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

Nobody does science with evolution as I keep saying. You make assumptions and pile them up and call them science. Einstein did real science others could verify. All that is done with evolution is imagine things you can't prove and get others to agree with your delusionYou imagine that mutations are the source of alleles. There is no evidence, just assumption, weird weird assumption considering the utter lack of evidence that mutations are anything but a destructive accident that happens to DNA.You imagine that the fossils show genetic descent from lower to higher and call it fact though it's mere assumption. It's genetically impossible for starters, and if it took all those millions of years nothing would be left alive. Evolution from the animals on the ark to today's broad array of life forms is just a few thousand years. Pretty effective evolution in a few thousand years. But of course it's all variations built into the genome of each creature, beyond which evolution is impossible as I keep proving.You imagine the human eye evolving from some completely unknown and unevidenced line of visual capacities that you make up from separate designs you find scattered all over the Linnaean tree. There is not a shred of actual evidence that that's possible, it's all imagined.You imagine the reptilian ear evolved into the mammalian ear increment by increment over millions of years, shrinking this part, moving that part, reshaping that one. That's so funny I fall down laughing at it.Reptiles couldn't evolve into mammals, it's genetically impossible. Evolution varies each separate creature in interesting ways from the genetic material in its own DNA and that's all it does.You imagine hominids and treat them as facts and demand that everybody else do too.You imagine landscapes made up of single sediments in flat slabs covering large areas of the earth during million year periods with a very limited selection of dead things buried in the sediment you imagine lived during that period. That's hilariously sad to think the surface of the earth ever looked like that.By offering a different explanation for the existing evidence I'm doing more than evolution "science" does, but I've also done more than just offering a different explanation. Message 20's list of evidence really is evidence for my argument. It takes true dunderheadedness not to recognize that you have to lose genetic diversity to get new breeds, races, subspecies etc. after I've spelled out the known evidence for it, and that message would lead you out of dunderheadedness into the pure bright light of knowledge if you'd just let it.

I might be able to arrange that. I'll have them serenade you every night for a month at your bedroom window. That's a lot of dead witches of course but I'm sure you'll find it entertaining.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is proved by the practices of breeders. If that isn't obvious there's something wrong with your thinking.

