The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

I asked you this already before as well. What exactly do you mean with the pronoun 'IT' in the sentence, "BECAUSE IT ALWAYS ENTAILS A REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY."? What 'always entails a reduction in genetic diversity'? What is 'it'?Evolution doesn't just come to a stop. It Does not stop. IT DOES NOT STOP. the changes just keep coming. Mutations keep cropping up and so the next round of alleles keep getting put into the genes. Remember the alleles Percy described A1-A4 and then you said A5 arrived. And now I'm saying A6 got there and then A7 and then A8 etc. And then the other letters of the alphabet as well. Read up on your post, you said A5 got into the genome via mutation. Well if A5 got there then so did A6 and A7 and A8.Capiche?Every new individual brings in new fresh mutations i.e. alleles. Every new birth adds another batch of mutations/alleles. We keep telling you this in about 700 different ways of the same thing. When are you finally going to realize that we are talking about a net influx of diversity?And don't skirt my question, I want to know what it is you are implying with 'it'?

Real world, ha. Just one assertion after another and a lot of hypothetical math to show what you THINK happens, not what you know happens.Besides, you are always focused on the wrong part of the phenomena to answer me so you've got straw man math as well as straw man arguments.You can't rescue Percy's argument, it was utterly misguided from the start. If anything he was proving MY point. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Keep asserting it, maybe it will come true.What's the "it?""This process." English grammar requires it.As I've said, you can have all the changes you want, but the selection processes are what make new varieties and that can only happen with reduction of genetic diversity in the end, no matter how many changes you have. I wish I could come up with a graphic to show you. Been working on it but it's complicated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is probably the most important thing to clear up. You say that speciation represents a "real event," but you "don't believe it's what evolutionists think it is."So what do you think speciation is? Here's a very simple definition that most would agree with from Answers.com: If this is not the definition of speciation you're using then please tell us your definition. Well, yes, but I wouldn't say this the way you did. I think you already have the proper understanding, but because of the way you used the word "replace" without qualification allow me to clarify so just we're sure there's no misunderstanding.So do I expect a mutation to cause one allele to become a new and different allele in that specific individual? Sure! But that mutation to that allele in that one individual does not change that allele in all the other individuals of the population. The population continues to have that allele. What the mutation has actually done is increased the number of alleles for that gene by one. If there were, say, 17 alleles for that gene in the population before that individual experienced that mutation, there are now 18.Lets call the gene X, and let's say that gene X has alleles X1 through X4. During reproduction a mutation changes allele X3 into a new allele that we'll call X5. Let's say that the original allele X3 is possessed by 20% of the individuals in the population, then after that newly born individual experiences a mutation changing their X3 allele into a new X5 allele, the original X3 allele is still possessed by 20% of the individuals in the population. The X3 allele doesn't go away. The X3 allele isn't replaced by the X5 allele, except in the individual that experienced the mutation.So now that we've got the clarification out of the way, let me move on to what you say next about mutations, because that's very important: As far as point mutations and other small mutations changing alleles into new alleles, yet that's correct. But over time as mutations accumulate and selection pressures operate the character of a gene may change. As RAZD pointed out, an allele might begin with alleles X1, X2, X3, X4, but over time the environment changes, causing the selection pressures to change. New alleles in gene X can gradually change the character of the gene so that after a number of generations we no longer have alleles X1, X2, X3, X4 but a completely different set of alleles X17, X42, X51, X63.What is the significance of changes to the character of the gene? Well, if we take the familiar example of the bacterial flagellum, perhaps gene X originally created one of the proteins for a celia, but now the alleles of the modified gene X create a protein that helps the celia twitch a bit, turning the celia into a potential incipient flagellum.But of course mutations do far more than just modify alleles, and one of the most common and important mutation types is gene duplication. Reproduction is a much more dynamic process than is typically imagined, and genes can move positionally around the chromosome. Mistakes can happen that cause genes to be either eliminated or duplicated. Losing a gene can be catastrophic, of course, but gaining a gene that's an identical or near copy of the original gene often has little or no effect.What's important to understand about gene duplication is that one of the genes is free to mutate for other purposes. Research indicates that gene duplication followed by the duplicated gene mutating to acquire a new behavior (e.g., code for a different protein) are extremely common in the genetic history of life.About the cat family example, the reason I introduced that example was because your scenario does not explain where the cat family came from. Not all cat species have the same genes. This could not have happened in your scenario if cats are just one kind because your scenario disallows the creation and deletion of new genes through mutation. But where are the extra polyploid chromosomes where all this extra genetic diversity supposedly resides? We don't see them in the nucleus of most species we look at. Mostly duplicate chromosomes appear in just some species of flowering plants. Since some species have short generation times and some long, species with longer generation times have not had as much time to lose these extra chromosomes, and they should still be there in at least some species, but they're nowhere to be found.If we were to take a completely blank slate approach with no preconceptions then we could say that there are two ways existing species could have arrived at the current genetic composition. One is that they began with huge diversity stored in polyploid chromosomes and have gradually lost that diversity over time. The other is that the have evolved according to evolutionary theory, with selection pruning variation according to the environment and mutation continually adding variation and initiating trial-and-error experiments for selection to play with. What test or experiment or set of observations can you think of that would allow us to choose which scenario is the one that actually happened? What evidence leads you to believe that increased variation results from diminished genetic diversity? Mutations are just reproductive copying errors. What evidence causes you to think they are different in character today than they were in the past? What evidence leads you to believe that mutations have been more deleterious during the last millennium than they were in prior millenniums?--Percy

