Summations Only

The idea is that the processes of evolution that bring about new phenotypes MUST reduce or eliminate the genetic basis of other phenotypes, the ones NOT being expressed. It's plain logical. If there are any increases in diversity they interfere with the development of the new phenotype or breed. It's perfectly logical. If you want a breed with a black coat and short snout and floppy ears you don't want the genes for yellow coat and long snout and pointy ears in the mix. I mean, it's elementary my dear Nukeson. Why is this so hard to understand? If a long-beaked finch has the only beak adapted to the food in its environment then nature is going to eliminate the finches with short beaks. Elementary. Assuming you mean "less genetically diverse" where are you getting this idea? There is no reason they should be either more OR less genetically diverse on the basis of what I'm arguing, they might be either. It completely depends on the size of the original population that split off from the parent population of wolves.But your language "must be less diverse" makes me wonder if you get the idea of genetic diversity at all anyway, because the phenotypes, meaning the appearance, the morphology, the look, of the animals may be extremely MORE diverse, as obviously the population of dogs is in comparison with wolves which are a pretty homogeneous population. You keep saying there is no evidence for something or other without giving the supposed evidence against it. And in this case if you are confusing genetic diversity with phenotypic diversity, which you very likely are doing, you are simply looking at the great variation in dog breeds (the phenotypes) and declaring me wrong for saying they are "less diverse," which of course I've never said because I'm talking about GENETIC diversity. Phenotypic diversity INCREASES in the overall population as genetic diversity DECREASES within a reproductively isolated subpopulation. You are getting a lot more kinds of dogs in the overall dog population while each subspecies of dog is losing the genetic material for every other kind of dog. This is what you seem to be confused about, but it's hard to tell because you keep declaring things in this angry tone without making clear distinctions. Or it could possibly just be that it's you that are wrong, which in your mind is apparently the impossible thing. So far so good, IF by "losing diversity" you mean GENETIC diversity, which is highly doubtful at this point. Within the breeding or evolving population you are getting a less diverse phenotype as well, of course, (a Yorkshire Terrier rather than a Dalmatian or anything that is not a Yorkshire Terrier) though in the population at large, again of dogs, all of them together as a whole, you have great phenotypic AND genetic diversity.It's in the BREEDING or EVOLVING population that you are getting the reduction in diversity. If you don't specifically say "GENETIC" diversity you miss the whole point, because it's that loss that makes further evolution impossible when the breed or supspecies is established. The ToE on the other hand is always presented as if you can get endless new phenotypes (breeds or supbspecies) that just go on and on producing new phenotypes, without any recognition whatever that genetic material must be lost for new phenotypes to emerge, which ought to be apparent from the experience of breeding.(You CAN'T get a mammal from a reptile because every new supspecies of reptile involves a loss of genetic diversity in relation to the reptile population as a whole, and that must be the case with every new supspecies of reptile that develops. All you can get is new subspecies of reptile. You CAN'T get a human being from something ape-like because every new subspecies of the apelike creature involves a loss of genetic diversity in relation to the apelike population as a whole. Etc etc etc.)All I'm arguing is something that ought to be easily recognized from experience with breeding, which is what Darwin based his whole idea of natural selection on, but Darwin failed to recognize that the selection process itself makes further development of new breeds impossible at some point. He assumed that since he could get so many variations in his pigeons by selection that endless variations must be possible, which continues to be the assumption behind the ToE, without recognizing that phenotypic variation only occurs at genetic cost. Perhaps he wasn't in a position to see this, but breeders now ought to be able to see it because they are very familiar with the phenomenon of the purebred or truebred animal developing genetic problems, so that they are abandoning the severe selection processes that used to be practiced, in favor of including more genetic diversity in their breeds. This loses them the purest breeds, which develop from severe genetic depletion (in which you have a lot of fixed gene loci for the breed's salient characteristics) but it gains them healthier breeds. Are you following me? Not at all. Any increase in genetic diversity by mixing populations, former with new or whatever, WILL interfere with the development of a new supspecies or breed. I believe I've said this many times. Nature isn't a perfect selector of traits as a human breeder hopes to be, you will often have hybrid zones with continuing gene flow, and that may very well prevent a clearcut breed from emerging. So you'll have continuing genetic diversity and NOT a clearcut subspecies or breed.(ABE: This demonstrates that an INCREASE in genetic diversity is the OPPOSITE of evolution. Darwin's pigeons were evolving when he was drastically selecting the traits he wanted to breed. It was the selection process that he identified with evolution, that he theorized was the supposed mechanism by which all life evolved from former life, so that according to his theory he expected his carefully selected pigeons eventually to evolve into something that was not a pigeon, after of course a lot more time than any person would live to see. Now, when he let his pigeons reproductively mix with each other they would eventually revert to their wild condition, their pre-selected condition, which is NOT evolution. Adding back the lost genetic diversity brought about by selection is NOT evolution. You and others apparently think that by increasing the genetic diversity you may prevent the end of evolution by depleted genetic diversity that I'm talking about, but you don't, all that happens is that evolution is no longer happening according to Darwin's view which is still the ToE's view. Evolution happens with selection, the stopping of gene flow, not with the increase of gene flow. So increases stop evolution. But when you have evolution you have loss of genetic diversity. /ABEBut when a new subspecies or breed does emerge it is likely to have developed some kind of reproductive barrier, perhaps genetic or perhaps behavioral, that prevents such gene flow, and that will preserve the breed or subspecies. Again, the point is that to GET a homogeneous new breed or subspecies REQUIRES reproductive isolation so that the new gene frequencies of the new population will come to characterize it phenotypically at the cost of losing the genetic material for other phenotypic expressions.I hope this is clearer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If there are any increases in diversity they interfere with the development of the new phenotype or breed. It's perfectly logical.

