Summations Only

But the numbers are not important to the argument. Population size isn't really relevant, since there is nothing that I have described that couldn't happen in a large population, or couldn't happen in a medium-sized population, or that couldn't happen in a small population so long as it's large enough to be viable at all. And since all I'm trying to get through to you is the sort of thing that could happen, the population sizes don't matter. In the same way, the only allele frequency that even affects the likelihood of the scenario is that of f₂.Heck, make up some numbers yourself. Pick some number so that P is initially large, so that Q was initially small enough (or the incidence of f₂ is low enough) that it's plausible that we lost the allele f₂, and so that the island is large and fertile enough that Q quickly grew to be considerably larger than it was originally. Sure, yes, increasing the total genetic diversity still further. You may be interested in this bit of math I did. You mean like the Lenski experiment?---While doing the math with algebra and, God forbid, calculus, is forbidding in all but the simplest cases, it is easy enough to simulate the behavior of a population on a computer; and by doing that let's say a thousand times and averaging, to get nice curves showing the average behavior of the population. I have often done this before, though never to demonstrate the bleedin' obvious, and I guess I could do it again. (The one constraint is computer time: the populations and the number of genes need to be reasonably small, say 10 genes and a population in the low hundreds, so the program doesn't take a stupidly long time to run.)

No, apart from f₂ I didn't mention the allele frequencies, and it is irrelevant what they are. They can be what you like, so long as we don't get all of one kind of allele in Q, leaving P bereft of that allele, because that would be a different example. My only supposition is that one in three of the heterozygous alleles would become homogeneous due to the founder effect, which I put in because I thought it would be nice to have the founder effect as one of the processes. The remaining details of allele frequencies are immaterial, which is why I didn't mention them.

And I have noted the changes in allele frequency but not quantified them. If you like, I will go back and make up numbers for the allele frequencies, but perhaps first you would like to explain what I would prove by doing so. What is unrealistic about it?

Do you have any evidence for this design of which you speak?If so, please show us the evidence.

Here, my hypothetical example now has hypothetical allele frequencies. This adds nothing to the example except illegibility, but you asked for them, so here they are:Let's start with:P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 50% d₁, 50% d₂, 60% e₁, 40% e₂, 90% f₁, 10% f₂}Now let a subpopulation of P get swept out to sea and deposited on an island, giving us population Q. Since you like the founder effect, let's suppose that the founders of Q have no examples of f₂.P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 49% d₁, 51% d₂, 64% e₁, 36% e₂, 89% f₁, 11% f₂}
Q = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 20% e₁, 80% e₂, 100% f₁}Note that this does not make Q a new variety, since there is no animal in Q that couldn't be found in P.Now let a mutation produce a new allele b₂ in Q. It is neutral and does not achieve fixation but fluctuates in the gene pool.P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 48% d₁, 52% d₂, 62% e₁, 38% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₁, 77% b₁, 23% b₂, 100% c₁, 61% d₁, 39% d₂, 19% e₁, 81% e₂, 100% f₁}Now there are some members of Q that look different from anything in P, but by no means all.Now let a mutation a₂ arise in Q ...P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 48% d₁, 52% d₂, 61% e₁, 39% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {99% a₁, 1% a₂, 77% b₁, 23% b₂, 100% c₁, 62% d₁, 38% d₂, 20% e₁, 80% e₂, 100% f₁}... which is favored by natural selection and is fixed in the population ...P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 47% d₁, 53% d₂, 61% e₁, 39% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 76% b₁, 24% b₂, 100% c₁, 62% d₁, 38% d₂, 22% e₁, 78% e₂, 100% f₁}Now we have one trait which allows us to distinguish P from Q. There is no reason why the same thing shouldn't happen to gene c: an allele c₂ arises in Q ...P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 47% d₁, 53% d₂, 61% e₁, 39% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 76% b₁, 24% b₂, 99% c₁, 1% c₂, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 21% e₁, 79% e₂, 100% f₁}... and being better suited to the island, displaces c₁ ...P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 46% d₁, 54% d₂, 58% e₁, 42% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 75% b₁, 25% b₂, 100% c₂, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 22% e₁, 78% e₂, 100% f₁}Then let a new allele e₃ be produced ...P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 45% d₁, 55% d₂, 58% e₁, 42% e₂, 87% f₁, 13% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 75% b₁, 25% b₂, 100% c₂, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 22% e₁, 77% e₂, 1% e₃, 100% f₁}The conclusion is of course exactly the same as in the original example, since the conclusion does not in any way refer to the frequencies of alleles but only to their presence or absence.

Feel free to interpolate between the stages I showed you. Happy now? Yeah, it's a hypothetical example. I said. But it shows how given known processes --- mutation, drift, selection, and the founder effect --- you can get new varieties by these mechanisms rather than by whatever mechanism you're postulating in your head, and get them without a net loss of genetic diversity.Unless you can point to any of the processes and say: "But that couldn't happen because ...", or point to any of the two stages and say "But you can't get from there to there because ...", then you need to concede that this is the sort of thing that could happen. Show your working. If you're going to pretend to have a quantitative argument, you need to have some actual figures, maybe some actual math.

Making new species does not necessarily cost net alleles, as has been amply demonstrated. Geneticists think different. You remember geneticists? Those people who study genetics? And who disagree with you, a person whose knowledge of genetics is so nugatory that I have more than once seen you try and fail to define the word "mutation".

I don't know what you mean by "involved", but your "process" does need to involve showing us some evidence.SHow us the evidence.

I observe that Dawn's "last summary note" contains absolutely no evidence for creationism.In this respect it is indeed the perfect summary of Dawn's posts.At least Faith tried, though trying the same thing that failed the last half dozen times looks less like enterprise and more like obstinacy, or indeed amnesia. Still, at least she can communicate her trivial errors in the English language, whereas Dawn cannot.

So, you still have no evidence for creationism?But I notice that you do have incoherent off-topic whining.Wouldn't you rather have evidence?

Dawn has demonstrated no evidence in favor of creationism, despite being asked to do so about a jillion times.This is a strange way to behave: someone who wants to pretend that creationism is scientific would be well advised to pretend to have some evidence for it.