Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

Except that they are versions that did not exist in the population prior to the mutation, accordingly, with respect to the entire population, they are an increase in diversity. Some members carrying the new version while others carry the old is no more of a 'breaking of the species' than is some people having brown eyes while others have blue eyes. The entire idea that mutations ruin the breed not to be taken seriously. Yet is apparently and idea that is vital to your proposition.It ought to be completely unnecessary to say such things, but such a mutation of a single trait, can conceivably spread through a percentage of the population without displacing any other alleles in members who did not have inherit the new allele. If so, the diversity within the population has increased. If it never turns out that the trait has an advantage, then the entire population remains a single species with increased diversity.

Well no. My statement was not intended to be a statement of proof that some allele already did or did not already exist. Instead it is a response to your claim that if mutation did produce a new allele, that would not matter. Clearly your labeling the point of discussion that you yourself brought up as something reflecting on me makes no sense at all. If there is any silliness involved here it is your own.It appears you are losing track of exactly what is being discussed and on what basis we are arguing. If you want to assume that mutations do not produce new alleles, that's one thing. But here you claimed that any new alleles would not make a difference because they are just like the old ones. You've simply jumped the shark here in an extremely transparent fashion.As has been mentioned dozens of times, what you attack here is not the theory of evolution, but is instead some weaker theory that Darwin already said does not work. Your much better of just denying that mutations do not create new alleles.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is not hard to understand. You are correct. It would be unwanted. If it occurred, a breeder would be forced to do something about not getting what he wants. Something like having the animal neutered and given to his kids to play with. How is the fact that something is undesirable to breeders a reason why the problem cannot occur.You make a number of statements such as 'mutations are not needed', 'look at the large amount of variation available without mutation', or 'mutations are unwanted'. None of that stuff is even the tiniest bit of an argument that mutations do not produce new alleles. Why you continue to repeat such things, with emphasis no less, or with comments impugning my intelligence is difficult to understand. It does not make you look good.One thing to that might help is understanding that the rate of mutations is low enough that the probability of a significant one in a few individuals is relatively low. If you are working with a few dozen dogs in a breeding program, the overwhelming majority of them won't have issues with mutations. But if a few offspring did have problems, the breeder would remove them from the program.For that matter, the presence of dominant and recessive allele's required removing dogs from the breeding program anyway. Are you also going to answer that there are no such things as recessive genes because that interferes with breeding? Since dogs have multiple pups per birthing over a significant breeding period, the problem you identify may not a big issue. Is that too hard to understand?On the other hand, sometimes breeding programs fail to produce the desired result. "I don't want it" just is not a force that makes nature behave. Sorry, but that's life in the big universe. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So what was the 'Tree of Life'? Genesis 3:21 says that eating from the Tree of Life produces immortality and that after Adam sinned, that he must be prevented from eating from the tree of life. Given that Adam was originally allowed to eat from that tree, it seems that Adams immortality must have been bound up in eating from the tree.As far as I can tell, there is no direct language about animals living forever, and I believe the idea that no animals died prior to the fall is doctrinal.

The scope of the term 'death' is certainly not clear. I am pretty sure from past discussions that you will agree that the term death as used in that text did not include the passing away of microbes like the ones in Adam's gut or in that of cattle, or the passing away of the plants Adam ate. Did the enterring of death via sin then apply also to animals other than Man? There is no explicit confirmation that it did, and plenty of reason to doubt that it did. There Bible describes no salvation plan for any animals other than humans. Seriously, if eating animals by other animals is evil behavior, what would you call wearing their hides on your feet?Secondly, the Bible does not suggest that death entered the world because God messed with either Adam's physiology or his genome. The text says that God exiled Adam from the garden for the specified purpose of separating him from the Tree of Life and immortality. God then sent an angel with a flaming sword to block access to the Tree of Life.So, if you are making up stuff about the human genome based on the Fall, then your argument is not strongly supported by the Bible alone, but is subject to your interpretation of the Bible. After all, even if evolution and mutation were not involved in the creation of humanity, there is still no Biblical reason that variations since then did not include mutation at least for powering microevolution, and thus no reason to separate the scientific and Biblical explanations based on mutation. Extra-Biblical doctrine is required to make such arguments.