---

It's perfectly ridiculous. Unlike your idealised model of human breeding, evolution has no intended form for a new species. New variations can be incorporated into the population just fine.And let us note - again - if Hunan breeding is the model for speciation why has human breeding not produced any new animal species ?

You remember how the thing you claim to be "logical" is known to be false by direct observation?As the nature of these counterexample reveals not only the falsity of your "logic" but the reasons why it fails, perhaps you should have paid more attention to them.

Dr. A, your main method of responding to me is mere assertions of how I should "remember" how something once proved me wrong etc,. but I guess it's too much to ask that you actually SAY what it is that supposedly proves me wrong? If you don't you are just making the usual wild accusation designed to make it sound like I'm wrong when there is no evidence that I'm wrong. There is no "direct observation" that disproves what I'm saying.Any addition of genetic material DOES interfere with the processes of evolution, whether by continuing or resumed gene flow, or by mutation or whatever the source of the addition is. Darwin got his striking new pigeons by ELIMINATING everything but the genetic material for the striking new traits. This is how you GET new traits, you don't get them by ADDING material but by SUBTRACTING it. When he allowed his breeds to reproduce together the offspring reverted to the original pigeon type. That's what you get with addition of genetic material, not evolution. You can get some new traits in the population as a whole depending on how similar the new input is to the original population, or how changed it has become from being isolated etc., but unless those new traits are selected and isolated you aren't getting evolution.You get evolution with subtraction, by selection or by simple random isolation of a smaller number of individuals, so that the new gene frequencies produce the new traits and other traits are eliminated, and then eventually as you keep selecting and evolution keeps occurring you reach a point where the decrease in genetic diversity makes further evolution impossible for that breed or subspecies.There can't be any direct evidence against this, it's what has to happen, and the evidence for it comes most directly from breeding or artificial selection, which was Darwin's inspiration.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but it's not evolution until they are selected or otherwise reproductively isolated. That was Darwin's whole theory -- selection is what powers evolution. If new variations are incorporated into the population that's not evolution. Because the theory that evolution leads to speciation is wrong. Speciation in reality is nothing but the formation of a highly genetically depleted subspecies which has lost the ability to interbreed with either the parent population or other subpopulations. Even this doesn't happen with dogs, which are so naturally genetically diverse you hardly ever reach a point where interbreeding with other dogs has become genetically impossible.

quote:

---

Yes, but it's not evolution until they are selected or otherwise reproductively isolated. That was Darwin's whole theory -- selection is what powers evolution. If new variations are incorporated into the population that's not evolution.