This is the usual imagined thing. It's false. There are plenty of alleles in any genetically diverse population, no new ones are needed. It's when you have population splits that isolate a portion of the population which then has new gene frequencies, allowing formerly low-frequency alleles to emerge in the phenotype, and formerly higher frequency alleles to fade away or be eliminated, that's when you get the new phenotypes. I'm not talking about natural selection. It can be one of the processes involved, but I'm just talking about reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. It's much more benign a process than natural selection but very effective at creating new subspecies.The fact is that over many generations you do get a new subspecies made up of individuals that have the same characteristics. That's just what inbreeding within a limited gene pool does. That's how you get different breeds of cattle for instance. That's how you get the very homogeneous populations of different wildebeests, the blue and the black.Making a population all alike isn't what threatens the health of the creature, it's severe cases of depleted genetic diversity that causes that. You can get a homogeneous population without such drastic genetic depletion.Pure breeds, however, always were defined as having fixed loci, that genetically depleted condition. It's the only guarantee of a pure breed.The cheetah is understood to have been the result of a bottleneck. But a series of population splits would end up creating the same genetic situation in the end. The creature may survive or not. The elephant seal seems to be surviving and proliferating in a condition of genetic depletion.You don't need mutation for any of the scenarios I've given. All you need is the isolation of a portion of the gene pool over generations. This ought to be intuitively obvious but I realize the ToE has a stranglehold on most of the minds here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since nobody is saying anything relevant or even intelligent with respect to my OP, I might as well comment on whatever catches my attention at the moment. Such as this totally ridiculous irrelevant and ignorant one: Have you thought for half a second about what I said in the OP? Do you know the difference between GENETIC diversity and NEW PHENOTYPES? Do you know that if you change gene frequencies so that blue eyes which were high frequency in the original population are low frequency in the daughter population, and purple eyes that showed up extremely rarely are now high frequency in the new population, that now after many generations of recombination of the new gene frequencies the new population will be characterized by all purple eyes? NEW phenotype brought about by eliminating the alleles for the OLD phenotype. The blue eyes of course remain in the old population, but being extremely low frequency in the new would drop out altogether after a few generations. But we do now have a brand new population with pretty purple eyes because we eliminated the alleles for blue eyes and other colors too. By random selection purple eyes come to be characteristic of this new subspecies, just as if somebody intentionally selected for purple eyes in creating a domestic breed.Get it?Oh of course not. I waste my breath here. Yawn. It would be nice if I could erase all the dumb posts in the thread but I guess they have to remain. 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 ASSUMPTION, Blue Jay, that is held by believers in the ToE, does not have that rational a source as you posit. It's simply the assumption that ALL alleles in ALL genomes were formed by mutation because the theory of evolution requires it. It IS an assumption.And besides, the fact that extremely rarely you get a beneficial result from a mutation, what, even involving the exchange of one disease condition for another (sickle cell versus malaria) and only FOUR times out of billions? cannot possibly be any basis for attributing the formation of normal alleles to what is otherwise known as mistake which is most frequently a destructive disease-causing mistake. Once in a great while even the mistake of mutation could by a fluke create a viable arrangement of the DNA in spite of its destructive intentions. As it were.,Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So for reference, this is what Tangle said in Message 39: I don't think Percy even guddit.That is one of the most confused ridiculous irrelevant statements I've ever encountered in this discussion. I'm supposed to take that seriously? I guess so. I guess this is the confused ridiculous irrelevant level everybody is thinking on. Sad sad sad. What IS the point.?First of all I only started this thread because Percy doesn't want me stating my position in other threads. I really have no interest in debating it for the umpteenth time. I know it's true and I don't need the ridiculous irrelevant unthinking arguments against it. I might as well go watch something on Netflix. Which I may after I answer this one.SO. Groan. First, let's be clear that I haven't mentioned "speciation" in anything I've said so far. When I say subspecies are created by the loss of genetic diversity I'm not necessarily saying that breeding with the original population has become impossible, which is what the term "speciation" implies. This MAY occur at some point as they diverge genetically through generations of recombination in REPRODUCTIVE isolation, which may be enforced by nothing more than simple geographic distance from each other. I really don't think it matters one way or the other to the idea that a new subspecies has been created. Just as in dog breeding reproductive isolation may be artificially enforced to protect the genetic substrate of the breed, there is no reason in nature there has to be a complete NATURAL loss of ability to interbreed with other populations, whether by genetic mismatch or mere sexual preference or whatever the cause. Again, it MIGHT happen, but there's nothing special about it if it does. That's why I don't talk in terms of "speciation." It's a completely artificial category. You can get new subspecies all the time without losing interbreeding ability, and losing it doesn't make it any more a species than any of the others. What makes it a subspecies is its different overall characteristics from the others. Black wildebeests, blue wildebeests. They're observably different. They are separate (sub)soecies whether they can interbreed or not.ANYWAY. Absolutely false.Adding genetic variety can only PREVENT speciation.Think of speciation in terms of a breeder establishing a breed. Does the breeder want more genetic variety? Of course not, that only prevents getting the breed. The genetic variety has to be reduced to the particular characteristics the breeder desires.Why would adding genetic variety produce a new species in Nature either then? Adding genetic variety will get you a motley population with many different characteristics based on many different genotypes, many of which may certainly be able to interbreed with individuals of other populations of the same species. That's not speciation. It may be a desirable situation for the sake of the creature's health but it's not speciation. Speciation occurs when you have a homogeneous population that can not interbreed with other (sub)species of its kind. If you would only carefully read and understand my OP you couldn't possibly say something this ridiculous.ANY two populations that diverge from an original population will have different gene frequencies from each other and from the original population. It's highly improbable (though I suppose not absolutely impossible) for the gene frequencies to remain the same, because the diverging individuals form two random groups. If gene A has 60% frequency in the original population and gene B is at 30% and gene C at 10%, what is the probability that those exact frequencies would stay the same in the two separate populations after divergence? It's possible for one of the new populations to get something like 20% A, 20% B and 60% C. The other would get mostly A, less B than in the original and no C at all.In any case the two divergent populations are going to have VERY different gene frequencies and therefore will produce a different range of phenotypes from one another. If they are reproductively isolated from each other and others of the same species and go on to recombine their separate gene frequencies over generations to the point of recognizably diverging phenotypically from one another, then you may get speciation of one or both populations.The point I keep making is that for this to happen requires the reduction of genetic diversity, meaning in this case the low frequency alleles, and as is often said in discussions about how population genetics works, low frequency alleles most often drop out of the population altogether. You get two new daughter populations built on the loss of the characteristics of the other population. (I may not be getting all the percentages sorted out properly here but I hope the gist is clear.)In any case you'll get two distinctive subspecies whether or not they can still interbreed after many generations. If they can't that's what you call speciation, but it's a pretty artificial idea in reality since you can have lots of subspecies that are genetically capable of interbreeding though they may not in fact do so. Around the ring of a series of "ring species" some can still interbreed, some can't, they're all called "species" though to be accurate they are really subspecies, all subspecies of greenish warblers perhaps of the overall species of greenish warblers. Each of the separate (sub)species has its own unique phenotypic characteristics from all the others, and what I'm trying to get across is that each is formed from the former population by losing the genetic basis of the characteristics of the former populations so that new ones can emerge from the lower frequency alleles. This can continue from daughter population to daughter population, adding new phenotypes while losing genetic diversity until genetic diversity may run out completely in the last population to form.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Time to go watch some Netflix. If I'm up to it later I may try to answer some of the other completely nonsensical manglings of the idea in my OP.Yawn.

