Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution

I can't deal with your extremely lengthy post right now. All I want to say here is that of COURSE they are observing microevolution, what they CAN'T observe is macroevolution, but when their work is presented as an actual experience of "evolution" with all that Wow stuff attached to it, it is properly understood to mean that it validates the ToE, which required me to say it does NOT.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, the problem is that you don't understand the main objection to your argument, and blaming other people for imaginary failings is neither polite nor honest nor productive.

You insist that there must be a long-term continuing decline in genetic diversity. But that is just an assumption - there's nothing in your argument that demands it.

We object that even if there are short-term declines in the long term genetic variability should remain stable.

Our view is supported directly by present-day genetic variation and indirectly by the evidence for evolution. Your view has no such support.

And that is why we don't accept your argument. Evidence trumps assumption. It really is that simple.

So this certainly IS an argument against the Theory of Evolution, the TRUE evolution, what REALLY happens in evolution, which ought to be recognizable with a little work. Not to mention honesty.

And yet you cannot identify a single flaw in my description of the process by which the population of mutated mice end up more diverse than the original population.

What you appear to believe is that there is at the beginning some kind of super genome capable of all traits that gets pared down to make sub species. Instead of noting that we disagree about that issue, you pretend that scientist just have not 'noticed' your view.

Well the reason they haven't noticed is because your view is wrong.

And yet you cannot identify a single flaw in my description of the process by which the population of mutated mice end up more diverse than the original population.

I don't think I understand the situation you think you are describing. What does this have to do with the reduction in genetic diversity that is necessary to the formation of a new supspecies?

What you appear to believe is that there is at the beginning some kind of super genome capable of all traits that gets pared down to make sub species. Instead of noting that we disagree about that issue, you pretend that scientist just have not 'noticed' your view.

They haven't noticed it because they assume the processes of evolution are open-ended because that's what the ToE requires.

I don't believe in a super genome but I do believe that there is a general genetic deterioration, BUT this is completely independent of my observation of the necessity of reduced genetic diversity to create a new subspecies, which is microevolution. It is simply what happens and ought to be easily seen to be what happens if you just follow what I said in my original paragraph.

Here, I'll repeat it:

What I said was that the only evidence is for the normal variations within a Species (microevolution), and there is no evidence whatever for any variation beyond that. That's an actual fact. You start piling on the imaginative castlebuilding when you go beyond that actual observed fact. HOWEVER, those "invisible barriers" are something even you with your hardened prejudice MIGHT be able to recognize IF you'd just stop for half a second and consider it honestly. When you create a new breed by limiting the numbers of individuals what you are doing is limiting their genetic potentials; that's how you keep unwanted features from getting in to your breed. This is a process of elijminating genetic potentials and reducing genetic diversity. This HAS to happen for new breeds to develop, or for new races in the wild to develop; it's a law of genetics if you will. So every new race or breed has a new limited collection of genetic possibilities by comparison with the Species at large. This is what microevolution IS at the genetic level. If you give it a little thought you might recognize that this means that wherever this microevolution develops a new breed or race, whether it's one of Darwin's finches or one of his specialized pigeons or his famous Galapagos turtles, they all possess their own necessarily limited genetic potentials. They HAVE to because "gene flow" or the reintroduction of genes for OTHER characteristics than those of the breed or race would mean you don't have that breed or race. It doesn't have to be a very large reduction but there must be a reduction. Getting a breed or race requires this limitation. The very reasonable conclusion I draw from this observation is that evolution itself is a process of limiting genetic diversity, and that being the case, if a particular race or breed keeps splitting further and further it MUST ultimately reach a point where there is no more genetic variability possible. THAT is the end of the line for evolution, and I propose that it is the functional definition of the boundary of the Kind beyond which no further variation is possible. Just THINK about this for a while. I've been thinking about it for years so you are at a disadvantage but I'm sure your superior mental abilities can overcome the handicap with a little work.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is a simple FACT that ought to be clear to anyone willing to think about it, that you HAVE to get reduced genetic diversity in order to get a new subspecies. This is NOT easy to grasp, it takes some thought but it IS simple and it IS factual. Your objections are not apropos.

quote:

---

It is a simple FACT that ought to be clear to anyone willing to think about it, that you HAVE to get reduced genetic diversity in order to get a new subspecies.

