Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

I haven't been providing you "advice, rules and other comments."I've been requesting clarification of some points, and I've been providing clarification of some points made by others. Yes, most of this is related to you, but I do the same with everyone, as I did with NoNukes earlier today, and with HBD earlier in the discussion.In many messages people complain that they can't make sense of what you're saying, and you keep complaining that no one understands what you're saying, so I'm trying to help discussion along by asking you to provide clarification about some of your key points.Also, you can't dismiss evidence because it is too complex to understand, then complain when someone else merely says it's complex because they know that if they describe the evidence you'll complain it's too complex. This makes no sense. Please work to understand the evidence. No one has ever judged a debate saying, "Because side A couldn't understand the evidence and arguments from side B, side A wins."Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Hi Faith,Since it might not have been obvious, let me explain that the quotes HBD provided in his Message 876 were his attempt to answer your question about why he posted the information and how it was relevant to the topic. The thread history revealed in the quotes shows that he posted the information about that specific example in response to your assertion that his claims were "totally hypothetical." His example was one of adaptation through mutation, and it is relevant because it is evidence against two of your contentions:

• Mutations do not produce significant traits.
• Adaptation through selection is rare.

I didn't originally reply to this because JonF and HBD both responded, but you haven't replied to them. HBD explained in Message 823 that in the Italian population of Arabidopsis thaliana that its CBF-2 gene contained a "deletion of 13 nucleotides which resulted in a stop codon and a truncated protein." This is the kind of allelic difference that simple mutations produce.I assume you prefer to believe that in the absence of observations of the original mutation actually happening that the genetic difference between the two Arabidopsis thaliana population was there from the beginning, but we know that the copying of genetic material that occurs during reproduction is not perfect and that mutations are an inevitable byproduct of all reproductive events. You've avoided all arguments that mutations must have happened, for instance, the argument that the human genome (and indeed probably the genomes all species everywhere) contains far more diversity than could have originated from Noah's small family, unless mutations occurred (and for a much longer period than the 4500 years since the flood).You cannot continue insisting that something hasn't been proved simply because you refuse to discuss it, so I'm ruling that you have to address the issue of the origin of existing diversity from a small family group for humans and from 1 or 7 pairs for the rest of life. Until you do then I'm ruling that mutations explain genetic differences and can have significant phenotypic effects.Also, you've been ignoring my requests for clarification, so to help discussion move ahead, and until you actually do respond with clarifications, participants should assume this about your postion:

• Speciation as defined by the science of biology is impossible.

There were other points on which I was seeking clarification, but one at a time.

Well, this is sure to receive a lot of comment. Let me rephrase so you can confirm the correct interpretation:

• A new species can form from an existing species, but only once, and once that speciation event occurs there can be no further speciation events for either the new species or the original species.

This needs to be boiled down into something concise, so again let me rephrase so you can confirm the correct interpretation:

• Mutations are unlikely to contribute functional genetic material.
  ​
• But any functional genetic material contributed by mutations can have the same degree of phenotypic impact as new allele combinations.

Please confirm or correct the italicized bullet points.

This is another of your contradictory positions that I think puzzles many people. You use breeding, the epitome of selective pressures, as an example of how evolution really works, then deny that selective pressures play much of a role in evolution. Could you resolve this apparent contradiction please?

Yes, you're right, not explicitly, but once you start generalizing what she said (e.g., a population splits into two subpopulations that each have only a subset of the alleles of the original population, etc.) then there's no way to know which is the "original" species. I kept my statement simple and inclusive of the implications of Faith's original statement.

Some facets of the Biblical flood are on-topic in this thread, such as the resulting genetic bottleneck, but by and large the flood is off-topic.I am, as always, reading and responding to the messages of this thread in order. I see there's a reply to your message, and I'll address it when I get there.

Again, I'm not trying to debate you, I'm only seeking some clarification. I think most people will have a great deal of difficulty seeing how denying a significant role for selection makes any sense. Splits of populations into small subpopulations occur informally everywhere throughout the civilized world with creatures like dogs, cats, hamsters, cows, sheep, canaries, finches, parrots, goldfish, guppies, angelfish, ants, etc., and in the absence of any selection pressures these small isolated subpopulations never exhibit any significant phenotypic changeHere's a specific example. A family has a community of around 10 or 20 pet gerbils that they maintain over a decade or two, something that is probably incredibly common all across the United States. There's no selection (so only drift could be a factor) and they allow the gerbils to breed randomly, and no significant phenotypic change ever appears. The scenario you insist must have happened in the past never seems to happen in the real world today.People are seeking some clarification from you about why you think this way. There are actually two significant issues where people don't understand how you can maintain your position:

• If the forces you've identified (genetic drift, new allele combinations) can produce significant phenotypic change in the absence of selection simply by isolating a small subpopulation, why is this never observed?
  ​
• How can a subpopulation become a genetically new species simply by losing alleles and creating new allele combinations, since all the alleles it does have already exist in the main population? If this happened over and over again in the past, why are there no examples in the real world?

