Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

So this is all about the size of the creature.The original chart gives what sound like the names of locations on the left margin. Were these fossils found scattered in many locations, or in roughly the same geographical area or even in a column one layer above another? Or do the names designate the layers themselves. And does it matter how many fossils were found in each layer?I'm going to have to comment as I go if only because I interpret this sort of thing differently than you do. so I can't just let evolutionist interpretations stand. OK, but that of course is evolutionist theory. A simple description of the phenomena would be something like: "Such and such number of this fossil were found in such and such layer at such and such geographical area. This layer is usually dated to such and such MYA. The many collections of these fossils found in various layers appear to differ in average size from one layer to the next. The measured sizes are such and such." And the dates each was found could be handy, as well as who found them etc.Instead of simple description we get theory. Why is that? No problem with superposition of course, tells the order they were buried in which might have something to do with their size though it might not; but geological time is always problematic. Again this is of course evolutionist theory. If they were simply buried all at once in a one-time catastrophe the only continuity would be that they are clearly the same species that got sorted into different burial locations for one reason or another. Did anyone differentiate between adult and young individuals or male and female? It could. Since four subspecies/races are noted the sizes could reflect the range of genetic diversity for size in each population, which I think is what you have in mind. But again I'd like to know if the size could be related to age or sex and if that was taken into account. OK, I'm getting that now, thanks to your writing it out more clearly this time. First, of course I dispute the whole evolutionist interpretation that says the populations genetically diverged from each other over time as represented by the layers, which I guess would make P. ralstoni the ancestral population. My interpretation is that they are certainly all related and may be different subpopulations but that they would have been contemporaneous with each other, probably inhabiting different locations. If some are subpopulations of others there is no reason to think they lived in different time periods anyway, or that the higher in the strata are necessarily the offspring of the lower: it could be the other way around.But for the sake of argument, accepting the evolutionist interpretation that the higher descended from the lower over time, and that size was the main variable from population to population, while there should always be a trend to loss of genetic diversity as a new subpopulation develops its new gene frequencies, there's no way to know, especially from fossils, whether the alleles for the other trait completely disappeared from the new population. If they still exist in the collective genome, further population splits could select those alleles, and two separate populations branching off could select alleles for each end of the spectrum, which would be reflected in the size differences between the two groups at the top. Or those two populations could reflect incompletely inbred genes, since the first stage of the expression of new gene frequencies is likely to bring out a motley collection of traits, possibly including the extremes, which would work through the population through many recombinations over time until a general phenotype emerges.So there would have been a reduction in genetic diversity if these really were subpopulations formed over time, but complete loss of alleles for different traits doesn't necessarily always occur. It's a TREND I'm trying to highlight, that only becomes expressed in complete genetic depletion at the end of a series of subpopuloations.I don't think that is what happened though because of course I don't accept the whole evolutionist interpretation that these fossils represent different populations that formed at separate times from the one lower in the strata. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All bacteria have to do to adapt is generate one mutation that is then copied many times and becomes the characteristic of a new population. It's pretty specialized at that point though, having lost all its other genetic information, which doesn't sound like it's even particularly a good thing for bacteria. I'm sure this is way too simplistic but I'll have to come back to it later if it's too far out of the ballpark.In sexually reproducing creatures a mutation has to occur in the right place at the right time with the right characteristics even to get passed on, and then you'll only have this one mutation that can only affect the phenotype if it's dominant; if it's recessive it has to continue to get passed on until it pairs up with another copy of itself in order to be expressed in the phenotype. I don't think there is really any valid comparison with bacteria and in fact I think even if beneficial mutations did occur the chances of their contributing anything to the organism is pretty iffy. Again I'm sure this is way too simplistic but I'll have to come back to it some other time. OK, I'll spell it out. Death started at the Fall, and all the disease processes, but we can tell from the fact that people normally lived hundreds of years up until the Flood that there was still a great deal of vitality in the genome of human beings; and most likely animals too since they were also taken onto