Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

So you have claimed. Show how this works. This is not an explanation. It is just an assertion, but recessives can come together in either large or small populations. You have yet to show a combination that is impossible in the large population yet possible in the small population.Make up some alleles and show an example of what you claim can occur. Or come up with your own scheme. But repeating the same assertion over and over again is not going to convince anyone.And let's say that such a thing is true? So what? The mechanism you describe isn't where the curly eared mutation came from, so what you are describing is without any question NOT the sole method of creating new traits. Therefore this entire line of argument cannot disprove the theory of evolution. Mutation remains a viable way to generate new traits without the reduction in diversity method you describe here.You don't need to respond to me on this. Ned has asked for the same thing and so have others. If you respond to them, I'll see it. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is always some chance that any combination present in the original population will produce the result shown in the smaller population. 'Whatever' is you saying that you don't know what you are talking about. No, mutations do not have to be selected for. They can stay in the population if they are neutral and can do so for long periods of time.Yes I do follow your argument. Can you follow mine?A dominant new mutation will show up regardless of anything else. That means that it can even migrate through the entire population without decreasing diversity. It is instead added diversity. There are an unlimited number of variations on dog with a curly ear. The only thing you cannot have is dog with an uncurled curly ear. We already have lots of different dogs with curl ears.Then we might get another mutation producing dog with a curly tail.Rinse lather repeat with more mutations over time. Yes, all of those things are still dogs, but they are population with increased diversity.Now when we finally get effect that causes an isolation, it is on a population that is more diverse than before the rinse lather repeat which leaves open the possibility that the sub population is also more diverse than before the rinse lather repeat.Is it clear now what is being argued?Here is another example. Imagine a trait for tiny wings appears in the collie breed. What prevents that trait from getting into other dog breeds absent human intervention.Nothing at all. Dogs don't care all that much about preserving their breed. Even if there are some dogs that collies don't particular feel inclined to breed with, the new mutts likely won't show the same dis-inclination. So let's assume that a great deal of mixing happens.Now dogs as a whole are more diverse. If at some later date, tiny wings turns out to be beneficial for some reason, there might be huge variations in the dogs with wings. There is no guarantee that the new smaller population will be less diverse than before the winged stuff started.Your silly one-way isolation scenarios doesn't disprove those kinds of scenarios and for at least that reason is unpersuasive.We believe that human evolution includes separations and re-mixes with interfertile groups of homo somethings. It is not clear how far back we must go before we hit an ancestor with whom we are inter fertile with. I don't know if has been demonstrated that different apes cannot interbreed.So making up silly dog breeding isolation scenarios in which all variation among does must be wiped out does not begin to address all of the possibilities.Consider this question: Do humans become more diverse or less diverse when a group of us survives on a new isolated place?Let's say 10000 Russians move to a station on the moon. The loss of a small group has essentially no effect on the diversity of the original population which still has plenty of Russians. As long as the two groups remain interfertile, if the lunar Russsian group acquires any new alleles at all, then no matter what else they lose, humanity gains diversity overall. Now imagine that the lunar group returns to earth. Is it your claim that the re-merged humanity is less diverse than before? Then your claim is wrong. Clearly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

PaulK has addressed this. Following your argument does not mean nodding agreement when you make statements that are wrong. Drift occurs without selection. If a dominant, neutral mutation shows up, it gets expressed regardless of selection. And genetic drift is NOT selection. It is the propagation of traits without selection.I see now that when we catch you in errors, you simply say we are not following the argument. That was a rather timely head ache. I take it you have no response to examples of new variation created without a loss of diversity. Why did you even bother with my post?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But not when it is not selected right? Not every mutation is subjected to selection pressure, Faith. That's one generalization that causes you to err. Yes, but let's concentrate on mutations because they are important and because you offer only incorrect answers and reasoning when dealing with them. Mutations add diversity. They cannot detract diversity and they do not have to be selected in order to propagate through the populations. There they are a method for a population to increase diversity over time.Natural selection pressure operates on mutations that affect fitness. Other mutations can become fixed in a population through drift which means that they increase diversity when they occur. This is the principle that you simply deny. That's a complete nonsense response. Any time I describe variations that are generated by mutation, I am by necessity talking about variation that represents a new genotype. New alleles produced by mutation cannot simply be new phenotypes. Perhaps you would best be served by getting another headache instead of typing in unresponsive stuff.

