Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

I'm not trying to debate you. I was only requesting clarification about what you meant by this from your Message 735: You declined to provide any clarification, so I made a ruling. But now you've provided some clarification, so let me try to rewrite your passage in light of the clarification: Do I have this correct now?

I think this is the strongtest statement yet of what you're really saying, but it still contains a bit of inconsistency because it begins by describing how speciation happens but concludes by saying speciation is impossible. Let me restate what I think you're trying to say in order to make sure everyone understands:

• Decreased genetic diversity can create significant new traits.
  ​
• Increased genetic diversity cannot create significant new traits.
  ​
• New traits sufficient to cause speciation is impossible.

Can you please confirm whether this is correct, particularly since it runs counter to the clarification I was seeking in my Message 752, to which you didn't respond.

I'm just trying to clear up some confusion. "Significant" was your terminology. In your Message 735 you were distinguishing between mutations that you claimed could only produce "insignificant" and "inconsequential" new traits on the one hand, and new allele combinations that could produce "completely new traits and functions" on the other: And in this message you go on to say: And all the above from your two messages seems completely consistent with this point:

• Decreased genetic diversity can create significant new traits.

I think your objection just boils down to that I didn't use the exact same words that you used in the exact same way that you used them, so only if the above is incorrect in some meaningful way, could you please explain how it is incorrect? Yes, exactly. It can create traits, so why not significant ones? That's the precise point I'm trying to get clarity on. I originally requested clarification because it didn't make sense that mutations could increase genetic diversity and create new traits, but only "insignificant" and "inconsequential" ones. This doesn't make sense either. If we give our loci names like A, B, C, D, etc., and we give the existing alleles for each locus names like A1, A2, A3, etc., and we give new alleles for each locus created through mutation names like Am1, Am2, Am3, etc., then you're saying that significant new traits could be created by this shift to a new allele combination: But that significant new traits could not be created by this other shift to a new allele combination that happens to include a mutation at loci B: Let me repeat once more that I'm not trying to debate you. I saw what looked to be contradictions and am seeking clarification.Here's another contradiction that is bound to confuse people: So let me restate, and please let me know if this is incorrect:

• New traits in a main population cannot cause speciation under any circumstances.
  ​
• New traits in a small daughter population can cause speciation after a number of generations.

And finally: Repeating this confusing statement is only bound to create more confusion. This discussion has reached the point where most of the effort involves trying to figure out what you mean. Nobody is going to know what you mean by "speciation exists but it isn't speciation." Speciation already has a definition, so please don't try to redefine it. If you don't think speciation as defined by the science of biology can happen, then please say so plainly.Summarizing, these are the points that I think summarize your position, please correct as necessary:

• Decreased genetic diversity can create significant new traits.
  ​
• Increased genetic diversity cannot create significant new traits.
  ​
• Speciation as defined by the science of biology is impossible.

Edited by Admin, : Fix link to Message 735, which had been incorrectly entered as Message 732.

This is what you always say, and this is why you must clarify what you mean. In this case you may have totally misexplained it, but I totally understood it. I read your post. You quoted NoNukes, I know he said that mutations can create new genes and loci. But in your reply you said that mutations "would only make alleles for the existing genes for those little insignificant traits" and that with mutations "all you are getting is new variations on those inconsequential traits." You contrasted these minor effects with the "completely new traits and functions" that you keep telling us are the result of new allele combinations and reduced genetic diversity.I'm not trying to debate you, Faith. I'm only asking you to clarify some puzzling and/or confusing statements you've made. If you meant something other than what you said then please just tell us what you meant. But it only further confuses things to claim those words meant something other than what they very clearly mean. Don't bother with my previous post. Just clear up for everyone whether the following accurately captures your views, and if not then please just provide simple and clear corrections. If you do accept that speciation is possible, then there are these:

• New traits in a main population cannot cause speciation under any circumstances.
  ​
• New traits in a small daughter population can cause speciation after a number of generations.

And then there are also these:

• Decreased genetic diversity can create significant new traits.
  ​
• Increased genetic diversity cannot create significant new traits.
  ​
• Speciation as defined by the science of biology is impossible.