the ark in very small numbers, from which all species since then descended, showing enormous genetic diversity and vitality compared to now.But the Flood was a one-time catastrophic death of human beings and animals both. a massive fulfillment of the effects of the Fall which would have wiped out not only the creatures but their genetic information. But I barely have the hypothesis worked out and where is the evidence going to come from? I can offer reasoning to support the hypothesis but how on earth could I prove it beyond that, especially since genetic studies are always interpreted through evolutionist theory. Emphasis on "interpreted" because it really isn't any more evidence for evolution than for Flood theory, it's mainly a difference in interpretation.I think the fact that it's a reasonable interpretation of junk DNA that fits the known facts ought to be treated as evidence.So where is the evidence for the evolutionist interpretation of the fossil record? It's all interpretation of facts that are open to other interpretations. RAZD just spelled out the typical evolutionist interpretation of different populations of species being found in separate layers, treating it as known fact. It's not, the Flood offers a whole other interpretive system. Other "evidence" includes nested hierarchies. But this is based completely on subjective assessment of similarity of traits. Similarity of traits can bei\ interpreted as design factors; there's no actual evidence for descent, it's simply assumed. I've also offered a whole other interpretative system for new traits emerging from microevolution: Darwin and followers explain it as environmental pressures or natural selection changing the organism to accommodate to the envifronment. You find this even in discussions of speciation where simple random migration with subsequent change in gene frequencies is taken seriously. But actual natural selection is really quite rare. Pocket mice and peppered moths come to mind. But Darwin's Galapagos turtles that look different from their mainland progenitors don't fit the natural selection model; they fit the migration model which brings out new traits simply through the new gene frequencies in the Galapagos population. Same with Darwin's finch beaks. Migration is enough to explain these variations through simple change in gene frequencies too, and natural selection would be enormously costly since all the "wrong" or unfitted beaks \for a particular food would have to be eliminated from the population; but when the new beak is there first the finch simply finds the food it's suited for.Then a couple years ago on another thread there was the example of the surprisingly rapid evolution of a lizard that was isolated on an island in Croatia, that was found after thirty years of isolation to have developed a very large head that fitted it to a different diet from its ancestral population. In a mere thirty years did the food bring about the change in the head size? More likely didn't the head size emerge as a result of the new gene frequencies caused by the smaller numbers of individuals inbreeding for thirty years, and then finding new food that it could now handle? There is no more EVIDENCE for the random gene frequencies theory than the evolutionist natural selection theory, except the time factor and common sense. And then there was the example of the Jutland cattle that developed four completely different subpopulations in a very short period of time, not time enough for natural selection to change them, besides which it was supposedly genetic drift and no change in the environment that made the difference anyway.There's no EVIDENCE for natural selection in these cases, but there is again reason or common sense that supports the random genetic change theory over natural selection. In other words you are asking me for a kind of evidence that isn't even available for evolution. Almost any particular offering of evidence for evolution can be interpreted from a completely different but just as reasonable a point of view, and more reasonable in many cases. Well I've thought about this and have the beginnings of a reasoned argument, but not hard evidence if you insist on that.Genomes are "specialized" to use Denisova's term, for the trait combinations of the subpopulations they govern. If a trait is governed by ten different genes then the different combinations of the alleles for those genes will determine differences between races or breeds; and if there are many alleles for those genes as well, which is still in question, the combinations can vary almost astronomically. So the people and animals on the ark would have carried their own particular combinations of genetic material and that's what would have survived to generate all further subspecies from then on. They would not have had junk DNA except perhaps a tiny percentage reflecting death since the Fall, but as these few humans and animals started reproducing after the Flood, some of the limited availability of alleles would start pairing up and becoming fixed loci and some of those would eventually find nothing to pair up with and the gene would die, and the dead gene would continue to be passed on and that's the source of junk DNA. Again I'm being terrifically simplistic and I'll have to work on it more. I've been clearer on this at least to myself. Based on bogus dates but yes. So if you want to demand evidence of a kind I can't produce and a coherent statement of an alternative hypothesis and different system of interpretations isn't enough I'll have to leave.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All based on "suspecting" that it has a function you want to throw out a concept that makes good sense in the Flood theory.

