SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

Actually Fred, you didn't answer the question as to how X number of "kinds" becomes the diversity of living organisms we see today. You have utterly failed to explain how the homogenizing action of inbreeding depression ("bottleneck") actually creates diversity - merely asserted it does. Your dog example is spurious - they remain the same kind, after all, and their diversity is nowhere near fully "realized" (if I understand whatever the hell that means) since new breeds, cross breeds and backcrosses are being "created" on a regular basis. Genetic drift doesn't create much in the way of diversity (in the sense of being a major mechanism of speciation) either - it merely CAN change the relative frequency of certain alleles and their linkages through a random walk. It can just as easily eliminate alleles as it can change the dominance or preponderance of alleles already present or appearing through random mutation. The only time this leads to speciation is as an adjunct to allopatry (i.e., drift changing the frequency of alleles enough in two separated populations that one or the other can be designated as a separate species).Here's a poser for you: given the historical bottlenecks in cheetahs and elephant seals (I'm feeling generous so I'll let you slide for the moment on the plants we've talked about) where we know from actual records that the populations have been drastically reduced to a few individuals - why haven't new species of cheetahs and elephant seals been produced before our very eyes? After all, you're the one who's claiming that bottlenecks produced lots of new species from the Flood. This IS your mechanism, right?While you're at it - why don't you take a shot at the questions posed to TB on post-Flood biodiversity? I'd be fascinated to hear your answers.

quote:

---

I never said this creates diversity. In fact, if you recall I corrected Mamuthusus when he denied genetic information was lost due to bottlenecks (he later recanted, claiming I misunderstood him). What I said is bottlenecks & drift is a process that helps realize the already inherent diversity. If you don’t understand the difference between create and realize there is no point debating this further. I can only say that blue = blue for so long.

---

Never said it, hunh? How about this bit here, then?

quote:

---

It was asked how the diversity of life can be explained given a starting point of 5K years ago with some number of kinds of animals. I illustrated how bottlenecks and subsequent drift would easily account for some if not much of the diversity we see, and I provided dogs as an illustration.

---

Sure looks like you're claiming bottlenecks cause/create/whatever diversity. Those are your words, right? If you didn't mean them, you should have been more clear.No, I have no clue what you're babbling about concerning "realized" diversity. If it made any sense, I wouldn't ask you to clarify what you meant, now would I? From your non-response, it's pretty apparent you don't have any idea what it means either.

quote:

---

It is one mechanism that has surely produced new species, we have observed it. I remind you that species is a man-made, subjective term. I have debated some biologists who say that merely isolating a population can qualify the isolated group as a new species. Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat kind).

---

Besides the obvious error on the number of bat species (like by an order of magnitude), allopatric speciation IS one of the principal - albeit not the only - way speciation occurs. And duh, of course it's a man-made term. All the taxonomic classifications are, and most are pretty ambiguous to boot. What was the point of this utter and trivial irrelevancy again?

quote:

---

You are making false assumptions. We first must consider only the kinds that were required to be on the ark. We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!). To compare apples to apples, I will compare the number of estimated kinds (which is based on known species) to the number of catalogued species required to originate on the ark. My source for species is:

​

Page Not Found | World Resources Institute

​

4,000 Mammals
4,184 Amphibians
6,300 Reptiles
9,040 Birds

​

The total number of species that would have had to originate on the ark is 23,524. As you can see, it is entirely reasonable to achieve 23K species from an original 18K kinds over the period of 4000 years! It only requires 1.3 species per each kind. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 32 bat species, at least a dozen rabbit species, etc. It appears the 18,000 "kind" estimate is likely too high.

---

This is almost too silly for words. Okay, tell me again your rationale for excluding insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc from your "kinds"? List, for example, all the terrestrial plants that are capable of surviving one full year's immersion in salt water. List, for example, all of the species of phytophagous insects that are capable of surviving without their host plants for twelve months.While you're at it, explain how - with all the violent to-and-fro surging, 40 days of rain, literally mountains of sediment being deposited all over the planet simultaneously, submarine volcanos or whatever you're now calling the "fountains of the deep", massive uplift and subsidence of sea floor, etc how ANY marine creature could possibly have survived. This ought to be rich.Someone already covered the huge volume of extinct critters that would have had to be accommodated on the ark, like litopterns, giant ground sloths, cameliids, all the extinct perissodactyls, early artiodactyls, etc. And that's just the mammals! You've left out a LOT of critters.In other words, Fred, justify your numbers.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-22-2002]

You're losing track of the conversation here, Fred. Let's take it from the top:

quote:

---

Hence why I followed-up with the top paragraph. I thought it was clear as a whistle. Even the emphasized sentence you quoted should have been clear. It is simply true that bottlenecks and subsequent drift help us SEE the diversity. It does not create the diversity, it helps us SEE it. Realize, see, all words with solid definitions. I am not the one having grammar problems here. You too appear to be equivocating/hairsplitting. But I’m used to it. I really in a sense don’t blame you. If the point you are defending is specious, well

---

This STILL doesn't make any sense (hey, I'm just an ignorant evilutionist, right?) What do you mean by "helping us SEE diverstity"? How do you see diversity? Numbers of species? Variation/clines within a population? Demes? Please provide a simple, easy-to-follow explanation - with at least one example of a specific organism - of how bottlenecks "realize" diversity. IOW, trace the pop gen of an organism pre-bottleneck, bottleneck, post-bottleneck to illustrate your point. I'm not hairsplitting/equivocating - I literally have no idea what you're on about. Since this is your contention, you ought to be able to provide a succinct, comprehensible explanation, right?

quote:

---

Q: Besides the obvious error on the number of bat species (like by an order of magnitude),

​

F: Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you. See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you. Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?

---

Interesting that you deleted/ignored the rest of that sentence. If you hadn't, you'd have realized that the point wasn't your (rather large) error on the numbers of bat species - it was only mentioned in passing - but rather contesting your previous assertion:

quote:

---

It is one mechanism that has surely produced new species, we have observed it. I remind you that species is a man-made, subjective term. I have debated some biologists who say that merely isolating a population can qualify the isolated group as a new species. Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat kind).

---

Here again you're proclaiming bottlenecks cause speciation. This is the point I brought out in the remainder of the sentence you didn't quote. Although I would NEVER accuse you of equivocating, your attempt to focus on the bat part to the exclusion of the meat of the paragraph certainly lends itself to that interpretation.So, do bottlenecks cause speciation as you've asserted in several posts, or not?

quote:

---

This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc. Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark.

---

Nope, wrong again. My argument isn't based on what the "bible required". I couldn't care less what the bible wants. I'm challenging the creationists who claim the bible is a science text to show how the modern diversity of life - all life - is possible from the X number of kinds allegedly on the ark. I used the starting numbers from creationists, and the ending numbers from biologists who study diversity. Not my problem if the creationists can't get their collective act together. If YOU - Fred Williams - are going to exclude whole kingdoms of organisms from being on the ark, YOU need to supply the rationale and explanation of where those organisms were during the global flood and how they survived. It isn't a separate topic - it IS the topic: explain current biodiversity from a global bottleneck 4500 years ago. YOUR contention = YOUR requirement to provide evidence of your assertion. I'm not orders of magnitude off - you have to account for your "orders of magnitude" error. Try again.