The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

OK, I'll answer RAZD here instead of on the other thread: IF the migration from one to the next is of an appreciably SMALLER population leaving behind one that is appreciably larger. I’m well aware that it can play out so that the two first populations started out relatively equal and that the entire ring can play out in a similar fashion. In that case you’ll get relatively equal populations with different phenotypes and similar genetic picture to one another*****. I’ve also at times in this thread, although unfortunately not in this particular post, specified that each population be reproductively isolated from all the others, at least by geography, and specifically excluded hybrid zones, so that there won’t be gene flow to complicate the point I’m trying to make. Your example doesn’t meet the requirement.However, let me see what I can do with your example of the greenish warblers. Counter to what assertion? I didn’t mention hybrid zones in my post to you, and I have said in other posts I’d like to exclude them for the sake of clarity.As for traits being combined, which I guess is what you THINK I was saying about the situation in the parent population after the daughter population migrates away, no, that is not what I was saying. My way of describing it may be off a bit but I can’t believe it’s off THAT much. In any case what you got out of it is exactly the opposite of what I intended to say.The daughter population SHOULD show completely DISTINCT traits from the parent population, as you are confirming occurs here in your populations as well. Of COURSE. The only difference in my mind is that IF the daughter population started from an appreciably smaller number than the parent population contained, then the parent population shouldn’t be particularly affected by the loss of that small number, but BECAUSE it’s such a small number the gene frequencies in the daughter population should bring about some dramatically new traits/phenotypes, which after a number of generations of inbreeding among them should develop a characteristic phenotype peculiar to the daughter population. The parent population would also change in a similar manner if the original numbers at the split were about equal, but in EITHER case there would be DISTINCT new traits emerging. Of course that is what happened in your populations, although if the genetic diversity in each is about the same that suggests that the migration was about equal to the population left behind in each case rather than appreciably smaller, so there is no way to show whether I’m right or not about differences in genetic diversity if there were such a definite difference in population numbers from migration to migration. I made no such assertion and could hardly have such an idea. Of course they would reflect the two bordering populations. RAZD, I don’t know where you get any of this from anything I’ve said. It’s the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying all along. I expect DIFFERENT traits to be expressed from population to population. That is what is going on in your example. Good grief, the whole point of a ring species is that each population is characterized by its own peculiar phenotype! EXACTLY what I’ve been talking about! I may have said things a little off, I don’t know, I tend to get it said in one post and leave something out in the next, but it’s very hard to think I said them THIS FAR off. WHAT assertion? I don’t have any idea how you get this out of anything I’ve said. I would EXPECT such differences, it’s exactly what a ring species IS.From the description you quote of the genetics and history it sounds like the focus is entirely on the phenotype- -- plumage and songs — and not on the genotype so that the genetic diversity is very likely being assumed here and not actually known as you claim. Can you clarify this point?I assume by genes you mean alleles since it is alleles that are varying from population to population; genes are staying in place. This appears to be nothing more than the standard supposition/assumption/hypoethesis based on the ToE, made by focusing on the PHENOTYPES. You really know nothing at all about the genotypes. You are ASSUMING mutations explain the differences, you have not documented them. You ASSUME increased genetic diversity based on the superficial visible differences between the populations.The differences ARE explained by gene loss (allele loss). When you DON’T have gene sharing, THAT is where the differences in traits emerge. It is with the loss of the alleles for the OTHER traits that the trait peculiar to the given population can be expressed. This is clearly what is happening here. Each population is characterized by a phenotype that couldn’t emerge unless the alleles for the other types were lost.Mutation is a fiction assumed on the basis of the ToE. There is no evidence whatever for mutation as I have come to see without a doubt in the discussion with Bluejay.The real scenario must be that the population started out with a good variety of alleles for many genes, and it broke into populations in which a complement of those alleles was retained peculiar to each population and not to the other populations. Since you haven’t even looked at the actual genes but only supposed the whole thing, there is no way to show this one way or the other. Since you know nothing about their genotypes this is wild speculation. But I haven’t said that the end result of the processes I’m describing is always extinction. I’ve clearly said that some populations become quite robust in numbers even after a drastic bottleneck. But reduced genetic diversity does tend ultimately in that direction. The only way you can know in a particular situation is to look at the DNA. This hasn’t been done here.Tell you what I'd predict if you did: one of those populations in Siberia will have much greater genetic diversity than the other.ABE: Also, since each population DID break off from the previous, I'm STILL going to predict that you have reduced genetic diversity from beginning to end around the ring.In other words, I'm realizing that my prediction doesn't depend on the daughter populations being appreciably smaller after all. As you go around the ring you keep losing alleles even if the populations are equal in numbers.But you aren't going to find out by looking at the phenotypes and hallucinating mutations.***** Actually you WON'T get a similar genetic picture even if the populations ARE about the same, as I'm just now discovering. You WILL get reduced genetic diversity as you go around the ring even in that case.Reduced genetic diversity would be shown by such effects as fixed loci in the farthest population from the first one, many recessives coming out along the way, many more alleles for different traits in the earlier populations even though they have a characteristic phenotype -- the effect of many dominants -- which is why you have to look at the genes to find out about the genetic diversity.

