Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

Correct me if I'm wrong:The mutations you are talking about are in the somatic/body cells, at least the vast majority of them are, is this correct?In other words I did not inherit them and they do not affect any of my inherited traits, is this correct?I did not pass any of them on to my daughter, is this correct?All those dog breeds may also have their own individual set of mutations that also contribute absolutely nothing to their breed traits, is this correct?.Mutations are known to be predominantly either neutral or causes of disease, is this correct?If all that is correct, those mutations have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about in this discussion.

All I can say is that's too bad. Not a healthy situation.

That was a confusing remark since you didn't mention his name and the quote is attributed to me, not to Sarfati, and not to Sarfati via me.Could be a mutation, might not be.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence that mutations produce real traits is terrifically scarce, an odd situation here or there, and even then there are other explanations than mutation for particular changes.I'll say it again: even if mutations did do what you claim, they could make nothing new, could do nothing more than contribute to the pool of ordinary allelic variations, which would be redundant since there is plenty already built in; and that pool has to be reduced in order to get new phenotypes. As long as reduction in genetic diversity is needed for this purpose the ToE is a dead duck. No amount of mutations can overcome the selective processes that produce new phenotypes. But in reality mutations don't do anything like what is claimed anyway. With a few really questionable exceptions they contribute zip to the wellbeing of organisms or their evolution.And God has indeed helped me to understand these things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The breeds do NOT exhibit high GENETIC diversity. They can't, because they DON'T have all those genes for other traits. Each breed has to have low genetic diversity unless it's been mixed with others.

The topic that still needs explanation is the idea that you can measure genetic diversity by mutations in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA -- both areas that seem to have nothing to do with the actual losses under discussion, such as the loss of genetic diversity that is necessary to forming breeds and species, and the loss that at the extreme endangers creatures such as the cheetah and the elephant seal.

Don't know where you got this idea. It's entirely sufficient. The processes that reduce genetic diversity are the way the system was designed for the purpose of producing variety in living things. If there had been no Fall, no death, the system would produce wonderful variations in every Species or Kind without endangering them, lots more breeds of dogs even than that large collection we have. It's only because we live in this fallen world that the loss of genetic diversity becomes a problem for conservationists to deal with.And mutations can't help conservation. Carefully reintroducing gene flow through remixing separated populations is the only help for it, and that's a lot of what conservationists do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's only a problem for evolutionists who have to believe all living things descended from others. It's not a problem for Creation which was designed to produce variety. When one line runs out of genetic diversity you have a terrific new variety or subspecies to show for it. That was the purpose of it. But there remain thousands of other lines of variation that produce other varieties or subspecies. And even if I don't know exactly how it occurred it makes sense that junk DNA was once functioning genes that would have increased the possibilities for variation enormously. Dead genes are a symptom of the fallen world. The fecundity and variety of the original created world is something none of us can imagine. But I'm certainly looking forward to its promised restoration. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oddly you still haven't explained what nucleotide diversity is in relation to the loss of diversity that brought about the endangered species. It appears to be something else, something separate, something irrelevant. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is of course just a declaration of what the ToE teaches, an article of the Evo Faith.Any changes needed by the organism are already available through the built-in genetic possibilities, while the changes being added are either neutral or deleterious. I don't know why this isn't obvious.The ToE keeps getting recited and believed despite its utter uselessness. Taq refers to ALL genetic material as mutations, that's the level of faith in the ToE. If they're built-in you'd never find it out because belief is so strong that they're all mutations and having a contrary thought about it is very difficult. The actual evidence for beneficial mutations is almost nonexistent, the very few examples being treated as something very special for that reason.Even the idea that there has to be this need to change with changing conditions or they'll all go extinct is just an article of the Evo Faith. The idea of "Fitness" is an article of the Evo Faith. IF there was such a need, mutations wouldn't come to the rescue, being more likely the cause of extinctions themselves than any help against them. Yes I guess we've got the peppered moth now, certified mutant, maybe the pocket mice, and those are very interesting examples, I agree, though I still think they need more thought because probability is against the appearance of such a useful change. But in those cases fitness is paramount. There are no doubt other cases, but in the vast majority of species not all that many. There is no reason to believe Darwin's finches needed to change to fit the food available; change naturally occurs with isolation of a small population. Different kinds of beaks are the result, so the bird seeks out the food that fits the beak, and there's no reason to think there isn't some food in the environment that would fit. If there really was the extreme need to change because of environmental pressure, it seems far more likely the creature would just go extinct right then, there being no guarantee of an adaptive trait coming along either from a built-in or a mutant source.The Pod Mrcaru lizards didn't NEED to have large heads and tough digestive systems because their usual food was just as available on the island as in their place of origin. The changes occurred because of the new gene frequencies due to the small founding population. The changes increased over many generations until they characterized the entire population and the food that was suitable was available so they acquired a taste for it. There's probably SOME actual natural selection that occurs in nature, but I bet the above scenario is far more common.Oh well. I think the ToE is a big fat deception, so what else is new. Poor poor human race, so easily sold a bogus theory whose only recommendation is that it seems to get rid of the God they think they can do without. Mistaking mutations for friends when they are really murderers.Now I can't wait to find out more about the deception of how mutations in MtDNA and microsatellites increase genetic diversity. Just can't wait.