Wrong. Mutation plays the part of adding diversity to a population. At some later time, after diversity has accumulated, one or more of the traits in the population may become the basis of selection. There is no requirement that the trait that is the basis of selection be the most recently added trait. No, you've missed the point. Apparently deliberately it seems. I've provided several examples and you haven't addressed any of them. In this case, you are so busy making your own point that you haven't addressed the the issue. Actually, you don't do that. Instead you pretend to allow mutations while denying their consequences. Go back and re-visit the lunar isolation scenario, but allow mutations and selection to reduce diversity in the lunar population as you insist on. Are you still denying that upon re-integration with the main Russian population that humanity as a whole is more diverse? If so, then you are not allowing mutations.And you've been given real world examples of mutations that do result in new traits, so your denials are against the weight of the evidence anyway. And of course if your answer is just to deny that mutations work as the TOE claims, then your discussion is of no interest to anyone. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not quite.If the mutation is for a new completely novel trait, then nothing at all is lost at selection. We just get a new winged variety vs non winged varieties. At that point we can still have interbreeding between the two varieties which reinforces that no diversity is lost. And there may later be new alleles for the new trait.If the mutation is simply for another allele of an existing trait, then the other alleles could be lost, yes if there is selection. However given that there may be multiple non-selected alleles for other genes from mutation before the final one that is selected, the result is still not of necessity a net loss of diversity.It is true that the new species must have wings, but it might have both curled and uncurled ears if that was one of the non selected mutations. Or it might have stripes or be without stripes if that were yet another mutation propagating via drift (non selected). Or it might have pug noses vs straight, nappy hair vs straight, or whatever non selected traits appear.If the environment changes, then perhaps one of the non selected traits does become beneficial or detrimental. But by that time there may be many other mutations that are either neutral or of minor advantage such that they are not selected. So again a loss but not a net loss.The point is not that no diversity is lost during evolution, even though I can postulate such scenarios, the point is instead that no net loss of diversity occurs of necessity. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

Based on the discussion, incompatible refers to combinations that produce viable offspring that cannot mate with the parent group. What you describe here sounds nothing like that because in theory, the parent group does not have a pool limited to the unreinforced recessives.I'm not sure why you continue to pursue this nonsense. You cannot produce speciation in the way you describe, but you don't believe speciation is real anyway. Your basic argument is that evolution 'tries' to produce species in this way but fails. And that argument is totally nonsense even if we ignore the continually anthropomorphisms (i.e. why would nature want to do that? Why are mutations needed when we can get breeds without them) that you spout in defense of the argument.You've been given mechanism for producing speciation and also allowing diversity to increase both before and after the speciation event. If you cannot demonstrate that such mechanisms do not work, then you are not about the business of proving that evolution requires a reduction in overall diversity such that evolution must run out of diversity. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let us consider Faith's position. The executive summary is that she is pursuing a hypothesis for which she has no evidence, in a subject in which she has no expertise. She acknowledges that scientific papers confuse her, and she is incapable of using terms correctly.You expect her to provide answers that don't exists or alternatively to admit that she is wrong. The former is asking for the impossible, and you are never going to get an explicit admission that species were not specially created from Faith. So the obfuscation, avoidance, and selective responding is the admission.You can leave or threaten to leave as you will, but there aren't many other games available.Haven't you found the discussion and disagreements with the non-creationists more satisfying? Why not continue to explore stuff you know and what to know with some scientists actually doing life science work. Where else can you find that?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, you haven't addressed the question being put to you. Since you are 'allowing' mutations, then you are obligated to address mutation scenarios as they are posed to you. Instead of addressing those with arguments, you go off on tangents and ignore the scenarios as presented or simply assert that they do not work.I've given clear examples of scenarios where diversity is increased prior to and after either isolation or speciation. You have ducked directly addressing every single scenario. I'm not going to pose anymore scenarios. I'm satisfied that you have no answers.

