The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Come hang out at the 420 thread, Buffalo Soldier. Relax for a bit, mello out, then, come back to this thread and admit you need lots more to learn before discussing these subjects with any kind of authority.- Oni

Oh, okay. I couldn't see where the selection pressure was coming from, but you're saying that the experimenters are doing the selecting after using the plating to determine where the most resistant bacteria happen to be. This is analogous to what breeders do since people are doing the selecting based upon qualities they're trying to increase in prevalence. But it's very, very hard to believe that "By repeating this process 2-3 times you can end up with a population that is >99% antibiotic resistant," unless the experimenters have an incredibly accurate toothpick. --Percy

Hi Faith,Mutations are random. I'm not aware of any evolutionist here who is so ignorant he thinks mutations are not random. I'm not aware of any evolutionist here who is so ignorant that he would suggest that the necessary mutations are supplied when needed. If you think any evolutionist here is suggesting that mutations aren't random or that they're supplied when needed then you can safely assume you are misunderstanding him.The random mutations that occur in every generation are operated on by selection. Any mutations that provide some advantage in the existing environment will become increasingly prevalent in subsequent generations. It isn't that *the* necessary mutation is provided when needed. There is no known process in evolution that could do such a thing. Rather, it's that every member of each new generation gets a number of random mutations simply because DNA copying during reproduction is imperfect, and inevitably some of them are helpful in the current environment.About your allele question, an allele is a sequence of codons that program for a protein. An allele that experiences a point mutation (substitution of one nucleotide for another) is likely a new allele. For example, say a gene in a population has these four alleles, they differ from one another by a single nucleotide:

[list][*]CATGCCTTACGT
[*]CATGCTTTACGT
[*]CAAGCTTTACGT
[*]CATGCCTTCCGT[/list]

Let's consider one of the organisms in our population that happens to contribute the 1st allele in the list to it's offspring during reproduction, but there's a copying error and one of the nucleotides is copied incorrectly. For example, maybe CATGCCTTACGT becomes CATGCCTTACGA.It is possible that the copying error could transform it into one of the other three alleles, but it is more likely that it would become a brand new allele. If it is a new allele then some of the possible resulting effects are:

• Nothing, because the new codon codes for the same amino acid as the original.
• Nothing, because although the new codon codes for a different amino acid, the slightly different protein with the different amino acid performs the exact same function as the original protein.
• A change in protein function that is deleterious because the altered protein is broken and does nothing, leaving the organism without a possibly important protein.
• A change in protein function that is beneficial because the altered protein does a better job then the original protein

