The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Hi Faith, and welcome back. Perhaps, or it could increase diversity by dividing various groupings of alleles in different ways in different subpopulations.Are there more or less alleles in the total genomes of chimpanzees and humans than there were in their common ancestor? Given that we share 95 to 98 percent of DNA between the two, but that each species has alleles that are not shared, then if there is a common number of alleles in a species it seems that the sum of two species must have more alleles than a common ancestor could. If you think of a jar full of water, then adding water inevitably forces some existing water out of the jar, however the jar remains as full as before. What you have are new alleles of water molecules forcing old ones out, while maintaining the overall number of alleles within the population of the water jar. As the new molecules are new alleles, and they have pushed out some old alleles of one type or another (but not necessarily all of one type) then it is quite conceivable that the amount of variation is increased.When you have a speciation event, you do not divide all the alleles into either one population or the other such that no alleles are shared between the two daughter population, rather you divide the populations into two or more different groups that between them share almost all of the same alleles. Thus, even after ~6 million years of divergent evolution from our common ancestor with chimps we still share 95 to 98% of the DNA and alleles with these cousins.Meanwhile, during those ~6 million years we see quite a divergence of hominid types and forms, representing a lot of new diversity.Seems to me that evolution would have to work pretty hard to eliminate more variations than are created. To my mind there is a surfeit of new alleles that are routinely discarded because there is not enough room and opportunity to add more diversity to the existing matrix. The jar is full, so water overflows, rather than slowly drain away.Enjoy.

---

Hi again Faith, hope you are able to get to this ... In other words, in order to have an artificial situation where alleles are lost through various means, causing a reduction in the overall number of alleles in a population, you chose to ignore the mechanism that provides new alleles. Populations cannot live in isolation from mutations, as the major source of mutations is internal, and present in every single reproduction. One of the problems with this, is that if the number of alleles were reduced by such stochastic means, this just means that more new mutations have more opportunities to get passed on to following generations, including mutations that would be considered deleterious in the original populaiton. The reduction in competition works in their favor.Think of it like this: you have a deck of cards, and the average value is 7. Cut the deck ~50:50 and the chances are that the average value is still 7. Cut it into a small population and a large population, and the large population is more likely to have the average value still 7, while the small population may have a higher or lower value.Now let's pretend that these values represent fitness. In every "generation" we discard the lowest 10% of the cards and draw new cards from a new deck to replace these plus 1 new card for population growth in the new ecology. Over time you will tend to replace more low cards with higher value cards, but the population as a whole will tend to have an average value of 7 after many generations, meaning that on average they are just as fit and diverse as the parent population was.The basic problem you have, is that you are focused on one single allele, claiming that it is forcing out all competition, and choosing to ignore the next new allele will be trying to do the same thing, leaving evolution in a constant state of flux. No.Speciation does not result in a loss in genetic diversity, it occurs due to an increase in diversity in the parent population: the parent population has become so diverse that it can occupy one or more ecologies the ancestral populations were not able to occupy in previous generations.Or a population overruns it's ecology and forces marginal individuals into marginal ecologies. These then adapt or perish, but the original diversity is still present in the parent population, and all the adaptation in these outcast populations are to adapt to their new ecology, and again more new mutations are "beneficial" to them in this situation, because there are more opportunities for them. Again, this is backwards thinking: speciation occurs when there are new opportunities and new mutations\variations that allow a population to take advantage of the opportunities.Enjoy.

---

Hi Faith, Curiously, I suspect that you will have extreme difficulty showing this for one simple reason:variety ==== genetic variability
genetic variability ==== varietyYou can't have one without the other.BTW - when you reply to one person you can filter all their messages with the "____ posts only" link under the avatar and using right click to open reply to in another window. That may cut down on your message overload issue.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : hint