The point to this forum is debate. I don't personally deserve any of your attention. You should instead view opposition as an opportunity to strut your stuff, so to speak. If you have answers to questions, then post them.It simply is not the case that everyone here except Faith, the single most uninformed poster in the debate, does not understand what you say in every single thread, on every single topic. There is a far simpler, and much more likely answer. We understand your simple wrong stuff perfectly, and understand exactly where the holes in your arguments lay.I cannot wait until summary time for this BS thread.

This is not an accurate statement of your position. Your position requires that it be impossible to gain diversity in a non-evolving population. For example, in addressing the lunar Russian example you claimed, without any argument just assertion, that when the lunar russians returned, all new mutation generated diversity that occurred on the moon would be lost upon reintegration.There is no question that at the time of reintegration there is new diversity. But you have claimed that the non-diverged population will lose diversity gained from mutations.Or let's make it short and sweet. If you are not claiming anything about non diverging populations, then you lose the argument. Because non isolated populations can gain diversity from mutations even without selection.Once selection occurs, and it would not occur upon every mutation, even if there is some some attendant loss of diversity, if that is the case, diversity need not fall below that which existed at the time the original population first formed. So there need not be a net loss of diversity. Wrong. Mutation always involves genetic diversity and your chart includes mutations.

It is possible for you to define genetic diversity in such a way that nobody cares about the term because your definition is irrelevant.Just as an example, if we use the definition of alleles per locus, and ignore the generation of completely new genes, then a loss of diversity under your definition would not prevent more genetic variety which would in turn allow more generation of species.Common descent requires that all of the traits in every animal have developed from some extremely simply life forms that had no wings, ears, eyes, lungs, toe jam, etc. Evolution is not just about whether humans have more or fewer variations on eye color than did the chimpanzee like ancestor from which they developed. The generation of completely new traits and functions is required.
Under your definition, mutations that provide new genes or new loci don't count as adding diversity. That's folly in my opinion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The reduction of diversity only occurs at selection on a phenotype corresponding to the mutation. When a mutation is not subjected to selection pressure it simply makes one animal in the population genetically diverse and possibly phenotypically diverse from its peers. A new eye color gene might be an example of such. By any measure that I care about, this represents an increase in diversity.So if several mutations occur and spread through the population each of which is not subjected to selection is followed by one mutation on which selection operates, the net effect is that the new population is potentially more diverse than the previous population prior to the occurrence of any mutations.I have yet to see you directly tackle the above scenario despite my having given it several times. Just as soon as you decide to make this a part of your model, let me know. The discussion will change to one of you simply denying the evidence we have for mutations that add new alleles. Show me where the definition in Wikipedia excludes the possibility of the generation of new genes and acknowledges only the addition of new alleles for the same gene as constituting genetic diversity. If you cannot do that, then you misread my post.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So, why isn't this discussion over? I have provided a scenario under which evolution can occur without a net loss of diversity. Evolution which occurs under this particular scenario need never reach a dead end. Well no. Phenotypes that occur without selection do not reduce diversity. You just end up in a situation with mixed phenotypes which is not a reduction in diversity overall. And as you've already admitted, it is possible to replenish losses in diversity with mutations. Yes, the problem is that a given measure, taken alone, might not cover all possible methods of increasing diversity. If you pick a measure that excludes certain mutations, particularly if those mutations have been observed, then that measure is not a useful definition for this debate even if the measure is useful in some other specific situations. And yet I've shown that it does matter and you've seemingly agreed. The active selection need not remove all diversity added by prior mutations. Only the particular variation on which selection occurs reduces diversity. So when wings are selected, any alleles that affect eye color, tail curling, etc. remain in the gene pool.

Separation need not occur immediately after a trait appears. Your scenario is artificial and designed to require a breeding like situation.You are definition of evolution is too limiting. Many other scenarios exist. Separation need not occur immediately even if some animals have traits that make them somewhat more fit than their peers. If for example, a single mutation causes a animal to develop a tusk that provides some advantage, exactly whom is that animal going to mate with? Obviously for some time, the only viable mates will be in the existing population.There is simply no reason that at separation the new population must be less diverse than was the original population at the time of its forming.There are lots of examples of extremely diverse animals wandering around together. Why is it necessary to have complete species isolation during the selection process? I wouldn't expect that situation to be the only possibility.