"Best" evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

All populations that have an identifiable homogenous composite phenotype (to use dwise's term which I think is a good one) have a reduced genetic diversity compared to the parent population they came from.

---

I disagree. It will take time, but if the daughter population is successful I expect it to catch up with the diversity of the parent population. There is no reason why it cannot.

quote:

---

It's got nothing to do with any "mqaximum" of diversity, it's a relative thing: daughter populations formed from a small portion of the parent population, that form in reproductive isolation, and are not subject to gene flow, have reduced genetic diversity from the parent population.

---

What you originally said definitely DID relate to a maximum, since you claimed: That is NOT relative.

quote:

---

instead of just pronouncing me wrong you have to prove me wrong and you always fail to do so.

---

Of course I have succeeded in proving you wrong on occasion. However, I need not do so, I only need to show that you lack a good case for your position.Indeed, even here you are arguing a different point rather than defend your original statement - and even so you have not made a case.

quote:

---

Breeds are just like this kind of populaton in the wild that forms from a limited number of individuals in reproductive isolation.

---

No, they are not. Produce examples if you disagree. Genuine examples, not recognised species.

quote:

---

Genetically it's the same situation and reduced genetic diversity is always the necessary concomitant to the development of the new population or subpopulation or species or subspecies or varliety or whatever you want to call it.

---

But it is only temporarily necessary. There is nothing stopping diversity from increasing again.

quote:

---

Mutation really has no role in this as I discussed above, and most of it is just wishful thinking anyway, as beneficial mutations don't occur frequently or fast enough to have the effects you imagine.

---

You are the one engaging in wishful thinking, not least because neutral mutations are quite sufficient to restore diversity. You have no numbers to back up your claims.

quote:

---

Besides which, as I show above, they would only destroy any newly formed subpopulation's composite phenotype, or any breed, if they did occur, because they are just one form of gene flow which destroys what selection is trying to do.

---

You have never shown any such thing. You just keep saying it, without even an attempt to support it. Why do you say these things when you must know they aren’t true?In reality selection is not trying to do anything and the idea that new variations must directly target the loci under selection is obviously foolish. Yet if those loci are not targeted the obviously there can be no interference with selection. You obviously have not thought it through.

quote:

---

Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.

---

Sadly for you Faith, reality doesn’t not agree that it ought to be the way you want it. Maybe you ought to have a real argument instead of a collection of unlikely opinions, but you don’t.That is why you keep losing. And why this silly pretence if yours is a waste of time.

quote:

---

TYou guys sling around the word "reality" as if that in itself made your comments realistic, but it's just a lot of hot air.

---

No, that’s you.

quote:

---

Someday reality will bite you in the butt and you'll know what reality really is.

---

Yeah, sure, when the AntiChrist comes and grants you the power you deserve you’ll brutally punish everyone who dared to tell the truth. I won’t be holding my breath.

quote:

---

You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say.

---

I think that the problem is that you don’t understand the concept of following your reasoning. We can certainly recognise and understand your reasoning - what little you present - without agreeing with it’s conclusions.

quote:

---

Cuz the term implies macroevolution and all that's really going on is normal variation within a species which is microevolution.

---

That is incorrect, it is macroevolution - and if normal variation within a species causes mutual infertility I’d like to see some evidence. Also, simply refusing to admit that is speciation doesn’t change the fact that it is.

quote:

---

It just happens to be occurring at a level of genetic reduction so that the usual changes are dramatic enough to make continued interbreeding impossible for one reason or another, either genetic mismatch or geographic isolation or sexual selection.

---

Even ordinary within-species variation includes mutation as we know. And there is no reason to think genetic reduction causes infertility, certainly not as a general rule. Chromosomal variations seem to be important in some cases, like the incompatibility between horses and donkeys.

quote:

---

The term "speciation" is a bogus tendentious word dictated by the ToE

---

This is a complete falsehood. Your personal dislike does not make it bogus or even tendentious, and it is dictated by the definition of species - a concept which predates the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

My guess is that a study of the genetic situation would show a reduction in genetic diversity (toward increase homozygosity) in jthe new population as versus the parent population. Cdertainly that's obvious enough in the case of a split into two separate populations: each would have reduced genetic diversity comparied to the parent population

---

While it is likely that a population appreciably smaller than the original would have reduced genetic variation it is not true that the larger population will always be appreciably smaller than the original. Also both populations will include mutations that did not occur in the other (the larger population will have more, but they are more likely to be fixed - take over the population - in the smaller)

quote:

---

This is always denied but it has to be so and that should be demonstrable too..

---

It is certainly not always denied.

quote:

---

Severely genetically depleted animals cannot interbreed with others of the same species. Cheetah.

---

Can’t they? Cheetahs do breed, obviously. Besides, this severe genetic depletion is not a normal condition.(ABE) and let’s point out that the situation you are supposed to be addressing is where there are two populations each of which can breed perfectly well - but can’t interbreed. The cheetahs don’t address that at all.

quote:

---

Any very small portion of a population will have strongly reduced genetic diversity from the parent population.

---

I doubt that it will be that strong, unless it is a very tiny population that probably isn’t viable.

quote:

---

Even larger population splits will have some reduction in genetic diversity.

---

As I said, there is a relationship with population size, but it certainly isn’t linear.

quote:

---

When microevolution occurs through a series of population splits it progressively reduces genetic diversity in each new population

---

Only if the population continuously declines, which is a very unlikely case.

quote:

---

After enough such population splits that continue from one population to the next in reproductive isolation the genetic diversity could become as depleted as that of the cheetah.

