Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

To be clear. I did not claim that you "thought" anything. I pointed out that your argument as well as your definition of genetic diversity ignored mutations that made new genes. I don't claim new alleles for a gene to be something inconsequential. What you think is contrary to the evidence. We know that mutations create genetic diversity, and you've been given examples, which in other discussions you've labelled as "flukes".Flukes are rare things that actually have happened. So even your statements about this issue contain self-contradictions.My contention is that if I gather up all of the admissions you've made in this thread and a couple of the others, I could put together a pretty convincing argument that your position is wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Multiple points of new diversity.Surely, anyone with a shred of imagination can figure out how to do selection on one point of diversity without losing all of the new points of diversity.Further, even after the species is created, mutations can add more diversity. You are focusing strictly on the event that isolates mating partners and ignoring what can happen before and after.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have to post separately to complain about this. Evolution does not have a goal. Evolution is a result of natural processes that do not have a mind, intentions, or arms and legs.Speciation is one important outcome of evolution.

Your scenario is possible, but is not a required outcome.Multiple individuals may inherit the trait in combination with various other traits. We don't have to throw out the individuals that don't look like a poodle as we would do when breeding. There is no real reason for their to be a limit on how diverse you can be with the new trait until there is no mixing of old types with new types. After gene flow between groups stops, new diversity can still be added by new mutations in each group.

It does not fail. Other than not mentioning where new genetic variations come from, you've pretty much nailed things.Faith is going to deny what you've said, but she has spent a decade or so doing that. Don't get discouraged if you cannot convince her.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't see how anyone could type such a paragraph and not see the self evident holes in their logic.Mutations increase the alleles and thus the probabilities. If in fact a species reaches the point where further speciation is impossible according to this bull farb, then what does happen to new mutations? Just piling up more diversity? And how is that new diversity different from the original diversity? According to Faith, the new diversity, for some unknown and not cited reason cannot be involved in speciation. Sure, Faith, this is a great argument.It is clear that we've always understood what you are saying Faith. It is also clear that adding mutations and drift to the mix is sufficient rebuttal.

This sentence seems to deny the essence of evolution without making a single argument for its truth. It is at the point of the loss of ability to interbreed that diversity between groups can really begin. New diversity added to the sub species is almost guaranteed not to appear in the parent species.We have not talked much about the issues that would result in animals becoming non-inter fertile, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the mechanism for such things cannot be mere re-mixing of alleles. Instead something that interferes with the matching of genetic material during meiosis must be involved. In short that means there is no need to postulate some kind of allele frequency change that requires isolation into smaller less diverse groups. Almost certainly a mutation is involved.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think the problem here is that there is no term for one kind evolving into another kind. For a YEC, anything less than that is micro-evolution. So even if we produce two sheep that cannot mate with each other, those animals are still sheepy kind.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Given that your position is that evolution is impossible even when mutations are included, a hypothetical answer is sufficient to counter your argument that evolution cannot happen. Actually, you are not presenting much of an argument. You are pretty much asserting. And for the few arguments you do present, you dismiss the counter arguments with more assertion. You don't actually have any evidence but there is little excuse for how often you revert to assertion rather than argument. Evolution is a series of processes some of which add variety and others of which reduce the variety in populations and sub populations. You assert that the net variety change post selection must be negative regardless of whether variety is added before or after selection. You simply cannot accomplish what you are attempting without showing us some numbers. I doubt that you can make the showing even with some mathematics.I'd also make the point that a diversity comparison at the point of selection is not sufficient to win your argument. In order to show a progressive loss of diversity you have to show a loss of diversity between the time of formation of the original population and the diversity in the sub population when gene flow between the populations ends. As long as diversity increases or is flat by that comparison, continued speciation is possible.You haven't even attempted to make that argument. You instead focus on the point of selection or speciation.Let's imagine that there is some limit. Where might that limit be? Is it necessary according to your argument that a progression cannot exceed two separations? three? You claim that the answer is not even one, but you certainly haven't shown even that.

