The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

There are many YEC Flood views, Paul, not just one "standard" one.Back later.

Yes, but he's saying I'm contradicting YEC views and I know I'm not contradicting that one. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If that's my "whole model," then why hasn't anyone addressed it to show that speciation can occur with allele increase? I've maintained over and over that it can't, that new variations depend on isolation and reduction and increase only tends to a mixed multitude of the same species without creating new variations -- but except for asserting over and over that I'm wrong I don't recall a single attempt to prove it. Good to see that acknowledged. I'm aware that every gene matches in my scenarios, Percy. Genes aren't lost, only alleles.But why two ORGANISMS? Does one represent the parent population and the other the daughter population? I don't get your point.If it’s really MY scenario you have in mind, the populations with the individuals with those alleles you have designated are now isolated from one another by distance or geographic barrier or whatnot, and each organism is now breeding exclusively with the others in its own population. Generations are passing as inbreeding is pretty thoroughly mixing up the alleles allotted to the population as a whole, time is passing, drift is occurring, selection may be occurring, and each population is developing a new look from the new phenotypes emerging as the fewer alleles are combining in new proportions, a new look that distinguishes them from one another. At this point they are a new variety and reproductive isolation may also be reinforced behaviorly as well as geographically. This is only because normally they don't, it's not a hard and fast rule, but if genes do change that ought to be part of the picture too at some point. But it makes it easier to describe examples to keep it simple anyway. My examples have all emphasized ISOLATION of the two populations from each other and a longish period during which each inbreeds with its own set of alleles, during which time at least an appreciably smaller population if one is smaller, and possibly both, are going to change phenotypically as a different mix of alleles determines the appearance of each population.On that Wikipedia page that Dr. A changed, the idea is that drift and selection will act independently in both populations until eventually they become genetically incompatible. Dr. A wanted to insist that that couldn't happen without mutations but the original page didn't include mutations and I would think if it were considered essential it would have been included -- it couldn't even occur to them to leave it out in that case. No, isolation, inbreeding, drift and selection alone ought to be quite enough to establish a big difference between two such populations simply with the same genes both share and even all the same alleles in different proportions.If there are alleles completely lost to either of the populations but present in the other then the effect will likely increase, both the phenotypic appearance and the concomitant genetic reduction. Thank you again for the acknowledgment of any exceptions whatever. But you are arguing purely logically and abstractly and what we need is empirical evidence to decide the question. As many have pointed out this may not be possible for many mostly practical reasons. WK gave an example of genetic incompatibility even in populations that had the same genes with different alleles.. What is so different about your example?Now I’m contemplating your example again and I don’t get what you think it demonstrates or what you want me to do with it. If only that the genes are all the same, that’s not news as I said already.Organism 1: A1 | B3 | C2 | ... | X4 | Y2 | Z4 |
Organism 2: A4 | B2 | C2 | ... | X1 | Y3 | Z1 |I gave you an example of how alleles could be split between entire populations some ways up the thread. I don’t recall you commenting on it at all. Seems to me the important thing is what exactly the distribution of the whole set of alleles is in each population because that will show what kinds of combinations can occur in each population, which are going to have to be different since the frequencies are different and it's those different combinations I'm expecting -- at least where the difference in original numbers is large -- to eventually bring about genetic reproductive isolation. But it’s really hard to juggle that many variables.I wish it were possible to lay out all the allelic combinations in the separated populations, with your 1 chromosome with 26 genes and 4 alleles each, and look at the situation at that level but it seems beyond practicality to even try it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Happened to catch it in that condition and this is what I think about why it was in that condition, and I still think it.And it only got changed because an idiot creationist's view of it annoyed you.

I don't think I deny that it's hard to explain, do I? I know it's hard to explain, I'm simply trying out some possibilities, and I don't think this has to be resolved in order to pursue my current argument.To try to explain it I have to start with the obvious fact that whatever the genetic situation was on the ark it wasn't anything like it is today, and try to imagine possible genetic scenarios that could have been the case. I assume a geneticist would do a better job of it than I do if he could accept the premises for the purpose.

