Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

If you KNOW they are mutations and not just normal variations thrown up by sexual recombination then it would be enormous truly novel diversity, but if they are mutations I'd still have to be convinced they aren't all either deleterious or "neutral" on the way to accumulating to something deleterious.But since mutations are not needed to bring out new traits it's all redundant anyway. Each individual born has his own unique combination of traits, and is DRASTICALLY genetically reduced with respect to the entire population of human beings. Of course. The individual in a way could be said to be the model for my theory except that of course I'm talking about populations and species. But any reduced NUMBER of individuals is genetically reduced with respect to the total population and with respect to the previous population from which it diverged. If you take a few individuals with their small genetic diversity and stick them on an isolated island you may get a large population of genetically reduced individuals who all look similar but not identical since I think the human genome has a great deal of diversity left in it.

OK I need to be more precise. I know that the production of a new trait is phenotypic change in an individual, but I've been using the idea of phenotypic change in relation only to whole populations. So again, in order for a new population to get a new phenotype that characterizes all its members so that it can be called a new breed or variety or species or subspecies that trait has to be selected and worked through an entire reproductively isolated population by inbreeding for some number of generations. THAT's what produces a new phenotype characteristic of a new breed or variety or subspecies etc eetc, and in order to get it you always get reduced genetic diversity in that same new gene pool.If the new trait occurs only in the individual and is not selected it may stay in the population and be passed on to other individuals but it will not contribute to the formation of new species.

What does "germline" mean? Some people here have trouble understanding MY pretty basic genetic terminology so you really need to explain the stuff you are quoting here.What is a "trio" offspring?Nothing here tells me how these novel (de novo) "mutations" are known to BE mutations, that is, brand new genetic something-or-others that are truly novel as opposed to merely new combinations of old alleles, and in fact WHAT they are is also not identified. Are they alleles for genes or what are they? I have NO idea what difference it could possibly make to this discussion whether a "DNM," which is still a mysterious entity to me, is from the maternal or paternal "germline" which is also a mysterious entity. What is an SNV? Means absolutely zip to me. And again nothing is said to clearly identify these whatever-they-ares AS mutations, OR to identify WHAT they do, what genes they affect, what traits, etc. etc etc. I'm afraid this entire post adds up to nothing but Mystification of a bullying sort.Care to try again?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course not, it's part of my model as your interpretations are of yours. My model IS internally consistent. Huh? WHAT differences? Between chimps and humans? I suppose so. Changes in DNA sequence include changes from simple sexual recombination of alleles, not necessarily and not even predominantly from mutations.And it's really disingenuous of you to imply that all change in DNA sequence is beneficial when that's what is in question. Mutations change DNA sequence, the question is to what effect.

"Rudimentary" doesn't mean "wrong" you know. No, apparently you don't know that. But you sure do wish it were so and your wishing MAKES it so doesn't it? Of course you would, you have no ability to think this stuff through. You keep missing essential points of the argument. Oh I believe I understand that very well, it's called Paradigm Blindness or Evolutionist Bias or in your case inability to distinguish between genotype and phenotype among other things.But do carry on. Yaaawwn. Again you are using a word -- "variation" -- that suggests you have no clue what I'm talking about, a word that applies to the PHENOTYPE, not the GENOTYPE. But if by some unlikely chance you are talking about genetic diversity it has nothing to do with the "end product of evolution" which only comes about after many such population splitting events.Of COURSE you can have a subpopulation that retains a high level of genetic diversity. I've clarified that a few times in this thread already.Even if you maintain a fairly high level of genetic diversity in a particular population, nevertheless the production of a new subspecies REQUIRES reduced genetic diversity to whatever extent RELATIVE to the former population. You can get new subspecies from populations with high genetic diversity that also have relatively high genetic diversity as I've tried to clarify from time to time here. I'm talking about a TREND to reducing genetic diversity with each new subspecies. Gee whillikers, ya don't say. Yaaawn. Oh fiddly foo. DOGS ARE A SPECIES, NOT A SUBSPECIES. But there ARE subspecies OF dogs. All it takes in nature is some geographic isolations of separated portions of the dog gene pool to produce separate variations OF DOGS, which again are a Species in themselves and not a subspecies, and each of those dog subspecies probably DOES include -- oh that miserable word again "variation" You really don't know what you are talking about. Yes, Dogs as a Species have HUGE GENETIC DIVERSITY and through their subspecies phenotypic variation in the wild TOO, though a lot more in breeding programs. Do you have ANY idea what I'm talking about? Sigh. I don't know if your contribution here is confusing the subject beyond what should be tolerated or is an opportunity to make needed clarifications. Really hard to tell since former clarifications don't seem to have gotten through.Yes, breeding can accomplish a lot of change in a very short time. That doesn't stop the PRINCIPLES involved from also applying to selection events in nature through different agents and different kinds of events, particularly randomness, and usually at a much slower pace of course. Please, I've explained this so much here and yet you aren't getting even the most basic things I've said, though you think you need to explain the basics to me. Yaaaawwwn. They all increase phenotypic variation by reducing genetic diversity. The time factor is irrelevant, the principles are the same. And that's ALL you have, those imaginary beneficial mutations. That's the ONLY difference here, the rest of this post just misses the point completely.And I've also answered the mutations claim over and over and over and over and over.Yaaaawn.