What do you mean when you say "I've argued"?You haven't provided any arguments. You just say this stuff without providing any support. What is your argument that the cheetahs mode of survival is not an adaption? Do you understand that such an adaptation would not even be contrary to Genesis?Tell us in your terms why your explanation of the cheetahs current state fate fits the facts better than does the theory of evolution. Or cease making the claim about fitting the facts better.

Yes you've exactly nailed my meaning. Faith says explicitly that making a 'breed' or 'race' exhaust diversity despite the fact that there is no evidence that the existing 'races' of humans without genetic diversity. So where is this limit she's supposedly on about?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And your reason why new diversity cannot be added to the newly formed species is what exactly?Tell us in quantitative or qualitative terms how much diversity a population must have and then how much must be lost via speciation so that we can see that the final diversity is insufficient. And then explain why new mutations cannot overcome the problem. Provide arguments/evidence and not just assertions.Because without that, what you are calling argument is mere assertion and thus cannot be said to demonstrate anything other than your belief.And then perhaps this thread can given a mercy killing. I'll be using this admission to check your work.

I don't see a claim from Faith about the original species.

Mutations are not "handy". Beneficial mutations are both rare and random. Often they reside in the current population but are neutral because of current environmental conditions. That's why they are insufficient to save the cheetah from a relatively modern bottleneck. On the other hand, the evolution of modern humans from a chimpanzee like ancestor took millions of years. Over those time frames we might see something a lot different.Secondly caused the bottleneck removed a lot of genetic diversity including any pre-existing, potentially useful traits from the cheetah. It might well be that some of the cheetahs that were lost did not suffer from some of the issues plaguing the modern cheetah. That problem would not exist in the case of a mutation being spread through a large viable and healthy population of animals.You would instead have us believe that the catastrophe that caused the cheetah bottleneck also made them fast. That's a pretty laughable theory, and there is simply no reason to believe that such a thing is even possible.Of course these explanation are so obvious I have to wonder why you did not anticipate it yourself and address it first. In any event, the theory of evolution easily addresses those facts you find confounding. I'm sorry, but I find comments like this beyond lame and idiotic. First of all, the issue of whether or not natural selection does occur is completely off the table. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that. And, secondly, nature does not have needs, not being a person with emotions and hungers.A five year old would understand enough about selective pressure after watching 'Lion King' a couple of times. The slowest, hardest of hearing, bad reflexes gazelles get eaten. Other animals have different strategies that keeps the lion from eating them Whether or not you like an ecology that works that way is pointless. Selective pressure is the way life is out of doors.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Apparently what you posted was some kind of response. And after the active evolving stops, what then happens as diversity is gained?In fact,your entire statement is idiotic. Genetic diversity is lost. Genetic diversity is gained. You cannot explain why the diversity that is gained will not allow speciation even after admitting that the gained diversity is exactly the same as diversity from different combinations of existing alleles, which is the diversity lost via isolation.In fact there is no explanation. Your argument is a sham. There is nothing to get. You are spouting nonsense. I provided you with an opportunity to explain yourself. What I get is nothing but a repeat of your assertions all of which are ridiculous on their face. Why would the selective processes necessarily slow down regardless of the source of diversity? Selection is an external force that works on phenotypes. Gazelles don't all of a sudden get slower just because the cheetah is evolving or because the cheetah has finished evolving. There is no requirement that such a thing be obtained during speciation. If such a thing gets interrupted during evolution, so what?And as you've indicated there is no difference between the loss of genetic diversity and the gain from mutations. Yet you would have us believe that variety gained cannot enable speciation. You have no explanation other than repeating over and over without actually doing any explaining.Dogs have evolved from wolves through microevolution. Do dogs now lack diversity in a way that makes it impossible to make new breeds? Do we now have to breed in wolves to make a new breed? Of course not. Apparently the kid gloves are off here.No, Faith. Repeating assertions is not helpful. I want your explanation. Do you have something reasonable? Something that is not instantly revealed as an assertion that you cannot demonstrate?I didn't think so. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.