.And what are those differential rates of mutation?

I didn't know what you meant by this at first; now I gather it's another way of talking about junk DNA. Right? All those "regions" that affect diversity but don't code for proteins are what is usually called Junk DNA, right? Leaving that 2% you said do code for proteins.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So in your view what are all those dead genes in the genomes of so many species? 95% or more. If you said in your post, I didn't get it.I'm intending to get to all your neglected posts next.

No, because the scientific literature is in thrall to the evolutionist paradigm and assumes the opposite. Assumes I say, it is not evidenced, it's an interpretation imposed on all the data. I picked it up here and there from internet sites. I'm sure you can find it without my help. In that case you really need to spell it all out here.I just realized there wasn't much point in answering this post. Well, on to the next one.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Assertion without evidence. Don't demand evidence of me if you aren't giving any of your own.However, being "parceled out in two isolated genomes" doesn't provide a gain at all, where do you get that? The two together retain the original genetic diversity though, at least until the new gene frequencies have been worked through them. But my contention is that EACH new subpopulation is where we see the reduction in genetic diversity-- the alleles remain in the other population. The idea is that these populations are actively evolving because of their new gene frequencies and that's where reduced genetic diversity occurs. You have yet to show this actually happens, and there is certainly no reason why it should happen. What could possibly bring about this "initial gain? Mutations see the split coming and jump on the bandwagon? This actually sounds like what I'm saying happens, in different words, so I don't "think otherwise." I THINK I know what you mean by "specialized" but I could be wrong. In my system it wouldn't apply to the subpopulations at the split but after a period of inbreeding in which the new gene frequencies get worked through the whole population. That changes combinations sometimes drastically enough all by itself to prevent the reintroduction of gene flow between the two populations.
|
However, I haven't found discussions anywhere of how genetic diversity is lost in these splits so if you know where to find them please provide links. But I see by your next point that I must be misreading you anyway. By what where? You haven't said one thing to show where this would come from, you just keep saying it. It depends on the numbers that form the new subpopulations whether there will be an apparent loss in genetic diversity or not, though that will always be the trend; but one thing there won't be is an increase. I guess you think you are dealing with this by insisting on it as a done deal before the split occurs but again there's no reason to think this occurs and you haven't offered any. So you keep saying but in this case you have to have reduced genetic diversity, which is, yes, also a consequence of splitting the populations, in order to get the new traits brought about by the new gene frequencies. You can't have new traits without this trend to reduction, though it doesn't have to be a big reduction at first; so it IS a requirement as well as a consequence. Nope. Speciation is really only the formation of a subpopulation that has lost its ability to interbreed with the former population. This requires no increase and must very often result from the decrease which soon renders it a genetic mismatch with the former population. Are "new species" tested for genetic diversity? I didn't think so. At the end of a series of subspecies one that speciates must have lost so much diversity there's little left for any further formation of subpopulations. Again, I ask, by what? How? See above. Perhaps I missed it. Will check.ABE: You did not write post 163 on this thread. /abe Hope they now are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All you are doing in this post is saying I haven't addressed your posts. I just addressed two so if that isn't enough you'll have to provide links to any others that exist.

The Wikipedia article on Pseudogenes describes very well what I have in mind except for the parts about how it may have a function, which I doubt: And here it goes into evolutionist interpretations I don't share. But otherwise the description and analysis are very much what I have in mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Most creatures have similar design features, one creature happens to lose a gene to junk DNA that remains alive in another. Same evidence evolution has for its interpretation: None, or really, same facts, different interpretation. It's an interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This makes sense overall. Is there evidence for this? It just sounds like another unevidenced evolutionist assumption.

