The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

I kept reading and re-reading her argument (from this thread), and at times I could almost twist & tweak it enough in my head to make it seem like she was onto something interesting. But I kept falling back onto concrete facts that would overthrow her whole presumptions. I really don't have anything against her pushing her argument so vehemently, it's not easy to hold on to your focus in a storm of derision. But at the end of the day the studies have been done to answer fully just exactly her question and questions coming from that sector of thought. One hundred years ago her question would have carried a lot more weight.I think Bluejay has crystallized a few points that I hope she will understand. She doesn't have to be the one to understand the linkage between what her bible tells her and what science tells her. She might be able to see the truth in both and let someone else justify the inconsistencies between the two.

Glad to oblige. The subject of population genetics is dedicated to the kind of questions and answers you seek. Someone mentioned Hardy-Weinberg above, that too is in the WIKI article (a good starting point). There are however university courses on the subject that you might be able to audit. Even on youTube these days there are lectures given by the best universities and top notch professors easily accessible to the modern PC user. I'll throw up a link to one (but there are many):Yale Courses, that specific series of lectures is also available on podcast.Faith, I don't know if you consider me at all like other "evilutionists" or not, but my goal is to get us all on the same page, so we can look ahead toward the bigger problems looming on the horizon. Science is going there, and if you want to have a shot at steering you should be somewhere near the helm.

My take is very simple, technology out-paces ethics and is already far ahead of ethics. This may not be an optimal survival strategy for humans. We might just very well need the optimum.I hope you clicked the youTube video. I watched it again as well as the lecture afterwards. In the second, that would be the sixth in the series, I found 'lo and behold' the answer to your question, or at least the answer to the question I believe you have been asking for all of these years.

No, those are corrupt and a kind of "red herring" distracting a substantial portion of the population from addressing the ethical consequences of rapidly advancing technology. I can't say any more than that here on this thread, but there might be another thread available that addresses this kind of topic.As far as the video goes, Prof. Stearns addresses a wider base of the specific question you have. You have narrowed the scope of your concern somewhat, but I KNOW you will be able to find concise and even specific statements about what you've been asking.I have not read your other older threads about the topic nor very many posts after a certain point on this thread. I had been carefully trying to discern your stance and at a point just sort of gave up, not being able to figure out the point in having so many stipulations placed on the "imaginary scenario". So, I hope I have not misinterpreted your real question.You may not get affirmation of your stance, but you would definitely achieve a higher truth on the matter. And it seems to be a more direct, recent, comprehensive and even authoritative answer to what you have in mind. Moreover, on the other thread with Bluejay, he has and will, I think, get you to an even better answer than Stearns can because he can address your questions even more directly with feedback. If the Great Debate does ever open up to externals, then I might throw my interpretation into the fray as well.

But is it not already sufficient to show that diversity can increase, under any circumstance?Furthermore, speciation is a net increase in diversity. Daughter populations taken as a whole, show more diversity than parent populations. Take for instance how the tree of life has diverged.Edited by CosmicChimp, : example added

Using your logic, at what point are the genotypes diversified so as to account for the wide diversity of phenotypes? Your claimed negative correlation would lead to a situation in which genotype is not responsible for phenotype. But that linkage is well established. We must conclude that genotype positively corresponds to phenotype.

Random mating is assumed to be occurring in such ideal situations.

Hi again,So you are saying that a new trait arrives and then spreads as other traits diminish. So what exactly reaches an endpoint giving 'evolution less and less to feed on'? As far as I can tell even given your strict circumstances, as long as new traits are arriving I don't see any endpoints in sight. If the traits are not coming fast enough to match whatever the environment is doing then the endpoint is called extirpation or maybe even extinction. No extinction means that the new traits are getting there just in time to save the day. Of course your narrow scenario is not the only course of nature.Edited by CosmicChimp, : one more sentence

Oh, don't be offended! I apologize. You have questions that's not a sin, I never had anything against that. You actually have good questions. You won't listen to the answer and are tenacious but that's not all that bad, some people consider those qualities. See environment does define whether a trait is good or bad.

I asked you this already before as well. What exactly do you mean with the pronoun 'IT' in the sentence, "BECAUSE IT ALWAYS ENTAILS A REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY."? What 'always entails a reduction in genetic diversity'? What is 'it'?Evolution doesn't just come to a stop. It Does not stop. IT DOES NOT STOP. the changes just keep coming. Mutations keep cropping up and so the next round of alleles keep getting put into the genes. Remember the alleles Percy described A1-A4 and then you said A5 arrived. And now I'm saying A6 got there and then A7 and then A8 etc. And then the other letters of the alphabet as well. Read up on your post, you said A5 got into the genome via mutation. Well if A5 got there then so did A6 and A7 and A8.Capiche?Every new individual brings in new fresh mutations i.e. alleles. Every new birth adds another batch of mutations/alleles. We keep telling you this in about 700 different ways of the same thing. When are you finally going to realize that we are talking about a net influx of diversity?And don't skirt my question, I want to know what it is you are implying with 'it'?

T. H. Morgan goes back even further 1915-1916.

quote:

---

After eliminating some misunderstandings and explaining in detail the new science of Mendelian heredity and its chromosomal basis, Morgan concludes that "the evidence shows clearly that the characters of wild animals and plants, as well as those of domesticated races, are inherited both in the wild and in domesticated forms according to the Mendel's Law". "Evolution has taken place by the incorporation into the race of those mutations that are beneficial to the life and reproduction of the organism".^[24].

​

24. A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, Princeton University Press, (1916), pp 193-194.

---

I would already give G. Mendel credit or C. Darwin.