RAZD, you don't seem to know the difference between the EXPRESSION of traits and the NUMBER of traits although I've taken pains to explain it. It doesn't have to possess ALL the diversity but it should show greater genetic diversity.But this is not something that would be apparent by merely looking at the character of the population the way evolutionists do, as everything coming up roses building one upon another.You see the diverging traits, you don't even THINK about how traits had to be left behind for these to emerge. The "observed facts" are not what I'm predicting. Therefore they are NOT contrary to my assertion. My assertion is that you cannot tell by looking at the traits from the outside whether there is reduced genetic diversity or not, but this is what evolutionists stupidly do. And I don't mind saying "stupidly" since you are treat me like I'm stupid. I don't give a damn about all the particulars. And there are NOT hybrid zones between each duo of populations, so hypothetically yiou could easily enough have a ring species without hybrid zones -- geographic barriers, distance of migration, whatever. The point was to streamline the hypothetical in order to make the point I want to make. It turns out your example wasn't a problem to figure out anyway even with the hybrids. YOu mean alleles, not genes. And of COURSE each has different alleles, that's the whole point.Different alleles in themselves says nothing whatever about genetic diversity. That has to do with FEWER alleles, not DIFFERENT alleles. You are apparently referring ONLY to the trait diversity and not to the numbers of alleles available, which is the measure of how much variation is still potential in the species. of course if you are assuming mutations instead of what is really going on, the shuffling of an original complement of alleles that are being gradually reduced in numbers from population to population, you can't see the forest for the trees. Yes, RAZD, it SAYS that, but I'm aware that evolutionists make all kinds of assumptions about the genetic data, from looking only at the phenotype -- mostly by hallucinating nonexistent mutations to account for changes that don't require mutations -- so if you want to prove anything to me about the genetic data you're going to have to show it to me. Gene for what trait, allele for what character, heterozygous dominant or recessive or homozygous dominant or recessive and so on. Sorry, SAYING you have the genotype I KNOW does not mean you have the genotype, it's all smoke and mirrors. According to inference based on the phenotype comparing the difrerent populations as far as I can tell from the quote. Sorry, if they have this data you haven't shown it to me. Oh come off it. The gene is the locus on the DNA strand, the alleles are the variations of that gene. Good grief. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A moment of fairness here. Wow, I'm impressed. Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I've been trying to present it, I've been assuming it doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make whether the alleles are only a subset of the parent population's or are new mutations.But I'm probably going to have to change that, which makes my job easier anyway, because there is absolutely NO proof of mutations ANYWHERE, they are all assumed and when actually studied in the DNA turn out to be ALL variations on the theme of uselessness to disease-producing. You are not going to get interesting new variations in your populations around the ring from that pathetic excuse for an allele factory. I've read a lot about ring species. I'm sort of fond of ring species. He misrepresented what I said. His evidence isn't evidence of what I'm claiming, and I thank you for discovering that yourself in your last post. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He's going to have to show how whole genes are removed from or added by the thousands of nucleotides into the DNA strand. Alleles simply insert themselves into the locus already there.Just one of those unfinished thoughts. No mutations that make real alleles. Wherever there is a real allele it's been there from the beginning. Mutations only make disease and junk, that's my conclusion.

Yes, where DID you find that? I looked all over the creationist sites for this argument and found only partial versions of it. I did finally find a good one, but it uses the idea of "information" instead of genetic diversity and I didn't want to confuse things by switching terms so I haven't quoted from them.But yes, that does outline what I believe and says it better than I've said it as I've had to struggle to get it said and I wasn't totally convinced that mutations are completely a disease process until the exchange with Bluejay.I wanted to prove it by proving reduced genetic diversity, which I still believe can be done.I'm amazed at this statement, as it says perfectly what I've been struggling to get said against endless misunderstanding: If you found it on an evolutionist site I suppose objections will follow. I may or may not be up to continuing the debate at this point though. I need a break for a while at least.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, there is no reason in my hypothesis why there has to be a population anywhere in the ring that combines all the alleles of all the populations.And there is also nothing about hybrid zones that is a problem for my hypothesis, it merely adds gene flow and is unnecessary to the point I'm trying to make.But you addressed this to Percy and I'd really like to see what he has to say in answer.

