Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

Given that both the light colored mice and the dark colored mice are doing fine in nature it would appear that nature can find body plans that work.

I guess down is up in creationist circles.You have phenotype A. A mutation occurs. You now have phenotype A and B. You have two phenotypes where you used to have one. You are claiming that going from one phenotype to two is a reduction in genetic diversity? If so, I think you should look up the definition of "reduction". Nowhere have you shown that this point exists. Nowhere. Evidence please. I would assume that you think that humans and chimps are in separate baramins. Can you please show us how their genomes are different structurally. Can you also please show us which differences between humans and chimps can not be produced by the observed processes of mutation. Please show us the mutations you claim can not occur.

We also know that new traits do appear through mutation, such as the double muscling of the Belgian Blue bovine breed: These mutations add to the genetic diversity of any population, not reduce it. How can selection have the last word when every generation is born with new mutations? What about creating a new phenotype by mutation?

It also had to add the genetic stuff that makes corn instead of teosinte. That's what an increase in genetic diversity means as I'm using it. First, you need the traits to select for, and for corn this required an increase in genetic diversity since the ancestral teosinte gene pool did not have the genetic diversity that included the traits found in modern corn. Mutations producing a new phenotype is an increase in genetic diversity.

That is false. Corn has specific mutations not found in wild teosinte, and these mutations are responsible for some of the corn specific features. For example, mutations in the tga1 gene:

quote:

---

The most critical step in maize domestication (Zea mays ssp. mays) was the liberation of the kernel from the hardened, protective casing that envelops the kernel in the maize progenitor, teosinte1. This evolutionary step exposed the kernel on the surface of the ear such that it could be readily utilized as a food source by humans. Here, we show that this key event in maize domestication is controlled by a single gene (teosinte glume architecture; tga1) belonging to the SBP-domain family2 of transcriptional regulators. The factor controlling the phenotypic difference between maize and teosinte maps to a 1 kilobase region within which maize and teosinte show only six fixed differences in their DNA sequences. One of these differences encodes a non-conservative amino acid substitution and may affect protein function, while the other five differences potentially affect gene regulation. Molecular evolution analyses show that this region was the target of selection during maize domestication. Our results demonstrate that modest genetic changes in single genes can induce dramatic changes in phenotype during domestication and evolution.
The origin of the naked grains of maize - PMC

---

These are new mutations producing new phenotypes which is an increase in genetic diversity.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Given the correlation between religious belief and denial of evolution one can hardly be blamed for making the connection. If you actually cited scientific facts instead of using empty assertions perhaps you could avoid these allegations. You have not shown that there is a problem. Again, you need more than empty assertions.

False correlation. There are tens of thousands of christian biologists who accept the theory of evolution. You are the one asserting that there is a problem. It is up to you to support your claims. Where is your evidence? Yes, I have. I have cited peer reviewed scientific papers to back my claims, such as the mutations found in corn and the mutations found in pocket mice.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Mutations add genetic diversity, contrary to Faith's claims. That is what the mutations in pocket mice illustrate. At one point, there were just light colored mice. Mutations caused the appearance of a new phenotype. That is an increase in genetic diversity by every measure. Do you deny that you have a belief in a creator deity? **the rooster crows**Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Not at all.Do you deny that you believe in a creator deity? **the rooster crows a second time**

Already did that in post #78. How will 4 more examples be more convincing when 1 is not? If those 4 other examples are due to mutations in 4 other genes what then? Just ignore those too?What if I cite the mutations in humans that are responsible for differences in skin color? What then? Just ignore those too? I accept it because of the evidence, something that you don't have for your claims.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

How many time will you deny Jesus before the day is over? Three? Peter would be proud.Until you show how a deity produced the universe the default position is "I don't know".

I have not seen this reasoning. Could you point me to the post in this thread where this reasoning can be found?

Thus far, you seem to be making stuff up on the fly without any reference to any facts. That doesn't seem to be a very good explanatory system. You claim that further mutations can not produce a new kind or baramin, but you have yet to show any evidence to back this claim. Where did you demonstrate that their conclusions were wrong?

Why do you ignore what happens when mutations occur and increase genetic diversity?

Evidence please. This doesn't refute the observation of mutations adding genetic diversity. Yes, we do. They produce increases in genetic and phenotype diversity. Why else do you think humans and chimps look different? They are different because mutations have changed their genomes. The differences are due to mutations. Then show us the combination of chimp genotypes that can produce a human.