Sorry, I guess I still don't know what you're saying. Yes, of course. Thought a "packed" genome was a pretty good start myself. Not in my current argument. It's a completely separate issue. I'm trying to stick to what I understand to actually occur in the present, whether anybody here thinks I'm right about that or not, I'm not speculating about an utterly different situation in the distant past. It's logical that it's decreasing. There isn't anything else it could do. Even with mutations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But I don't have a problem that genetic diversity is "too high." A bottleneck when the diversity was enormously higher than it is today, and the genome had all functioning and no junk DNA, wouldn't have the drastic effect it does now because of the lower diversity in species now. It would have a drastic effect by comparison with what existed before but not anything like it would today. As I said, it's a good start, a good start for a hypothesis, which of course IS speculation. And then there's polyploidy to add to it, which WK just confirmed can supply more alleles, up to quite a large number it appears. And there's still also the farther-out possibility of an ACCURATE and LAW-following sort of "mutation." Yes, it's all speculation. But I don't expect it to be lower in the past, I expect it to be higher in the past. And it is a separate issue because it can be discussed completely separately. I don't have to explain how the genetic situation on the ark could have had enormously higher genetic diversity in order to discuss whether genetic reduction is going on in population splits today. No, it's completely different because if the Flood account is true, genetic diversity has to have started out larger and been running out ever since, which contradicts current assumptions, but it doesn't contradict the argument I am making. It is consistent with what I'm arguing now, as it should be if there's anything to what I'm saying, but I don't need to have an answer to the past in order to argue for progressively reduced genetic diversity now. No, it's a hypothesis. You have to start somewhere. It doesn't rely on ignoring mutation, it includes the possibility of mutation even though I don't think mutation does what you all think it does. It still decreases with the processes of reduction even with mutation.

Yes, and it's a bit more refined than the supergenome I had in mind last time I was here. Now I have a "packed" genome knowing that at least one creature now has such a thing, bacteria, which is a genome with no junk DNA. I'd wondered about that for some time and now I see it really happens (It also suggests that bacterial genetics should be appreciably different from that for the rest of creation that is getting along on a severely reduced genome full of dead genes.) So it is reasonable to suggest it used to be the case since it very much supports the ark scenario. Noah had three sons with their wives on the ark so that increases the possibilities quite a bit at least for the human race. And there's also no reason to limit the possibilities for any animal in their time by anything in our time.I THOUGHT polyploidy could supply many alleles but wasn't completely sure, so I thank you for verifying that. It does make polyploidy a strong hypothesis for this scenario. But I'm not doing that. I'm proposing possibilities to explain an ancient scenario, I'm not claiming to know how it happened. You on the other hand flatly assert as fact that mutations are the source of all alleles although the actual evidence is extremely scanty for any such claim.

He's right, that is indeed what I had in mind though I was hesitant to spell it out. He's now confirmed that it could work. Why not? Destroying genetic material appears to be what mutations do. The remnants are possibly to be found among the junk DNA. Or just gone I guess since our genome is very empty compared to that of bacteria. 95% of our genome junk DNA? Lot of dead genetic material there. That would be interesting to know and if anyone knows it I would assume it would be WK. All scenarios to explain the necessary higher diversity on the ark are going to appear to be wildly improbable and trivially wrong by the uniformitarian assumption based on what happens today. Well, I get "Percy'd" regularly here so let's call it a draw. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't either. And you are right. But a different sort of mutation, not what we see today if you mean the proposal for generating alleles from the ark. But I like polyploidy better now for the explanation of the abundance of alleles. And since what we see today is mostly destructive mutations, THOSE I can see operating to produce all that junk DNA we've accumulated down the millennia. No, I object to the paucity of empirical evidence for that claim. And nevertheless I'm accepting it for the sake of argument. By current standards they are wildly improbable, but a creationist doesn't accept current standards. But I do know what polyploidy is and I do know what mutations are and I do know what junk DNA is and I do know what gene duplication is and I do know what natural selection and drift and migration do. Not as an expert knows these things but I do know them.