Zen Monkey did a great job of understanding me if that was his own description. You were able to show RAZD that his study didn't refute me, also showing understanding, but before that you showed none at all. Bluejay also didn't get it, even with his "bottleneck" picture. I expected we'd go there next and it would become clear that he didn't. If you can't spell out that there's a difference between the number of alleles in the population and the expression of new traits you aren't getting it. RAZD isn't getting it to say the least, isn't even getting close. And many others haven't understood either. So, sorry, I disagree.I'm happily surprised anyone could do it but if Zen Monkey could and I could recognize it, it should have happened before and it hasn't or I would have recognized it earlier and wouldn't have kept saying nobody was getting it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That wouldn't refute a thing I've said. A could easily have an allele that B left behind in a migration, while B could have an allele that was completely removed from A in that same migration.

Zen Monkey:Since I thought you must have taken that list from some creationist source I accepted it as written, but if you came up with it yourself I should be sure it really says what I mean: Yes, but it's possible that there was once some sort of chemical event that produced viable alleles -- from a built-in potential set of possibilities, however -- that has since been lost to the vast majority of living things. Mutation is certainly not that, though it might be a distorted remnant of it unless it is purely a disease process. I try to avoid using the term "speciation" unless inability to interbreed has resulted from the population split, but just in the loose sense of a population having developed a new phenotype after such a split, it's true enough. Yes, and "crowded out" I suppose probably has something to do with dominant and recessive versions. Yes. Yes. Except in bacteria, possibly, if those are really random mutations and not something built into the organism that's different from many other living things. The fact that bacteria have either little or no junk DNA, and what is called a "packed" genome, suggests that they may have genetic possibilities lost to all the species that have a genome full of junk DNA. I was willing to try to make my point even WITH mutations, because the main thing is the fact that natural selection and genetic drift and other random-selection processes reduce the number of alleles in a new population and will do this to mutations as well, so that in speciation the character/phenotype of the new population as a whole will be made up of many mutations but with the usual expected many fixed loci, so that further variation is stopped, and if further change depends upon the gigantic time span expected for mutations to make a useful difference after that, evolution is as good as over at that point. Cheetah is a good example.But yes, now I AM convinced after the discussion with Bluejay that mutations are only deleterious in one way or another.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I assume you mean by C, D and E the population C that migrates away from B, D from C, and E from D?I don't know what this is meant to describe: Certainly there are many genes, even many for the same trait, and most likely more than two alleles for each gene, in the original population. Even if in some strangely limited scenario the allele left in A and the allele taken over into B were the only alleles for a particular gene in the original population, there would be other genes and other alleles for B to build its new phenotype from, and from that B mix enough for C to take away some to build a new peculiar phenotype for a new population and so on.If in the original population there were quite a few alleles for a given gene, and B failed to take any A1s but took all the A2s away from that parent population, there could still very likely be A3s, A4s and A5s on out to A-n etc for that same gene that you haven't taken into account, that could have stayed in A or gone to B or most likely split between the two in various proportions. And there could be dominant-recessive relationships among these that would determine which got expressed and so on, so that I'm quite aware that the situation can get very complicated. And this is only for one gene.Something like plumage and bird song are probably determined by more than one gene (?), and the original population could have had many alleles for each, in various conditions of dominance and recessiveness and so on.(You'd have to tell me if there are other factors than dominance and recessiveness that determine what gets expressed, but just with those there must be quite a large variety of possibilities in such a scenario as I'm spelling out.)And plenty of genetic diversity to pass on through a number of migrations forming new populations, up until a true speciation occurs -- which may not even happen depending on the original genetic diversity in the species -- but if speciation occurs, then my prediction is that the genetic diversity has been so reduced further variation is not possible. If by "prime alpha allele" you mean an allele that is dominating some trait of the phenotype of the orignal population, wouldn't one assume there are lots of those spread among the members of the population, so that it wouldn't be that particular allele that went completely over to population B, but some other less numerous alllele. Some copies of the prime alpha allele, if I get what you mean, would go to B but if A is much larger than B, population A will continue to be characterized by the same mix of alleles it started with. If the migration is large or the split equal, then population A will also change over time due to new gene frequencies just as B will. It's still possible in that case for a relatively less numerous allele to be left behind in A and a relatively less numerous other allele to be completely taken into B. Seems to me it does as I say above. But in a highly various large population some of the recessive alleles will appear anyway, not enough to change the "look" of the population overall, but when you get to the populations after the split, especially a smaller one, then traits will start to appear in new combinations and through inbreeding a new "look" will emerge from the new combinations. New plumage, new birdsong or whatever.If there is something other than Mendelian genetics that can account for this let me know. I can tell you right now that mutations can't, and I can lay that out for you: What are the odds that ONE mutation, changing the plumage, say, is even going to work its way through the entire population in a short enough time to come to characterize it, let alone all the other mutations you have to postulate showing up to create the other differences in combination?By Mendelian genetics it shouldn't take more than a few generations for a new population to develop a distinctive character. By mutationism it would take forever and in fact it can't happen anyway. AND it's unneeded as pre-existing alleles in great numbers should be present in a large population that hasn't undergone many migrations or selection events and enough for each new population for quite a few in a series as well. I thought Bluejay was a great opponent/debater/discussant -- polite, patient, thoughtful and knowledgeable. I'm sorry he got so frustrated with my creationist views, which had to come out at that point. I think that should be expected by any evolutionist debater myself but I understand the frustration as I feel it myself when evolutionists make their flat-out pronouncements.He also chose to debate me and initiated the debate, explaining these qualifications so I could choose whether or not to accept.That's also how I'd prefer it be done if there is to be a next round.

