How do you define the word Evolution?

Mostly it's not mutations at all, you're assuming it's mutations when it's nothing but built in alleles in new combinations. Darwin's elaborately varied pigeons were all the result of new combinations of built in alleles.

http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html
Observed Instances of Speciation An operational definition, the only kind of definition that is useful in science, specifies a procedure by which one can determine whether or not an arbitray item fits the definition. That is not an operational definition.

• You have not specified any way to determine if "genetic diversity has been reduced to the point that no further evolution is possible.".
• Your claim that there is a point at which "genetic diversity has been reduced to the point that no further evolution is possible" is an unsupported assertion. In fact, there are no observations or reasons to think such a situation exists.

Given any two arbitrarily chosen organisms, how do you determine whether or not they are the same kind?

Evidence, please?Oh, you don't have any. Just more unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

Breeding and ring species are excellent examples

---

Excellent examples of your errors. Your idea of evolution is based on a version of selective breeding so extreme that even real breeders don't follow it. Real breeders can and do incorporate new variations when they find them desirable. Real breeders have not produced the genetic incompatibilities that you assume are due to "genetic depletion". And how you think ring species help your case I have no idea.You have no case. That is a fact.

Breeding has changed since they recognized the dangers of genetic depletion. They used to not worry about it so they could be as extreme as they wanted in selecting for the desired type. Now they incorporate genetic diversity to avoid the most drastic consequences.Ring species have to lose genetic diversity from population to population just as has to happen with developing breeds. New gene frequencies including a loss of traits from the former population bring out the new phenotypes. It can't happen any other way. And since each new population is formed as a daughter of the former population the genetic diversity keeps getting reduced until the last in the series may be just about genetically depleted, and in any case is genetically changed enough to be unable to interbreed with former populations. It blows the ToE to smithereens for anybody who is really thinking.

Nope. All it takes is a mutation. The allele for light brown coat color is still the most common allele in the total pocket mouse population. The black allele didn't have to replace the light brown allele in order for there to be black mice. I am talking about random mutations which are the hallmark of Darwinian evolution.

That was already disproven as well when we showed you thousands of alleles for a single gene in a single species. Those alleles are the product of mutation. Mutations produce new alleles.

Yes you did, all in the immune system, which is very likely to be a special case for some reason, especially since other examples were scarce. And I still say that scattering the effects of the immune system through the population, which is what mutations do, can't be a good thing.Perhaps we are at a point in the deterioration of all living things that mutations have overtaken built in alleles.

What? In order to get a whole population of black (or white) mice, which is the way the situation is always described, they certainly do have to replace the other colors.Somebody, Dr. A I think, said one of the colors is dominant, I forget which, but that means it's always going to show up among mice of the other color(s), which means, IIRC, it pretty much always has to be a mutation that shows up right on time for the switch because otherwise it will be picked off by predators.In any case, again, you can't get a whole population of a color without losing the other colors.

If you don't have any evidence to back this claim, then you don't have proven premises like you claimed.Unless you can show that mutations don't happen, you have no choice but to conclude that losses of alleles due to selection is reversed with the emergence of new alleles through mutation.

The black and brown mice freely interbreed. They are part of the same population. Both alleles exist in the population. One has not replaced the other. There are still black mice. Therefore, the black allele does not have to replace the brown allele in order for there to be black mice. What do you mean by "it shows up right on time"? That makes no sense. The pocket mice were not facing extinction. There is a massive amount of brown desert that they were doing just fine in.

You don't know the reason, but you're confident that it is "very likely". Or, ya know - you're wrong.

So you keep changing the goal posts. Now we've got brown mice as well as black and white, and lots and lots of brown desert. That's a new version of the story.But the principle still holds true that if you have a WHOLE population of black or white mice, that populate an all black or all white environment, the other colors have to be eliminated or somehow suppressed.

quote:

---

Breeding has changed since they recognized the dangers of genetic depletion. They used to not worry about it so they could be as extreme as they wanted in selecting for the desired type. Now they incorporate genetic diversity to avoid the most drastic consequences.

---

So they stopped artificial practices that were hurting their stock. How does THAT help you ?

quote:

---

Ring species have to lose genetic diversity from population to population just as has to happen with developing breeds.

---

Assuming that your ideas are correct just begs the question. And that's all you have here.Except this bit...

quote:

---

...genetically changed enough to be unable to interbreed with former populations.

---

...which is a strong indication that there is new variation there, creating the incompatibilities.

quote:

---

It blows the ToE to smithereens for anybody who is really thinking.

---

No. If you had actually thought about it you would know that.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.