Well, I assume that any loss of a gene to junk DNA reduces the individual's fitness. I suppose most such losses aren't particularly important, since there are so many of them and we go on surviving. Like having a dysfunctional appendix. Some losses are surely important though, and the accumulated total loss definitely must have reduced the fitness of all species that possess so much junk DNA, but since we can't imagine a really fit healthy state it's hard to measure the loss. Depends on what the allele is for. It may be for something that seems quite minor in the overall range of traits so its loss wouldn't make much difference, especially if other traits are possessed that are lost to others, which should also be the case. We notice people's different strengths and weaknesses anyway as just expressions of individuality. It would have to be positively lethal for that to happen, wouldn't it? I'm sure that's what the ToE would suggest, but while living things seem to do OK without all those genes in junk DNA, the way we seem to do OK without a functioning appendix and without a gall bladder and tonsils too since they are easily dispensed with, my guess would be that we'd be a lot healthier and stronger if they were still functioning. I think it makes more sense to assume nature wouldn't allow for so much death and disease in the normal course of things as the ToE takes for granted, so it has to be a degeneration from a formerly healthy state, but as I said there's really no actual evidence to put one interpretation above the other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then let me try to clarify. I don't mean to be saying that the genes became junk DNA IN the bottleneck but as a result of it due to the loss of so many alleles for so many traits. This should have an effect on the genome over the generations afterward, not immediately. It's basically the same as my general argument in this thread. Severe bottlenecks today operate similarly except that they start from less genetic diversity. The bottlenecked population's genes aren't changed, it's only as they inbreed for a few generations that the loss of alleles becomes apparent and we find many fixed loci developing for lack of alternative alleles. This is the case for instance with the cheetah and with the elephant seal. Then in the formation of breeds and small subpopulations in the wild which we've been discussing, the reduced genetic diversity should also trend to an increase in fixed loci due to its loss of alleles that remain in the larger general population. In the case of domestic breeding the more fixed loci the more "pure" the breed. Even a reduction in alleles without a total loss would trend in this direction, and the fewest would eventually drop out of the population altogether.Apparently you wanted me to answer your comment, but it wasn't a question so I wouldn't have known that. Since you seemed to be saying that most junk DNA isn't really nonfunctioning genes I wanted to know what you think it is. I think I know now so it's no longer a question. All true. I'm not sure what point you are making here. I'm not expecting any difference in numbers of genes between individuals in a population. I have in mind that if enough alleles are lost in such a huge bottleneck then the genes themselves would eventually be compromised as well, but not immediately. Apparently I haven't been clear. I don't expect the effect on Noah's family to be immediate but something that would occur among his descendants in the following generations due to the reduction in genetic diversity, i.e., the great loss of alleles for many traits. Noah and his descendants would have all the same genes but those genes would have fewer alleles (still haven't worked out the question of new alleles forming or how many would have been in the reproducing pairs on the ark, the three human pairs.) Many genes would eventually be reduced to fixed loci and come to characterize the subpopulations that migrated to different parts of the planet.I did have in mind that simply the existence of many fixed loci could result eventually in the loss of function of many of those genes, but right now I'm thinking there is no real reason why that would be so: destructive mutations would have to occur for that to happen, and destructive mutations should have been on the rise after the Flood too. Not if you're thinking it would occur immediately, but down the generations as I've explained above it could, and especially, as I now think, if mutations are involved.[From Wikipedia: "Pseudogenes often result from the accumulation of multiple mutations within a gene whose product is not required for the survival of the organism."]It is enormous, for sure, but it does seem to be what happened. To my mind it speaks to the far more enormous original genetic diversity all species had. The loss is incalculable, but here we are. If some junk DNA isn't just disabled genes it would be much less of an effect but the vast majority do seem to be formerly functioning genes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Taking another look at this. I think I really don't get what you're trying to say. The reason I asked about junk DNA was that you seem to be implying that junk DNA can't have many nonfunctioning genes because there's only a few percent genetic diversity in a species anyway. I really don't know what you are saying and I should have asked. More than that and you'd "get a different species?" This really makes no sense. This too is hard to decipher. I didn't say genes dropped at all in the bottleneck. So again the only relevance is my claim that junk DNA was a result of the Flood, but that didn't happen immediately so that's why I answered as I did above. Loss of genes to junk DNA would have happened due to new combinations that lead to fixed loci through generations, and mutations that wipe out those alleles.I think the rest of my post addresses the topic.