My position as moderator does not require me to check my brain at the door. You have expressed opinions that no one can make any sense of, including this moderator, and then you are being alternately reluctant and recalcitrant about providing evidence to support them, preferring instead to merely repeat the opinions. It is my job as moderator to try to move the thread toward a discussion of evidence rather than opinion.In the case of the message you're replying to, you didn't seem to understand HBD's post, and you also frequently complain that his posts are too technical, so I tried to put it in understandable terms. I was only making HBD's point in simpler terminology. I was not making my own point nor trying to debate you.Your reply addresses the issue HBD raised far better than your response in Message 827, so I'll let HBD respond.

Everyone is trying very hard to understand you. The arguments you're making do not appear rational or consistent to other people. They're calling this to your attention and you're ignoring them by simply repeating your unsupported opinions and accusing them of not understanding you, which is why I've stepped in. Please stop playing the "no one understands me" card. Instead please try to address the questions and concerns being raised. No you have not. You not only haven't provided plenty of examples, you haven't provided a single one. Unless you can provide evidence of simple isolation of a small subpopulation producing significant phenotypic change in the absence of selection, I'll have to disallow this claim in this thread.About speciation you say: Okay, I think I can piece together a statement of your position on speciation now: Is this correct?If so then this is one route to speciation that I think everyone here can agree with, but it is incredibly uncommon since the ability to interbreed means the production of viable (not sterile) offspring. Lions and tigers can interbreed, but it's hit or miss and the offspring are usually sterile, so lions are tigers are not an example of the kind of speciation you describe. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but are also not an example for the same reason. I know there are two genetically identical species of wasp that never interbreed because one always mates in the morning and the other in the evening, so there's one example for you.But the key point is that this is a very uncommon route to speciation, and because it rejects the possibility of genetic change it doesn't explain the allelic diversity we see in life today. For example, the pig is unclean, and so there were only two pigs on the ark. The maximum number of alleles at any loci is therefore 4. But the pig has many loci with more than 4 alleles (according to Nutztierzchtung im Wandel der Zeit (Livestock Breeding Through the Ages) the pig has 14.5 alleles per locus today), so if mutation plays at best a minor role then where did all these additional alleles come from?This needs to be explained.Edited by Admin, : Wordsmith last sentence of next to last para.

Hi Faith,I encourage your efforts at understanding HBD's chart, but I disapprove of your attempt in the opening paragraph to disparage efforts at understanding your views. Please don't abandon responsibility for making your views clear. There's no need to slog through all the posts, but it would be irresponsible if you didn't browse through them and respond to the key points. One reason these discussions are so difficult for you might be because you often, as you are doing again right now, suddenly shift direction, abandoning current threads of discussion and reviving old ones that you abandoned earlier, causing any progress to evaporate.

But that's what you're doing right now, getting to an old post, eventually, after progress and continuity on that subtopic are gone. Please do not let that happen to the current subtopics.

Yes, this is the kind of thing you always say eventually in many threads regardless of who's participating. It greatly hinders discussion and it would be a great help if you would stop. You're the only one engaging in this kind of behavior, and in continual other complaints, and in threats to leave, and in complete melt-downs, so who else is one to blame? You can't engage in all these kinds of misbehaviors and expect moderation to permit them to go by without comment.This is enough moderation commentary for now. If you have further concerns take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

Please let's keep the focus on the topic.

I think it might be more clear if the diversity within a population were referred to simply as diversity, while the diversity between populations were referred to as diversity difference. Diversity within a population would be measured by factors related to allele frequencies or permutations, etc. Diversity difference between populations would be measured by alleles shared and not shared, allele combinations shared and not shared, etc. I know you're trying to keep it simple, but can't mutations cross loci boundaries? And it might help to be clear that you only mean mutation's direct impact on nucleotide sequences, not the downstream effects, for instance, regulatory genes that turn other genes on and off.