Wow, I'm worn out from answering RAZD so I'm going to have to save your post until later, but since you did get what I have in mind I'm glad you responded.More later.

The hybrids are a mix of the alleles of the two side populations, I don't understand why you think this is a problem for my "hypothesis." There's nothing to explain, it's just a section where there is gene flow between two of the populations. I leave these out of my hypothetical model because the model applies to what happens under the reducing processes, and doesn't happen where there is gene flow. Alongside the hybrid zones, the populations continue to lose diversity around the ring. I have no idea why you are focusing on the most dominant allele since I wasn't, and I just now explained that it would be a less frequent allele that would be left behind in A and a less frequent allele that would be completely removed from A. I'm sure I am not saying it as precisely as I should but I'm also sure that you are having trouble hearing it because it's not a direction you would normally think in.As I reread it, it makes sense to me, and the point was to answer what looked to me like your unwarranted restriction of alleles to, first the most dominant, and second only two, which is a restriction I never made. You keep getting very strange ideas about what I'm saying and I'm just trying to correct them. WHAT? "stops working?" "leaps into action?" I haven't said or implied one thing about changes in sections of DNA. RAZD, you aren't getting the first thing about what I'm saying. I don't understand what the problem is but it appears to be impossible to say anything to you about any of this.I'm trying to describe something I think is pretty simple -- the movement of members of one population to form another, with the particular complement of alleles they happen to have, which establishes new frequencies in the new population compared to the old. The alleles are carried in individuals migrating from the parent population to a new geographic area. These alleles can occur in all kinds of possible numbers and frequencies. If you're talking about the "prime" allele, of course it's going to go with the migration AND stay behind in the parent population in great numbers. If you're talking about alleles that occur less frequently in the parent population, which was the example I thought you were giving, they could easily completely be left behind in population A and have no part in the new population B at all, or they could all completely be taken to the new population where they would become part of a striking new phenotype, and population A wouldn't miss them if the population was large and they had occurred there in very low frequency. I'm not saying one thing about activation or deactivation of DNA and I have no idea where you're getting this. I'm talking only about the movement of a small portion of the members of a large population to form a new population in a new area, that then develops its own peculiar phenotype over a few generations and grows in population numbers with fewer alleles than the parent population had. It doesn't matter: 1) A large enough population that hasn't gone through many population splits doesn't NEED mutations, it already has plenty of alleles for a variety of traits and all mutation could do is displace some perfectly viable alleles; 2) Assuming you EVER get a viable allele from a mutation, the most that would ever get selected is very few, even one is optimistic, and then it just acts like all the other alleles and is subject to the same reducing, selecting and isolating processes I'm talking about that ultimately lead to speciation and genetic depletion -- new trait or newly-emerged old trait it doesn't matter. 3) The only place it really matters is when the genetic diversity of a population is very low, and then evolutionists predict a very long period of time before even one single helpful allele can be expected to show up. That being the case, why do you keep expecting them to occur at a more helpful rate in other circumstances? What's happening in genetic drift is merely that a pre-existing allele -- or really, a member of a population that carries a number of alleles for its peculiar character -- has for some reason been randomly selected through a number of generations and comes to develop a sort of population within a population with its own different character. And it doesn't take hundreds of generations, a dozen will already make a huge difference. With mutations, on the other hand, the rate at which evolutionists expect them to appear, say in the cheetah, WOULD take hundreds of generations at least. Yes, but genetic drift is not likely to be what happens in ring species. In ring species you have the population splitting into geographically separated subpopulations and that alone will bring out new traits because of the new mix of alleles, and especially the loss of some which allows others to become expressed. All it takes for this kind of change to occur is to isolate a relatively small number of members of a population from the rest. Genetic drift can do that and quite dramatically if it's just a few members that are forming the new population, but ring species appear to have been caused by a series of geographic moves. Indeed. Once I did change my view of things and I was apologetic about it. The rest of the time I was dealing with what he proposed honestly. Sure I have. The very existence of a variety of alleles in any population is evidence for my claim. The very fact that when you breed animals you drastically reduce the numbers to only those with the characteristics you desire is evidence for my claim that speciation requires genetic depletion, but we never got to that part of the argument unfortunately. I'll try to come up with a useful diagram.But you haven't understood a word I've said and I haven't been all that bad at expressing it.