I KNOW DNM stands for De Novo Mutation. He SAID that much. That was NOT my question.But I need another cup of tea.

OF COURSE. Why are you saying this as if it's different from what I'm saying? Of COURSE the new "diversity" is going to be different and of COURSE that's why it's going to interfere with the formation of a variety that's already begun.If you have new traits popping up in a new isolated population that haven't yet been worked through the population to form a characteristic phenotype or look to that population, but at that point OTHER new traits ALSO start popping up you'll NEVER get a coherent variety. It's like while a breeder is getting a new breed established having to contend with alien alleles all the time. That breed is never going to get established and the same thing has to happen in the wild. Instead of the homogeneous populations we actually see you'd have nothing but motley populations. This makes NO sense at all.Not up to finishing the rest of this right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

YOU DO NOT "UNDERSTAND HOW THIS LOOKS TO ME" This is exactly what I'm saying and how you could think otherwise is beyond me. How you could think I'm saying anything different is beyond me. He didn't use the correct terminjology for the species and neither did I. I include wolves with dogs.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.

I know that. If you'd said subspecies of wolvdes there would have been no copnfusion but all you said was subspecies which sounds like evolutionist subspecies of subspecies of subspecies.

Sexual recombination doesn't select out traits like that. If the individual is able to reproducel it will get passed on along with the entire genome.And I'm talking about selection that spreads in a population, not a trait that merely gets passed on from parent to offspring which can happen even if the trait is deleterious. Obviously, since genetic diseases get passed on. Of course. If the INDIVIDUAL is not selected, which means does not reproduce, yes of course. Of course. Which is sometimes called being selected out but have it your way.Nothing you've said here has any implications for anything I'm saying but I'm sure you think so anyway,.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NATURE MAKES HOMOGENEOUS POPULATIONS OR SUBSPECIES WITH THEIR OWN CHARACTERISTICS. Which could not occur if mutations kept cropping to interfere. OF COURSE I AGREE. I have no idea how you got any idea it would be relevant. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I am not claiming this and I have no idea how you are getting this ridiculous idea.I'm using breeding simply as the most accessible example of how selection leads to reduction of genetic diversity. That's ALL I'm using it for that I'm aware of, and again where you are getting any other idea I cannot begin to fathom.I did mention Darwin's pigeon breeds because he used his breeding experience as the basis for his theory of natural selection, and i'm basically following him in arguing that selection is what brings about new varieties in the wild. As I use it selection is much broader than Natural Selection, is in fact anything that isolates a new population with its own new gene frequencies, but all the forms of selection that bring about new phenotypes also reduce genetic diversity just as the intentional selection of domestic breeding does.lTheoretically, if speciation is the formation of a subspecies that can no longer interbreed with former populations then this COULD happen in breeding.But we KNOW it happens in the wild.And what I'm claiming is that in the wild you must get reduced genetic diversity just as you do in breeding because all the selection processes that are what bring about new phenotypes or breeds always bring about such a reduction in genetic diversity."Selection" in nature describes all the different ways that traits become isolated into their own separated gene pools. This happens by design in breeding but it happens mostly at random in nature, brought about by migration of a portion of a larger population to a new locale where it no longer interbreeds with the former population, or to a new locale where a geographic barrier of some sort prevents the interbreeding and any other situation that isolates a population reproductively. Reproductive isolation of a new population is all you need to get the working through of new gene frequencies brought about by a reduction in the number of individuals that form the new population in relation to the numbers in the mother population. The new traits aren't "selected" except in an accidental sense, and in the wild the entire array of new traits based on the new gene frequencies is what will form the new phenotype of the new population.Yes I keep saying this but so far I don't have the impression anybody gets it, and when you start arguing with me using my own points things are getting really crazy.The point about the pigeons is that you get dramatic new breeds from reducing genetic diversity. Instead of merely agreeing with me about that you think I'm making some other kind of point and think you are arguing with me by saying exactly the same thing. This is frustrating in the extreme. You did the same thing to me a few years ago when I said that tectonic distortion of strata occurs after the strata are laid down and you produced pictures of exactly what I meant but used them as if they argued against me. I don't know how to explain this but it's extremely frustrating.Anyway I don't think anybody here understands my argument yet. Which may be my fault in some way I can't recognize -- I'm sure I misspeak from time to time --, but I have to think a lot of it is due to people just not reading and thinking through what I'm sayingEdited 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.

