it too vulnerable to predators. If that's the correct interpretation here we have a mother deer that "knew" her baby would be a liability, rather than letting natural selection take its course. So polar bears, so nicely fitted to their snowy territory, could have evolved their white fur over time, but perhaps there was also being aware that they aren't so visible against the snow? [/ABE]People by the way can develop an adaptation to altitude, and also temperature and humidity changes over time. Lungs adapt, sweat system adapts etc. Not genetic adaptation, just the flexibility of the organism. ABE: Even skin color can adapt to a certain extent, white skin sometimes tanning well, dark skin losing some of its darkness where it's not subjected to intense sunlight. /ABE Well the adaptations do appear to be fact except for some of the exceptions, but I'm not sure the standard interpretation has been demonstrated to be fact. Plausible theory, yes, but fact?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The declaration that it's all so much more complex is not evidence.

Everything I've seen about the cheetah is that it was formed by a bottleneck, a purely random and not health-promoting event. The best interpretation then seems to be that its wonderful body design for speed was also purely accidental or random.As with most interpretations of evolution by adaptation the reasoning is rarely convincing. The peppered moths and the pocket mice are examples where they must have adapted in response to the environment, but why should the cheetah? The bottleneck is what brought out its traits, but what makes their great speed in any way more useful for survival than the speed of the lion or the jaguar or etc? It's not necessary, it's just one of the beautiful possibilities nature built into the cat genome. A likely story, that's all, the usual plausible explanation that can't be proven and probably isn't true. Pure hypothesis, or fiction, especially in this case considering that they are understood to have been created by a bottleneck which doesn't take more than a few generations to bring out new traits.. Again this too is just hypothesis, a Likely Story. There is no evidence of any of this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My hypothesis IS also hypothetical. It just seems to me to fit the facts better, and it's far less costly than natural selection.

You don't know if it's false or not, you just enjoy saying so.If new traits are the result of mere change in allele frequencies, the cheetah's characteristics would be the result of the bottleneck which just happened to "select" the alleles for its sleek fast body type.As usual we're arguing plausibilities here, not evidence. There is NO actual evidence I've seen for any of the ToE's Likely Stories either.

The suoposed evidence for ToE scenarios is really well known, we all grow up having it crammed down our throats. It amounts to plausibilities on top of hypotheticals on top of fantasy on top of Likely Stories, all enforced by choruses of Great Withering Scientific Indignation to those who think there might be a problem with some of it.However, if you have some real bonafide evidence it would be your iobligation to produce I do suspect. If you can allow yourself the deprivation of taking time out for a bit from bashing and accusing me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HBD, you know I haven't denied that so what's the point? I've said that where it's been shown to be the case. You convinced me your chart was really about genetic diversity so I took another look at it. I still found it to seem to refer to phenotypic diversity though some of it may be ambiguous. I haven't looked again yet. Sigh. As I go on to say: Oy.I'll try to consider it again but it's not an enticing prospect.First, allow me to make my point again:Increasing genetic diversity simply brings out some scattered new traits in an existing population. It adds absolutely nothing in terms of the processes that create new subspecies by microevolution which requires reduced genetic diversity.====ABE: Yes, I think the mutation example is clear enough.But is Population B a daughter population to A? I assyne it must be but you don't say.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One the gene pool has run out of variability it is at a dead end.And if it hasn't, and acquired more genetic diversity after forming a species or subspecies, as I keep saying, that produces only scattered new traits, it still has to be subjected to the processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to arrive at a new species or subspecies. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In this case it must be natural selection, different versions showing up and the adapted one surviving, but nothing was said to prove it was a mutation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What would greatly help these days is being a lot less subjected to advice, rules and other comments,.

Sorry to be a pain but since I often guess wrong about your posts, would you just say briefly why you are posting this information and what you think it proves in relation to the topic?Thanks.