So far, despite many assurances to the contrary, nobody has really got what I'm trying to say but you so far. Percy gets some of it, Bluejay got some of it. That's about it. How I'm being misunderstood is hard for me to understand, but at least if one person could get it then I know I can't be getting things all that wrong. Yes. Sounds reasonable enough. Yes they can. I agree, for most circumstances we'd be discussing. Yes. Yes, but in terms of what gets expressed, for example it's possible to have many homozygous dominants for a given gene due to previous selection events and then the recessives will be decidedly in a minority and rarely or even never expressed if there are so few of them they pair up only extremely rarely. It can even happen that the recessives exist in greater numbers than the dominants for similar reasons, and if not in the parent population, then in a subsquent population where only homozygous recessive alleles for a particular trait were selected or randomly selected by drift or migration etc. Now you are sounding like you don't get what I'm saying all that well either, if you feel the need to explain this. I've never said or implied any of that. Yes for standard Mendelian genetis (though I read somewhere of circumstances where doms and recs seem to blend, so that you get a medium grey fur with the heterozygous combination -- but I'll leave it at the standard Mendelian foursome you spelled out.) Why are you saying this? I've never said one word to imply I think any of this has to do with desirability. OK. Yes, and I mentioned that I expect it to appear from time to time, in my first post to RAZD today. Yes. Yes, and then there is the scenario I sketched out somewhere higher in this post, of circumstances where you can have more of either dominants or recessives where there is strong selection (even random selection) pressure for or against one of them. Yes. However, the frequencies WILL change, not just "might." Or just fewer if the black fur frequency has been simply very reduced. Yes. Or random selection has affected the frequency as I say above. Yes, which is pretty much what I said above a ways where I talk about the effect of selection on dominance and recessiveness. You must think you're talking to a kid or something. Where did I say anything that suggests I need this explained to me? Good. Yes. But I hardly ever talk about natural selection alone; I usually include the random ways changes can occur, genetic drift and migration and geographic isolation and so on. If that is really the case then all that's left IS to show that mutations don't occur (although I still think that even if mutations do occur at anything like the rate expected by evolutionists, the processes that reduce will even cut them down in the end). So somebody has to do some research to determine if any of the assumed mutations ever produce a viable allele. Some points I've noted where you seem to be explaining something you must think I don't understand though I see no reason why you would think that. Otherwise there's really nothing new in this post that I can see. Very basic stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd rather not have Wounded King on the other thread. Aside from his generally hostile attitude to my topic, I'm not interested in rehashing mutations. The few examples of supposedly beneficial mutations don't answer to the thousands of disease-producing mutations, AND the fact that you assume that they make normal alleles although you cannot demonstrate them, talking about a mere hypothesis as a fact, as if you had proved it, has done it for me. You can't prove your hypothetical and I can't prove my objection. It's a standoff to my mind.Zen Monkey has conceded that my model is correct if there are no mutations. I'd like to see where he goes next.I also want to see if I can come up with a diagram that does a better job with the model of how evolutionary processes come to an end -- with or without mutations.Also, I do some time want to go back over this thread and answer some earlier posts.If no polite Bluejay shows up for the other thread I'm for leaving it for now.