---

When you RIGHT-CLICK on the reply button and choose OPEN IN ANOTHER TAB then you can refer to any part of any of the messages on the other tab, just link them to the message with [mid=552231], where 552231 is the gray number in parenthesis of the message at the top, right after "Message 85 of 139" (in the case of message 552231).You can also write out your reply in a text editor in the same fashion and then paste the whole thing into the reply for the last message. This has the advantage of keeping your message if the system fails (it happens). That is what I have done here. There is always a reduction in any scenario predicated on the basis of reduction. In other words you are begging the question.Sub-populations normally all start with the same mixture of alleles as the parent population, they are not parceled out in the formation of the sub-populations.The sub-populations THEN acquire new mutations\alleles that are selected in response to their sub-population ecology. Whether these new mutations are shared with the parent population depends on the degree of gene flow between the populations. Curiously, you did not answer the question, only asserted what you believe to be the case. Interestingly it does seem to work out that way in reality. Their differences from other human populations are not due a limited collection of genetic possibilities, but to sharing entirely new mutations among themselves.See how that works? Interestingly this also is what is observed in the field.Curiously, a sub-population with "only a limited collection of genetic possibilities" that are only inherited from the parent population is just not capable of being different from the parent population. Any member of the sub-population with those genes would still be an individual in the parent population. Fascinatingly, your opinion is completely incapable of altering reality in any way.Amusingly, even your limited (incomplete, wrong) view of speciation even allows this to be the case, as all you need to have is the chimp population with the 1-3% "limited collection of genetic possibilities" particular to chimps while the human populations have the 1-3% "limited collection of genetic possibilities" particular to humans, while still sharing 95-98% of all the genetic possibilities. Multiple mutations occur with every birth. True. Therefore reduction is not inevitable. Interestingly, the data shows that evolution is slow, much slower than it needs to be (there is a lot of waste in natural evolution with oscillations, such as seen in the finches). Amazingly, (real) evolution requires both a source of new variation AND a means to selectively sort the adaptive ones from the anti-adaptive ones.This either natural selection OR mutation view is a false creationist strawman. Real evolution (ie - as the term is used by biologists) uses both AND even some other mechanisms. Agreed, which is why neutral mutations and genetic drift do not lead to adaptation, but do provide lots of variations in the gene pool. The role for natural selection is to sort between the adaptive variations and the anti-adaptive ones in response to the prevailing ecology (while remaining neutral to the ones that are neither, allowing more genetic drift ...). The complete picture is even more complex as there are other processes that can step in and affect a population's ongoing evolution. To get REAL evolution (as the term is defined and used by biologists) you only need to have a change in the frequencies of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological possibilities.To get speciation, all you need is isolated sub-populations living in different ecologies for those sub-populations to undergo different selection of different adaptive variations, until the point is reached that the daughter populations are no longer able to interbreed (either through behavioral mechanisms or through physical mechanisms).To get diversity all you need is evolution and speciation and evolution and speciation and evolution and speciation ... etc etc etc. No, Faith, this is what the hominid fossil record actually shows - several lineages diverging since that common ancestor with chimps, that each on their own represent a different genome. Many of these have been discarded through extinction and we still have 95 to 98% similarity with chimps.We also have the example of Neanderthals, which share about the same proportion of their genomes with chimps and about the same proportion of their genomes with humans. Curious? Think of a triangle instead of a linear progression. Knowing this helps us define what genes were inherited from the common ancestor and which have been derived since then. As long as I use the terms as they are used in biology then I am in agreement with how biology addresses the issue. If I used the terms some other way, then I would be discussing something else, which would be silly. And yet the dog can have as many alleles for the various genes as any other dogs in other breeds or in mutts. The population as a whole will always-always-always have more total alleles than any one individual. And yet you can have a variety of genotypes, if what you are talking about is variety within the population. Conversely if you are now talking about variety as a sub-category of species, then it is defined by the genetics of that variety.The phenotype is the genotype expressed in the individuals. You can't have a phenotype in a population and any genotype from that population.Enjoy.

---

Faith,I recommend that you take this offer. I was going to suggest that you pick someone for a great debate so that the number of replies would be limited to a manageable number better suited to your time.This will allow you to avoid getting posts that come from people you get mad at, and allow you to focus on your issues.You will never accomplish this in the general forum.Peace.

