Can Genetic Loss Increase Diversity?

I can't take much time here because of the condition of my computer. It will freeze up if I read too much or write too much.The point was that I've been ARGUING for the reduction in genetic diversity as the reason it's not "taken for granted." But it gets to a point where everybody tries to prove that mutation makes up for it, and during THAT part of the discussion it's AS IF it's taken for granted because everybody is trying to answer it.I've shown in thread after thread that all the selecting processes, which include natural selection, migration, bottleneck, random selection, gene drift etc. do over time tend to bring about a reduction in genetic diversity. ALL OF THEM. I also gave links to breeder and conservationist discussions that confirm this. Mutation is the only thing that works in teh opposite idrection. That is in fact what evolutionists do assume and it's good to get it stated. That is why we are always encountering this AS AN ASSUMPTION, with apparently no need felt to provide evidence for it. You get for instance a discussion of novel alleles appearing in a ring species and this all by itself is taken to be caused by mutation -- it is simply assumed. It is assumed because the ToE requires it. The problem is that mutation is so taken for granted that nobody is studying this in a way that could demonstrate it one way or the other.I'm not going to write more for fear of my computer freezing up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Already had a freeze up trying to answer this. Could happen again. Can't make Word work with it either for some reason. Anyway. You aren't getting the picture here. Reduced genetic diversity refers to reduced numbers of alleles in a new usually smaller population, whether it's gene drift that selects a few and leaves others within a population, or a geographic split in which some lose contact with the original population and so on.Sometimes there is no actual loss, merely a change in frequency of the number of various alleles. Either way you get new combinations of alleles and new traits will eventually emerge from these. Over time, many splits, especially bottleneck, a very severe reduction, you can get to the point of speciation, as happens in ring species. Quetzal's example of the Ensatina is a good one. It assumes mutation brings about the new traits, but the existing alleles in the original population are explanation enough.You do NOT get uniformity, you get change at the phenotype or population level.Think dog breeding. The more you reduce the population, even down to a few founder dogs, the more alleles you eliminate, which allows the alleles you favor to be expressed in the breed. Over time you select for the traits you want, and in this process you are eliminating the genetic material for the traits you don't want. This is how you get new breeds, and ultimately species. I hope my explanation above is clear. It does not produce uniformity, it reshuffles the alleles, changes the frequencies, which is the definition of evolution after all. "Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population" isn't that how it goes? There may not be loss every time, although a severe split may very wwell cause loss, but over time, many splits, etc. there will certainly be a trend to loss of alleles and therefore a reduction in genetic diversity. I've explained it at endless endless length on many threads by now and have just explained it again above. I hope it gets across.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mick,
You have to write that a lot more clearly. I can't follow that. I don't know what a microsatellite is. You haven't proved a thing until you make it comprehensible. I haven't mentioned heterozygosity so what does it prove to emphasize that anyway? I've talked about an overall trend to reduced genetic diversity. Make your point please.I hope I'll have more time eventually to think through stuff like this.Also, I have no idea whether a given breed would have lower anything than a wild breed. I haven't suggested such a thing. I've merely said that the process of domestic breeeding DEMONSTRATES THE PRINCIPLE I'M TALKING ABOUT.By the way I posted links that said what I'm saying. Sorry I'll have to wait to try to track them down later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK I"m going to stop posting to this thread until my computer is in better shape but I posted stuff demonstrating this on the other thread.Breeders have traditionally bred for observed traits. The more they select for those traits the more the traits get defined in their breed. The traits ARE ALREADY THERE in the dog population. That means the ALLELES for those traits are already there, so they are selecting alleles. They are carefully eliminating other alleles. You are assumign somewhere in there that mutation has made those alleles. THAT is what there is no evidence for. All we KNOW, actually KNOW, is that those traits were THERE in the population and their alleles were there.