I'd like to get some clarity so that we can avoid further claims that your position isn't understood.

This represents an attempt to redefine the term "speciation" and is disallowed. Once two subspecies lose the ability to interbreed then they are two different species. It doesn't matter what caused the inability to interbreed. Even if you won your argument that only reduced genetic diversity can have any significant phenotypic impact, they would still be two different species.

Please see my Message 795 where I already ruled on this point. "Speciation" already has a definition, please do not attempt to redefine it. You can argue that speciation never happens, even that it is impossible, but you cannot redefine it. I will always rule against the redefinition of existing terms. If you would like to discuss the terminology of evolution please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. This thread will be using existing terminology. New terms can be introduced as long as they are clearly defined.

When describing what you think happens, please do not call it speciation. Speciation already has a definition. If you need a term for what you think happens, could I suggest differentiation? You could define differentiation as changing the phenotype of a subpopulation while maintaining the ability to interbreed.AbE: Please respond to my Message 794.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

I didn't understand this part: By "progression" do you mean the progressive separations of populations into sub-populations and sub-sub-populations, etc., that result in potentially multiple speciation events? And you're saying that Faith's argument doesn't even permit one separation into a sub-population that results in speciation? And that she hasn't demonstrated that yet?

In this passage you seem to accept speciation as possible. In other messages you've said speciation was impossible. Complicating things have been your attempts to redefine the term speciation. An answer to this simple question would be very helpful: Also, you say that mutations could only cause "scattered new traits within the population." You've said this many times, and you've received the same response many times: advantageous traits would spread through the population. An answer to this simple question would also be very helpful:

This isn't relevant to your point, but just in the interest of accuracy: inet2000.com is the website for an Internet provider. The specific webpage where you found your information is Welcome to Inet2000.com2¹²⁸ = 3.4 x 10³⁸. I don't think that's the same as your value. If I just move my decimal point 38 zeros to the right and put it next to yours I get this: Your value is missing three zeros and your coefficient is off by a little. It isn't "give or take a couple trillion" but "give or take hundreds of undecillions." Lots of sites seem to repeat this error. Strangely, it's the only completely incorrect value on that webpage (some of the other values are only a little off). Tens of thousands is pretty common.

This has the potential to create a great deal of confusion as it seems contradictory. How can you accept selection when it involves reduced genetic diversity but reject selection in all other contexts? Why would selection operate differently upon a trait depending upon the genetic process that produced the trait?

Yes, it was addressed. Put simply, through analysis they identified the specific gene and the changes to the gene that provided the Swedish population with freeze tolerance, then they checked their analysis by inserting the Italian version of the gene into a Swedish population and observed that freeze tolerance was lost.HBD's point was that these are the types of changes one would expect as different populations of the same species experience different mutations and different selection pressures.

HBD didn't just declare that it's complex, he actually presented the data to you. You dismissed it claiming it was too complex for you to understand.Instead of dismissing what you don't understand, it would greatly improve discussion if you would instead work to understand it.

Let me simplify HBD's point. There's a species with a main population A and an isolated subpopulation B. Consider just one gene of this species that has alleles R, Q and S, but the S allele is missing in subpopulation B. That means the populations have these possible combinations of alleles for this gene: Notice that population B has no allele combinations that do not exist in population A. Expressed another way, every allele combination of population B already exists in population A.Given this information, it would be very helpful if you could answer this question: Naturally it would also be very helpful if you could clarify whether you think speciation is even possible with your reduced genetic diversity approach. Everyone else already knows the answer is no, they're just waiting for you to arrive at the same conclusion.And once you do understand that just mixing the same old alleles into new combinations cannot create genetically new species, it should also help you understand the problems with your claim that reduced genetic diversity is how evolution works. Biologists already understand that reduced genetic diversity by itself cannot create a genetically new species, so they would never propose or even consider it as the way evolution works.AbE:I should have commented about this: Here is the diagram HBD provided earlier: And here is the description HBD provided in Message 721: So no, population B is not a daughter population of population A. But in his example HBD addresses the alleles of a specific gene to illustrate how impossible it is, at least with respect to this gene, for population B to become genetically different from population A.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

Please respond to my Message 852.