---

Well, I'm glad you agree that your "perfectly logical" assertion was incorrect, but you're wrong again. Mutation is the engine that drives evolution. Evolution requires a constant stream of new variation - and the evidence tells us it is there.

quote:

---

Because the theory that evolution leads to speciation is wrong. Speciation in reality is nothing but the formation of a highly genetically depleted subspecies which has lost the ability to interbreed with either the parent population or other subpopulations.

---

That doesn't answer the question. If it doesn't happen when humans drive the process, why should we believe that it happens in nature ? Human selection is much stronger than natural selection, so it should achieve the same results much faster - if selection is all there is. Just asserting that you are right is no way to answer evidence that you are wrong.

No, that was not Darwin's whole theory.Selection was only one of the processes in the theory. Darwin also talked about a source of variety for which he had no explanation. But that variety was a required part of the explanation.Your comment does not seem to address the point. Evolution involves process other than selection alone and at least some of those processes are additive of diversity rather than subtractive. Even breeders are careful to deliberately reintroduce genetics from the originating breed pool. They do not simply isolate a population of dogs and let them go at it.Further natural selection does not require isolation. In some cases the advantage gained from a trait provides superior survival chances within the same niche and location as the remaining population exists in. That alone is enough to drive a generational change in allele frequency of an inheritable trait.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your claim is both irrelevant and wrong.It is irrelevant because the issue here is your lack of evidence. It is my claim that your proposal is not scientific, so it is the lack of evidence associated with your proposition that is at issue. What I have or do not have is irrelevant.And secondly, I have cited evidence of evolutionary processes that increase diversity that you are fully aware of. You are fully aware of the details of those examples, cited primarily by Dr. Adequate, have acknowledged them (while of course belittling them) many times. Edited by NoNukes, : tweak

Again, what is the evidence for Creationism and you do understand that what reality does do is totally refute any Biblical flood or Young Earth nonsense?Where is the evidence for The Science in Creationism?If all animals were created at the same time, why are no human fossils or human constructed objects ever found in any of the layers containing dinosaur fossils?What is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains what is seen in reality?

Agreed to no such thing. Mutation cannot drive evolution because it adds genetic material which isn't evolution. Evolution requires selection of some sort, at least isolation of a random subpopulation. A constant stream of new variation is not only impossible but could only interfere with evolution as Darwin understood it to be driven by selection, and as it is still presented to be what drives evolution -- as in when people are always asking what would prevent microevolution from going on to macroevolution by the normal processes, meaning selection. What prevents it is that selection reduces genetic diversity. If you add genetic diversity you also prevent evolution but in a different direction. To get evolution you still have to SELECT FROM the new stream of variation (which doesn't exist anyway -- all those deleterious mutations don't supply new variation in any usable sense, and getting a beneficial mutation that might be selected could take millennia at least -- by which time the cheetah is probably going to be extinct.) You know it happens in nature though. The question is why not in human breeding -- if in fact that's true across all species, and I don't know, do you? I don't know, but I also don't see that it proves anything one way or the other with respect to what I'm arguing. But it's a good enough way of answering assertions that I am wrong, which is really all that has been offered here, not evidence.

Thank you. So apparently there does exists a way to get from wolves to a dog population having great diversity in both phenotype and genetics. And of course essentially all dogs are inter fertile members of the same species and the same subspecies. And there is zero evidence that such diversity is less than that of wolves who have no more alleles for a given trait that does the population of dogs.In short the evolution of wolves to the dog subspecies illustrates exactly several ways that you are just plain wrong. There is no particular specific appearance required to be a dog even if there are narrow definitions of what constitutes a Golden lab. Evolutionary processes allow deriving any any all variations that ultimately come from wolves including those mutations such as the ones that produce dachshund legs or curly ears etc. without removing the resulting offspring from the species dog. Your reasoning about "not achieving a breed" is seen as nonsense. You don't have to be a particular breed to be a dog.We could extend that argument to races of humans. Humans as a whole are a single inter-fertile sub species. If we all evolved from eight humans after the flood, evolution provides a perfectly acceptable explanation for any racial differences that might exists between us.And of course in nature, nobody is standing there with a bucket of cold water to prevent to non-identical looking pooches from getting it on. Accordingly natural selection often does not produce a 'breed' with all animals having nearly identical coloring etc. Nature selects by fitness, and often that natural selection is a subtle matter that plays out over time, some times at times remote from when a trait is established and begins to drift through a population.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Deleted. Paul covered this better.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Agreed to no such thing.