---

Hi again Faith, Let's look at the evidence for Pelycodus:A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

quote:

---

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked A complete fossil much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

You can see the trend to larger size from generation to generation along with the variation in size within each generation. Near the top you have a speciation event, where the variation increases and then splits into a large and a small daughter population, each with variation within each new species similar to previous generations. Notice too that the amount of variation also varies and fluctuates from bottom to top. Some generations show twice the variation than the previous or later generations. This is true - to get new species you must have speciation. So?Enjoy.

---

Hi Faith,Just a simple question, perhaps for you to take to the Great Debate Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Can you define what the difference is between the phenotype and the genotype?Do you think it is possible for identical twins - hereditarily with virtually identical genotypes (there could be some mutational differences during growth) - to have extremely different phenotypes?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : link

---

For the lurking readers, not necessarily for Faith (who can address the issue on the Great Debate Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only), as I suggested doing in Message 236)No Faith, this is not what happens in ring species. According to your assertion, we should find decreasing genetic diversity as we go from parent population to daughter population to daughter population in a ring species. This assertion predicts that the parent population (a) has the most genetic diversity and (b) possesses all the genetic diversity of each daughter population. The greenish warbler ring species

quote:

---

Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'. There are very few known examples of ring species.

---

There are 6 varieties of Phylloscopus trochiloides: Five of these varieties form a ring, with P.t.nitidus being the outlier, off to the west of the ring:

quote:

---

Map of Asia showing the six subspecies of the greenish warbler described by Ticehurst in 1938. The crosshatched blue and red area in central Siberia shows the contact zone between viridanus and plumbeitarsus, which do not interbreed. Colors grade together where Ticehurst described gradual morphological change. The gap in northern China is most likely the result of habitat destruction.

---

The only places where we see traits combined between varieties is in the hybrid zones, of which there currently are four, with the gap between P.t.plumbeitarsus and P.t.obscuratus being lost as a result of habitat destruction, and the gap between P.t.nitidus and P.t.viridanus or P.t.ludlowi being lost to history. The hybrid zones are all smaller than the daughter variety population zones, counter to your assertion. None of the hybrid zones exhibit specific traits common to any of the varieties other than the two neighboring daughter variety population zones, counter to your assertion.The two largest daughter varieties are the west Siberian greenish warblers (P.t.viridanus) and the east Siberian greenish warblers (P.t.plumbeitarsus ), and neither of them exhibit traits common to the other varieties and outside their neighboring hybrid zone, nor do they exhibit all the traits found in the neighboring hybrid zones, counter to your assertion. Neither P.t.viridanus nor P.t.plumbeitarsus exhibit the traits specific to the other population, counter to your assertion.Then we have the genetic information from actual genetic studies on the actual daughter variety populations for the greenish warblers (ibid):

quote:

---

Genetics and history
Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations. All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.

---

So viridanus has genes that plumbeitarsus does not have.
So plumbeitarsus has genes that viridanus does not have.Furthermore:

• P.t.viridanus has genes that no other variety has,
• P.t.nitidus has genes that no other variety has,
• P.t.ludlowi has genes that no other variety has,
• P.t.trochiloides has genes that no other variety has,
• P.t.obscuratus has genes that no other variety has, and
• P.t.plumbeitarsus has genes that no other variety has.

This too is counter to your assertion. None of the six different varieties has markedly more nor less genetic variation than any other, also counter to your assertion. Not one piece of the data supports your assertion, all of the data runs counter to your assertion.Curiously, all the data supports the evolutionary biological observation that new mutations arise continually, and the evolutionary biological prediction that differential evolution in isolated populations will result in different new mutations being added to the existing mixes in the daughter populations from generation to generation. The differences between the daughter variety populations is not explained by gene loss, but by changes to which specific genes are being passed, including which new mutations, from one generation to the next, and where the only gene sharing between daughter variety populations is through hybrid zones between daughter variety population zones, as long as such hybrid zones last.The data supports the evolutionary biological prediction that new mutations are added to the mix of mutations in breeding populations, and that subsequent evolution can include some of these new mutations.Interestingly, the most robust populations based on area populated are viridanus and plumbeitarsus, the ones at the ends of the ring. This suggests that each has become very adapted to their ecological opportunities, and that neither is headed towards extinction, rather that their differentiation into new species will continue.Enjoy.

