The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Can't see the relevance, don't see the relevance. Source of variations irrelevant to point.Evidence that would convince me: evidence of an increase in genetic diversity AT speciation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The paring down to a single allele was strictly for purposes of illustration of the process I have in mind. I'm well aware that many genes are involved simultaneously in most changes in gene frequencies. The same processes I'm talking about would of course affect all genes at the same time, though at different rates, so it works fine to isolate a single allele just to describe what I'm talking about.About the long tongue I was simply addressing that particular example as it was given by Pink Sasquatch on the original thread on this subject, as her example of natural selection working its way through a population over generations. There are always in nature lots of complicated things going on at one time, I'm just trying to single out one process among the many. There may be more than one gene involved in the tongue trait too, but for purposes of describing the particular process I have in mind a single evolving long tongue will do just fine.Edited by Faith, : comma

Well, maybe you'll get the point and maybe you won't. It isn't a simple additive process. The subtractions that lead to speciation lay waste to all the additions you can come up with. That's the idea anyway. Prove that there's an increase in genetic diversity AT speciation. Simply claiming that mutations are going to prevent the reduction I'm talking about doesn't cut it.

When I said that an increase in genetic diversity at speciation would convince me I'm wrongI was answering the simple question,What would convince me I'm wrong?That would.

It depends. I'll have to ponder this more. First I have to be sure it's an increase in GENETIC diversity, since increase in diversity of traits wouldn't prove anything, and I have to know for certain that the cause is mutation and not some untrackable source of increased gene flow with other populations, or that sort of thing. Beyond that, I have been thinking that even if there are mutations the selective processes will cut them down too, and I need to follow this through before I can answer yes to to your question. But if there is an increase in diversity that doesn't interfere with speciation -- or vice versa -- that would be the clincher for me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Aha, but you see, here you are talking about the PHENOTYPE, and that I fully recognize increases in diversity. My argument is that when this occurs, the GENETIC diversity decreases correspondingly. (Overall the NUMBER of traits also decreases -- with respect to the former population -- since of course the traits express the alleles, but the appearance of new traits increases.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : one annoying typo or other error after anotherEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Kinda the same way Dawkins would be convinced of the falseness of evolution if a rabbit were found in the precambrian, which is the opposite of what creationism would predict too.If there is such a thing as speciation that is not dependent on reduced genetic diversity then you could convince me that evolution is possible. In fact this is the direction I was expecting much of this discussion to go. I thought you thought speciation was possible along with increases in diversity. I expected you to try to prove it and I was going to try to show that it couldn't happen. Certainly seemed to be what people kept saying. But of course it makes my job all the easier if that's not the case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The diversity of phenotypes is the result of the reduction of alleles due to the reduced population. The reduced number of alleles corresponds to a reduced number of traits available of course, but the observed increase in diversity of phenotypes in the new population is due to many NEW traits having opportunity of expression which wasn't possible in the original population. This opportunity is the result of the reduction of alleles due to the reduced population. It doesn't, but it's hard to get it said clearly. I tried above, I'll try again. Yes, of course it does, and I was trying to say that. I'm making a distinction between the many new traits that appear in the new population because of the reduced diversity, and the reduced numbers of alleles and their traits available because of the reduction of population. There are fewer traits in numbers than in the parent population but more are EXPRESSED than in the parent population. It's the EXPRESSED traits that are the increase in diversity you are talking about, but these are getting expressed BECAUSE of the reduced numbers of alleles (and their traits) available. ABE: Another try: the increase in diversity you are talking about is the NEW PHENOTYPES. The daughter population has this kind of increased diversity by comparison with the parent population. But the point I'm trying to make about this is that the reason these phenotypes could be expressed is that the alleles have been reduced or even lost that supported the phenotypes of the parent population. So now you get a whole new character in your new population with fewer traits/alleles overall. This is hard to get said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : another attempt to get it said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

DAWKINS, not Darwin, Subbie. I think it was him anyway, some big name evolutionist very recently.It's true there are way too many creationisms and actually one can't deny that a rabbit in the precambrian would be good evidence for creationism of one sort or another, but creationists who see the entire geological column as the result of the Flood wouldn't expect to find a rabbit anywhere except in the upper strata with the other land animals. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fine, I anticipated arguments along those lines. Produce one so I can take a look at it. Seems to me that if you're going to get evolution of the sort that leads one species to another you've got to pass through speciation. If you don't, show me how you don't.About the rabbit, good grief, the example is similar to the genetic diversity in speciation example in that neither side predicts it can happen. As usual I have to cross all the commas and dot all the t's around here or off with my head.

Hello RAZD,
The size of a creature is its phenotype. Although I don't think fossils demonstrate what you think they demonstrate, for the sake of argument I'll ignore that and just answer that you are talking about diversity at the phenotypic level and I'm talking about GENETIC diversity, which I'm claiming is reduced with any population split that produces an appreciably smaller daughter population, and certainly the closer you get to speciation, at which point it may be very severely depleted. From which point further evolution simply can't happen.Phenotypes may vary quite a bit as the number of alleles/traits is reduced in a new smaller population or at speciation, as alleles for former traits have been left behind in the parent population. This allows formerly suppressed traits to be expressed in the new population. Change in phenotypic diversity IS evolution. What's missed is that it doesn't happen without a corresponding loss of genetic diversity, and that means it really can't go anywhere near as far as the ToE claims it does. That's my argument. Thank you. Of course you must. Others here appear to be suggesting otherwise. Many signs on this thread that the evolutionists are not on the same page about many things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for saying it more accurately. I sometimes leave out the qualifiers that show the latter is what I'm talking about and not the mere change in populations that is microevolution, generally called evolution.

Mutations and all the rest are being discussed on the Great Debate thread between me and Bluejay:EvC Forum: Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)The discussion of mutations starts about message 23 or so.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, of course there is a direct correspondence between genotype and phenotype. Point is that when the number is reduced as in the migration of a smaller population away from a larger one, you may get increased diversity of expressed traits as new ones will emerge that weren't expressed in the parent population, although you have fewer genes/phenotypes than the former population. This is what happens in ring species. New traits show up because of reduced genetic diversity because of reduced numbers in each new migration from the former population. Reducing the numbers brings out the new traits. Looks like increased diversity. Evolutionists take it for increased diversity and superficially it is increased diversity. But the actual fact is although you have some new traits that hadn't shown up in this species before, you've got a reduced number of possible traits, because some were left behind in the parent population, therefore reduced genetic diversity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See Message 44 on the other thread for my answer to you.