Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

You better start to read Darwin before starting this - I am sorry to put it this way but your attitude is getting terrible annoying here - TATTLING and misrepresenting of the things he wrote. Here you go: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=tex....Darwin described very PAINSTAKINGLY and in TERRIBLE detail how the phenotype of the finches responded to the different ENVIRONMENTAL conditions.BECAUSE when populations of animals migrate, they move into ANOTHER ENVIRONMENT with different conditions and selective pressure to cope with. Hence, finches that flew from one island to another were found to adapt to the conditions over there. Other food sources but lacking the ones in their former homeland. And adapting they did. Darwin painstakingly noted how the different forms of beaks perfectly match the different food sources the distinct finch species thrived on.This kind of field observations and even experiments on the effects of natural selection count into the the hundreds of thousands - and I think I do not exaggerate.

PARDON???????

• Lenski's experiment
• DOZENS of other experiments on bacteria, involving, FOR INSTANCE, immunity against antibiotics
• DOZENS of experiments on bugs gaining immunity against pesticides
• experiments on beetles - sexually reproducing animals
• experiments on fruit flies - sexually reproducing animals
• experiments on yeast
• genetic studies on Dachshunds and other animal breeds.

Explain to me, because it is getting interesting to know how this kind of psychology works, how you just dodge ENDLESS requests for addressing SERIES of points and questions and, without a blink of the eye, just "la, la, la, f*ck you, didn't read those" then manage to write: It is really breathtaking.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

Percy,AGAIN I ask you: is it normal in these EvC forum to just not answer questions and points made?Unfortunately the affairs here are not very different from the situation on Topix.
It's all dodging, ducking and evading here as well.I have asked Faith several questions and made numerous points and ALL of them still need to be addressed.And she STILL makes a lot of propositions without any shred of evidence. She even found something on that: Message 488,

quote:

---

No, because the scientific literature is in thrall to the evolutionist paradigm and assumes the opposite. Assumes I say, it is not evidenced, it's an interpretation imposed on all the data.

---

What the hell am I doing here on this forum.
There is no debate.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

Well, not quite, I've been here just for two weeks now, a bit too short to spot such decline.
Quite informative I must say.
It depicts a rather deplorable state of creationism I must say.I think we indeed should discuss topics that are still interesting to debate.I just peeked around on "Evolution Fairytale Forum".
After just 5 minutes I caught a terrible headache due to the claptrap there by creationists.
Bronze age mythology dwellers, lost in the 21st century, trying desperately to get a grasp on reality...

I do not mind people not being professional biologists.
I do not even mind the quality of her answer with respect to this lack of professional proficiency.
As a matter of fact, to me the person is always more important than his or her opinions.But I do bother about honesty.
If Faith would say that there is no evidence of her claims made but she wishes to still elaborate on her propositions to work it out where it leads to, I would gladly join that effort.But when I get comments like "no evidence" IN RETURN of bringing in evidence continuously, then it's "Holy Moses" time for me.But OK I will temper a little bit and change my debate intentions.

PARDON????
Did you say "rather than address my arguments?"
See post Message 1758349[/mid].
Where did you address those then?

HBD, if I'm not wrong, inbreeding also "artificially" declines the population size by closely related individuals mating among their own kin alone. Isn't it that under such conditions of a small population, the effects of genetic drift are stronger? After all, genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation. If so, did you include this factor into your calculations in post 598?

This is of major importance because it's wrong.
As shown extensively in many posts last 2 weeks - and I am only around here for that period, let alone previous attempts - a population split cannot bring a different GENE frequency but only a different ALLELE frequency. In the population of the very same (ancestral) species there are not much differences in genes. Unless it's a typo, it is a flaw. Because a different gene frequency implies that one breed must have taken with them some genes other breed lost throughout the split event. That can't be.And it is not true that you won't see new traits until after a period of inbreeding.
MOSTLY, the accumulation of new traits CAUSES the eventual split.But the most severe flaw is just skipping an abundance of observations both in the field and the lab on genetic innovation by means of Darwinist evolution.It is indeed frustrating - if I weren't used to it when debating creationists - to experience your posts just being ignored. Why Bother indeed is what crosses my mind.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

If something is a receipt for misunderstanding, it will be blurring of concepts, using them interchangeable when they shouldn't. The very concept of an allele is exactly to indicate that different versions of the same gene may exist. That implies the gene itself persists among its versions.I could live with it when all contributors to this thread would agree on "gene frequency may be used as a synonym for allele frequency". But imagine when a newcomer will join.So I propose to designate it "allele frequency" when such was meant. I already pointed that out to Faith but these instances of individuals of the same species having different genes are rather rare. Because too much of those and you have different species. But Faith is thinking that many genes (not alleles) of the original genome from the creation moment are silenced and became junk DNA. That is impossible because that would imply that extant humans supposedly differ thousands of genes from the original ancestral humans. That actually implies a complete other species.