---

As I said, you don't understand the objections against your argument.

Although talking about subspecies doesn't help you. (Even if the subspecies has a lower genetic diversity than the rest of the species, it's still part of the species). I understand that you don't want to admit that speciation happens but you're cutting off your nose to spite your face here.

quote:

---

This is NOT easy to grasp, it takes some thought but it IS simple and it IS factual. Your objections are not apropos.

---

It seems that I understand it better than you - or you'd see the problem in talking about subspecies rather than new species. And I also understand that the continuous decline in genetic variation is the intended conclusion of the argument - or it would be no good to you at all. And my objections are very relevant to THAT. Which is probably the reaosn why you avoid talking about that issue all together.

Of COURSE it is not how they believe evolution works, they haven't NOTICED that there is a genetic cost to evolution, I AM TRYING TO POINT THIS OUT.

So, you are saying that all the biologists in the world, who are studying living organisms and writing about their observations, have never noticed your genetic cost to evolution, but you have?

Not one of the people actually studying evolution, in the last 150 years, not one of the people studying genetics, or population dynamics, or any of the specialties involved, has noticed what you discovered all by yourself, without ever studying a single population of a single species ever in your whole life?

Dawkins makes his little model of "evolution" in which these little figures just keep changing and changing and changing as if there were no end to it. The language in which evolution is described pictures an ever-upward process of change.

Can you point to a single species where change is not happening? As far as I know the only species which have stopped changing are extinct. I have not seen any studies of endangered species, that are approaching extinction or ones that have already gone extinct where the cause was shown to be the genetic cost of evolution.
.

Populations go extinct from many causes that reduce the number of breeding pairs, but I have never seen a study that concludes that "they just naturally ran out of genetic diversity and ran into the 'end of evolution', just like that genius Faith said they would."
.

After all "Faith's Rule" clearly states that "it is absolutely inevitable that phenotypic change is accompanied genetic reduction and variation can never be replaced or increased."
.

Since they (all the scientists in the world) don't take this into account their versions of evolution are severely flawed.

I am completely overwhelmed and in awe of your brilliance and insight. There must be hoards of potential grad students clambering to study under you. Scientific journals around the world must be showering you with requests to publish the results of you ground-breaking research. You must be swamped with invitations to speak at universities and conferences.

So this certainly IS an argument against the Theory of Evolution, the TRUE evolution, what REALLY happens in evolution, which ought to be recognizable with a little work. Not to mention honesty.

Everyone knows how honest you are.

I am sure that Peter and Rosemary Grant are already grateful for your insightful discoveries about "the TRUE evolution, what REALLY happens in evolution, which ought to be recognizable with a little work."

I'm going to ignore all this stuff because it's irrelevant. None of it changes the fact that to GET VARIATION, NEW RACES, BREEDS, SUBSPECIES, requires the reduction of genetic diversity.

I am going to ingore all of that stuff becuase it's irrelevant. None of it changes the fact that mutations occur in every generation and increase the genetic variation in the population. In humans, we each have 50 mutations that are not found in either of our parents. In just a small town of 50,000 people, that is 2.5 million new mutations in a single generation.

It is a simple FACT that ought to be clear to anyone willing to think about it, that you HAVE to get reduced genetic diversity in order to get a new subspecies. This is NOT easy to grasp, it takes some thought but it IS simple and it IS factual.

It is a simple fact that mutations occur in every generation that adds to the mutations that occurred in the previous generation. This increases genetic variation.

It is a simple fact that separate populations will accumulate different mutations, causing those separated populations to diverge over time.

They haven't noticed it because they assume the processes of evolution are open-ended because that's what the ToE requires.

We OBSERVE that offspring are born with mutations not found in their parents. We OBSERVE that populations diverge over time if we restrict gene flow between the populations. We OBSERVE new phenotypes emerging due to mutations, such as the change in fur color in rock pocket mice.

What I said was that the only evidence is for the normal variations within a Species (microevolution), and there is no evidence whatever for any variation beyond that. That's an actual fact.

What genetic event, if observed, would prove you wrong? What would we need to see in a comparison of the human and chimp genome in order to conclude that they share a common ancestor?

They haven't noticed it because they assume the processes of evolution are open-ended because that's what the ToE requires. We OBSERVE that offspring are born with mutations not found in their parents.

