Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

I think you actually have a solid idea here.
This statement is the foundation of possibly overturning evolution.
All you have to do is complete the work. You need to find a way to actually test your idea instead of simply thinking/writing about what may or may not happen because of it.How about this:Can we develop a way to objectively quantify whatever it is you mean by "genetic diversity"?
Once we have that, we can quantify genetic diversity before a speciation event, and then quantify genetic diversity after the speciation event again.
This way we can objectively determine whether or not your idea is actually taking place in living organisms. Once we confirm the idea in this manner, we will also have objective data to show to other people so that they cannot argue with the results.We can quantify the genetic diversity while a species is not being pressured into a speciation event as well. Showing that this is kept "stable" would add a lot of credit to your idea.Just thinking/writing about the logical results isn't very convincing to others.
But quantifying and obtaining real results... that really is very convincing. Would you be interested in this route of showing your idea to be valid?

I'm sincere, but I won't be very helpful in the particulars. Genetics isn't my cup of tea, I don't know very much about it.
I am, however, good at finding objective ways to show the reality of a situation. I don't know what homozygosity is. I barely know what a genome is.
But I can tell you that phrases like "some cases" or even "more" and "less" are not very helpful in convincing others.Is there any way you can find a method of concretely measuring it so that you can end up with things like "a 58 on the scale of genetic diversity"?And then you might be able to explain something like "the scale of genetic diversity goes from 0 to 100. 0 would be absolutely no diversity possible ever again and 100 would be infinite diversity available forever."If you could have a scale similar to that (no need to be exactly like that, it's just an example), and show quantified comparisons before and after speciation and also during a stasis period... it would be very helpful. Then, if you could test a few different animals, and show these values decreasing as the animals went through speciation events... your idea would gain a lot of weight. Then, if other people could use your scale to measure genetic diversity in the same way, and test some more animals, and find more decreasing values... then your idea would become extremely convincing and popular.

Does evolution require a reduction in genetic diversity? Yes. (Well, technically it's not required... but realistically-practically... it's going to happen).Does evolution require an increase in genetic diversity? Yes. (Again, technically no... but without it, all things would die rather quickly).The only question is: Which is greater? What is the net result?Does evolution require a net reduction in genetic diversity? No.
Does it happen? Yes.
When it happens continuously, creatures die off. This has happened, does happen and will continue to happen many, many times.Does evolution require a net increase in genetic diversity? No.
Does it happen? Yes.
When it happens continuously, creatures flourish. This has happened, does happen and will continue to happen many, many times.The facts are that both these situations happen at different paces to different groupings of creatures all over the planet.
Some are lucky and flourish, others... not so much.
It should also be noted that any particular, specific increase or decrease in genetic diversity really says nothing about any overall net increase or decrease on the populations in question.Edited by Admin, : Add emphasis around "net".