--Percy

But I very nearly got Faith to understand genetics --- so she is pretending that that's what I said.She has to be wrong about something, or her whole world would fall apart. I am rather flattered that she has chosen me as the representative of reality and truth.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But I'm only focused on the processes of reduction themselves, selection, drift, migration. This is going on to some extent in all populations, at least drift is, but there is also stability in many populations where it isn't going on much, and there is gene flow between populations. My subject is what happens when you have isolation of a smaller population and natural or random selection, because that's where the new varieties come about, and ultimately speciation as well. It is about the processes that bring about new varieties. This always entails the creation of a subpopulation that is reproductively isolated from the parent population. All populations have been through this and will eventually go through it but the focus is on those that are doing so in order to talk about what happens during those processes. I'm saying the processes of reduction aren't as active in those populations, not that the model doesn't work for them too. I don't know about bacteria. I'm sure it is going on there too but I think in Mendelian terms and bacteria are just something else. Again, it's funny how you assert such a thing as if it were fact with such a lack of evidence, only evidence for mutations making disease or making changes that don't do anything helpful. Except in bacteria of course. I guess. You switched from the assumption that mutations are useful to the even less supported assumption that there is a genetic relationship between chimp and human. Just another huge assumption. You make up an imaginary chain of genetic changes out of mere similarities and analogies, a chain that is nonexistent. I believe the processes of evolution do come to an end in loss of genetic diversity and that simply makes your claims about chimps and humans to be a figment of your imagination. I don't say "can only be" I say that the evidence you actually have shows this. Evidence. Evidence. The only evidence otherwise that you can ever point to is bacteria. There's something wrong with this picture. I just have no idea what you are going on about here, some rumination of your own that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Same difference. Same ultimate effect. Doesn't matter what the SOURCE of variability is, the reduction processes will bring it all out to genetic depletion eventually.At least I'm getting some acknowledgment here that there is such a thing as this reduction. Usually discussions of evolution deny that altogether, simply talk as if there nothing but smooth sailing through mutation and selection, as if selection didn't take away anything at all. Reduced genetic diversity means that you never get close to a new species in the sense of macroevolution, it means that the supposed relation between humans and chimps is purely imaginary, a mere matter of being deceived by analogies.Please note that as usual I'm mostly repeating and defining my hypothesis to get it clear against some misinterpretations, I am not necessarily arguing the evidence for it, merely stating it because so few are getting it despite all the assertions to the contrary. Then some complain that I haven't produced evidence. Well, maybe not. But I want to get across the idea at least. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I describe the addition of variability as destroying a species, the same way mating a pure breed with a mutt would.Same difference? Not really. It's selection and all the other selecting processes, including isolation and drift and so on, that bring about new varieties and produce speciation whenever that might occur too, not the addition processes. I'm trying to get you to notice that the evolutionist mantra is false, the mantra that chants that you can get open-ended change despite the fact that selection reduces genetic diversity, and get you to notice something you don't normally notice, this very effect of the selection processes that evolutionists normally ignore. It's not that the traits don't exist at all, it's that they don't exist in the combinations that form a new variety in a new population, and yes you have to start with variability to get them but when they are selected then you are getting reduction of genetic diversity which underlies the development of a new trait picture, a new variety, even perhaps a new species. Variability isn't evolution, it's the raw material on which evolution works. The selection processes are what bring about the new populations, the new varieties. You start with a population with its own characteristics and good variability -- maybe by mutations if you insist -- and by subtracting from it you get a new variety or breed or species etc. Yeah, I know, it's hard to get you to see what's REALLY going on when the selection processes work on the genetic diversity to reduce it. I'm not ignoring the diversity, it's prerequisite to new varieties, but you are ignoring what happens to it when you are actually getting a new variety or breed. Lots of loss of diversity that can't be recovered unless by mutation and then if it could you'd only lose the breed you just got. Nope, mutation = increased variability, but new variety only comes about through subtraction. And how many of them can you count on to contribute anything toward genuine useful change as opposed to disease or destruction?=====
Also, in all the changes that are observed you are only getting new versions of the usual traits that belong to a species. At what point do you get a meta-trait that could lead to a new species in the sense of macroevolution? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This focus is keeping you from seeing the big picture. You can't see the forest for the trees.You claim that this reduction is permanent even in growing populations. I have genomes that are different, and those differences are beneficial in each species. Obviously, changing DNA can result in a benefit otherwise there would be only one species with a very specific genome. No such assumption is needed for what I am saying. It doesn't matter how those differences got there, be it special creation or evolution from a common ancestor. The question at hand is whether a different DNA sequence of a specific gene can be beneficial. That's it. Obviously, you can change millions of bases and still have a very healthy species no matter if that is through mutation or design. Do you agree or not? How did you determine that the human and chimp lineages have hit that end? What genetic evidence shows this? What genetic evidence demonstrates that humans and chimps are not two varieties of apes just as tigers and house cats are two varieties of cat? You claim that DNA can not be different without causing disease. So how do you explain DNA that is different but doesn't cause disease? It's a very simple question. So it doesn't matter how much water the Sun evaporates into the air, we will still run out of water in the atmosphere because rain causes a reduction. This is what you are arguing, correct? Common ancestry is considered a fact within science, and for good reason. If you want to discuss common ancestry between humans and other apes it would probably be best to start another thread at a later time. Let's just ignore the possibility of common ancestry for now.What I want is an explanation for why DNA sequence can be different without causing disease, and even beneficial to the species. This is a fact. It is a fact that utterly destroys your argument.

Hi, Faith. Good idea: why change tactics this late in the game?----- Frankly, I perceive your posts to be as rude as you seem to think mine are. Every one of your posts can be summed up as follows: From my point of view, the only real sources of variation in your responses to me have been the number of words you use to say that same thing, and which of those words you choose to put in all caps. It’s extremely tiresome, and it conveys the message that you don’t care what your opponents write.We all understand that you think reduced genetic diversity is required before divergence* will occur. We’re trying to show you that, even if this is true, new varieties can come about. Increasing allele diversity increases the number of possible allele combinations that could emerge in daughter populations. This results a greater capacity to produce greater numbers of unique offshoot varieties or species through the gene-reduction scenario that you present. *the word divergence encompasses any process of differentiation between populations: it should serve as a neutral version of the term speciation, which has caused you all kinds of consternation over the past couple pages of this thread. I recommend we switch to using this term to avoid unnecessary semantic side trips.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Faith. This is not guaranteed. If the source of variability is able to regenerate new variability faster than the reduction processes can eliminate it, then depletion will not happen.No matter how many times you repeat it, you still haven't demonstrated it until you've done the math, Faith.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You mention speciation as a possibility again, but in the very recent past you denied that speciation was a possibility, saying that you only used the term as a concession to evolutionists and that speciation wasn't really what evolutionists think it is.In my Message 640 I explained why I think speciation is impossible in your scenario, but you didn't respond. It would be very helpful if we could get an answer about whether you think your scenario can produce genetically distinct species, meaning species that are genetically incompatible. When you speak of the lack of evidence for beneficial mutations you should really be saying that you're going to continue to ignore the evidence for beneficial mutations. In another of my messages that you didn't reply to, Message 421, I explain why beneficial mutations are inevitable. Briefly, it points out that unless all genes already have optimal alleles, random change will inevitably create new alleles that are more optimal than existing ones.A more fundamental argument for beneficial mutations is that every allele in every gene in all life everywhere throughout time began as a mutation. The genes of all existing life consist of billions and billions of mutations that proved beneficial. Well I can see how from your perspective there's something very wrong with this picture of the real world, because it doesn't support anything you say. Why don't we break the picture down for you and you can tell us what is wrong with it.