Excuse me but what you were saying as I read it is that you understand how things look to me BUT, big BUT there, BUT the REALITY is...and then you went on to describe EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.IF the above is what were saying then there is no contradiction, but if all you were doing is repeating what I've been saying all along without meaning to argue with me then there was no point in saying it at all.No, clearly you think I am misunderstanding the pigeon example when in fact the way you described it is exactly what I've been saying all along. though obviously you think I meant something else. And each subsequent population. That's a HUGE part of the argument, it's the main part, so why are you disputing it above? Why are you carrying on above about pigeons as if you are disputing the idea, as if there is no similarity between breeding and selection in the wild at all? And not even noticing that I've been making the same argument you think proves me wrong? Now you are changing the subject back to mutations again. Fine, I think mutations are the only argument you guys have, and if the main part of my argument is recognized and acknowedged (which it hasn't been by most here) I'm fine with focusing on mutations alone.I'll just STATE it again even though NOW you sound like you agree, though you really should acknowledge your misuse of the pigeon example.You don't NEED a greater scope of novelty than the "ancestral" genome supplies. NOTHING in nature demonstrates such a need either, or that it has ever occurred in reality; mere sexual recombination within an inbreeding isolated gene pool is ALL it takes. Then I'm going to need to find a way to prove that this is absolutely not necessary, doesn't happen, can't happen.Then you would not get the homogeneous populations that we in fact see in nature, you would get constant change. No grizzly bears with their characteristic appearance, coloring, behavior etc., but some kind of motley breed of bear with many different traits, no recognizable chickadees but a blurry bird that has many chickadee characteristics but so much variation it is not like what we actually see. And so on. Nature MAKES homogenous populations, subspecies etc. I misunderstood him, didn't I make that clear? Just referring to "dogs" as a "subspecies" to my mind implied the whole ToE. If he'd said "subspecies of wolves" or if I'd been taking my time more carefully I might not have misread him that way, but he was saying so many things that misrepresented my argument I just wanted to get through it.OF COURSE I KNOW THAT DOGS ARE A SUBSPECIES OF WOLVES, and it seems to me if any of you here had the slightest willingness to think about my argument and the slightest willingness to overlook obvious misspeaking nobody would be making an issue of such a misstatement. Good grief. Oh good grief.See above.I'm trying to deal with half a dozen rabid evolutionist wolves on this thread as it is, and when you pounce on something like this and even continue it as you do here even after I corrected it you are making things a lot more difficult than they have to be.But maybe that's your objuective.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Apparently the point I'm making is just so far over your biased heads if I have any hope of anyone ever getting it that will be an extremely rare individual with an unusual ability to think outside the box and an unusual honesty. And someone who doesn't just sling the stupid accusations around. YOU are the one here who gets it the LEAST.If I could throw people out of my thread for contributing nothing to the argument you'd be number one to go. Yes it is quite simple, but apparently beyond the likes of you. And it is most certainly right, but your evo blinders get in the way of seeing it. A million posts ago he only said that in relation to breeding and denied it in relation to variation in the wild. And then he said that stupid thing about water in and water out and actually defended it and I don't remember you or anyone else here pointing out how stupid that idea is. Except finally NoNukes acknowledged it. Oh my, what a revelation! How STUPID of you to think I missed that "next step." You haven't understood one word I've written to say such a thing so get off your crazed claim that you get the argument. You don't. Oh dooooooo tell. NO THEY WILL NOT, and that IS my argument even if I haven't yet proved it to the likes of you. It does not take environmental pressure