But the vast majority of those mutations are either deleterious or "neutral" and proving even a single beneficial one that could be passed on is rare and often not even a certain thing.

We OBSERVE that populations diverge over time if we restrict gene flow between the populations.

As do I, which is what this is all about.

We OBSERVE new phenotypes emerging due to mutations, such as the change in fur color in rock pocket mice.

No, you observe new phenotypes emerging but the idea that this is due to mutations is purely theory. In the case of the pocket mice you have some basis for believing it though I think it's pretty iffy myself, and in the majority of the cases it's all theory that is in fact highly unlikely, even impossible since mutations are random and mostly of no benefit whatever. The new phenotypes emerge due to the shuffling of the allele frequencies brought about by the reproductive isolation alone working on the BUILT-IN alleles shared within the new populations.

BUT EVEN IF MUTATIONS WERE THE SOURCE OF THE NEW PHENOTYPES, you still have to have a reduction, sometimes elimination, of the competing alleles for the traits that emerge in the new population.

What I said was that the only evidence is for the normal variations within a Species (microevolution), and there is no evidence whatever for any variation beyond that. That's an actual fact. What genetic event, if observed, would prove you wrong? What would we need to see in a comparison of the human and chimp genome in order to conclude that they share a common ancestor?

There isn't such a thing. You would run out of genetic potentials for change in phenotypes long long long before you get to any kind of change that isn't simply a variation in a built-in trait that belongs to the Kind.

It is a simple fact that mutations occur in every generation that adds to the mutations that occurred in the previous generation. This increases genetic variation.

It would if mutation had anything to do with creating viable alleles but even you all acknowledge that the vast majority are either neutral or deleterious.

It is a simple fact that separate populations will accumulate different mutations, causing those separated populations to diverge over time.

I think you extrapolate this from the observed fact of new mutations occurring from generation to generation, plus the theory that requires you to believe that they are the source of functioning alleles, although this is belied by their generally nonbeneficial nature. Unfortunately the result of the accumulation of these different mutations in any population is ultimately most likely genetic disease, not the emergence of new healthy phenotypes.

Again, the observed divergence between populations needs no other source than the change in gene/allele frequencies that is the natural result of the splitting of the populations itself. The best you can say for mutations is that the built in alleles wre originally the result of mutations, because the new mutations would not be of any use in bringing about this divergence, since they would have to be passed on in the population, which is not too likelyl to happen to any given mutations in individuals.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If it's boring then don't read it. And nothing's been proved against this argument, that's just your typical fallacious tactic of "poisoning the well," which is really quite underhanded of you. Basically it's lying. You have nothing to say anyway, and should be given another twelve hours for a contentless post like this one, one of that 98% of your worthless productions that are against the rules of EvC, or indeed of reasonable discourse at all. The reasoning I laid out in that post holds up and perhaps others will be able to follow it although you are unable to. To that end I will copy that paragraph here. I urge you to ignore it. ABE: OR, if you are going to answer, then please give a very very brief statement of what you think proves me wrong. A sentence or two.

In the thread I linked to, I gave six observed examples of new varieties being produced in the way you say can't happen. By contrast you gave no examples of new varieties being produced in the way you say must happen, preferring to produce a lot of words and no actual evidence. You are still producing words purporting to prove that what we can see happening can't happen. But it can, and we can watch.

I am not going to read a whole thread to find a few posts of yours. This is a typical ploy of yours to confuse and obfuscate, which is a violation of decent debate practices. It is your job to produce the evidence you are claiming, a link to the relevant posts or just a restatement of the evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not going to read a whole thread to find a few posts of yours.

Do you really not know how to do this?

This is a typical ploy of yours to confuse and obfuscate, which is a violation of decent debate practices.

Faith, it does not require a "ploy" to confuse you.

It is your job to produce the evidence you are claiming, a link to the relevant posts or just a restatement of the evidence.

You have a poor memory. I instanced six breeds of cat: the American Curl, the Scottish Fold, the American Wirehair, the LaPerm, the Selkirk Rex and the Munchkin. In each case the variety is recent and the distinguishing trait of the variety was dominant, and so it was possible to pinpoint the exact time and place of origin of each breed and to trace its history. See posts #267, #272, #282, #287 of that thread.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.