• Because of the complex interplay of many systems in complex organisms, beneficial mutations must of necessity occur in tiny indetectable steps. Beneficial mutations that are easily detectable are necessarily rare. Do you have a problem with this?
  ​
• Because of relatively long generation times, studying the effects of sequences of mutations over a meaningfully large enough number of generations in complex organisms isn't really possible. Do you have a problem with this?
  ​
• Considering only point mutations (single nucleotide substitutions), mutations in bacteria do the same thing as in all other organisms, potentially changing what the protein produced by the gene does. Do you have a problem with this?

Unless you have problems with some of these basic concepts, then simple logic leads to the conclusion that just as a mutation in a bacteria can end up producing a protein that is better than the proteins produced by the existing alleles, so can a mutation in any other organism end up producing a protein that is better than the proteins produced by their existing alleles.While the generation times in complex organisms are too long to observe the complete process in an experiment of any reasonable length, the general principles are the same as in bacteria, and what we see in genomes and what parts of the process we are able to observe in complex organisms is precisely what we would expect to see if mutations are the source of variation.What we never see: polyploid chromosomes in large populations hiding extra variation that isn't expressed.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve wording in first point in the bulleted list.

No, I did not deny that "speciation is a possibility." I was objecting to what seemed like completely equating my argument with speciation, whereas my argument is about the CONTINUUM or TREND of reduced genetic diversity that goes with the development of new varieties or breeds that may or may not issue in speciation. Speciation is a logical end point, not always reached, and I must say I HAVE been very clear about this.And I was not saying that I "ONLY" used the term as a concession to evolutionists, I use it to describe something that in fact happens in reality, a population that cannot interbreed with others of its kin, and I use the term as a concession in the sense that I don't agree that it indicates macroevolution, which the term implies to evolutionists, merely a variation that cannot interbreed with others of its kin. It describes something that actually occurs.I was going through the older posts in order and simply didn't get to your earlier ones yet.But I'm also preoccupied with other things at the moment and it may be a while before I get back here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for that insight into your psychology.As soon as you learn that the scientific definition of macroevolution includes speciation you suddenly have to start insisting that speciation isn't speciation. I suggest that you really, really think about what you are doing, because I doubt that this is the only time you've done something like that.

If it describes a real event there's nothing wrong with using the term for it, and that's how I've used it, to describe what you describe as speciation. That's the term used so I use it to describe something that occurs in reality and according to the terms used to describe how it comes about too. This is how all YECs must use it of course. It doesn't have to be a problem that you think it's macroevolution and we don't -- purely definitional -- and I only felt the need to be clearer about it because of something that came up that was confusing, which I now forget, but anyway. Of course you can make a problem out of anything if it suits you, as apparently it does.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If it describes a real event there's nothing wrong with using the term for it, and that's how I've used it, to describe what you describe as speciation.

---

If you are denying that it actually IS the event the word describes then yes, there is a problem. And that is exactly what you are doing, although you have no sensible reason for doing so.

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be a problem that you think it's macroevolution and I don't and I only felt the need to be clearer about it because of something that came up that was confusing, which I now forget, but anyway. Of course you can make a problem out of anything if it suits you, as apparently it does.

---

It is a fact that speciation is macroevolution. It's true by definition. Your statement was not a clarification, simply a denial of a fact that you didn't like. And maybe you don't think that's a problem - but if you have any intention of arguing rationally then you should consider it a problem.

OK since you are going to be that way, I'll call it Variation-that-can't-interbreed-with-its-kin-that-is-still-microevolution-that-evolutionists-call-speciation-and-think-is-macroevolution-that-occurs-by-various-means-called-allopat ry-and-simpatry-and-so-on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.