Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

This quote from the Wikipedia article on Genotype Frequency doesn't treat the H-W equilibrium as an ideal but as a reality. Not about how new gene frequencies from a population split bring about phenotypic variation. I'm saying this is the main way new subspecies or varieties are made. Microevolution means "evolution within a population???" I have NO idea what you are saying. Microevolution IS evolution, it's what is happening wherever new varieties or subspecies are being formed from new gene frequencies. You have absolutely lost me. You are talking gobbledygook as far as I can tell, making unimportant distinctions as far as my argument is concerned. It is "gene frequency" not "genotype frequency" that is defined as evolution, and it's evolution I'm talking about. * Your list was of ALL species within a species or I guess family. You listed ALL the different breeds of dogs and claimed no loss of genetic diversity. That would only be true of the entire family of dogs, because separate breeds do in fact have sharply reduced genetic diversity and where selection has been severe genetic depletion that has brought about genetic diseases. I believe it was you who once posted that chart of dog breeds, absurdly claiming it disproved my argument when it didn't show for most of them which descended from which because that information was not known. Just another way you do NOT grasp what I'm arguing despite your insistence that you do. NO!!! I'm talking about the TREND to reduced genetic diversity. It may or may not come to Speciation. I figure there could be many daughter populations in a series, as in "ring species," without actually reaching Speciation, just new geographically isolated subspecies with less genetic diversity than the parent population. Since dog breeds certainly show often drastic genetic reduction what on earth are you talking about? That's why I use dog breeds. You don't get a breed without losing the alleles for all the other breeds, THAT'S THE POINT. I would assume the same is the case with your other examples, orchids and I forget the rest. How can you just blithely announce that what I'm describing is not shown in your example since I know it is with dogs? NO YOU DO NOT GET IT!!!! You seem to get it and then you show that you clearly don't. What IS the problem? Extrapolating back from the loss of genetic diversity brought about by selection, random or artificial or natural (it's all the same effect), I add back the genetic diversity lost down the generations and arrive at LOTS of genetic diversity at the starting point from which all the types and breeds descended. A lot more heterozygosity I've many times suggested. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? WHAAAAAAT? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? "Shuffling alleles around" proves you have no idea what I'm talking about. I've explained my idea about how we got from the ark to today many many times, and explained it again above. Since I have no idea what your problem is you are going to have to make it a lot clearer if you really want an answer. It would be if you understood what I'm talking about and looked in the right place for the right evidence. It would also help if you understood that I'm talking about a TREND in that direction. That's what you would look for rather than the stopping point itself. The stopping point is the natural ultimate consequence of that trend, and my guess is that there are examples of species in that condition too which are discoverable if you are looking in the right place for the right evidence. I answered this on the Computer Help Please thread.Seems to me I've been able to copy links sometimes even since Windows 10 but last time I tried I couldn't.===============================
* Sorry for getting impatient. You keep bringing up supposed problems that seem/are completely irrelevant, when a little extra thought might have shown you I've already dealt with the issue. I usually say that it takes some generations of inbreeding for the new look of the new population to emerge from its new set of gene frequencies. This answers your gene frequency versus genotype frequency "problem:" The new population has new gene frequencies; the genotype frequency will change over some generations as the new gene frequencies get mixed, and contrary to your expectation this WILL change the appearance of the daughter population in comparison with the parent population. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add footnote on genotype frequency