You are arguing that every species on Earth, including populations with millions and even billions of individuals, are running out of genetic material that they need to evolve. Obviously, you are talking about any sized population. So your model only applies to shrinking populations or stable populations with only a few hundred to a few thousand individuals? Are you saying that your model doesn't work for populations that are increasing in number or for populations that number in the the tens of thousands to billions? Are you saying that your model can't even work for a couple milliliters of bacterial broth that is doubling in number every 20 minutes with billions of bacteria? It would seem that your model isn't applicable to 99.9% of biology. I am not "eager" to get rid of them. What I am is eager to explain reality, and in reality old alleles are replaced by new ones. Not an assumption. A fact. It is a fact that the differences in the human and chimp genome are beneficial to humans and chimps, respectively. Obviously, DNA can be changed so that it is beneficial to a species. I am not talking about similarities. I am talking about differences. You claim that if DNA is changed it can only be non-beneficial or deleterious. If this is so then you must explain how genomes of different species can be different without hurting each species. I AM TALKING ABOUT MUTATION + SELECTION. I will, as soon as you show how reduced genetic diversity is responsible for the differences between humans and chimps.

Hi, Faith. This isn’t very clear.In order to clarify, let me use an example of a hypothetical type of organism that only has two genes (A and B), and two alleles for each gene (1 and 2).If the parent population has the following distribution of alleles across all loci: ...and the daughter population has the following distribution of alleles: ...in your view, given the differences in allele frequencies between parent and daughter populations, could "speciation" have theoretically happened here?Or, must there be alleles in the parent population that are completely absent (0%) from the daughter population (or vice-versa) before you will consider that speciation has occurred?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Faith. But, between "speciation" events, the genetic diversity of a population can increase via mutation.Look at this simple example: assume a population of simple organisms founded by 10 individuals, with only 1 gene, and 5 alleles for that gene. After the population is founded, they begin to reproduce, and, in reproducing, they introduce more alleles via mutation. A few thousand years later, there are 100,000 individuals in the population, 10 new mutant alleles have appeared.Then, a daughter population breaks off, with 10 individuals that carry 9 of the 15 alleles with them. Over time, selection reduces the diversity of the daughter population to just 6 alleles, all of which are either extinct or relatively uncommon in the parent population.Genetic diversity was reduced from 15 to 6, and the frequencies of all the alleles are different in both populations, just as your argument requires in order for speciation to occur. Yet, the daughter population still has higher genetic diversity than the parent population had at its bottleneck (remember, the population originally started with only 5 alleles). Thus, there is still a net increase in diversity in this example when you compare the initial population to the descendant population.This is why mutation disrupts your argument: even though isolation, drift and selection generally do involve reduction in allele diversity, this reduction is only assessed in relation to the current diversity of the parent population (which will almost certainly have been altered by mutation), and not in relation to the diversity of the population at its last bottleneck.So, you cannot conclude that isolation, drift and selection will result in continual depletion of genetic diversity, because there is a process (mutation) involved that works in the opposite direction. If mutation can add 10 alleles in a few thousand years (that’s extremely generous to you, given the numbers we’ve presented), and selection and drift only remove 9 alleles from the population, then there is an increase in genetic diversity.Again, this is simple subtraction. It should be common sense.It is your task to show that selection and drift will always remove more than mutation can add. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop genetic diversity from increasing.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Bluejay, the question I answered was: Whether species can diverge. By which I assume you mean can they form new populations, new varieties.The question wasn't about speciation.Now you are asking a different question: Haven't I said it enough times yet that I do not expect speciation to happen except at the extremes, that I use the term tio designate the logical end result of a chain of population splits?But also I wouldn't expect to be able to describe what happens to a population from the gene frequencies of two alleles of two genes. Certainly you're going to get a different spread of traits from that mix but you need all the other genes with their new frequencies as well to create a new variety, but beyond that you also needisolation for some period of time
inbreeding for some period of time