---

Funny how there isn’t a single example of that happening. Or it would be if you weren’t making uninformed speculations.

quote:

---

It's still the same species but won't be able to interpbreed because of genetic mismatch.

---

I think that if cheetahs have fertility problems it will be due to genetic matches, not mismatches. Recessive genes, causing problems. But please if you have any actual evidence produce it. I say that genetic mismatches are far more likely the product of mutation causing the populations to become genetically different. And that is intuitively obvious.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

it can't be mutations because at the rate you impute to them there would never be a stable population at all, it would always be mutating into something else...

---

Perhaps you can offer something more than an uninformed opinion. Like actual support for this claim.

quote:

---

.... but we have lots of phenotypically stable populations, especially daughter populations after a series of splits.

---

Species aren’t genetically - or phenotypically - homogeneous. Indeed, a mutations which introduced a degree of genetic incompatibility doesn’t need to have any visible effects on gross morphology - which is the only thing you are considering. So your objection is looking pretty weak. If there is variation at the level you do look at then variation you won’t even see can hardly undermine this stability.

quote:

---

Like domestic breeds in many cases

---

Which can only exist because the parent population had genetic and phenotypic variations. And are more the product of artificial selection - stronger than natural selection - than of population splits.

quote:

---

You don't need mutations to cause the populations to become genetically different

---

Reality is not dictated by what you think is needed. And when we are talking about variations appearing in the smaller population -or their descendants - that are not in the larger, mutations are the most likely way. And if the descendant populations do not interbreed for genetic reasons, that is by far the most likely way.

quote:

---

All that has to happen is that homozygous loci become more frequent in one population than the other. The new collection of gene frequencies in a daughter population can lead to that situation.

---

You assume it, but how likely is it? After all the parent population didn’t have any breeding problems. And the larger population and it’s descendants can’t be assumed to have changed much (we can’t assume that they will be changed by selection and drift will be slow, so long as the population is large). If the new species is completely unable to breed with the (original) parent population it doesn’t seem likely to be due to factors that were present before the split.

Your assumption is irrational and you only believe it because of your anti-science prejudices. Sorry about that.

quote:

---

I don't have an anti-science point of view

---

Yes you do.

quote:

---

I have an anti-evolution point of view.

---

Which is a form of anti-science view, and your objections are frequently anti-scientific, lacking both a sound base in theory or evidence.

quote:

---

Evolution is not science even though a lot of science gets poured into it as if it were

---

Faith, when will you learn? If you want to pretend that you don’t have an anti-science view don’t provide the proof that you do - in the same post.

quote:

---

Sad waste of time and resources

---

And that’s your anti-science view showing up again.

quote:

---

But I did arrive at my argument about microeolution simply from thinking about the facts

---

No, you didn’t. You’ve avoided even finding out the facts that you would need to make the case.

quote:

---

... and over the years I've posted plenty of actual evidence for it.

---

No you haven’t. You haven’t posted a single piece of evidence that was worth anything. You can’t even be bothered to look for evidence.

quote:

---

Yup. I know I'm up against the establishment. Way it goes

---

You mean that you’re up against people who won’t be bullied into worshipping you. Which is your only tactic at this point,

quote:

---

As a reminder, the discussion was about things like a few different species of mice that couldn't interbreed. This is clearly not what is usually meant by macroevolution.

---

That is taking it way back past the context. To the best of my knowledge speciation is considered to be macroevolution. And let us also note that you acknowledge that the mice are different species.

quote:

---

Species doesn't have a definition, and it bothers me that people keep pretending it does. Species is a vague and nebulous concept, and while it certainly predates evolution, the definition of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding doesn't - this was only really formally defined in the 20th century. Note that Linneaus included multiple species of human; I don't think he believed them incapable of interbreeding

---

Species may not have a hard definition, but your argument goes in the wrong direction. There are species which engage in hybridisation on occasion - but you would need to argue that populations that don’t interbreed are the same species. That is a rather different point. A condition may be sufficient without being necessary.

quote:

---

My thinking is that it's daft to argue about whether something is macroevolution or not. The more important question is whether that in fact defines a useful concept at all. 'Evolutionary change greater than some arbitrary and undefined quantity' is not a worthwhile concept to define.

---

The trouble is that higher taxonomic groupings are, if anything, worse. Species may turn out to be rather fuzzy, but they are as good as anything.Besides Faith’s approach to macroevolution is whatever it is, I’m against it - she doesn’t care what it means. So any definition will do, and the definition which includes speciation certainly appears to be used.

quote:

---

It's not all that hard to place organisms into their rightful morphological camps, which I think should be called Species.

---

I think that it is easy for you to choose groupings you like. To do so objectively and claim that these morphological camps are absolutely distinct is much harder - in fact rendered impossible by the nested hierarchy and the anatomical intermediates found in the fossil record.

quote:

---

This idea that the species all blur together is an artifact of the ToE.

---

The actual idea - that species are too fuzzy to allow for a clear-cut definition is a fact. It is a fact that supports the theory of evolution, so I can see why you’d object to it. Unfortunately for you, your likes and dislikes don’t change the truth.

quote:

---

Yes I think all birds should be regarded as a species

---

How unBiblical of you. Didn’t Noah release both a Raven and a dove from the Ark ? Surely you have to count corvids and columbidae as separate kinds!

quote:

---

And yes I do think trilobites are all one species. I consider a species to be the original created Kind by the way. I think it should be possible to determine it morphologically.

---

It isn’t. Taxonomy was part of the evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

It preceded the ToE but the confusions are now because of the ToE. IMHO.

---

No, the confusions are there in nature. I guess you are going to have to put most of biology into your not science because it contradicts Faith category. While you go on claiming that you aren’t anti-science.