---

Hi Faith, I read your reply, no surprise that most of it is denial. Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Message 44
Message 237: This is your assertion. You are claiming that there will be an increase in phenotype variation but a decrease in genotype variation as you go around the ring from the parent population.According to this assertion, we should find decreasing genetic diversity as we go from parent population to daughter population to daughter population in a ring species. Therefore this assertion predicts that the parent population (a) has the most genetic diversity and (b) possesses all the genetic diversity of each daughter population. This should make it easy to find which is the parent and track the loss in genetic diversity from that point.This does not reflect the observed facts, the observed facts are all contrary to the predictions of your assertion, ergo they are contrary to your assertion. Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Message 44
No ring species fits your totally artificial requirement to have no hybrid zones, so either you are not talking about hybrid zones, or you are not talking about (understanding) ring species. What equivocation will you make next? Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)Message 44
And its own particular genotype, as is known from the genetic data, each variety having genes that the other varieties do not have, with no gradual decrease in genetic diversity from one population to the next. Yes, curiously, the part in the genetics and history section that says that they have the genetic data and that the genetic data shows a pattern that matches the phenotype diversity:

quote:

---

Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations.

---

The genetic data variation matches the phenotype variation, complete with gradations around the ring in plumage, songs and genes. You seem to have this fantasy that phenotype is completely distinct from genotype, and now you seem to be adding a fantasy that alleles are completely distinct from genes? Fascinating.Enjoy.

---

Hi Percy,I see I need to clarify somewhat to keep people from playing nit-picky-pete to avoid the issue.Greenish warblers

quote:

---

Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations.

---

The genetic data shows that the genomes for viridanus and plumbeitarsus are distinctly different, and the degree of difference is mirrored in the phenotypes in the populations (or vice versa).The genetic data also shows that there is a gradation in genetic characteristics through the other varieties around the ring. Thus the genomes for the other varieties are distinct one from the next.In other words you can identify each of the varieties by their genomes alone, by their song alone, or by their plumage alone, and you would end up with the same classifications. The phenotypes are reflected in the genotypes and vice versa.Without some outside effect that changes the way genes are expressed during growth, the development of phenotypes from genotypes will follow the same pattern within a species. This is why all humans look like humans, and have for thousands of years. The differences in the varieties of humans is not due to environmental effects during development that alter the development of the phenotype, but are instead due to the different genomes of the individual people and the populations that interbreed.There is no reason I can see for assuming that phenotypic development within any of these variation populations is significantly different enough from the others to produce different phenotypes from the same genotypes, and thus that the phenotypes seen would not be reflections of the distinct genotypes for these populations. The two end populations are just too similar in their development for this to be the case, nor is any variation in phenotype development observed within any one population.The variation observed cannot be due to having the same alleles in each population and then only playing with the frequencies of the alleles from one population to the next, because then they would not be genetically distinct populations.Nor can the observed variation be due to only deleting alleles from one group to the next, because if this were the case then one population would be a subset of the other rather than a genetically distinct population.Instead we see that each variety populates a specific area, and within that area they maintain distinct genomes, plumage and song. The only places these are mixed are in the hybrid zones. Thus from each of the hybrid zones you can derive the neighboring varieties by deleting alleles, but this only works for the immediate neighbors. By the time you get to the next hybrid zone around the ring you need to add alleles to account for the differences, and this happens no matter which way you turn, no matter where you start.You cannot start with a single population and derive all the other populations by deleting alleles, because if this were the case there would be no hybrid zones.

quote:

---

All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.

