Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

Apparently gross misrepresentation is "honest" while simply not inventing the jargon Faith wants is "dishonest". I do not think that further commentary is necessary.

quote:

---

Aren't you supposed to be a genius? You are certainly obtuse for a genius. The mutations don't count because they would only function as normal alleles anyway, which I'm arguing have to be reduced in the formation of a new species or breed

---

Seeing something that you seem determined not to get isn't being obtuse.The simple point that you keep missing is that an increase followed by a reduction does not have to be an overall reduction. This point has been made again and again to you, and yet you have never made a valid case for an overall reduction. So getting angry, telling people that they don't understand or worse calling them "delusional" simply amounts to bullying.Again let me explain the general outline of the process as I see it:Additive and subtractive forces are in dynamic equilibrium. As the balance of the forces shift, so genetic diversity will rise or decline until a new balance point is reached. The cycle of speciation is as follows:1) we start with a large population where overall diversity is relatively high - the additive processes are relatively strong (large population size) while drift is relatively weak, and selection is not especially strong.2) A small sub-population is split off, weakening additive processes (small isolated population) with strengthen drift and often selection. This population diverges and becomes a new species.3) The new population is successful and starts increasing in size altering the balance again (mutation becomes more important, drift starts to weaken, selection is very weak)4) As the new species approaches the success of the ancestral population, so its genetic diversity will rise to the same level as the old.I know that you disagree with this scenario, but you have not offered any sound reason to reject it, and it is more consistent with the evidence we have than your views are. And yet you do not even seem to acknowledge it.

quote:

---

Does it ever occur to you that you really might be enslaved to a false worldview?

---

Hardly a topic that we could do justice to without derailing the thread. Are you up for a Great Debate thread on the matter ?

Instead of insulting people who disagree with you, perhaps you should try arguing for your claims. Especially:

quote:

---

In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all. You'll be back at Square One as far as evolution of new species goes.

---

It's pretty unlikely that you'd get the exact mutations needed even to restore the lost phenotypic variations (of a typical case - phenotypic changes are not essential to speciation) let alone restore interfertility.And yet if we still have a phenotypically distinct population that does not interbreed with the parent population, then of course we have a new species. That should be obvious. So why would it be "obtuse" to reject your claim ? On the face of it, it is an obvious falsehood.

Please don't attribute my words to Faith

quote:

---

The Flood explains the strata and the fossils beautifully, but you don't want to believe the Flood occurred, that's all there is to it.

---

But you know that is not true. You know that the Flood fails to explain the fossil record as you admitted: Message 10

quote:

---

It is because there is no clear way to explain the supposed order of the fossil record that I now avoid it.

---

And I remind you of the fact I pointed out in that thread. The order in the fossil record is an observation that has withstood more than 200 years of investigation on a worldwide scale. It is a fact visible in the present. It cannot be lightly dismissed just because it is inconvenient for your argument.Of course you are hopelessly wrong about the Flood explaining the strata "beautifully", too but that is a subject for another thread.

quote:

---

How is it going to be "phenotypically distinct" if produced by mutations?

---

It will still lack the lost variations - at least most of the fixed traits will remain fixed - and it will likely have new variations not found in the parent species.

quote:

---

To get phenotypic distinction you HAVE to lose the genetic substrate for the phenotypes that aren't part of the new phenotypically distinct population

---

Which would stay lost, unless you are assuming that mutations would automatically restore it.

quote:

---

You need to stop calling me a liar. My argument is perfectly honest and consistent and I disagree with your theory honestly.

---

I didn't call you a liar. I just pointed out that your claim was obviously false. And it clearly is, since your objections make no sense at all.

Shall we take the prophecy off to another thread ? Because it is certainly off-topic here.

You brought it up. But I guess you don't dare discuss it properly.

And yet you are spending more effort on the subject than on the topic of this thread.I note that you have not answered Message 379Please explain how adding variations not found in the parent population would make a new species phenotypically indistinguishable from the parent population as you seem to be claiming. Surely new variations should add to the phenotypic distinction between the populations, not eliminate it.