drift and/or selection within the populationto get a new variety. I've never said so.Speciation is the point at which a new variety can no longer interbreed with related populations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, again I have to raise this problem here, Bluejay. If speciation is necessary to evolution, surely the new species has to continue to exist for evolution to continue from that point and build upon it or it makes no sense to think in terms of speciation at all for purposes of evolution. But random increases in variation would have to destroy the species, in exactly the same way mating a pure breed with a mutt would.When I've said this before I'm sure others have come in to insist that the mutations wouldn't change the character of the species -- one of the statements I referred to that Percy was sure I'd misunderstood -- but how could they avoid changing it? Unless they are all of the sort that don't affect the appearance. But how could that be guaranteed?In any case, the idea is supposedly that evolution builds on speciation. You get a new species, it spends some long period of time developing as that species and then you get further speciations until you have many completely different species. No?So, mutations can only interfere with evolution when you insist on their being added after speciation. Yes, you get increased diversity, but increased diversity doesn't foster the changes needed for evolution, for making new varieties or breeds -- it's the decreased diversity that does that. Nowhere in your discussion do you mention that the point is to create a new variety -- to get a new population with a new characteristic in a ring species, for instance, to get a new breed, a new race, even PERHAPS a new species. You are so focused on getting increased genetic diversity that you miss the whole point -- that increasing diversity doesn't get you new varieties. At best it can get you the material for them but it takes the reductions to produce them.You make a good argument for getting a LOT of increased diversity, more than the original population even, but I'm not sure what difference that really makes since when you have such an increase you have a motley crew of variability, not what's needed for a new variety to develop, and the increase has probably -- well, certainly -- prevented that from happening. Because... for a new variety to develop from them you still have to have the reduced number of individuals, the isolation and the inbreeding and the drift or selection to get the reduced diversity that creates new varieties.So you can prevent evolution by adding mutations, or you can let selection and isolation develop the varieties and species that are the essence of evolution and discover that they will run out to a natural ending point beyond which evolution can't continue anyway. Either way you bring evolution to a stop.Increased diversity = motley variability, no new varieties.
Decreased diversity under selection and isolation = new varieties.But also, I doubt more than a hundred years is necessary for most of the changes I have in mind, getting a new variety from a new isolated population for instance, if even that long.In that period of time how many mutations would be involved? Well, see if what I say above changes your mind. "Removing more than... " isn't the point. The point is that you don't get new varieties WITHOUT reduced genetic diversity (and you don't get macroevolution without new varieties and species) and increase prevents or destroys new varieties.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.

So now you define macroevolution as "destroying a species"? All evolution requires is imperfect reproduction and competition for limited resources. Evolution does not require a species to stay the same. In fact, it argues for the exact opposite, that species do change over time due to random mutations that are filtered through selection. How can new varieties or breeds be selected for without them first existing? You seem to be arguing that evolution can't occur, and that evolution occuring doesn't count as evidence. Only if you ignore the increase in genetic diversity created by mutations. Mutation = new variety For humans with a mutation rate of 150 mutations per individual per generation, a generation time of 25 years, and a stable population of 6 billion that would be 150*4*6 billion or 3.6 trillion or 3.6E12 mutations. If just 1% of those mutations occur in coding regions that is still 36 billion mutations total in the human population.

And yet this will never happen. The only people who will tell us how "wrong" we are on this subject will all, like you, be pitifully ignorant of genetics and unwilling to learn the first darn thing about it.There's no point in talking to you, really, unless and until you realize that there are some things you need to learn about genetics, like pretty much everything. Until then you will be stuck in the fantasy world in which you are competent --- and the only thing we can do for you is to appeal to drag yourself out of it.

I mean, look at this. What a stupid shambling mess you've just made. What is there to do except to implore you to learn something about what you're talking about?Since you are evidently unwilling to learn the facts from us, could I recommend some sort of book?

That's exactly the prerequisite for a new variety to develop. If you have a species with allele A1, and an isolated subpopulation of it ends up with allele A2 fixed in the subpopulation, then at some point you need that subpopulation to have both alleles.Mutation produces the new allele. And then it can become fixed by the processes of drift and selection in the subpopulation.As this process repeats with gene B, gene C, gene D, and so forth, the processes of mutation, selection and drift produce a new variety. By the time we're up to ... well, let's call it gene Z ... we've got a new species.Note that this increases the net genetic diversity of the planet and does not decrease the net genetic diversity of either the main population or the subpopulation.To quote the Genetics Society of America: It hardly seems a difficult concept. In fact, it seems blindingly obvious. It must take real dedication on your part to fail to understand it.

