A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument

The "doing real science" part involves finding actual evidence for one's imaginings. Where's yours? What experiments are you proposing to test your hypothesis? Just offering a "different explanation" for the existing evidence is not "doing real science".

I answered your objection concerning autosomal dominance back
HERE where I said Anything more in your post that needs to be answered will have to wait until later.

I listed my evidence in Message 20. I've also many times proposed a laboratory experiment that would demonstrate loss of bgenetic diversity over a number of population splits, and also suggested that just taking another five pairs of Pod Mrcaru lizards and isolating them on another island would also be such an experiment. Many many many many many many times I've proposed these things.

That has already been dealt with by others. Your "nuh uh" is insufficient. And you're presupposing the conclusion. DO the experiment and THEN you can claim that your prediction works.

I really could not care less if bacteria show mutational benefits, or if a tiny little list of beneficial mutations can be made for humans either. They are irrelevant to the argument I'm making no matter how many there might be because they are subjected to exactly the same subtractive processes as any builtin allele would be and the end result is always reduced genetic diversity whenever evolution is occurring. And it would be really really nice if some time somebody really got it.

Gosh you really don't understand one thing I've been saying.

Whole list of beneficial mutations? I counted four, and I've already laughed two of them into oblivion.

And yet again you fail to answer my points.

Yeh, laughing at a gene always poofs it out of existence. Did you merely snigger at the others?On your other perpetual complaint of us not understanding the point you are trying to make - everyone understands it. The reason for that is that it's trivially true that if a population splits into two then there will be a loss of diversity in each population when compared to the prior population. You know, arithmetic? The only way there could be no loss would be if the population was entirely made of clones.The point you consistently then avoid/ignore/dismiss is that after divergence, for a speciation event to occur, the two diverged populations MUST add more genetic variety. If they didn't the two diverged populations would remain unchanged, speciation doesn't occur and the combined genetic variance in both populations would be as it was in the original population - ie no overall loss, just two geographically seperate organisms of the same species.Geddit?

I notice that you have not replied to the two messages pointing out that message 20 does not contain evidence, it only contains your own opinions.What is the real-world data that supports your opinions?(Hint: there is none) Proposed experiments are not evidence.

Well, I hate to put words in your mouth but ...Are you suggesting that these diseases were floating around in the gene pool, but there were other genes also present (metaphorically) shouting to the metabolism "Hey, don't listen to those jerks, listen to me! Don't do the bad disease thing"? And then they somehow disappeared because of the Faith Theory of Evolution?Well, I thought of that, but then I thought ... but the absence of that gene would be a mutation which would have to begin in one individual, and then actually become fixed in the gene pool (otherwise the gene for the disease would not present as autosomal dominant). So you require a harmful gene to become fixed, fighting upstream against natural selection all the way.And then you need that to happen over and over again, for each disease.

Discussion seems to be unraveling somewhat, but Tangle just posted Message 39 about diverging populations that should help discussion refocus. In past discussions Faith has claimed that over time two isolated populations would diverge but not speciate, though they would eventually lose the ability to interbreed, which is the definition of speciation. Perhaps discussion can resume around resolving this apparent contradiction.

You have superpowers! Do you also wear a cape and have a secret identity?

Dr Adquate's Message 41 is another good issue. Discussion could explore the mechanisms required to produce the genomes and genomic diversity we observe in nature today from a 2 or 14 creature bottleneck around 4500 years ago.Edited by Admin, : Minor correction.

Not necessarily. Genes don't work like that. In particular, there's loads of stuff on the internet which will tell you exactly how the genes for the color of a dog's coat works. Well, I mentioned that at the start. The two wolves would have had four loci for each gene, they could have at at most four alleles, one per locus. But there are loci with more.