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

quote:

---

Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm using the breeding situation as an example of the principle involved. Just as you wouldn't maintain your breed if you allowed alien alleles into it, nature wouldn't be producing the neat clearcut examples of species that it in fact does. You know, lions that ALL look amazingly just like lions and so on.

---

The same way that wolves ALL look amazingly like wolves, despite having the genetic variation to produce so many different breeds of dog. Seriously Faith, the homogeneity of species is not due to the same lack of variation found in breeds of dog.

quote:

---

Yeah, if, but in fact it doesn't happen much if at all and if it happened to any appreciable extent it WOULD change the look of a species. Let's not quibble over small degrees of change, just as in breeding you don't want to violate the breed, nature seems to be conservative about hoiding on to her "breeds" too.

---

They aren't breeds, certainly not in the sense of purebred pedigree dogs. They are species.
And you forget that I am talking about a long term trend of constant genetic diversity (in successful species). Even if you argue that there is a limit on how much genetic diversity a species is "allowed" that limit is not going to decline.

quote:

---

Doesn't really seem to be the case though, does it? We force the mating of lions and tigers to get "ligers," but in nature it doesn't happen.

---

I.e. The division between (those) species is not artificially maintained - hardly a counter-example. Where species are willing to interbreed the results are different (e.g. Introduced North American Ruddy Duck, hybridising with European White Headed Ducks. To the point where the latter was threatened with effective extinction)

quote:

---

Yes, that has to entail some legit form of mutation, but the vast majority of mutations that occur aren't in sex cells anyway, and most are not beneficial either so why keep talking about them as if there was some sort of equation mutation=allele? You don't know that, you aren't offering evidence either, you are just stating the party line as usual.

---

The fact that there is a group of genes - where diversity is especially important, and where mutation almost certainly contributes to diversity - and yet have no visible affect on appearance is not evidence that genetic variation does not have to produce visible differences in appearance ? I guess you could have said that I was offering proof rather than evidence, but anything else would be ridiculous.

quote:

---

Oh just make some kind of simple effort to get what I mean instead of blasting away with your silly straw man exaggeration. I meant what I said above: species in the wild DO appear to maintain homogeneity. That's how we know a lion from a kittycat.

---

A point I answered. So much for "not getting" your argument.

quote:

---

BUT GO BACK TO THE TITLE OF THIS POST: If you add a bunch of mutations after a species has formed you WILL lose the species. If you add as much as you all WANT to add for fear I'm right that otherwise it's the end of evolution, then you WILL destroy any species that has formed. Please get these things in CONTEXT.

---

The only way to "lose" a species, other than extinction is for it to merge into another. Adding a few minor variations - to those already existing - is not going to do that. And you cannot sensibly argue that there is a limit on the "allowed" variation within a species below the variation actually existing within real species - but you are arguing just that.Even those variations that do cause obvious differences in appearance do not "lose" the species. The King cheetah mutation did not "lose" the cheetah.So IN CONTEXT your claim is clearly and obviously false.

True, not always, and you are right about wolves. But at the point where a species has just formed or been forming you would not get homogeneity, you'd get scattered phenotypes from the introduction of enough mutations to correct the loss of genetic diversity which is what you are of course trying to do.I'll have to come back to the rest of this later.

quote:

---

True, not always, and you are right about wolves. But at the point where a species has just formed or been forming you would not get homogeneity, you'd get scattered phenotypes from the introduction of enough mutations to correct the loss of genetic diversity which is what you are of course trying to do.

---

As I've said quite often - even in this thread - I expect the majority of the diversity to be added AFTER the new species has formed. So no, I am not arguing that the decline in genetic diversity will be "corrected" at that time. And your "scattered phenotypes" assertion is still wrong for the reasons I have already given.

I've been told I'm not allowed to say I've already answered something so you need to give those reasons again.But I've probably answered them anyway, since it just has to be the case that when you have a homogeneous species and start getting gene flow of any kind into that species, whether from mutations or something else, you are at first going to get scattered new phenotypes. Why you would argue with that is beyond me.