---

Evolving differences as they moved north (a) west around the Tibetan plateau to form viridanus and (b) east around the plateau to form plumbeitarsus. This means the genetic data is consistent with the changes in frequencies of alleles, new or old, specific to those two populations. Evolution doesn't care if an allele is new or old, just whether it is adaptive or counter-adaptive. If we take Faith's hypothesis as valid, then there should be one population somewhere on the ring that would combine all the alleles of the all the different variations. According to the above quote, this would have to be one of the southern populations (such as P.t.trochiloides), and that you could derive the neighbors by deleting alleles.Sadly, the Faith Hypothesis does not explain the existence of hybrid zones where the alleles of the two neighboring populations are mixed: you can't mix some of the alleles with all of the alleles and have a hybrid, as it would be the same as one of the original population.If we start with one of the hybrid zones as the parent population, say between P.t.ludlowi and P.t.trochiloides, or between P.t.trochiloides and P.t.obscuratus, then we are flummoxed by the next hybrid zone around the ring, in either one direction or the other. The maximum number of hybrid zones that can be accommodated by the Faith Hypothesis thus is one (1) and only one (1) zoneFor Faith's hypothesis to work there cannot be multiple hybrid zones. Sadly, for Faith, there are four (4) currently existing thriving hybrid zones and an additional two (2) that appear to have disappeared.Enjoy.

---

Hi Percy, That appears to cover a large and growing territory. Apparently she doesn't even understand her own hypothesis, or accept all the ramifications of that hypothesis (perhaps she hasn't thought through the matter that far). We can make predictions based on those statements and then test them against the actual observations to see how they measure up. This is essentially what I have done, although it is nice to start with ZenMonkey's list and Faith's acceptance of it: The problem is not with misunderstanding what is said but knowing that (a) it is not always the case, and (b) that where this occurs it isn't the end of the game, because new mutations bring new alleles into the daughter populations, alleles that never existed in the parent population.It is even quite possible, even likely, that this is or has been a cause of some species going extinct, however that does not mean that it is universal across the board for all species.Limiting the application of the Faith Hypothesis to only the situations where it is actually observed to happen (if there are any known), does not make it an hypothesis with predictive power, just an observation that is mundanely true because we started with a condition imposed on the selection of data such that it would be true. The problem for Faith is that the sandbox that contains situations where her hypothesis can be true keeps shrinking, and applicable to less and less of the rest of the world around us. Not realizing that she needs to prove this across the board for every living thing, while a single counter example, such as the one furnished by Bluejay, proves her concept wrong. The evidence is the existence of hybrid zones and the definition of hybrid.Hybrid Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

Science Dictionary
hybrid (hī'brĭd)
An organism that is the offspring of two parents that differ in one or more inheritable characteristics, especially the offspring of two different varieties of the same species or the offspring of two parents belonging to different species. In agriculture and animal husbandry, hybrids of different varieties and species are bred in order to combine the favorable characteristics of the parents. Hybrids often display hybrid vigor. The mule, which is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, is an example of a hybrid. It is strong for its size and has better endurance and a longer useful lifespan than its parents. However, mules are sterile, as are many animals that are hybrids between two species.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
Copyright 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