That's the lowest level possible science blue jay, basically a delusion. But with the ToE you have to be happy with any pretense I suppose.

READ WHAT I WROTE AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sheesh. What makes the kind of difference that leads to speciation is REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY,. Good grief. n

This is not an error I make. I've been defending this argument for over ten years. I do not make that error. But your comment proves that you must be doing it yourself. I keep putting off dealing with your posts because you say so many ridiculously wrong things and say them at such length I haven't been up to it. For you to impute that particular error to me makes it only too sadly clear that you must be wrong to an even more abysmal degree than I suspected.

The last three posts are not worth answering. First one is irrelevant, second one is wrong, third one is both irrelevant and wrong. Soon as someone says something at all worth answering I'll answer it.

My argument is simple, straightforward, uses words correctly according to the English language, is not jargon-ridden but clear to anyone who is willing to just read carefully, and correctly makes use of necessary concepts from population genetics. It IS counterintuitive, that is what makes it difficult, although the concepts are implicit in breeding methods for one thing, and that ought to give you a handle on them if you were just willing to do that; also, evolutionist lore ASSUMES the things I'm challenging, assumes increase in genetic diversity for instance because the theory requires it, not because it is true. I repeat the point about losing genetic diversity over and over because it IS counterintuitive. Eventually it ought to sink into the most resistant skull. And yours is probably the most resistant here because you have immersed yourself more completely in evo lore than probably anyone else here. But you haven't spent any time at all even trying to understand the argument I'm making.You want me to use words that would actually obscure what I'm trying to say. I have no reason to even try to do that. I've accommodated to such complaints many times before as far as is consistent with my aims. Just read the English and follow the argument instead of imposing your standard evo BS on everything I say. There must be some INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS that could be asked about my claims instead of this you aren't a scientist and you have no right to challenge our sanctified theory attitude you all have. Too bad but after all this time that's the only explanation that makes sense for the dunderheaded responses I get from everybody here.You don't WANT to get my point and there is nothing more to it. Bias is the basic problem but if it weren't for willful blindness on top of it bias might be overcome with time. You are all just a bunch of stubborn ego-driven MEN who refuse to understand simple English. Why, because I'm a nonscientist, a Christian believer, or perhaps just because I'm a woman? I don't expect an honest answer, you'd hide the truth from yourselves anyway.The argument is counterintuitive, it takes some effort to overcome that effect. It challenges evo assumptions; it takes some effort to overcome that too. Otherwise it is written in straightforward English and it's correct.Treat me like I'm an intelligent person who knows what I'm talking about. Read my simple English the way it should be read. Make an effort to overcome your own assumptions. I've repeated my points clearly enough time and again, you really have no excuse for continuing to refuse to get the point.

Actually they are not. That has become clear. See my last post -- Message 96. I'm tired of playing the game. They posture and pose and say totally off the wall irrelevant things but apparently I'm not allowed to answer in kind? Apparently not. Why should that surprise me. When I say they don't get it TRY FOR A CHANGE GETTING THAT THEY DON'T GET IT. I've said it often enough. They don't get it. Neither do you. BS. Irrelevant, wrong and irrelevant. I've rebutted them a million times already and more than once on this thread. He doesn't get it I'm tired of repeating myself. The rebuttal has been stated and stated and stated and stated. Just reread it. Require HIM to reread it. It's all there. NoNukes says the most ridiculously off the wall things of anybody here. He isn't "trying to understand" anything. He's raising the usual weird objections that don't even make sense. I never said speciation applied to breeding. I use breeding to demonstrate that developing a breed depends on losing genetic diversity, which I apply to the formation of subspecies in the wild since the same population genetics principles must apply.However occasionally a breed does become unable to reproduce with other breeds so it is a form of speciation but that's not really relevant anyway. You don't play fair either Percy, which is in fact demonstrated by this post of yours I'm answering. It's clear I'm on my own here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it "seems to be rubbish" to someone committed to willful blindness who won't even try to get it.