The necessity of loss of genetic diversity in breeding, such as dog breeding and the known fact that selection reduces genetic diversity are evidence for starters. Funny you haven't noticed. I can repeat it I guess. My focus is on the processes that bring about new subspecies from new gene frequencies, which is what evolution is., Evoilution is not going on in the periods of stability. I'm interested in the results of evolution, which are the production of new phenotypes that in reproductive isolation become a new subspecies with a different appearance from the parent population, which is what is normally pointed to as proof of evolution, and the fact that this costs alleles, of necessity reduces genetic diversity, which is the opposite of what the ToE needs to happen if its most popular tenet of Species-to-Species variation holds water. It doesn't hold water.All those who keep pointing to the genetic increases need to show that you could get evolution out of them. There's no way you could get evolution out of Dr. A's American Curl, and there's no way you could get evolution out of a million wildebeests contentedly munching grass. You have to SELECT whole animals out of these groups and isolate them reproductively, and then and only then will you begin to see the variations that are called evolution. You may get drift, though that usually happens in smaller populations, and that's arguably a form of evolution, but it works exactly like the examples I'm giving anyway, by (randomly) selecting a phenotype that becomes characteristic over some number of generations as others drop out of the pool. But geographic isolation makes the case better. Sorry if it hasn't been clear but I've certainly made the argument many times. Funny, it's been made over and over and over, funny you 've missed it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You act as if I'd never discussed this. Twelve is really a lot when you are talking about EVERY locus in the genome, or on the ark at least a majority, and when you assume, as I do, that there were lots more functioning genes for a given trait than is now the case, huge numbers having been lost to "junk DNA" since then. I do need to account for the extra alleles that now exist for a single locus nevertheless, so I've considered the possibility that there is some kind of mutation, just not the random accidental kind.Interesting if maximum heterozygosity is 50% as you say. If so that would go back to Adam and Eve and I'd expect that on the ark to be somewhat lower. Something to ponder. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your dating methods are unreliable.

No. Just new allele frequencies, which we have as result of the population split, which will become the basis for the new genotypes as they get worked through the population down the generations.ABE: You aren't going to get "new" genotypes, just a new frequency of genotypes. Where you had, say, 90% bb, 8% Bb and 2% BB in the original population, you could have 20% bb, 70%Bb and 10% BB. Parent lots of blue eyes, daughter an increase in brown eyes which should increase even more down the generations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you would look for is a higher percentage of heterozygosity throughout the genome. Perhaps significantly less junk DNA.But I don't believe Oetzi is that old. He ate "highly processed" grains for one thing. Not that I think he bought his cereal at the supermarket, but it suggests something a little more modern than is usually imputed to him. Give up on the radiometric dating and it's all guesswork.

Dear dear Moddy, I said nothing about H-W equilibrium. If for some reason it SHOULD be in equilibrium, though I don't know why it should, then adjusting the percentages is fine with me. It was just a collection off the top of my head to describe what I figured was a predominantly blue-eyed population -- from which the daughter population randomly selected most of the B's which would give it a new set of genotypes, which was the point to HBD who keeps insisting that population splits don't change genotypes (or phenotypes.)I know this makes me a lazy bum, but I like to keep the argument general rather than getting all specific about exact percentages of this that or the other, because the argument is about a general trend and not about specifics.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sounds good to me. Let me know what you find out about the Roman Empire.

You have a big problem with context. The context is that selection, random or otherwise, gets new gene frequencies, new gene frequencies bring out new phenotypes, getting new phenotypes requires losing alleles, reproductive isolation of these phenotypes can produce a new subspecies which must trend toward reduced genetic diversity as a result. This is evolution. There's no point in examining other contexts when I know this is evolution and it costs genetic diversity.

I think you should start a separate Peanut Gallery thread because I've been posting to this one and that's not supposed to happen on the Peanut Gallery.

I don't feel the stress or pressure of posting here now that the Great Debate is set up.But answering people's posts to me is not the same thing as responding to the comments about the debate on the Peanut Gallery where the debaters are specifically not supposed to post according to the rules, so I won't respond to your comment about the debate.It may seem a small point and maybe I should just stop posting here altogether but if I have a thought in response to someone then I post it and don't have a sense of obligation to post if I don't want to. It also keeps my brain in gear for the debate itself because I'm pondering my next answer at the same time. Hm. It's a little like playing a game of Free Cell while I'm pondering a post, which I used to do before Windows 10 took away my games. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Generating a new phenotype is definitely evolution. I suppose you think you understand my argument? Just proved you haven't a clue.

Meant genotype.

I did think it through and discovered it is defensible.

I used to wonder about that too. The genetic difference as I finally came to understand it is that they had much greater heterozygosity at more loci throughout the genome than we do. And the effect of that greater heterozygosity would in fact be the opposite of "different" from what I've read: in fact they should have been about as normal, typical, average as it's possible to get. The fact, for instance, that they would have possessed all the genetic possibilities for all the varieties of skin color, means only that they were right in the middle of the color range. Probably brown eyes, B being dominant over b, and dark hair, medium height, etc etc etc. Nobody knows, of course, but I think it is a very satisfying idea.