Indeed it is.
I don't feel it to be a separate spin off issue because it addresses the points made by Faith directly.The questions, I think, to be posed here are:

1. is changing song caused by ecological isolation or is it working on its own (as well)? Is it just the icing on the cake of ecological isolation and/or can it act on its own, for instance due to genetic drift or in the same way human languages change over time and slowly losing mutual intelligibility?
2. When reproductive isolation occurs, does this speed up genetic divergence between the two new sister species (due to the loss of genetic flow)?
3. would the fact that postzygotic factors usually play little role in speciation not be explained by the observation that it's mostly and merely the result of ecological isolation? In that scenario hybrid incompatibility is the genetic and phenotype result of ecological isolation and not to be deemed a separate factor after all and different pollinators, different breeding patterns/timing, different mating habits (bird songs/displays) are just its manifestation within the reproductive realm.

Maybe some good starters.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

ifthespacewereimportantthenwewouldseeselectionagainstindeleventsthatwouldbedetectableatthesame timethatisaratherrudimentaryfunctionakintovestigialorgansortheactualjunkinyourkitchenNow what would happen when we remove punctuation?
I think it would cause a text to be illegible and prone to causing communication errors. Especially when a whole book was written and edited without.Are indels only affecting spacer DNA then?
No they don't.
When an indel affects the spacer DNA, causing troubles in transciption of the adjacent genes, would this bring deleterious effects and thus would it be trigger selective effects?
Most likely it would. One of the interesting outcomes of the ENCODE project was the observation that at least 70% of the human DNA actually is transcribed. It made them draw the flawed conclusion that these 70% of human DNA also must be "functional". That's wrong. But STILL the fact stands that 70% of our DNA is transcribed. And transcription costs energy. Especially when it happens all the time in all of the organism's cells.Moreover, most proteins are, often extremely, redundant. For instance, cytochrome C consists of a chain of about 100-104 amino acids. As a consequence, it has been shown that the human cytochrome C protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that had its own native cytochrome C gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome C differs from human cytochrome C over 40% of the protein. Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome C has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo. Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome C are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome C are therefore also hypervariable.Now this applies to all proteins and it means that when, for instance, cytochrome C is produced in the cell, at least two-third of the work is just superfluously done. That will cost a lot of energy.As a matter of fact, prokaryote genomes contain much less junk. For some reason they manage to get lost of their genetic junk. Maybe they need so. Because one of the major differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the latter have a far better net energy balance due to their chloroplasts and mitochondria. They can afford to sustain a lot of genetic junk and protein redundancy.And a lot of redundancy and junk eukaryotes drag around with them indeed. The human genome size is 3.2 Gb large and already known for its junk. But what about the plant Fritillaria assyrica (130 Gb) or Paris japonica (150 Gb). Or the marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus, 130 Gb). To name a few. You hardly can argue these species are more complex than humans, to account for their larger genomes. It seems that the genome size of many eukaryotes does not particularly appear relate to genetic complexity. See The Complexity of Eukaryotic Genomes - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf, particularly Figure 4.1, Genome size - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.Which raises the question why eukaryotes do not get rid of this junk and redundancy. Because after all, it costs energy and resources. When such phenomena are that persistent, there must be an evolutionary advantage for it. Otherwise all that junk would have gotten rid of by selection, like in prokaryotes.That would be an interesting thing to elaborate on i think.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

I think you also have to account for the time factor.
The first "true Neanderthals" appeared between 200,000 and 250,000 years ago in Eurasia and most probably descended from Homo Heidelbergensis. They never were in Africa.Homo sapiens' cradle is Africa and only some 60,000 years ago one of its branches for the first time migrated out of the continent. It also has been estimated that the last Neanderthal gene flow into early ancestors of Europeans occurred 47,000—65,000 years BC. That matches the date of first Homo sapiens first migration out of Africa. Comparison with different Neanderthal specimens found the most likely region of interbreeding to be the Middle East. That's indeed the first place you encounter when leaving Africa.Hence it seems that Neanderthals and Sapiens first took their time to diverge in separate regions, only later to meet each other.

Yes but your initial question was: Which is answered I think: the previous 140,000 years of ecological and geographical isolation before their encounter in the Middle East between the H. sapiens and H. Neanderthal populations apparently did not suffice to establish reproductive isolation.One could argue that 140,000 years represent, evolutionary spoken, a rather short time span.
Furthermore, there is the question whether Neanderthals and Sapiens were separate species altogether. When they were able to interbreed, they weren't according to one of the most important criteria for speciation: reproductive isolation.You may read this article about the issue: Were Neanderthals a different species? - Genetic Literacy Project, where Svante Pbo explains that the male hybrids of Neanderthals and Sapiens were infertile, like mules, and that we owe our Neanderthal genes to hybrid females - which brings David Reich of Harvard Medical School to the conclusion that we and Neanderthals were at the edge of biological compatibility. which subsequently made Fred Spoor conclude This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species.To my opinion two populations are still belonging to the same species when there is still some gene flow between them - even when only through the maternal line.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

Indeed it is but as you may have noticed I am not of the biblical branch pertaining explanations of the natural world. A bit difficult to grasp your point at this moment.

Ah I think I caught up....BTW don't forget Homo Denisova.
Or Homo Floriensis.
Or, for that matter, Homo erectus, who manufactured and applied tools and used fire.Noah's family took in the weirdest of lodgers...Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.