A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

Species being driven into extinction do face a loss of diversity, yes. Meanwhile the domestic wolf, or "dog", which is flourishing, displays a marked range of genetic (and morphological!) diversity.---Consider the following facts: we are all descended from (Y-nuclear) Adam; the Y-chromosome is not subject to sexual recombination; men have different Y-chromosomes. Where did the variety come from?--- But of course we account for it just as you do, but in less ambiguous language: where you say "The processes decreasing genetic diversity greatly outweigh the processes creating genetic diversity" as though it were a law of nature, we say "In the case of wolves, the processes decreasing genetic diversity (being driven nearly to extinction by humans, loss of habitat, loss of prey) greatly outweigh the processes increasing genetic diversity."It would indeed take "thousands of years" to undo the damage we've done. We are living in the middle of a vast extinction event, caused by us. At present, the genetic diversity of the world is falling, because we're killing it off; but this has not always been the case.In particular, a subgroup of a species isolated on some island did, in the past have thousands, or millions, of years to overcome the "founder effect". Darwin's finches seem quite diverse, do they not?---And good grief man, do you suppose that geneticists don't know about this stuff? Heck, do you suppose that the guy who did the studies refered to in the article was a creationist? Or the guy who wrote the article? We know this stuff. Look up the "50/500 rule".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

When "the process" involves being driven nearly to extinction by one of the greatest extinction events of all time, then yes, this does reduce genetic diversity.The dodo, for example, now exhibits no genetic diversity whatsoever.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It can, for example, colonize an unoccupied niche. Yes; and no, respectively. I would agree that this claim has not been substantiated; but you are the one who is making it. So far, your only attempt to substantiate it has been to conflate the extinction event now ongoing with the general course of nature.I notice you have not commented on the Y-chromosome. Why not? But you cannot quote them, because ... ?

What do you think you're replying to? Yes. I do. I said so. What do you think you're replying to? What do you think you're replying to? See my comments on the Y-chromosome. To which I have drawn your attention more than once.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is now part of my homework to substantiate your arguments?How very convenient for you.

Random strings of words do not challenge my beliefs, they merely tax my patience.For example:You: Moreover, isn't it fairly normal for species to be driven to extinction over time? Are you suppossing that extinction is not part of the process of evolution?Me: Yes; and no, respectively.You: So you don't consider extinction of older species via natural selection a part of the evo model?Me: Yes. I do. I said so. What do you think you're replying to?---If you have a cogent argument, feel free to make it. If you're just going to say random stuff without reference to what I've posted, that is not a debate.PS: Still no comment about the Y-chromosome, eh? Pesky facts, huh?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your thoughts on the Y-chromosome, please?

I refer you again to the existence of variety in the human Y chromosome. But I do not live in the magical fantasy land in your head. In your magic dreamworld, no doubt I am "dodging the point". In the real world, I have provided you with facts which show an increase in genetic diversity, which you refuse to comment on.

You now seem to be requiring that someone should show you that the net genetic diversity of the whole world is increasing.In the first place, no-one can make that measurement directly, and in the second place, it isn't increasing right now. Humans are driving species to extinction at a frightening rate, and so long as this keeps up, the world's genetic diversity is decreasing.But such is not always the case. Can you explain, for example, how the "conquest of the land" should have reduced net genetic diversity?

Which "basic claims" have we not substantiated? No.The new population starts off small, and if it survives, will grow. The population from which its derived need not decrease in size (for more than a generation). Why should it? This does not make for loss of genetic diversity.You are mixing up the unfortunate fate of the wolves with the colonization of a new niche. The effects on genetic diversity are quite, quite different. So reluctant that we have done so several times on this thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, we have in fact. See above for more details. Which no-one has claimed. It is patently obvious that a sequence of small changes add up to one cumulative large change. Because whenever you manage to raise a definite issue, the answer is bleedin' obvious. If you like, I'll produce peer-reviewed papers to prove that the human Y chromosome is heterozygous, but I assumed you knew that.

We're not; they have been.If you think there's some particular observation that should have been made, but hasn't, or some experiment which should have been performed, but hasn't, or some calculation which should have been made, but hasn't, then please say what it is. Well, we've given you observational and experimental data proving this. I'm sure I could dig out the maths for you. What more do you want?

In which you can, apparently, point out no flaw. No. ... that creationists attribut to evolutionists because you can't debate with what we actually claim. That is not, in fact, what happens. Remember? I explained your mistake. Don't you people ever learn? Er ... magic is not required for that to be true. Magic would be required for that not to be true. Yes, a lot of small changes add up to a lot of change. If many changes are made to a genome, then it will be considerably different from the original. This follows from the meanings of the word "change" and the word "different". Do you see how this works? Yes, we "totally avoid the actual process itself" by talking about mutations and the genome, where as you look at the fine details of the process such as swimming to England and prop airplanes.You so funnee.

No. Your demands have been incredibly vague, this is why I'm trying to pin you down on them. You wish that some experiment should have been performed, some observation made, some calculation done. What, precisely?What do you find wanting in all the experimental and observational data with which we've supplied you? Why won't you even discuss it?

I made no such claim. Put down that riduculous straw doll and argue with me.