to produce a species, all it takes is reproductive isolation of a small population and it's running out of genetic diversity that brings about speciation, or the point beyond which interbreeding is no longer possible.All you are doing is repeating the Party Line. So what? Genetic isolation is what brings about reduced genetic diversity and in fact with small populations is almost synonymous with reduced genetic diversity. Oh my gosh, I NEVER would have guessed!Tell you what, please stay off my thread. You are contributing absolutely nothing here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have NOT equated "breeding" with "selection," I have used breeding only to show that selection produces new varieties or breeds or "species" if you insist on that term, through reducing genetic diversity, but that statement that "breeding is how new species arise" is a bizarre mistatement of anything I've said.New species arise in nature as well as in breeding so how on earth could I be saying BREEDING IS HOW THEY ARISE? That makes NO sense.Perhaps what is needed here is a terminological clarification which you should have thought of yourself. I try to avoid the term "species" unless I couple it with "varieties" and "breeds" and the like to get my point across. If you use only the term "species" you are muddying up the discussion.Also, I thought you meant "species" as in Speciation, and I most certainly have NOT claimed that breeding leads to speciation.It DOES of course produce BREEDS. Imagine that! Breeds, varieties, new phenotypes.SELECTION, all the different kinds of selection, domestic intentional selection or natural selection or geographical isolation or migration plus isolation, or anything in fact which reproductively isolates a new population -- ALL THOSE FORMS OF SELECTION produce new BREEDS, VARIETIES, PHENOTYPES, and "SPECIES" only if used in the same sense here. It CAN lead to Speciation ujltimately but get the gterms of the argument correct first. I thought nature was supposedly turning up new "species" at a phenomenal rate according to evolutionists.But now you are using the term "species" ONLY to mean Speciation and again I am NOT focused on Speciation as such. But simply on new phenotypes, breeds, varieties, etc. etc. etc.The argument has to do mostly with the PROCESSES and their TENDENCY TO REDUCE GENETIC DIVERSITY, not the end products. I have been taking your word for it that breeding does not produce new species, though it seems to me it easily enough could because of that artificial definition of a new species that it cannot interbreed with other members of the larger population. Seems to me this condition could easily be brought about by breeding.As for nature, the main difference is that apart from Natural Selection which focuses on particular traits, the way new varieties develop is by reproductive isolation of a new gene pool all by itself, and ALL the traits in the new gene pool will form the new phenotype after a few generations, unless some are favored over others in which case they will come to dominate in the phenotype. If there is an identifiable difference that brings about species (by which I assume again you mean Speciation) in nature and not in breeding it's certainly not mutations. I'll say it again: Mutations would INTERFERE with speciation if anything. Amazing that isn't obvious to you. You can't have new phenotypes developing from reduced genetic diversity while more diversity is rushing into the gene pool. Speciation is going to involve genetic reduction, often severe, which isn't going to happen if you're always adding genetic diversity. Really, this is obvious. Where you are getting speciation you are not getting mutations rushing in to save the day. Why you aren't getting it in breeding I don't know yet. I've also explained exactly what and how you aren't getting me and for you not to acknowledge your mistakes with the water in water out nonsense and your post about pigeons is a bit devious of you. Speak for yourself, most here don't get it at all. At least five of them can't distinguish the genotype from the phenotype. And I have my doubts about how well you are getting it too considering some of the posts where you clearly don't. Drop the "we," the statement barely applies to you let alone others here. No, that is theory only, that is NOT what you see in nature. I've described what is seen in nature and you do not need mutations for it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.