So by extrapolating your reasoning, a spirochete, amoeba, jellyfish, oak tree, ostrich fern, lamprey, horseshoe crab & a human being are all varieties of the same species. I don't think this is what you infer, but that is what the outcome would be if speciation doesn't produce new species.Edited by bluescat48, : missing line

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

PREREQUISITE, yes. You have to start from variability, of course. It's what you need for the processes that create a new variety to work on. Presumably you could even get a dozen new varieties / breeds / species from one good-sized population with lots of variability with many migrations or selection events for different sets of traits. But the point is you don't get the variety UNTIL isolation, migration, selection, drift, inbreeding work on it by reducing or eliminating everything that isn't contributing to the new variety / breed etc. You "NEED" it? Does evolution NEED anything? Shouldn't the other evolutionists here slap your hand for that? Just like that eh? Abracadabra, mutation produces exactly what the Doctor ordered for this population?I'm asking: is this how evolutionists think mutations work? Sometimes? A new allele is produced when needed, and JUST the right allele, in fact the very mate that was left behind in a previous migration or selection?This is a question I've had. Does mutation produce the same kinds of alleles -- regular B for brown eyes and b for blue for instance -- or do you expect it to produce something new, and how often? So far others here have answered that mutation produces something new, designating it as something like a-prime or A5 to distinguish it from the others. Kind of sounds like a whole new theory of evolution here, not the usual change in gene frequencies idea.You seem to be picturing a sort of stop-and-go scenario within a population without the isolation itself doing anything -- except I guess leaving some genes allele-less so that mutation has to ride in on its white charger and rescue them, which apparently you think it can be expected to do quite reliably.But you also seem to be saying that mutation (at least sometimes?) produces the formerly lost allele mates anyway, so how would you get a new variety that way if everything that was lost was predictably replaced? Or it would be the same as my model, getting new varieties from shufflings of new frequencies of alleles without mutations at all.So maybe it would work. You seem to have this add-and-subtract-and-add-and-subtract-and-add-and subtract system going on with each individual gene?So you get a mutation -- a new allele -- and maybe its trait gets strongly selected? Say blue fur. By its being selected, working its way through the population, the population is going to gradually lose the competing alleles. The gray and the black and the brown and the white and the red. They just won't reproduce enough and eventually won't exist at all in the population. And since it's individuals that carry alleles it's individuals with all their OTHER genes and their alleles that aren't reproducing, so you are losing more than just the alleles that compete with that new trait. The selection is changing the gene frequencies, and that's going to bring out some unexpected new traits just randomly. Say, curly ears and tails, long snouts, a distinctive patch on the neck, shorter legs, fluorescent eyes. So by the time of the next mutation you could have a new variety or breed already, with decidedly reduced genetic diversity from the previous selection that established that first new trait, say blue fur.So I suppose you could end up with a new species with these starts and stops -- or one-trait-at-a-time evolution. Clearly the reducing processes are going to be working here just as they do in my own examples, though, to eliminate competing alleles in order to establish a particular trait, and it isn't going to be just one trait getting fixed anyway for the reason I gave. In my own examples I picture all this going on more or less simultaneously in a new isolated population, but there's no reason it couldn't work serially over a long period of time too.Either way it seems clear that if you do get a new variety or species it will be by the same method of reducing diversity to bring out the new phenotypes. Yes, if mutation works as you and Bluejay are claiming then it appears you would be getting an increase in the net genetic diversity of the planet. Whether this is the actual case in reality or not awaits empirical evidence I would suppose, but theoretically yes, if what you describe is true then you are getting this overall increase.But you are getting it without evolution in the sense of forming new varieties and species, just this increase, more variability within species. Good for the species, but not evolution.But you still have to have reduced genetic diversity to bring about new varieties. Wherever species are evolving, populations splitting, new populations being subjected to isolation and inbreeding and selection and drift, genetic diversity is being reduced. And if it isn't being reduced then you aren't getting new varieties. Well, according to my argument if it doesn't you aren't getting a new variety, just a bunch of creatures that look exactly the same as the mother population given your description of what mutations do, or a population with a motley collection of different traits given Bluejay's. Sounds OK by me if rather vague. You sure you aren't just objecting to my disagreeing with evolution rather than that I don't understand? But, I suppose the two are identical in your mind.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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.