Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

This is why I keep rubbing your nose in autosomal dominant genes.Now, where we'd got up to on the other thread is that you admit that these genes can arise by mutation, and that at least where we have more than five alleles per locus, that must have arisen by mutation too.Also, we've observed this happening, as in my six examples of cat breeds.So why are we not done here? What do you suppose is left of your argument that you go on arguing?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why does that matter?Besides, you won't address evidence from sexually reproducing creatures either. All you do is make up these fantasies, and pretend that your made up fantasies trump real evidence.Here is something really simple that you can address that I have asked before. Why do you think chimps and humans look different? Isn't it due to the differences in their genomes?

As I've said a bazillion times, the PROCESSES of evolution REQUIRE the reduction of genetic diversity, doesn't matter how you get the diversity or when, IF YOU ARE GETTING NEW TRAITS you are also getting a reduction in genetic diversity WHERE THAT IS HAPPENING. Where it's not happening you can have lots of genetic diversity. It's either genetic diversity or microevolution, take your pick.ABE: Clarification: You can't have both in the same place at the same time that is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why have you said that a bazillion times?Obviously you need some genetic diversity to have evolution at all. If you had a population of exact clones, no evolution could take place --- until a mutation arose to provide some diversity.So it seems like the title of this thread should be Evolution Requires the Existence Of Genetic Diversity.

And you have been wrong a bazillion times. This is completely assbackwards. When you are getting new traits you are adding diversity. The processes of evolution absolutely do not require a reduction of diversity.It does not matter how many times you say it will always be wrong.You have never once offered a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. Faith's Fantasy Genetics has no resemblance to reality.Stop repeating yourself and show us a single study that supports your fantasy.

It does when you believe in a mythical Fall from a mythical perfect state some 6,000 years ago.

I know, but it still just seems so crazy to me. She refuses to discuss the evidence that refutes her claims....nope, I don't want to talk about bacteria...nope I don't want to talk about examples of clearly understood mutations.And then she denies that they exist.And then she repeats her claims that all diversity was built into organisms 6000 years ago. And then insists that the processes of evolution demand reduction in diversity.She scoffs at the findings of science and immediately embraces a bronze age myth that all the physical evidence shows cannot be true.Over and over and over. It boggles my mind.

As far as I understand what she's saying, she's been trapped by a simple truism when applied to a single over-dramatised idea of speciation.If a population of say, 10,000 animals are traveling and 10 of them get permanently separated by some weird event, the two populations will diverge over time and may eventually speciate. But at the point of seperation the 10 animals will have less genetic diverty than the remaining 9,990.I doubt anyone would argue that - it's a genetic bottleneck.What she's missing of course, is that that isn't the only way speciation happens (and that such small populations are unlikely to survive), and when it does happen that way variation is built up again over time by mutation and population growth. Additionally, after the speciation event the total genetic variation in both populations is greater that in the single one before the event.But Faith doesn't have time for mutation, nor it seems any other non-reductive speciation models - such as drift. As usual, she's got an oversimplified, single and wrong model in her head which she's hanging on to because she thinks it works for her.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : Sums

Faith, I don't know why you persist with this argument when - after years of trying to get it to work - you still have to evade problems by trying to pretend that your opponents don't understand the argument. Message 175Simply put, even if there is a temporary reduction in genetic diversity in times of heavy selection, such times are the exception - certainly for any successful species. And in the long periods where selection is relaxed there is plenty of opportunity for diversity to recover.

Faith's argument is that evolution is just like making a new type of dog out of existing dos. If you want to make a new zebra colored poodle, you might try to get there by mixing/matching doggie parents and getting rid of the puppies that aren't trending towards having the black and white stripes. If you succeed, you you get a new dog that you really cannot use to breed a Dalmation-like collie later because you've bred or excluded that possibility from the the zebra dogs genetic make up. Clearly the dog cannot have any of the dominant or near dominant genes that would prevent striping.Yeah, I get that. A zebra colored dog breed created during a single man's lifetime isn't going to be very diverse. But there are a thousand reasons why evolution can produce a different result than does such a breeding scheme. Faith isn't necessarily consistent about what principle she wants to use to deny that distinction, but her purpose for doing so is pretty clear.It is amazing what you can come up with when you aren't handicapped by knowledge and reason.

Yes, the second part of her simple understanding is that every species contains the genetic 'information' to create the next species. The new variant is therefore caused by selection of an already existing trait.it's all seemingly simple and obvious. But nevertheless, wrong. And never having had to formally study evolution so as to understand the facts that it's built on, she can imagine whatever she needs to.You can also re-use that sentence by changing 'evolution' to genetics geology, astronomy, chemistry, palaeontology, radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, biblical historicity etc etcEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

In that case you might bother to address the points I made on this in my previous 2-3 posts. Until now seen nothing yet.

I highly doubt that as well!The max. number of alleles of any gene in a population of 8 people of whom 3 individuals are sons of 2 other members is 10 (Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and those one's wives).In extant human populations the number of alleles may as much as be 59 for particular genes.In other words, since the Flood at least as much as 49 alleles must have been added to the human genome for such genes. and there are many genes with more than 10 alleles.Hence, one would expect the genetic diversity to increase since the Flood. Also NEW alleles are to be explained.But Faith contends the genetic diversity declined since the Flood.Her problems are getting worse when you take Adam and Eve into account, whose genomes combined a maximum of 4 alleles for each gene.A flood 4,500 years ago implies evolution at an outrageous rate.Edited by Denisova, : Didn't know Faith was a she!

Here you seem to be saying that new traits can only emerge from added diversity, but then you go on to say something more inclusive: This seems to allow that new traits can also emerge from reduced diversity, so I'm not sure what your position is, and Faith may not be either.It might be helpful, since this thread just recently resumed active discussion, if Faith could provide a clear statement of her position. My understanding of Faith's position is that because breeders bring out new traits by reducing genetic diversity that speciation must bring out new traits through the same process. If I have this right then what's missing is a description of what speciation has that breeding doesn't, since breeding doesn't result in speciation.What's also missing is an explanation of the underlying genetics, since the genome differences between even the most different of breeds of the same species (e.g., dog and wolf) aren't in degree or character anything like the genome differences between even very closely related species (e.g., red squirrel and grey squirrel).Edited by Admin, : Fix quote attribution.

Have to point out that you attributed a quote to me that was actually Tanypteryx's.I'll have to come back to the rest.