If you're going to include all variations then species are "scattered phenotypes", which makes the whole point irrelevant. Unless and until you provide some reason to single out "new" variations (which now apparently includes variations found in other populations of the species!) you don't have a point.

Western Yellow WagtailOr to put it simply, the appearance is so variable that many sub-species have been proposed - and while the "real" number is much lower there's still some disagreement on how many there are. At the same time another, related species is indistinguishable by appearance.It's complicated.

Before answering this I want to see your reply on Message 176, as it is important to the comments you make. What I want to do is understand your argument so you don't say things like So help me to know precisely what your thesis is, and how you see it working.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ..

But, on the face of it, hyenas look more like dogs than like cats. However, hyenas are genetically more closely related to cats and meerkats than to dogs. More closely related to lions than to wolves. What "kind" did old Noah put on the Ark for hyenas?Edited by Pressie, : Chaged the spelling of Hyenas to hyenas.

But that's assuming the conclusion, Faith. I pointed this out previously. Yes, it is common in plants but does occur in some animals as well Polyploid animals. The problem is that polyploidy is a mutation caused by non-disjunction during meiosis. It's a well known, observed phenomenon. My apologies, I did forget about your eye troubles. However, I did explain the chart in my own words and included the author's caption to the chart.The chart shows a trend of increasing heterozygosity and % of the total number of alleles as the breeds become more recent. If the "rule" was that breeds LOSE genetic variability the trend line should be decreasing. Newer breeds should, on average, have less heterozygosity than older breeds. That is not a "claim," it is what the data shows. Even so, the diversity is not just remaining high, but increasing. You claim breeding REDUCES genetic diversity. I should have changed the Lab example like I did the others because "bred from" is not exactly the correct term I should have used. The Labrador was developed earlier and the Golden was developed later (in the same line of descent).Did you even read the quote from Wikipedia?

quote:

---

Marjoribanks had purchased Nous in 1865 from an unregistered litter of otherwise black wavy-coated retriever pups.

---

Breeding is clearly not a straightforward process and does not produce true tree-like branching. A true breeding phylogeny would be a network consisting of hybrids all over the place. This tree shows mitochondrial DNA inheritance I believe, would show maternal descent. The Wikipedia article does say that the Golden retriever was descended from the a retriever and then hybridized with another breed.Besides, reading up a little on the history of the breeds in the retriever group (Newfoundland, Labrador, Golden, and Flat-coated) the chart seems fairly accurate to me. The interbreeding is definitely a lot more complicated that the tree shows, which as you say would introduce alleles into a breed and increase diversity.But if that is how breeding works, you don't have a case anyway. Breeding isn't just simple population splits and subsequent reduction in diversity.The study I linked shows that diversity of dog breeds has increased over time, not decreased as you say it should have. I don't know what else to say about it.HBD

Hi Faith,You cannot continue with unsupported assertions as foundations for your positions and arguments. I'm not going to suspend you this time, but these unsupported positions and arguments have been called to your attention over and over again, so because of this very long history they'll draw suspensions in the future. Calling to your attention just the first problematic assertions in this message: Briefly, and supplying a couple details from things you said elsewhere, the two unsupported assertions are:

1. Evolution is a subtractive process through selection. The opposite process, mutation, is either non-existent or too inconsequential to consider.
   ​
2. There is no such thing as speciation, though in that particular paragraph you're just referencing this well known opinion of yours rather than stating it when you say, "The processes of evoution...in the process of producing a new subspecies..."

Please, no replies to this message.

You've been cautioned enough times for accusing people of not understanding your argument. See you in 24 hours.

You have stated a number of times that a just formed species would not be homogeneous but would "get scattered phenotypes from the introduction of enough mutations to correct the loss of genetic diversity." No one sees why "scattered phenotypes" would be an expected outcome. The next time you make this point you must support it with evidence and argument, else I will suspend you again.

