Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

Wrong. It depends on the nature of selection. If there is no reason to select grey eyes over green eyes, then natural selection would allow both. So no they would not of necessity be decreased as a per centage of the population if fitness does not matter.If your ideas make any sense, you certainly are not able to communicate that sense to anyone. Perhaps you have some working idea that you cannot get out to us?

Progress. This represents a yielding to an objection that has been raised in every single thread on this topic. In previous incarnations, the answer has been that folks don't understand. This time, something different... (emphasis added by me) Will we ever get such an explanation? Or will we see back tracking over this idea. Because the idea give up here is absolutely central to Faith's position.

I respectfully disagree. It is essential to your position, because you think all of the genetic diversity in, for example dogs, must have been present in wolves with mutations playing no role at all. You routinely argue, for example, that black moths existed all along.If you are going to give up on that idea, and still not allow mutations, you owe us some other mechanism you have yet to explain. Come up with that, and then I will agree with you that the idea you renounce is not so important.But I would bet on you simply going back on the idea regarding alleles. Maybe you'll just forget what you said here.

Cute. This is simply your way of having your cake and eating it as well. By defining allele in this way, you can deny that mutations create alleles rather than continuing to argue that evolution that evolution does not work despite the fact that mutations add diversity.I've recommended to you that you back off to that position at various times during the thread. Are you actually doing so? Shouldn't you let Genomics know how you define allele?

An example which illustrates yet another principle. Deleterious and beneficial are terms which characterize mutations with respect to fitness and generally are meaningful in that context. Individuals carrying a single copy of the mutation are not affected by the sickle cell disease and are highly protected against malaria. In regions where malaria is common, for example in some regions of Africa, the sickle cell trait is actually beneficial.Of course there are some mutations that are not beneficial in any context, but clearly some mutations, can only be classified with respect to their specific environment.

That was certainly clear enough. Different chihuahuas are simply different phenotypes then.Faith, I'd like to introduce you to a poster arguing against the theory of evolution in this thread. Oh, wait... It appears you two do know each other.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nope. It says may. That is not a definiton. What's hilarious about this is that you've been given about a dozen examples of observed mutations, none of which meet the definition of 'disease-causing alleles.' Beyond that, the article simply does not define things as you claim. It discusses a possible outcome of mutation. Then in the best kettle/pot fashion you complain of having to address straw men. Wow, let's examine this chain of logic. You "learned" that mutations to polymorphic genes may, I mean "are defined" as causing disease. You have decided that they always lead to disease, and then you decide that all mutations create polymorphic genes. You reached this conclusion despite knowing of contrary examples.Let's review another thought path. You've been trying for years to tell us that evolution must inevitably reduce diversity and for that reason evolution cannot produce the results claimed by the theory of evolution even if mutations do work. That is the basis of this particular thread. But somehow it is our fault that you've tricked into discussing mutations as a possible answer? Really, Faith? Is it accurate to say what you are saying.Finally, you are so far off of your original premise, that you cannot even keep straight whether breeding or any other evolution does or does not involve new genotypes. It's okay to change your mind. I've been urging you to do this throughout the thread, but you ought to at least be honest about "refocusing" rather than blaming others.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Emphasis added by me.

A misrepresentation? Or is it your actual argument? I'll admit to making posts lampooning your arguments, but I think I get them right a higher percentage of the time than you might want to acknowledge. I'm not perfect of course,and of course you'll take any error as proof that folks don't understand you. So I try to be extra careful before I post here. Often, all I need to do to poke fun is to quote you without comment.Poking fun is easy because your own posts seem to include what you claim is straw manning of your argument.Examples below:Here is why Dr. Adequate and others might say the kind of things quoted above. or Here is why people repeatedly point out that species really are not homogeneous collections of people/animals/plants, often using things like dogs or even races of humans as an example. Finally, if you cannot keep points about your argument straight, what chance to we have:Here is you talking about whether species consists of distinct genotypes and accusing me of missing the point. You later confirming my point... Of course you've also since then backed off and reversed course on this particular point, and then pretended that your new position was of no consequence to your argument. As if.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I did not claim that there were contradictions in your other quotes. I provided notes in each section explaining exactly why material was quoted. The first section showed where your own comments justified the summary Dr. Adequate provided. The second section illustrated your ridiculous statements that species were composed of homogeneous individuals, when observation of dogs and humans, no matter how sub divided, show that individuals clearly are not homogeneous. Yet being homogeneous is essential to your "mutations ruins the species" litany. At least it did until you basically bailed on your argument and went for the all allele mutations are disease path.The third section only shows contradictions involved both you claiming I misunderstood you, you later, and on more than one occasion demonstrating that I was correct, and then you finally changing your mind about all of that. It did not describe simply one mistake on the topic but a waffling back and forth. The result of your backing away afterwards is that you are left in the position of misinterpreting references about mutation to find at least some support for your ideas. Small wonder that the next few posts by others were full of ridicule.If you want to deny repeatedly made errors, how about if we just refer to your misstating of the theory of evolution in the face of repeated citings of references to the contrary. Yeah, we've noticed how you finally stopped pretending that the theory of evolution does not include variation after adamantly insisting otherwise.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This would not be the first instance, nor will it be the last one, in which breeders deliberately go for some specific traits and end up producing breeds with health issues. And not all, or even most of those compromised health results are the result of mutation. Yes there are lots of great dogs out there, but humans insist on, and get some pretty messed up dogs on purpose.If the idea is to blame the mutations for the dogs health, let's be clear that the breeders in this case selected for extreme cranial changes and got the result they wanted. They probably could have gone for a better health/shape mix.

You can call them what you will. But according to artificial human standards, which include neutering or other wise not allowing other dogs to breed, they would be more fit. But of course we don't generally apply the term fit where artificial selection occurs. It is probably not likely that natural selection would act similarly.Let's also recall that only a small percentage of dogs of any breed would have any chance of survival in the wild without human assistance, and an extremely small percentage of even those dogs would be able to compete against wolves if they found themselves in such a niche. Most healthy dogs are not fit by that definition. How much of that would you consider to be the result of mutation?

Yet another keeper.Assuming that they do function as normal alleles, unlke the old ones which were normal and already present, new alleles do increase diversity because they don't necessarily displace or remove the old alleles from the population, just from the individual gaining the mutation. Absent yet another selection event (like a breeder deciding that the new allele is "icky", what you have just acknowledged is a mechanism for increasing diversity within a breed or species.Nice work. Whose side are you on anyway?

A "theory" for which there is absolutely no evidence. I could describe a number of scientific problems with your theory having to do with the number of alleles that get inscribed in a single person's genome per location, but the most significant problem is not about the science at all.From Message 281Again, you occasionally do realize that one of your ideas does not work. But that never seems to prevent you from re-earthing those same ideas if they are needed again. I understand, as you expressed in the post I quoted that it is vital that you find some method of variation other than mutations, but you have not done so. Your need to return to discarded ideas indicates that you are probably never going to come up with an explanation that works.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.