All theory
That's what scientific explanations are called.
Intelligent design is no theory.
no fact
It is an observed fact that mutations accrue and that this generates alleles.
evidence
What would you regard as evidence that genetic mutations occur, that mutations of genes means there is a new version or 'allele' of that gene?
The real genetic stuff is all built in.
Evidence? Like any evidence the 'real genetic stuff' pre-existed its current state of being in biological DNA? Any evidence of it being built in? Any evidence of the building in mechanism? The agent of building?
Theory is enough though, you call it fact and that will do for evolution.
Theory is the explanation of and using the facts. Mutations accruing and generating alleles is a fact. From the outset the theory predicted a unit of inheritance that could vary between individuals, the frequency of which would change in any given population as the struggle for survival played out.
You have no theory, and those that try - always fail to take into consideration key facts that evolution handles naturally.
The whole thing is a fiction anyway.
The point is, if you want to science your 'fiction' has to be as thorough as this kind of reasoning. You can't just say 'it looks designed therefore intelligent designer designed it'. It's a form of philosophy, but it's not science.
Whatever functional alleles are available to be selected are built-in, not the product of mutations.
A claim you repeat, so I will likewise repeat the lack of evidence for this claim. I am going to call it a fiction.
The Pod Mrcaru lizards developed their large heads and jaws within thirty years of their original release onto their island in five pairs. The evolution had to be the result of built-in alleles.
Or there was a diversity of alleles within the gene pool as a result of mutations and neutral drift. You can claim it just 'had' to be your version of events, but without provisioning evidence there is no equality with science.
And although it hasn't been "proved" it should be obvious that when you have such a focused genetic trait that you've lost a LOT of alleles for different forms of that trait.
This is a new claim about 'focused genetic traits' which I take to mean 'when genetic diversity is low, you don't have much genetic diversity' which is tautologous. Drastic allele loss is not necessary for evolution, though it can happen but since new alleles are constantly generated - genetic diversity does have a way to bounce back.
That's an illustration of my argument that evolution loses alleles which over time makes evolution less and less possible until eventually further evolution becomes impossible.
Only in your version. In the scientific version, new alleles are generated when old alleles suffer random germ line mutations that don't significantly impact reproductive success .
Creationists usually use the term "information" for this -- evolution loses information.
Biological systems copy information from the environment using a very inefficient method called natural selection.
What "new/observed ones?" if you haven't seen them before that doesn't mean they weren't there, they were most likely just rare and you just now got to see them.
The simplest solution is to observe bacteria. Start a culture from a group of clones whose DNA you know. Wait as the generations pass. Do DNA tests, see if any genes have been mutated. Isolate bacteria with new DNA observe if it is viable. If it is. Done.
This has been done. I think University students even go as far as doing this with flies.
OR they aren't really useful alleles, they're the usual mutations that normally don't do anything useful.
Because they don't do anything useful, they spread around through neutral drift. If a new selection pressure arises, it might be that for some reason some of those genetic variants provide some edge significant enough to overcome statistical noise and predictably increase in frequency in the population. It's more complex of course, it might be that the allele only provides an advantage in the presence of another allele for another gene, for example.
All alleles that actually do something for the organism are built in, all part of the original Creation.
Evidence?
The evidence is that design looks designed as we've been discussing here.
That isn't evidence, its meaningless.
Let's agree that life is designed.
The question that separates us is therefore, What is the nature of the designer?
Intelligent
or mindless?
You need to provision evidence that it is intelligent. You can't say 'I can't see how it could me mindless' and leave it there, or at least, if you do, then that would not be 'The Science in Creationism'.
If it looks designed it was designed, this claim that random processes could produce anything that appears designed is just the theory again, sheer foolishness.
Those processes have been used to design real world objects. But nevertheless the idea that a magic man decided to make non magic men that appear evolved is just a theory again, sheer foolishness.
Easy. There are no non-designed alleles. There are alleles and there are the allele-like mutations that don't do anything for the organism.
Yes, nonsense is easy, but it doesn't help you. How can I differentiate alleles from 'allele-like mutations' and how can I know that this differentiation is the result of a designer? An allele is a variant form of a gene, so you appear to be using non standard definitions so you need to be precise or I will misunderstand you.
The best example to demonstrate the point is domestic breeding. As you develop a breed you are losing alleles.
Faith we've had this discussion numerous times over the years. Indeed,
Message 6 from ten years ago was a reply to the OP, but addressed to you on this same subject.
You lose alleles on purpose. That's what domestic breeding is designed for. They impose strict breeding restrictions so that they minimise the variations around the traits they want. This is genetic engineering. It has agency, design. It is intrinsically not a good analogy for a proposed mindless process.
Most breeds originally formed within a few hundred or so years from wild populations, simply by a portion of that population being reproductively isolated. That's the real cause of evolution -- reproductive isolation of a portion of the whole population.
Allopatric speciation, yes I believe I already covered this in my previous post:
quote:
In allopatric speciation the absolute number of alleles goes down in each subgroup, but that's because the absolute size of each population is smaller. The frequencies don't necessarily change, though they might so alleles are not necessarily lost as there are often many copies. At this point the two populations start growing to their new local maximum generating new mutations and thus new alleles, but not sharing them with one another.
An allele that is 'lost' from one population, is found in the other, but many significant alleles are generally distributed such that they are likely to be represented in both.
There is no inexorable tendency to zero alleles. This would more or less require a population size of 0 (as an approximation each individual carries one allele from each parent).
™ Version 4.2
(1)