One of the serious errors you make when you analogize from breeds to species is exemplified by this statement. Just how "homogeneous" is the grouping 'kitty cat'? What variation must we disallow before we kick an animal out of the 'kitty kat' grouping? What variations can subspecies of humans have before we decide that they are not human anymore? If indeed races are subspecies, if a mutation of a black person produced a narrow nose or light skin, is the result no longer Negroid? Other than superficially using the features by which we differentiate races, are the races homogeneous? I've heard that all black people look alike, but isn't that just the way things look to some non discerning white folks?There are uncountable differences between a lion and a domestic cat. The likelihood that any random mutation or variation added to a cat might diminish the difference must be incredibly small given all the possible traits that might be varied. The view of species as necessarily homogeneous is totally flawed. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is NOT assuming the conclusion for pete’s sake, it’s merely stating that it does not contradict my argument as you seem to think it does. Good grief man. The chart shows breeds according to WHEN THEY WERE REGISTERED AS BREEDS. Genetically that means absolutely nothing and it’s hard to fathom why anyone would even do such a study or think you could find out anything about the genetics of the breeds from it. I’ve read up on all those you chose from the chart to prove me wrong and I’ll put that information at the bottom. Not if the breeds are listed according to when they were registered and not when they were developed Those dogs aren't even related to each other so that supposed increase in genetic diversity has nothing to do with my argument.Also I don’t claim CROSS BREEDING reduces genetic diversity and some of those breeds were formed by cross breeding. I’m only talking about SELECTIVE* BREEDING, where you only breed from one line for a particular trait. You may start with cross breeds but if selective breeding doesn't then take over it has nothing to do with my argument.In the end that chart is such a hodgepodge of unrelated things the supposed increase in genetic diversity is just incomprehensible. The whole study is so bizarre how can any of it be trusted? The recent ones are not recently BRED, just recently registered, and unless you study each one individually there is no way to know if cross breeding or selective breeding was involved. Not according to the Wikipedia article it’s not the same line of descent. If you want to disprove my argument you have to use examples that I’m talking about and for that a dog would indeed have to be bred from a previous dog BY SELECTIVE BREEDING ALONE, that is by selecting from the earlier breed the desired traits and mating only within the breed that possesses those traits. Yes I did and I quoted the part about how the Golden Retriever was the result of a CROSS (see Message 179), and the Labrador is nowhere even in the line of descent, it isn’t even mentioned. But again only SELECTIVE breeding is what I’m talking about. Cross breeding ADDS ALLELES, it’s a completely different form of breeding. My whole focus is on what happens genetically due to SELECTION AND ISOLATION. I specifically mention hybrids from time to time to say that’s NOT what I’m talking about. Which means it can’t possibly disprove my argument. SELECTIVE breeding is what I’m always talking about. You have to have breeds that were developed that way, where you know the beginning of the selection process and can trace the genetic diversity from there.There are lots of retrievers, you can’t assume the Labrador was even in the mix, especially when you go to the article about the Labrador: Labrador Retriever and find that it was bred from the St. John’s water dog in Newfoundland, whereas the Golden Retriever was bred in Scotland as a cross between a water spaniel and a retriever. Reading about the St. John’s water dog, I find that it was the direct source of the Labrador, and that it was exported to England where it was bred with other dogs to get their retrievers. This is later than the Golden Retriever according to the other article, but it is said in this article to be descended from the St. John’s. So the Lab and the Golden are related but are not in a direct line. To prove anything about my argument they would have to be in a direct line of descent by selective breeding only. That chart that arranges them by when they were registered as breeds says absolutely nothing about them genetically. Depends on the breed but my argument is only about selective breeding. You lose genetic diversity with selective breeding. That’s all I’m ever talking about. It’s SELECTION that reduces genetic diversity. Well you should have recognized that when a dog was registered says nothing about it genetically, and that brings the study itself into question. To say anything about my argument you’d have to have dogs in a direct line of descent. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the dogs on this chart. Why should more recently registered dogs have higher genetic diversity? The only reason I can think of is what I said earlier, that they may not have been as severely selectively bred as earlier breeds. However, so far it doesn’t look like the earlier breeds were particularly heavily selectively bred either so who knows? In any case that chart makes no sense.Now I want to go back to your earlier post (Message 178) because I did do some reading up on the dogs you chose to prove me wrong, where you conclude: Awww Snap. It doesn't look good for the theory of genetic depletion.: Your falsification is falsified above in this case where I show that the Golden is not descended from the Labrador. Even though it supports my argument I wanted to see if these animals are related according to your claim.

