Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

I will grant you that the comparison is extremely apt.So is this something I can persuade you to bet money on?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And it has been pointed out to you that the desires of breeders do not affect the operation of mutation and selection in the wild. And now that you admit that mutations exist and increase genetic diversity you cannot "prove" this by adducing the "fact" that they don't. So on what basis do you propose to establish it?Let's remind you again. Two wolves: Dogs: The genetic diversity of Canis lupus has increased, has it not?

Yes, selection decreases diversity. Mutation adds it. The question of whether in a given case net diversity has been decreased or increased is an empirical one. You mean like all those dog breeds have "wrecked" C. lupus? And like all those different chihuahuas have "wrecked" the chihuahua breed?Well, the laws of nature don't care whether you think genetic diversity is a good thing or a bad thing, they just go on adding genetic diversity regardless.

Similarly, there are no winning lottery tickets because most of them lose. That's Creationist Logic.

Actually, Faith, you don't get to redefine the English language on a whim.

Is it your theory that there are no deleterious alleles?

Well, there is something benign about them, namely their complete benignity.

There is a difference, but it is not expressed by using the word "allele" only for beneficial alleles and some other word for the rest.That is not how the English language works, Faith. Instead, we modify nouns with adjectives in order to describe their qualities. So for example we speak of beneficial alleles and deleterious alleles. As I pointed out, the phenotypic diversity results from genetic diversity. For example, the reason that those chihuahuas have different coat colors is that they have different alleles for coat color. You should really learn to distinguish between things you find out and things you make up. Because we do not live in the insane fantasy-land that exists in your demented little head, Faith.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You goddamned liar. You goddamned liar. Well, if this was coherent it might actually be true. Mutations cause alleles; a polymorphic gene is by definition one with more than one allele. Since this is true by definition, it would indeed be flabbergasting if you'd only just realized this.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It doesn't, as you admit later in the same paragraph. Faith. This is how the English language works. Nouns are modified by adjectives. We do not have one word for a red boat, and another for a blue boat. Instead we qualify the word "boat" by the words "blue" or "red", as the case may be. We do not have one word for a broken hairdryer and another word for a functioning hairdryer. Rather, we speak of "a broken hairdryer" and "a functioning hairdryer" respectively. And instead of having three different nouns for beneficial alleles, neutral alleles, and deleterious alleles, we speak of "beneficial alleles", "neutral alleles", and "deleterious alleles".You may think that this is dishonest, Faith, but given that the English language has in current usage about 80,000 nouns and 40,000 adjectives, if we did things your way the English language would have to have a vocabulary consisting of over three billion words, which would make it insuperably difficult to learn.

Oh, that's easy. In the Faith Theory Of Evolution And Not Reading Good, the only bit that counts is the bit highlighted in red, which is a loss of genetic diversity. The other stuff is irrelevant, as is the fact that genetic diversity has increased.

Yes they are. For example, if I want to say that an allele is deleterious, I use the adjective "deleterious". If I want to say that an allele is beneficial, I use the adjective "beneficial". Yes. This is how nouns work. In the same way, though we can speak of "a red boat" or "a blue boat", the word "boats" is used alone to designate every boat.This is how the English language works, Faith.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If that is not in fact your argument, then all the words you have spent on expounding that point of view would seem to have been wasted.

Yes, we understand that you're "focused on" certain biological process, while completely ignoring others. This is what makes your argument so stupid. You: All birds are flightless.
Us: What about owls and robins and finches and hummingbirds and ...
You: I'm not focusing on those. I'm focusing on ostriches and kiwis.
Us: But the other birds exist whether or not you "focus on" them.
You: Also evolutionary processes must inevitably reduce genetic diversity until evolution grinds to a halt.
Us: What about mutations?
You: I'm not focusing on that.

So, you're not "focusing on" the bit where diversity is added.Yeah, my point. Again, we are familiar with your desperate, impotent attempts to evade reality, and we understand them perfectly. We are merely unconvinced.