Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

If you want to make headway in having your theory viewed more seriously, you should appreciate that this particular statement is one which causes major difficulty in your making progress in this group. To a large degree this point is the crux of your theory. It is the one that most exposes your analogy between breeding and evolution.I am going to offer two reasons why people might easily dismiss your position based on this point alone. It is up to you how you deal with these reasons. My guess is that you'll simply dismiss my post as not understanding you.1. When it comes to breeds of dogs, we can appreciate that breeders must remove any effect that causes any phenotype change, because that would cause a problem in the eyes of those wanting a certain look. This removal might include the expression of recessive genes as well as phenotypic changes resulting those from mutation. Accordingly one might say that mutations interfere with the creation of a breed and still be taken seriously. (It might even be necessary to remove traits that are directly expressed because of the combination or to introduce dogs from outside of the original types chosen, but we will ignore that for the current discussion)However when we look at natural species, nobody sees the variation in some traits as any kind of obstacle to that animal being born or existing other than having that trait deselected by natural selection. And natural selection simply does not have a breeders eye towards removing diversity.Generally we define species based the phenotypic and genotypic differences between animals. If an animal in the wild has a distinct physiology or genetic make up, we may define that animal to be in a different species but there is no obstacle to that animals formation. And that animal might well be found living amongst its siblings in a population despite their differences. It is only our definition or classification scheme that would makes a dark moth a different species than a white moth, if we do elect to arrive at such a classification. If we include those different phenotypes in our definition, then the species has increased diversity as a result of mutation. But if we separate them out, then we have two species with less diversity. Only when some other force wipes out on of the two phenotypes will we say that overall diversity has decreased. Prior to that time, unless the populations are separated or become non inter fertile, the overall effect is increased biological diversity for the species. And even after separation there is overall increased biodiversity in the world taken as a whole.Here is the second reason and probably more significant reason.2. We can look at the humans within a single race, and we do not find the homogeneous collection of beings you are insisting on. There are some gross features that they all share, but even folks within a single race vary greatly in height, persistence in lactase tolerance, eye color, hair color and texture, body hair extent, etc. Of course we could further classify those folks into individual types, but that would be an entirely artificial thing to do. In reality all of those folks live together, work for and with each other, marry each other, and their offspring may have any of those traits. Humans then have the potential to become more diverse as a species as long as we don't elect to cull folks out using some kind of eugenics program.The fact is that a mutation which causes a new phenotype within any of a large number of non essential characteristics quite obviously would not prevent the offspring of a Caucasian human from being considered a Caucasian human being. Even a mutation which provided kinky hair and darker than average skin would not make a baby a different species despite how folks might react to such a person socially. So when you talk about mutations ruining a species, people understandably resist such a statement. Our experience with the most visible species on earth simply does not agree with what you are saying. You yourself possess something like 50 mutations, and none of those mutations change your species.Once a mutation shows up that gives humans laser beam eyes or wings, then we 'might' decide that those variations are another species. But I bet we would not consider humans with a proto-tail to be a different species.Add on top of that that racial classifications are themselves artificial and that all humans currently alive are actually in the same species and sub species, and that those folk routinely have interracial offspring, and you might see that the idea you press becomes even less persuasive.Deal with those two arguments successfully, and I guarantee you that folks will take you more seriously at least to the point of providing more serious arguments. But I for one cannot accept your conclusion without a satisfactory response.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Interesting. I think your mistake here is to assume that Darwin being right or wrong about a specific case means anything at all? Let's assume that Darwin completely missed the boat regarding those pigeons. How would that lesson apply to the evolution of moths in a situation where we know exactly why there are black and white moths. We know to a high degree of certainty that there were no black moths prior to a mutation appearing.And of course we do know about genetics.But let's consider Darwin's observation. And a simple case of recessive vs dominant genes. How would Darwin have missed the fact that one fourth of the pigeons already had those traits? I believe your sup Is this a new trait or one that we simply failed to see in the past? Have you eliminated all of the pink versions in the entire world, or just in your current population? Is the result of what you have created a new species or just a new variety of the original species? If it is a new species, under what definition is the new color not simply a variant of the old? Is it simply "because Faith says it is a new species"? Why can we not have a later mutation that changes the color of the stamen in the flowers where that change propagates to be about 1/4th of the population? Do you believe that every trait gets selected for our against?I think your example might be helpful in giving people a place to describe their objections, but I don't believe it proves your point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's take a look at that breed with such depleted genetic diversity that you would say that the breed would not allow further evolution. What would be the result of futher mutations in such a breed? I understand that you claim those mutations would somehow "ruin" the breed? Why is that bad? Why couldn't those dogs with new traits be the start of a new breed? Why do they instead constitute only ruin?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.