• Pomeranian = Spitz type; Central Europe (No. Poland) ; toy dog, popular with Queen Victoria Origin working dogs from Arctic regions. Considered to be descended from the German Spitz. Written mentions in 1700s
  ​
• Papillon =Toy SPANIEL (not Spitz} On your phylogenetic chart Spaniels and Spitzes aren’t related at all. Earliest in Italy paintings around 1500
  ​
• Pug Brought from China to Europe in 16th century. Later popularity mentioned but nothing more about its ancestry. There doesn’t appear to be even a remote relatedness between the three.

Though you say this group "supports" my claim, it can't either support or falsify it because they aren't related to each other.

• Borzoi Ancient breeds from Afghan area 9th, 10th centuries. Later crossed with western sighthounds
  ​
• Greyhound No mention of relatedness to Borzoi. "While similar in appearance to Saluki (Persian Greyhound) or Sloughi (tombs at Beni Hassan c. 2000 BCE), analyses of DNA reported in 2004 suggest that the Greyhound may not be closely related to these breeds, but is a close relative to herding dogs.[49][50] Historical literature on the first sighthound in Europe (Arrian), the vertragus, the probable antecedent of the Greyhound, suggests that the origin is with the ancient Celts from Eastern Europe or Eurasia."

Conclusion: Falsification is falsified. There is no relation between the two breeds.

• Pembroke Welsh Corgi They descend from the line that is the northern spitz-type dog (examples include that of the Siberian Husky). Lineage has been traced back as far as 1107 AD. Pembroke Welsh Corgis are closely related to Schipperkes, Keeshonds, Pomeranians, Samoyeds, Chow Chows, Norwegian Elkhounds and Finnish Spitz But interestingly, NOT related to Border collie or Australian sheep dog.
  ​
• Border collie developed in the Anglo-Scottish border region for herding livestock 19th cent.
  ​
• Australian sheep dog Not Australian at all, bred in the western USA, early as 1800s. They have a similar look to the popular English Shepherd and Border Collie breeds. A similar LOOK, apparently not related. Some think it might have Basque ancestry.

Conclusion: Your falsification is falsified. There is no relation between the three breeds.Sorry, I know it made you very happy to think you’d falsified my claims.=======================* SELECTIVE breeding comes up in this post quite a bit and since I've been asked to make it clear, at least I can give two references from the dog links above that may do that:From the Pembroke Corgi link, From the Australian sheep dog link: From Wikipedia, Selective Breeding: The way I've been using the idea, it means traits either naturally selected or randomly selected from a population to form a new population. In breeding the drastic version of it is breeding only those individuals that possess the chosen traits from each generation. It subtracts those without the traits from the gene pool, which is the opposite of cross breeding, which adds to the gene pool a selected type expected to add desirable traits or enhance the existing traits.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wasn't going to respond to the substance of your message because as moderator I'm not a participant in the discussion, and since Taq responded to you I decided to withhold my comments until you replied and I saw what direction the subtopic took. But you didn't reply to Taq, so I'm cautioning you now, again, to refrain from propounding arguments that are absent evidence. It is fine "to get a creationist perspective into the picture," but only with evidence accompanied by argumentation that places it in a rational and comprehensible context.You presented no evidence of overt design by a designer, or of an initial Creation event where the designs happened. When you said that embryological development "has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed evolutionary history" you provided no counterevidence to all the evidence of a relationship between embryological development and evolutionary connections. There was no argument or evidence for why fossils should be more common than they are.Please, no replies to this message.