Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

Faith is not an expert on dating techniques. I don't recall her getting involved with detailed discussions on the topic. But a denial of the accuracy of any and all scientific dating techniques are central to the YEC position. Faith 'knows' that dating techniques are not accurate, but it does not follow from that, that Faith has a favorite counter explanation.

What is the reason or evidence that suggests that mixing different combinations of genes that at one time were present in a single population has can produce an inability to breed? I don't see any reason absent a mutation to suppose that such a thing could happen. Yet this is a central requirement of your thinking. And surely under your theory, every combination that is possible in an isolated population is possible in the original population.Forget what they look like. I am talking only about the possibility of producing non interfertile offspring. I don't believe you can explain how this would work with your hypo. You just assert that it does.

Not quite. There are many types of mutations including ones that add new loci and potentially new functions. Also, mutations that move loci around and mutations that result in chromosomal rearrangements. Any of those seem likely to create genetic incompatibility that results in reduced interfertility.But there is no reason to believe that mixing and matching of genes that simply control hair color, body length, and tail curling would ever lead to genetic incompatibility, although it could lead to animals rejecting partners from preferentially.And perhaps strong 'sexual selection' is enough of an 'incompatibility' on which to base a new species. Lions and tigers are somewhat genetically compatible, but generally do not mate or even play together. If we can agree that tigers and lions are distinct species, (yeah, I know they are both of the big cat kind) nthe we reach the conclusion that even small genetic or phenotypic changes can result in speciation. Which means that speciation itself does not involve large losses in diversity that cannot be overcome by subsequent mutation.Either possibility I would think argues against the ideas that mutations don't matter and that evolution requires a 'net loss in diversity over time' rather that a mere local loss of diversity at the point related to species isolation. And if those momentary losses can be overcome, then there is no required end to evolution at least along these lines.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your post is not a response to my point. Do you understand that you have reach your "impression" simply by rejecting what the reference actually says? As for the idea you are justified in doing so because of a perceived lack of evidence or clarity, that's also hog wash. You (Faith) picked the particular statement. If the statement did not contain the required evidence or clarity, that's your own fault.Besides that, you've missed an important point.The cited reference is talking about a mere population split. Well a population split does not require any genetic change at all. It merely simply requires some form of isolation. Isolation can come from external factors such as a hawk picking off all of the white mice in an area, or peahens just not like a particular pattern on a peacock's tail, or one animal being to timid to approach a larger female. Isolation through inability to interbreed is just one possibility. It also happens to be something you've claimed can happen just by selecting allele's which is why I am discussing it. Your reference is correct, but it is not on point.In any event, the short answer to your post is that you've simply switched from talking about genetic incompatibility and trying to explain how that can come from mixing combinations of allele's and lumped that into remarks that apply to mere isolation. Sorry, but that just won't work. I answered that question in my previous post. I explained how mutations could cause things that could not be achieved by mere Mendelian reshuffling of allele's. I gave supporting examples as well. The short answer is that mutations are not limited to merely adding a new allele to a gene, and that makes all of the difference.

Even assuming that this is correct, you are describing a change that occurs after the populations split. Accordingly the change is not the cause of such splits. So what is the cause? How about all of the stuff discussed in that article that you claim is wrong? How about the list of examples I gave in my last post?Further, lots of things cause frequencies to drift even without a split. How about changes in the environment or genetic drift. Clearly you are not describing a cause and effect relationship. At least it is clear that you are not providing the sole cause for changes in frequency.And you still are not addressing the point.Your claim is that a remix of gene frequencies can cause populations to become incapable of inter breeding. I have pointed out that you cannot produce any mechanism for such, and your response was that mutations produced the same thing as a reshuffling. Presumably you ducked answering the question directly because you did not have a mechanism.After I gave you reasons why mutations don't simply provide a new allele for a gene, and thus differ from simply remixing you haven't made a single effort to respond to the hole in your argument that I pointed out. Nothing you say here does any such thing except change the subject, refuse to respond, and then claim that I am the problem.I suspect that the problem is that you have no argument. You seem to want to talk about everything else except the petard you are hoisted upon. Well just stay up there, with your feet dangling.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Explain how this is not hogwash. Where do the new set of alleles come from if there is no mutation? Total nonsense.