As we have seen you make claims that are obviously false.E.g You say that people who do not believe these claims are "obtuse" (or worse) although you make no argument for them.If you are being honest, as you assert then clearly you believe that these obviously false claims are obvious truths.How would you describe someone who mistakes an obvious falsehood for an obvious truth ?

quote:

---

No, I didn't say people who disagree with me are obtuse, what I said was obtuse was the complete lack of understanding of my argument, the misrepresentations, the straw man versions

---

False. Message 372

quote:

---

My theory says all the genetic material for variation is built in, and because nonselected traits must be lost for the selected traits to emerge at those loci, over time there is a trend to loss of the genetic stuff that would make further evolution possible.

---

That is your assumption. As we have seen it has serious problems.

quote:

---

You aren't going to get further change from the loci that don't affect the main appearance of the creature: that is, all those loci that code for secondary or internal or invisible traits

---

You have very little understanding of genetics. Loci do not code for anything and the relationship between genes and traits is not nearly as simple as you seem to think. And your understanding of evolution is equally poor. External appearance is no more important than "internal or invisible" traits - it is simply more obvious.

quote:

---

The divergence of phenotypes is due completely to new combinations of preexisting alleles, and the divergence is limited by the necessity for loss of competing traits

---

That is your assumption, but one that certainly appears to be false.

quote:

---

Even if you had constant input of mutations all you could ever get is traits from those particular mutations that are selected, while all the rest are lost to the evolving creature, so that eventually no more evolution is possible in that evolving line.

---

And that is an obvious falsehood as I have already proved. Even if you will not or cannot think about these things yourself you could at least accept the truth when it is shown to you.

quote:

---

You haven't proved one thing so stop claiming it.

---

In fact I did prove it. I suggest that you stop assuming that everyone else shares your faults.

quote:

---

What is this, another semantic pretense to be right?

---

Again, that is what you do, not me. The locus is the position of the gene on the chromosome. You were wrong. Get over it.

quote:

---

I make a point of keeping it simple because the complexities aren't relevant.

---

And you are wrong again because the complexities are relevant.

quote:

---

It's sufficient for the purpose. Especially since the ToE is made up of assumptions and conjurings and very little actual reality.

---

Obviously if you're just going to lie you don't care about the truth. But simply lying will not convince anyone who can see that you are wrong.

quote:

---

The point was that the internal or invisible traits do not create a species, it's the appearance that leads to that designation. If you have an animal that looks exactly the same as another except for changes in the blood chemistry or something like that you'll identify both as the same species

---

And you are wrong again. Look up cryptic species some time. Different species can appear to be the same.

quote:

---

My point was that when all the loci for the salient characteristics, i.e. the appearance, are approaching or at homozygosity, this idea that mutations in other parts of the genome will provide the necessary genetic diversity to make up for the losses brought about by creating the species in the first place, is untenable.

---

That is far from obviously true. So until you have a solid argument I think I will decline to agree.

quote:

---

And it's a silly idea anyway that you'd only get changes to the other parts of the genome, or enough mutations to matter after the extreme losses that brought the creature to homozygosity in the first place

---

It is silly to think that mutations would specifically target a few genes out of the tens of thousands a species typically has, so obviously most will be in other genes. It is also far from clear that mutations that do hit those genes would affect the "important" traits. As u said the relationship between genes and traits is not that simple.

quote:

---

Read all the posts on that subject. The point is that to give the answers he gives means he hasn't a clue about the argument I'm making. If you understand it then you know adding mutations won't change the outcome.

---

And there you prove my point. You are objecting to disagreement and calling it a lack of understanding. But as I pointed out the assertions you use to support your claim are obviously false - and on being challenged you fail to support themSo in fact anyone who,understood your argument would not agree.So, again, you mistake obvious falsehoods for obvious truths as proven right here, in this thread. How would you describe someone who makes such an error, even after it has been shown to her ?