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

It is entirely possible that we have, however we can't be sure without more evidence. Unfortunately this evidence is hard to come by due to the low incidence of fossils being found (or formed).Call it standard scientific tentativity to how the nested hierarchies develop. Not odd at all, rather there IS a range in each of the transitional layers. Look again at the Pelycodus -- each layer has a range of sizes, and different layers have different (but overlapping) ranges of sizes. So as the population as a whole evolves to larger sizes each transitional group in their specific layer has a range of sizes. And again, we can look at the foraminifera and a virtually continuous evolution over time, with thousands of intermediate forms, with speciation events, all bedded in the spatial\temporal matrix. Because the evidence forms nested hierarchies, not a braided network: once you have branched off from an evolutionary lineage you can't share the same mutations and thus the same developments if it is evolution; creation does not have such a restriction, and all known actual design certainly cross-fertilizes borrowed ideas in a braided network pattern that does not form nested hierarchies.Enjoy

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, : ..

For us to really know this we have to know what your argument is, without rambling side comments, and without confusions.Does Message 176 describe your argument? If not please correct. You can IM/PM/message me if you don't want to post it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Are you getting DSL or FIOS instead of cable? Hopefully not dial-up (although that has gotten faster as everyone else moves to cable & DSL) That is indeed one of the problems I see with your argument/s -- that you waffle around a core concept when you discuss it with others, and this makes it difficult to know for sure what that core argument is.Now it is fine to be tentative, but your core concept needs to be a statement of certainty to be scientific -- that is what makes them falsifiable when those certain statements are shown to be incorrect (or not always correct). That certainty in the concept is also what leads to predictions that test the validity of the concept.So to "understand the Faith argument" I need to know what that core concept is, and then we can discuss what it predicts would happen and what it predicts would not happen. What makes those low frequency alleles drop out other than the increase of the other alleles in the population?How do you get the rise of new phenotypes without the increase in frequency of some alleles that were not high frequency before? And I believe my latest edit of the last conclusion reflects that: Well I would agree that natural selection and genetic drift and stochastic events (like volcanic eruptions) would impact the populations, it is just that natural selection is the only one of these that increases population fitness (adapts) by removing the lesser fit phenotype traits over time. As noted in my reply to NoNukes (Message 1034), in the short run (ie each generation) there are variations in the population that could be considered to be "pre-adapted" because they are better fit to the ecology or the ecological changes -- that this is natural selection working with the natural variation in each population to select the better fit over the lesser fit.It is the long run view, the continued trend over many generations, where you see adaption beyond what was available in the initial population: larger beaks than the largest beaks in the initial population (and the loss of the smallest beak traits). For now.Enjoy

The difference is that saying"I think X may sometimes cause Y" (waffling) and"I think X causes Y, but I am not sure -- let's test it; let's say that IF X causes Y THEN Z happens and then look for Z" (scientific tentativity).One is testable the other is not. But if we have a core concept that we want to test we can use it to make predictions of how the new set of gene frequencies should play out if the concept is true and how it should play out if the concept is false and what happens when it is only sometimes true. So the CORE argument is that "there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity" ... or as I had for the third conclusion: ... or would it be clearer to say: ? Your previous DSL modem would have needed the same. Is the new router wireless? That's what I have, with the modem located in the middle of the house and linked to the phone box by cable. Perhaps he wants you to use a new cable\different box to improve electrical flow (line loss).Enjoy

So the CORE hypothesis^(*) of your argument is that population divisions\splits have a tendency (trend) to have some loss of genetic diversity in the daughter population?Is that not saying the same thing as the first statement I listed on Message 176: We can change "does not" to "may not" if you wish, but I would note that this makes the statement a wishy-washy "sometimes X happens and sometimes X does not happen" statement that is not testable or refutable.Would you agree that theses statements follow from that initial CORE statement: Would you consider those statements to be part of your argument?Enjoy^(*) "hypothesis" because of the lack of evidence that people keep harping on.Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.

Faith, I feel like I'm trying to nail down jello ... Let me see if I can parse it differently for you... (doesn't have all) (the frequency of alleles) ...ie -- some would be different frequencies, some could be the same, for all the different alleles of all the different genes. I think we are saying the same thing here. Yes? So we agree at this stage that this is your argument. Yes?Moving on: The parent population is not cookie-cutter homogeneous, but a mixture of varieties. These varieties may not be extremely different, just slightly different as the different alleles\traits are distributed in bell curves for each gene.So this is a consequence of having different allele frequencies in the founding\first population, that the mixture of these slight varieties would be different from what was found in the parent population. These would not be new phenotypes, just a different selection of phenotypes that existed in the parent population.For instance you could have a higher % of blue eyes than in the parent population, and a lower % of curly hair than in the parent population. Which is essentially what I was saying in 3 and 4 and the conclusion that followed them: Do you agree with that being an accurate representation of your argument?Enjoy

Another term for them would be beneficial mutations.No need for a new name for an observed process -- mutations happen, some deleterious, some neutral and some beneficial.If it was not in the original individuals then it must be a mutation.If it benefits the bearer in survival and reproduction then it is by definition beneficial.Enjoy

Getting back to this ... Well I worry about not being able to discern what the argument is when it keeps wiggling. It's fine to be tentative, but if your foundation is tentative then the conclusion necessarily is tentative at best, and you need to recognize that as well. Think of it as taking a snap-shot of the genotype\phenotype mix of the first\origin generation of the daughter population from the isolation. If one could tabulate all the allele frequencies of all the genes you would have a definition of that population at that moment.We could do Hardy-Weinberg ratio calculations on them:

quote:

---

​

The Hardy-Weinberg ratio is the starting point for much of the theory of population genetics. It is the ratio of genotype frequencies that evolve when mating is random and neither selection nor drift are operating. ...

​

These frequencies are reached after a single generation of random mating from any initial genotype frequencies ...

---

That would quantify your initial population. Agreed, some traits are somewhat invisible to the eye, leading to better health for instance, but most of the phenotype selection would be apparent in different sizes, different details, and they would be apparent if you were to document each individual rather than look at a tv image of a herd for instance.So "very homogeneous" would be in the eye of the beholder and the detail they invoked. Ever looked at a herd of cows that all appeared superficially the same but differed in details? Curiously I think your "hardest to explain" problem is in your own making by not seeing the diversity in the original population. So we have a lot of agreement thus far, but ... Well, I think what we have here is one of the reasons you keep saying that people don't understand your argument, as we are using this word in slightly different ways.If it is an observation that you base your hypothesis on it is part of your argument that leads to that hypothesis, this is part of the formal structure of the way science is described.Your argument is not your conclusion, it is the path that leads to your conclusion: if persuasive it should lead others to a similar conclusion.The conclusion is not the argument it is the hypothesis that is based on the argument/s that are presented to support it.Your hypothesis is that these processes require reduced genetic diversity. As an hypothesis it is testable and falsifiable.This gets us to the point of new phenotype mixes beginning to occur ... Do you agree?Enjoy