The above statement makes no sense. Calling something rare is an acknowledgement that it does occur.And of course none of that explains how reshuffling of alleles that already existed in a population creates a mating incompatibility. You've acknowledged that mutations could have the effect, but that does nothing to answer the question. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Statements like this can seem Lamarkian to people who are looking for that in the theory of evolution. Fitness just measures the ability of a phenotype and its supporting genetic variety to survive. Disappearing genotypes change the genetic make up of the population because of their absence. But fitness is not a means for introducing genetic variety.Why in the world the role of fitness would be a point of attack for the theory of evolution is quite bizarre. Unlike some of the other issues, the process of natural selection is easily observed. I suppose any port in a storm...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"There is no debatable"You have to accept the limitations of the other side. Faith is doing this alone using a hypothesis she has concocted. She is not a creationist biologist. So there are limits in the quality of her answers.In a sense the debate is over. When Faith gets to the point of insisting that there is no evidence for your position, that is a tacit acknowledgement that your scenario works and that there are theories of evolution that do not require a reduction in genetic diversity. If you have done your own homework, then your success applies to the real TOE.On the other hand Faith's accusations that real biologists have missed evidence because they have TOE blinders on is an admission that she has no evidence on that point. Faith is increasingly turning around requests for evidence with insistence that we have no evidence regardless of what evidence we actually cite. You should take that as an admission that you have won the point.But don't expect an acknowledgement that a pet theory ten years in the making is dead. That is not coming.

Just a subset of the original mix. A pre-existing subset of a larger set. Depending on how large the set is, it might actually contain all of the original alleles in different proportions among the population than the original set. Now what does inbreeding accomplish absent some selection? And what makes us require inbreeding at this point? Is this really the only scenario we need to consider in order to rule out or in evolution?I'll answer the last question. Obviously not.

Sigh. Everyone who has pushed you on this issue has been careful to give the conditions for their answer. Inbreeding increases the likelihoood of already present bad traits being expressed simply because it is more likely that both parents possess the allele for the trait. But that kind of reinforcement is not an example of inbreeding creating new traits. The same issues arise in the larger population too but at lower frequencies. If you have something else in mind, then tell us how that something else works. It is a simple matter to go back and look at the thread. There is no need to rely on your memory.New frequencies means the percentage at which the individual alleles are expressed in a population. It does NOT mean that single individual animals possess different frequencies or combinations. If you want us to believe that simply inbreeding, without doing some selection is going to make the population develop new characteristics, please explain how that works.Of course a mutation that does not even exist in the main population would obviously have the result you are trying to describe.By the way, I don't see how the procedure as you've described it would even produce a new breed of dogs. In addition to inbreeding, you have to do some selection or the offspring, and the results are going to be highly dependent on exactly what that selection process is.And by results I mean to include the diversity of the final population. There is no way to predict the even the likely qualitative characteristics of the final population without talking about selection and modeling the selection process in detail. That's one reason why nobody is going to accept that every evolutionary process is going to turn out 'just like breeding'. You'll need some math to convince me. I don't know what others will require.Let's look at it this way. The entire human population is completely isolated. There is no other source of human genetic material in the entire solar system that we can use to add to our genome save the mutations we generate in the offspring we produce. Is it your claim therefore that the current human population, regardless of what mutations occur, must decrease in diversity over time? Regardless of what selection paradigm is imposed?Show me.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is you who are confused. What was the point of posting this if it wasn't to address the topics under question? The above was not ever in dispute. It is not something that you had previously argued and received disagreement on. You have yet to demonstrate how this happens. We've been asking you for an explanation for several days now. You will notice that the title of this sub thread happens to be loss of ability to interbreed. You've also made the claim that the new gene frequencies cause that too. When are we going to get a description of a mechanism for how those things work? You don't have any answers, so you are right. Why bother? I can see that you are already using the coping mechanisms that show up when you have no answer. In this case we see you nibbling away at posts and airing frustration while ignoring most of the meat.ABE:I've noticed that my posts are not unique in pointing out problems. I'm also sensitive to the issues with your eyes. Please feel free to ignore my posts. I promise not to hold that against you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith did make this claim, but perhaps it is a red herring to focus directly on the claim. After all, she does not even believe speciation occurs.Her claim is that by the time enough change occurs to cause the impossible, the loss of diversity required to make a 'breed' will have kicked in. However, there are a number of problems with this as a generalization. First, species are not homogenous collections of traits, second, speciation and isolation may not occur until new traits are dispersed through a population making it more diverse than at its time of creation, and mutations may cause a lack of interfertililty much more readily than Faith envisions with here impossible method.Again, given that there are competing processes that add and subtract diversity, nobody should accept a mere assertion without evidence or even any argument. And of course there is also the contrary evidence.

For example, giant sized, Nephilim, milkmen?

quote:

---

Genesis 6:4

​

The Nephilim were on the earth in those daysand also afterwardwhen the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

---

Yes, I believe it does!! Lol!