You are talking about PHENOTYPIC diversity. Your doing that raises all kinds of suspicions of course, since I couldn't have been clearer over at least the last ten years that I'm talking about GENETIC diversity.To get a phenotype you have to lose the GENETIC material for the OTHER phenotypes/breeds. Yes this is true, I did not make it up. Pick one of the chihuahuas, it DOESN'T have the genetic stuff for the OTHER chihuahuas. Each chihuahua DOESN'T have the stuff for the other chihuahuas (unless it isn't purebred and has had some gene flow. And yes that can happen, sometimes breeds are formed by mixing breeds etc etc etc, but I'm trying to keep to the simplest cleanest description of selecting traits and that is by ELIMINATING the alleles for the other traits of the other breeds. A purebred longhaired chihuahua will not have the alleles for the bald kind. Etc etc etc etc.

I think they didn't reproduce as often in the beginning as they did later, both humans and beasts. Also the entire planet was habitable back then, no inhospitable areas. Besides, there are lots of other planets out there. When thinking about the original Creation you have to avoid reading today's situation into it. I like to think of having lots of friendly animals around, bears and lions and tigers to be friends with. And birds. I guess not alligators so much, but who knows. As long as they don't want to munch on my leg I might enjoy them too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Pod Mrcaru lizards, Great Danes."Cosmetic" changes are the only kind there are. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, they're both populations that began with small numbers and continued in reproductive isolation. There may have been other factors but those are certain and primary.

WHAT? That makes no sense. Actually if you read up on breeds you find that a great many have an "ancient" history that can't be traced. Most modern breeds were developed from existing breeds. What does the 100 years have to do with anything? That's time for many generations of selection, that amounts to a series of population splits. And the only "nonsense" here is yours since you really don't have a clue what I'm talking about and just go on blathering as if you did.SELECTION is the REASON FOR THE reduced genetic diversity. It doesn't matter what the reason for the selection is, whether it's for adaptation or to meet human standards or just random. It all forms a population of reduced numbers with new gene frequencies. You seem to be implying something else but what that might be is beyond me. Selection is the reason for the small founding numbers and the fact that breeding programs keep the numbers low, often mating within family lines to keep up the appearance of the breed. Natural selection would have the same effect I'm talking about in producing an isolated population so it's not part of my argument, it's just that I think it's not the big factor always claimed for it. I think it's not so often the animal that changes to fit the environment but that the animal changes due to random genetic changes, and then finds the elements in the environment that fit its changes. No, you can observe adaptations directly, not natural selection except in some rare cases like the peppered moths and the pocket mice. No, and it isn't part of my argument so don't do your usual trick of making something I said mean something I didn't mean by it. It's a historical fact that Darwinism found an explanation for life that excluded God, it's not an artifact of YEC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.