I don't think 'standard creationist thinking' includes any opinion about genetic diversity. Creationists in general don't bother with this stuff. Your theory about why evolution does not work is something I have never heard any other espoused by any other creationist, including the doctors who believe that evolution is 'lies from the pits of hell' and those thinkers from the Discovery Institute.But yeah, your ideas about death are fairly standard creationist thinking, despite the problems I've identified with that thinking.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What is "it"? Often it is the unspecified pronouns that muddle thinking.Loss of information is a completely different idea than what you propose in this thread. In essence the 'loss of information' idea is an attempt to say that evolution cannot accumulate to produce anything useful, and not that mutations, if mutation did create new alleles, could not add diversity in a meaningful way.So yours, and conventional Creationism are two entirely distinct and not even wholly compatible approaches. And quite frankly, neither approach is actually required by a literal reading of Genesis. All that is required is that the actual origin of man was by special creation 6000 years ago. If that is the case, then there is insufficient time for evolution to work even if it is possible and no need to demonstrate that evolution cannot work. And of course both ideas do have some things in common. Both insist that evolution cannot work when all that is needed is a statement that it was not used, and both of them have the same issues with the Biblical text that I've discussed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's clearly not the case. Standard creationist thinking does not have anything to do with a loss of genetic diversity. That is entirely your own 'theory'. Clearly not the same thing. And I've explained the difference. The only thing they have in common is that neither allows evolution. But the method of operation is completely different. I suppose the difference little matters if you merely want things to be 'generally compatible' with each other and the Bible.

No, it is not a version of your argument. It is a version of an argument that you have used in the past, and may still believe, namely that mutations create nothing but disease and trash. But your current argument is that even if mutation creates new alleles, there is a net loss of diversity due to evolution.The two arguments are distinguishable in terms of the types of evidence necessary to overturn them. Yours requires only the direct evidence we are able to point to.

Not correct. You have to lose the genetic material for some traits, not for all traits. And of course presumably all of those chihuahuas are the same breed. And of course the point is that apparently simply having a different set of traits does not kick you out of the breed. Do you not understand the problem this created for your point? Chihuahuas are a single breed with huge genetic diversity. How does this happen.

So there is some evidence for the theory of evolution. No reason... no reason.That would be right, except that there is no evidence of your "isolation effect" producing anything other than cosmetic changes already possible in the original population. Here you've admitted that there is at least some evidence supporting natural selection. But there is none for what you propose.Dog breeding involves strong selection rather than mere isolation, and in fact, generally involves selecting and removing offspring that do not fit the desired breed. That requirement for strong selection having nothing to do with fitness is the reason why breeds don't appear in the wild. Originally all dogs looks like domesticated wolves. Despite the fact that dogs and man have lived together for countless thousands (hundreds of thousand actually) of years, most modern breeds are less than 100 years old. Pretty strong evidence that your nonsense does not work. Yet here you argue that natural selection is no factor and only selection produces change. That's more evidence for the TOE, so where is your evidence against natural selection? Heck we can observe natural selection directly.I understand the need to have evidence against the theory of evolution, and also the need to find evidence supporting your own view. You've explained your opinion that Darwinism displaces God. But that's only for folks that buy into YEC style creationism. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Please describe the breeding history of Great Danes so that we can confirm that it was created by simply isolating some wolf like animals without applying any forced selection. Surely you would not cite them as evidence without such information? And how have you ruled out natural selection in the case of the lizards? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You call isolation alone primary based on what? Again how do you rule out the effects of natural selection as merely secondary? How do you conclude that Great Danes support your proposition while knowing diddly squat about their breeding history?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A distinction with little difference. Even with a population beginning with small numbers the questions of selection pressure and mutation are still issues. You are trying to demonstrate that those factors do not play roles, and you have yet to do so. Yes, there are reasons to raise the question of natural selection because some of the new traits do make the lizards more fit for their environment. But more importantly, if you are going to claim that these lizards of examples, you are obliged to rule out other factors. In other words, you really don't have any details to discuss. You cannot rule out breeding selection by humans or mutations, or even natural selection. Not because they are a cross, but because you know diddly squat about how the breed arose. Obviously you cannot mate more than two dogs to make any one litter, but beyond that you have no idea how many dogs were used, or how often dogs were removed or added to the gene pool.Again, nobody breeds animals by simply putting small numbers of them in a pen and then letting them chose their own mates. Every parent is carefully chosen with traits in breeding pairs chosen to give targeted qualities. I demonstrated and example by pointing to how the Golden Retrievers breed was established. How convincing is the Great Dane story in comparison?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Selection of the type breeders engage in, whereby any diversity that appears and is undesirable is removed. However natural selection does not necessarily remove all new traits. Instead it chooses between those which affect survival (fitness). Traits that do not affect fitness are able to drift through the population.