---

A hybrid has some characteristics of each parent variety, species or race, especially and specifically of the hereditary traits\alleles that are not common to both parents (otherwise husbandry would not work). Some hybrids are more viable than others, and in evolutionary terms this is explained by the presence of new alleles in the daughter populations: Faith does not have that luxury.A mule is a hybrid of horse and donkey, it possesses some of the traits\alleles common to horses and some of the traits\alleles common to donkeys. Neither horse nor donkey posses the traits seen in mules that belong to the other population, so only in the hybrids are these mixtures possible. Interestingly, this increase in available alleles doesn't mean that the mule is more viable than either the horse nor the donkey, rather we observe that this hybrid is normally sterile.Curiously, the Faith Hypothesis claims that the daughter populations, horse and donkey, must have fewer alleles than their common ancestor population, and thus it predicts that combining the alleles of daughter populations in hybrids should produce an offspring similar to a member of the parent population that had such a mnixture, and that it should therefore be a viable organism capable of reproducing with either horse or donkey (reversing the process that produces the daughter populations from the parent). Sadly, for the Faith Hypothesis, this is not the case.We see a similar result in the hybrids of Mule Deer and Whitetail Deer: they can produce offspring, the offspring combine some traits\alleles from each parent, both in appearance and behavior. Unfortunately for the hybrid the panic escape behavior of the parents differs, one runs and the other stots (bounces on all four legs like antelopes). The unfortunately, for the hybrid, it tries to do both at the same time, usually stumbling in the process. The evidence is the existence of hybrids in the hybrid zones. Let's try to explain this as simply as possible.If a member of population A breeds with a member of population B and the offspring is indistinguishable from population A (has no traits\alleles that population A does not have), then it is a member of population A and not a hybrid. If a member of population A breeds with a member of population B and the offspring is indistinguishable from population B (has no traits\alleles that population B does not have), then it is a member of population B and not a hybrid. If and only if the offspring exhibits traits\alleles from population A that are not a part of the population B mix AND traits\alleles from population B that are not a part of the population A mix, then and only then it is a hybrid. This holds even if one trait is dominant and the other is recessive.Consider the simple situation where population A and B are inter-fertile varieties, perhaps of peas, and the only difference between them is that the traits of one population, A, is for spherical seeds and the traits of the other population, B, is for wrinkled seeds.Starting with purebred populations, (A=ss, B=ww) then when these two populations breed they produce offspring that have alleles for spherical seeds and alleles for wrinkled seeds (C=sw), hybrids. When these hybrids mate you have the possibility of producing both A (ss), B(ww) and C(ws) or C(sw). The existence of hybrids (ws and sw) defines the boundaries of the hybrid zone. In some species the hybrid zone can comprise the entire population zone (which is what you have for any population with a mixture of alleles for any given trait), and in some species, particularly in ring species you have hybrid zones between different variety population zones.If we confine ourselves to the simplistic case of one gene with two alleles, then each of the variety zones would be purebred zones, and hybrids would only occur where the zones meet and breeding takes place. Thus you have a purebred zone for population A, a purebred zone for population B, and a hybrid zone for a mixed population of A, B and C, where C are the hybrids that contain an allele that is not in population A and an allele that is not in population B.Next, if we consider that population A (for example) could actually be a population with both traits\alleles, with one trait dominant and one trait recessive, then it is (still) a hybrid population and we should (still) see examples of population A' (purebred A), population B and population C (that appears like A) throughout the population A zone AND it would be indistinguishable from the hybrid zone between population A and population B - you could not identify a hybrid zone between population A and population B. Because the hybrid zones are identified this is not the case.Finally, if we consider a third (or fourth or more ad infinitum) trait\allele in the population that is recessive to both (all) other trait\alleles, we see that the same situation holds. We should still be able to (a) detect the allele with genetics and (b) observe the (rare) purebred occurrence in the populations, where the both alleles are the illusive recessive one.If we take the Faith Hypothesis to it's logical conclusion, that the dominant traits\alleles are knocked out by natural selection in successive daughter populations around the ring, and that the observed new phenotypes are only due to the absence of the dominant trait\allele at each stage, then we should not see any hybrid zones, and we should reach a point where the end of the ring has only the recessive trait\alleles in their populations. Again, sadly for the Faith Hypothesis, this is not the case.The existence of the hybrid zones between each variety in the Greenish Warblers is evidence that hybrids only occur in these zones, AND that they can be (and are) identified as hybrids by having a mixture of traits\alleles present in one or the other neighboring variety population zone, but not common to both neighboring variety population zones. Instead we see:

1. P.t.viridanus
   
2. a hybrid zone between P.t.viridanus & P.t.ludlowi
   
3. P.t.ludlowi
   
4. a hybrid zone between P.t.ludlowi & P.t.trochiloides
   
5. P.t.trochiloides
   
6. a hybrid zone between P.t.trochiloides & P.t.obscuratus
   
7. P.t.obscuratus
   
8. a hybrid zone between P.t.obscuratus & P.t.plumbeitarsus
   
9. P.t.plumbeitarsus

The Faith Hypothesis of step by step reduction only of traits\alleles from one population to the next does not explain the observed evidence, specifically the existence of the hybrid zones, while evolution - with the addition of new traits\alleles through mutation - does explain the observed evidence.The only place where the Faith Hypothesis holds up is if we start with a hybrid zone and then observe the reduction in traits\alleles to each of the neighboring variety zones. The problem for the Faith Hypothesis is that this "get out of jail free" card can only be played once, and it cannot explain the other hybrid zones.Enjoy.

