How do you define the word Evolution?

Apologies: this was intended as a response to Message 889As I keep pointing out there is no need for sustained decline in diversity. A mutant allele replacing the previous version is still evolution.Thus your "boundary" must either be purely based on what did happen, and is therefore useless or must incorporate all possible trajectories of evolution and still be useless.Any useful definition of macroevolution must at least include examples of evolution that is believed to have happened by the mainstream theory. But according to your definition if they happened they cannot be macroevolution - which rules out knowing that they are examples.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Sarcasm aside, Dr Adequate is right. You haven't come close to showing that there must be an inevitable decline.The pocket mouse population has gained multiple alleles for dark fur. This is an increase in genetic diversity. If this increase was wiped out, such that only the dark mice were left there would still be no overall decrease in diversity, from the state before the mutations occurred but there would be a change in phenotype.Thus it is obviously false to say that evolution requires an overall decrease in genetic diversity.And that has been obvious all along to everyone who has actually thought about the issue.

quote:

---

The decrease occurs in the EVOLVING population, and it must occur. Doesn't matter what the source of the black fur is, to get a whole population characterized by that black fur means losing the alleles for other colors of fur.

---

Again you miss the point. If you start with one allele, add others and then reduce the number back to one there is no overall decrease. 1 + 1 - 1 = 1

quote:

---

This is not particularly important in this situation with the variation of only one trait, it's more of an issue in a population that forms by migration and reproductive isolation, which brings about new gene frequencies.

---

Of course there is no reason why the same cannot happen with other genes, so the number of traits involved is irrelevant.

quote:

---

There is always a trend to reduction but it would be only at the extreme that it would become noticeable, such as at the end of a series of ring species.

---

That is your assumption. You've produced no evidence of ring species showing any reduction. Indeed, since the inability to reproduce is far more likely to be due to mutations than it is to genetic depletion it is hard to see how you can even imagine it to be true.

quote:

---

Oh you know I've given the evidence many times.

---

I know that you are pretending to have evidence.

quote:

---

The evidence is in the obvious logic based for one thing on breeding practices (until the recent recognition that they have to keep up some level of genetic diversity to prevent genetic diseases), which make it very very clear that you don't get a breed, and certainly not a pure breed, without the loss of alleles for other characteristics.

---

A species is not the same as a "pure breed". Besides all you are doing is repeating the argument I have already refuted multiple times.

quote:

---

The ultimate condition of decreased genetic diversity is fixed loci, or homozygosity for all the salient characteristics of the breed -- or wild population.

---

And yet the pocket mice demonstrate otherwise, as has already been pointed out.

quote:

---

You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't.

---

And repeating the same falsehood again after I have shown it to be false doesn't help you.