Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

Yes, a breed does have less diversity than the rest of the species. But breeding does not create species or lower the diversity in the species.

Bolder is in a permanent huffy state. I have no idea how he feels about Faith's arguments.

Given BD's oft expressed opinions about the theory of evolution, this would be very faint praise.

I think you are attributing a strategy to Faith that is beyond her capabilities. Faith did not hide per position; she changed it on the fly. Faith originally stated that breeding was speciation with mutation interfering rather than contributing to speciation.

In what sense is this discussion unfinished? I'd suggest reading a bit of Faith's blog if you still believe there is any chance of a productive interchange with Faith on this topic.About where species come from, uhm, when the mommy variant and the daddy variant really love each other ...

I was re-reading the OP and I came across this paragraph. Eight to ten years? Really?I don't know what work Faith could have been doing with her proposal for the last decade; there isn't much depth to her ideas. But a decade is certainly long enough to develop an emotional attachment to a "theory". In this particular case, the "theory" directly supports Faith's religious beliefs which sure increases the attractiveness.I think Faith is behaving is just like every other crank I've ever run across on the internet. In my experience, it is next to impossible to convince a crank that his/her science is flawed. Any number of people seem to think they are Einstein clerking away in the patent office and about to have their own 1905 miracle year. My general approach when an adult is 'cranking' about something I know a lot about is to be directly, forcefully, and unambiguously discouraging. Cruel to be kind is the only way.

It does if you imagine species formation to be God acting as a cosmic breeder and if you completely discount mutations while pretending not to do so. It does if you imagine that every new species cannot have any significant characteristics of the parent species.In short, it is pretty easy to build a straw man version of evolution to attack and dismiss, particularly if the only one you need to convince is yourself.

Only for the traits that define the breed, and even those genes can mutate. How can you even type that stuff without noticing the idiocy? Yes there is some limitation on Mendelian recombination, but evolution is not limited to that.And how does the parent species manage to "breed true" with all of that extra diversity? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Species do not consist of a homogeneous set of individuals. The diversity of the human race, which is a not just a single species but is a single sub species is a perfect example.Your thesis of " diversity interferes with creation of species" is easily seen as so much bunk even based on your own statements.

As is normal for you, you admit forming your opinion without any understanding. So let me spell out my argument for you.Scientists believe that humans evolved from an ancestor names Homo erectus about 2 million years ago. If that is the case, then the target "breed" would be modern humans, including all of the diversity that currently exists. That means that mutations that produce the variations that we find among the current population would not interfere with the creation of the current species.As far as strawmen go, since your stated position is that even given mutations, we cannot obtain new species, only a single example counter example is necessary to prove you wrong. In contrast, disproving single examples that others offer does not prove your point. You must disprove every strategy offered.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Whoa! You seem to have forgotten what the dispute is about. Your claim is that evolution is impossible. You don't get to take a dozen people and show the problems that result, because none of us are claiming that you can take a dozen people and create a diverse population. That kind of bottleneck is how you get something like cheetahs.In fact it is you silly YECs who insist that the entire current population of humans came from only 8 people, including three people who were direct descendants of two others.Perhaps now you can understand why the burden persuasion is different for you and I. I can agree that a population of a dozen people is not enough to create the human race and still press the argument that your silly scheme does not reflect reality. Or at the very least reality allowing mutations. What do you mean by simple gene flow? Is that simply Mendelian inheritance? You cannot even get dachshunds using that alone.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's address this one head on. Scandinavian's have common features because they look like the most successful (at propagating) of their ancestors and not because of some limit on how they can evolve. What Scandinavian's look like after just a few hundred or even 1000 years puts no limits on evolution. This argument is just point blank silly.

Who cares. It is wrong. Evolution is not limited explaining what happens to teeny-tiny populations. You've wasted ten years.ABE:Perhaps that's too blunt. The phenomenon of genetic drift, something Faith always ignores, means that a genetic characteristic might occupy a substantial portion of the original population before circumstances arise which allow that trait to present a selection advantage. And only then does the opportunity for speciation occur. Because of that, we don't need to postulate that we must isolate tiny numbers of individuals, nor do we need to assume that the mutation arrives just in the nick of time.I don't expect to ever convince you Faith. I am just providing logical reasons why you are failing to convince us.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Which part of that long description is "gene flow"? What physically happens when genes flow? So far you have not said anything that allows me to rule out that you mean Mendelian genetics when you say 'normal gene flow'.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When you require tiny populations having a trait, then you have ignored the fact that drift can produce large populations having a trait within an even larger population.You can say what you will, but you are not taking drift into account.