---

Hi Faith, That may work for A and B, but not for C, D and E. Do the math. You need to explain all the evidence. Now you have A' = (A-b) and B' = (B-a) populations, how do you get C, D and E?In addition, if A is the founding parent population, and it has not migrated, and the ecology of the area has not changed while the other populations spread out, how does it lose one of the prime alpha alleles that dominates the populations and suppresses all the hidden alleles (one or more for each variety population)? How do the prime alpha alleles keep the appearance of individuals homogeneous in (any one of) the hidden alleles from appearing? Mendellian genetics does not provide you with the answer. So do you want to continue the Great Debate with ZenMonkey (if he's willing)?

---

Hi Faith. You have five variety populations and four hybrid zones to explain. Each of the hybrid zones has more alleles than either side population, because they have hybrids. A' is the original A population that has mysteriously lost the b allele after b left, when it is the second most dominant allele, andB' is the original B population that has lost the a allele by somehow leaving the most dominant allele behind ... Sorry, but at this point it is evident to me that you have not laid out how your supposed system works, because you don't already have a nomenclature for it. Can I suggest that you take the time to do this?Perhaps this relates to your inability to concisely communicate what you are talking about, but rather seem to be waving your hands vaguely about as you make up stuff. Lol. So suddenly, for some inexplicable reason, one gene stops working and another section of DNA inexplicably leaps into action ... across the whole population. Curiously, when you talk about inactivation of one section of DNA and activation of a new section of DNA, what you are talking about is mutation, although when evolutionists talk about it they also talk about how this gets spread through the population, rather than invoke miracles. I can tell you right now that mutations can, and I can lay it out for you: there are mutations in every individual in every generation, what are the odds that none of them will ever affect the alleles? Given hundreds of generations genetic drift alone can cause the whole population to change over time as each allele undergoes small incremental modifications. These changes are not noticable in any one generation, but only after several generations. As this drift occurs the population will adjust to the change/s in plumage and song during mating because the variation will be within the variation of the population as a whole.When all you have is assertion based on incredulity, then you do not have an argument. He showed you evidence after evidence, all of which you ignored or waved away or changed your restrictions of what you would talk about. Not once have you presented evidence for your position. Do the math Faith, lay it out in a diagram and show us how you get 5 variations and 4 hybrid zones that fits your hypothesis.Show how the phenotypes develop within each population.Do something more than argue from incredulity, incomplete knowledge and opinion. Perhaps ZenMonkey will help you lay out your hypothesis formally, and look at what it predicts and what it doesn't predict.Then we can return to discussing the Greenish Warblers and other evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : completed a thought

---

Hi Faith, I started out with a much longer reply, but in the interest of brevity I've cut it back to essentials. Curiously, I get the feeling that I understand your hypothesis perhaps better than you do, but because you seem to waffle back and forth in different replies, it is difficult to hold you to your own position. Yet when I make that observation, ...... and the logical conclusion that alleles must reduce in one direction or another as you go around a ring species, ......completely in accordance with your hypothesis, ...... but that the hybrid zones show a problem for this, ...... because they show the existence of alleles in each side population not shared with the other ...... rather than a continual stepping down in the number of alleles ...... as you claimed occurs in ring species ...... therefore contrary to your claim that :alleles no longer possessed by one population in the series can be found in the former populations" ...... all I get is denial from you, name calling and statements like Except that I have understood. What you have said throughout this thread is that ... except where it isn't.And then you want to ignore those points, or change the argument to exclude them from the situations you consider subject to your hypothesis. Please do. I, for one, will be very interested in how you explain 5 varieties with 4 hybrid zones (that each have more alleles than their neighbors), in accordance with your hypothesis that So make your diagram for the Greenish Warblers and we'll see how true to your own hypothesis you are. Perhaps you do not understand my argument: not once does the pattern seen in the Greenish Warblers match your assertion. Make your diagram.Enjoy.

---

hi Wounded King, We also have a number of instances where certain humans have immunity to certain diseases, and like the bacteria experiments of anti-biotics, these would show the existence of beneficial mutations.Enjoy.

---