---

"Yes" signals agreement.

quote:

---

Mutation cannot drive evolution because it adds genetic material which isn't evolution

---

That is how it DOES drive evolution. Your own argument establishes that without a source of new variation evolution would halt. How else should we describe the element that keeps evolution going ?

quote:

---

A constant stream of new variation is not only impossible...

---

Why would it be impossible ? Especially given that it is established fact.

quote:

---

...but could only interfere with evolution as Darwin understood it to be driven by selection

---

Absurd. You have never given any valid reason to suppose that new variation can interfere with evolution.

quote:

---

You know it happens in nature though. The question is why not in human breeding -- if in fact that's true across all species, and I don't know, do you?

---

Are you going to turn around and deny that speciation happens in nature now ? You've been rather insistent on it happening before.

quote:

---

I don't know, but I also don't see that it proves anything one way or the other with respect to what I'm arguing.

---

The success in establishing new varieties rather argues that human selection operates quite effectively, more so than nature typically manages. But no new species. If selection is all there is that is definitely odd. If there is more to it, then it is far less surprising.

quote:

---

But it's a good enough way of answering assertions that I am wrong, which is really all that has been offered here, not evidence.

---

The fact that the animal breeds developed by humans do not become species - even your idea of species - is evidence that you are wrong. Asserting that conventional understanding - which produces no such expectation - is wrong is hardly an answer.

Well, you should remember. I cited the cat breeds known as the American Curl, the Scottish Fold, the American Wirehair, the LaPerm, the Selkirk Rex and the Munchkin. These are all recently produced breeds, so we know by direct observation how these breeds were produced.Meanwhile, you have cited no examples where we can see happening what you say should happen. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis. Again, the observations I referred you to prove that you are wrong.

But it is what POWERS evolution, Natural Selection was his explanation for how evolution is possible. I don't remember that from the Origin of Species for some reason, but I'll take your word for it. For microevolution or evolution within the Species or Kind, there is plenty of built-in variety and Mendel's work covers it just fine. But yes you would something more for evolution to be the way all life formed from previous life. Yes I'm aware of the usual list of "Processes of Evolution" but I'm making a point about what I call the selective processes since that is when you are getting new phenotypes that come to characterize a new subspecies, which is, after all, where you can see evolution happening. It's what people generally mean when they say evolution is something we can see happening. It's the visible changes that are evolution in action -- the changes from the rock pigeon to all of Darwin's breeds; the change from the mainland tortoise to the Galapagos tortoise; the changes from the original species of finch to all the different finches; the change from the lizards released on Pod Mrcaru to the large-headed lizards they found there thirty years later; the change from the black wildebeest to the blue wildebeest; the changes from wild cattle to all the different breeds of cattle; the changes from the wolf to all the different breeds of dogs. THAT is what people think of as evolution. It's microevolution of course. But the point is that we don't think of the additive processes as evolution in the same way. Breeders never did anything of the sort, they isolated a very small pool of dogs to breed, or chose one particular trait and bred the dog that possessed it. NOW they are careful about the genetics, as I said, because they are aware that their earlier drastic methods produced genetic problems, and that's why they breed other dogs with their chosen breed. My point was that both selection and the isolation of a daughter population have the same effect in changing allele frequency and both have the same result in reducing genetic diversity, selection by favoring a particular trait or traits the same way isolating random individuals does, and that entails losing the genetic material for competing traits. The point is they work the same way in the end with the same results in the end. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.