Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

You are seriously delusional if you think you understand anything of what I've been arguing.

You are seriously delusional if you think your little formula is any kind of answer to what I've been arguing.

No it doesn't and if you understood the argument you'd know why it doesn't.

To get a new subspecies, species or breed requires the loss of genetic diversity. If it isn't lost or at least reduced, you don't get a subspecies, species or breed. In nature the purest way this occurs is by geographic isolation. Domestic breeders do it by intentional mating. An increase in genetic diversity in either case will blur the emerging phenotypes, and as long as reproductive isolation is maintained there is no reason to have an increase.The occasional mutation, assuming it gets expressed as a phenotype, is easily removed from the breed. But most won't get expressed as phenotypes. Mutations that do that are rather rare as I understand it. And most are something neither nature nor the domestic breeder would find helpful anyway. You get a breed or a new species by LOSS of genetic diversity. That's how it happens.If you don't want a breed you don't have to have one, you can have all the genetic diversity you like, but enough to make up for the loss required to bring out a new breed would destroy the breed entirely. If that's what you want as a breeder, you can have it, you just won't have your breed, you'll have something else.In nature if gene flow between populations continues while a population has at least partial reproductive isolation, you may get a recognizable breed, but reproductive isolation that prevents gene flow should bring out the most dramatic new phenotypes.In other words if you DO get mutations as you expect they'll increase the genetic diversity somewhat to change your species or breed, and if it's enough mutations to make up for the loss in arriving at the new species or breed you'll just not have that species or breed at all. You'll be back at Square One as far as evolution of new species goes.Possibly the blue wildebeest emerged from the black by some of the black simply getting separated from the parent black population for some number of generations while their collective new gene frequencies brought out the blueish coloring, the new body build and the new antler style. Some gene flow might not impede the process too much but the ideal condition, or at least the clearest condition to explain, is complete reproductive isolation for producing the new species of wildebeest.It's a very simple and obvious formula: losing genetic diversity is what gets a new subspecies in the wild or a breed in domesticity. There's no problem with this unless you lose a LOT of genetic diversity. And a new species/population such as the blue wildebeest, could in fact be stable for hundreds of years. This is all hypothetical, I'm talking about how it could have happened. Reality is usually messier, of course, involving continued gene flow for instance, but the trend that brings out new species is the LOSS of genetic diversity.If you have a large population with lots of genetic diversity and many viable mutations, it will be a motley collection of many phenotypes. It could only become a new species if selection or some kind of reproductive isolation favored a particular set of phenotypes out of the whole collection of phenotypes, over many generations, creating a new subpopulation with its own characteristics, perhaps even within the greater population. And that subpopulation will lose the genotypes for the NONfavored or unselected phenotypes, as those for the favored/selected come to characterize the new subpopulation. There is no way to get a new phenotypic presentation without such a loss.I really don't know if you are obtuse or willfully pretending to be. If pretending, that's understandable, of course, in a diehard evo who couldn't bear to find out the ToE is wrong and there is a God who constructed this biological pattern, because this is definitely a pattern that contradicts the ToE and shows that it could never work.

I was actually addressing Dr. A's statements ...

Clearly you DON'T understand since you still think it stands. Periods of increase can happen of course, but during those periods you are not getting selection, isolation or indeed evolution, meaning change in a whole population, WHICH IS WHAT MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT.

You are certainly very good at saying absolutely nothing as if you were saying something. I don't deny that mutations increase genetic diversity, what I deny is that it changes my argument.

Faith, message#4 writes:If evolution, meaning the production of a population-wide change in phenotypic presentation (black wildebeests to blue wildebeests, normal lizards to large-headed lizards, Darwin’s finches and so on, all changes normally called evolution) always requires a reduction in genetic diversity, that is obviously contrary to what evolution needs in order to do what the ToE says it does.

That would only be true, assuming the additions were viable, which they aren't ...

which they aren't but anyway, it would only be true IF the reduction in genetic diversity was not necessary to make new species.

Variation of phenotypes requires reduction of genetic variability.

Darwin didn't realize that selection requires this reduction.

Again, variation according to Darwin (and me) is the emergence of new phenotypes, it has nothing to do with adding genetic diversity.

I really truly can't believe you are this dense.

Or they are built in from Creation.

The fact that selection is required doesn't mean it couldn't be mutations that provide the variety ...

AND EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, it doesn't matter because the selective processes that bring about the new species will always reduce it and that will always be the overall trend of those processes ...

What is not understood is that selecting for some variations and against others means the loss of the genotypes for the others. Nothing is added, only lost, in the selection of some variations over others.

his is what was wrong with your "refutation" of my argument by the picture of all the dog breeds. Each of those breeds has only a small selected portion of the genetic diversity in the whole dog population, and it's the BREEDS that are "evolving," showing that evolution of new types requires that loss. It's in EACH breed that the argument is made. It's THERE that you see the formation of new phenotypes. It is THERE that evolution is going on. It really matters not one whit what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the breed is selected ...

But then you want to add mutations and destroy those breeds? But then you don't have the platform for further evolution, you're back at Square One.

I've tried many times to create a graphic representation of this. I always find some way I'm misrepresenting what I want to represent and have to start over. And Paint is a klutzy medium which makes representing sufficient numbers to get across the point especially difficult.

The problem is that geneticists, biologists, geologists etc. all subscribe to the ToE and always think according to its principles no matter how false and misleading they are. This gives you all a certain denseness when it comes to thinking outside the box.

And if mutations are also contributing to that diversity a lot more. But you don't have your new flower, your new variety.

It's not a matter of "winning," it's that you can ONLY get a new breed or variety or species by subtracting, and if instead you add you will lose the breed or variety or species.

Do you picture evolution as a process of making breeds/species and losing them then? Isn't it supposed to proceed by building upon what's already been established? If you add mutations you aren't building, you are losing the species you already had.

Mutations don't add "many races," they just change the existing race or breed or variety etc.

They aren't thinking of reduction of genetic diversity at all, of loss at all ...

It's ADDING genetic diversity when you already have a breed or variety or species that destroys that breed or variety or species.

Yours is basically undecipherable.

I've many times tried to construct a similar graphic representation. It doesn't work.