I've only seen it asserted and even screamed at me. It's the most superficial possible description of the argument ignoring the genetic dynamics that occur with each split. No. Bluejay, you are NOT getting it at all and the fact that you THINK you are getting it is really frustrating. You are not screaming this mind-cramping simplistic typical answer to me, but you are simply asserting it over and over and over.I have to leave in a few minutes but I would like to TRY to give you a better answer although I would have thought I've answered this many times over by now. I'll have to come back to try again.

I am NOT arguing from speculation about the subject of this thread, Bluejay. What I'm saying is speculative is the SIDE ISSUE of what the genetic situation was on the ark. That is NOT the topic of this thread, though others insist on bringing it up so I offer my speculations.And again, when mutations as the source of all alleles is treated as FACT although the evidence is so scanty, you are committing something far worse than speculation. Speculation is honest. You OUGHT to consider that a speculation and NEVER present it as a fact as you all do.

Apparently that does logically follow, yes. Yes, if you mean having developed any lines that can no longer interbreed with others. But there were three human couples on the ark, only a pair each of the animals -- except for the clean animals of which there were seven each -- but the point of that was to provide sacrifical animals and if Noah and his family used them for that purpose they probably didn't go on to multiply. Not sure about that. If they did then they had many more genetic possibilities than the people.The situation today is that all human beings are interfertile. Very likely, yes. You seem to get the picture. Oh it's quite logical and you yourself get it well enough. No more mental gymnastics involved than trying to understand anything in genetics. You just don't like it.As for "unfactual," some facts that fit at least part of what you said are that human beings are all interfertile while there are many species of animals that cannot interbreed with others of their kind.

Yes, certainly.But I did also suggest the rather wild possibility that there was once a functioning sort of mutation that did produce alleles. I don't really need that idea any more though, now that a packed genome and polyploidy are available. Even vanish. There you have it. You make very good points, Iblis, thank you. I think you're right about some of it, but I also think that the stopping of interbreeding in some cases is just a natural playing out of natural genetic processes. But it's worth more discussion.

No it doesn't. I've never denied that this is the case. What I have said is that when you get mutations you STOP GETTING THE PROCESSES OF VARIATION FROM ISOLATION, SELECTION, DRIFT with the concomitant REDUCTION OF ALLELES THAT MAKES NEW VARIETIES AND SPECIES.ADDITION DOES NOT MAKE NEW SPECIES, THE SELECTION PROCESSES MAKE NEW SPECIES.With addition, with mutations, assuming they do anything functional or useful at all, you would only get a bunch of new traits scattered throughout the population that blur the character of that population, which means destroying a species you already had if it occurs at that point, you do NOT get the making of a new variety, let alone a species. For that to happen you need the reduction processes. Put all the mutations into it you like, you are NOT getting speciation that way.In fact, think through what mutations actually do. You get ONE per individual, right? As many have said, a single isolated allele doesn't stand much of a chance in a large population. It's not going to do anything for the species at all, just displace another allele that was probably functioning just fine with many others like itself in the overall population. So then what, you're waiting around for one of the new mutations to get selected? How often does that happen? You are talking as if the incidence of mutations is some great number that should offset the reduction processes but in actual fact you all don't even think they do much when you get down to it. And even you all have to admit most of them are either deleterious or simply unfunctional. Are you getting all ends of your story together here ever?Furthermore, when you DO get a mutation, it changes only the function of the gene it sits on. If it's a gene for color you get a new color. If it's a gene for beak or nose size you get a bigger or smaller beak or nose. Where are you ever going to get the mutations you need for macroevolution? You need a new GENE, not just an allele, for the difference between a feather and a scale. You need a new GENE, in fact probably many new genes, not just an allele, for the difference between a finger and a claw. Do mutations do this? So far all you've said is that they are the source of alleles. It is NOT a matter of outpacing. See above. I'll happily defend my obstinance forever, thank you very much.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.