Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity

ToE does not happen over night. You use the Cheetah as an example. It evolved to chase down prey that was too fast for other cats. Thus putting in a survival niche that allowed it's continued survival. This took tens of thousands of years. They face extinction now because the environmental changes are happening too fast for genetic changes to prove beneficial or not.
ToE is exactly why some "bodies" do survive.

Yes, I have proved that mutations add diversity. You complained that we were confusing phenotypic diversity with genotypic diversity but that you were only referring to genotypic diversity. Now I find out that you are really meaning phenotypic diversity. Yes, it is hypothetical; it is meant to be an illustration. But yes it has happened and is something we find in natural populations all the time. It is often how we identify different groups of organisms that cannot be distinguished morphologically. In fact, even with furry critters with tails that can be distinguished morphologically we will sequence genetic markers to see how they group genetically. Often we find that morphological differences are not supported by genetic groupings and we will refer to the groups as morphs rather than separate species or subspecies. Here's the genotypes in my example immediately after the population splitpopulation A: RR, RQ, RS, QQ, QS, and SSpopulation B: RR, RQ and QQWhere are the new phenotypes in population B? The same phenotypes were already in population A, nothing new here. No possibility of incompatibility, the same genotypes exist in both populations. Indeed. But we are discussing genetic diversity, not phenotypic diversity, right? So what I am pointing out is how genetic diversity is affected by the four evolutionary factors; in this case mutation.So here's our table again...

	Diversity within pop B	Diversity between A and B	Affect all loci
Mutation	increase	increase	No
Migration	increase	decrease	Yes
Drift	decrease	increase	Yes
Selection	increase/decrease	increase/decrease	No

And the diagram. Now, here is our genotypes before and after mutation.population A: RR, RQ, RS, QQ, QS, and SSpopulation B before: RR, RQ and QQPopulation B after: RR, RQ, Rr, RQ*, QQ, Qr, QQ*, Q*r, Q*Q*Compare population B before and after. Did the genetic diversity decrease or increase? Our chart says that the diversity within population B should increase.Now compare population A with population B after. Did the genetic diversity increase or decrease? Our chart says diversity between population A and B should increase.The final question we ask, in regards to the chart, is does the mutation affect all loci? The answer is no. The mutation occurred at one locus and does not affect the other loci.If that is clear, I will move on to migration.HBD

I only gave you the example of the fungi to point out how complex the genetic situation really is. I didn't expect you to understand it per se, except to realize that in the real world of population genetics things are very, very complex. Your overly simplistic idea just can't cut it in real population genetics.So, forget about the fungus. Just recognize that the things we deal with regarding genetic diversity are much more complex than you are imagining. And why is that when you have been studying this for 10 years? Could it be... is it possible... that this process of speciation is much more complex that you are trying to pass it off as?I would just like you to respond to one point from Message 754You are claiming heterozygosity and number of alleles per locus are synonymous with genetic diversity, so which population described above is the most genetically diverse according to your measures?HBDEdited by Admin, : Spelling correction, "per say" => "per se".

Do you get some enjoyment out of making up patently incorrect comments out of thin air?In fact, the environment--and survival of the barely adequate--does weed out unproductive (i.e., unfavorable) mutations. This has been know to all but creationists such as yourself for decades or centuries.The classic racial traits are pretty much all environmentally linked in one way or the other. Skin color, nasal form, body shape, high altitude adaptations (three different ones in three different parts of the world), and a number of other traits can all be traced directly to the local environments.This is fact, no matter how you try to spin it or obfuscate it.And your "nobody would survive" is just achingly wrong. When people migrated out of Africa, over a period of tens of thousands of years, there was enough mutation and selection pressure that those folks who resulted were all pretty well adapted to the environment in their new homes. Siberians had cold weather adaptations, those in the Andes and Himalayas had high altitude adaptations, those in the Mediterranean had tanning to accommodate the summer/winter climate there, while those farther north had lighter skin colors in reaction to weaker sunlight.You really should learn something about science before you offer your (incorrect) opinions. You do your cause no good by being consistently wrong.

Arabidopsis thaliana is a model organism and used in all kinds of genetic research. It is native to Europe and ranges from Italy to Sweden - some 2400 km apart. As you may know, Italy has a much warmer climate than Sweden. So the question is, are these populations adapted to their particular climate? The way to test this is to do a reciprocal transplant. How this works is you take some of the Swedish population and plant them in Italy and take some of the Italian population and plant them in Sweden and measure their fitness (I believe they used number of seeds produced). What they found was that the fitness of the Italian plants grown in Sweden was about 60% compared to Swedish plants grown in Sweden. The Swedish plants grown in Italy had 18% fitness when compared to Italian plants grown in Italy.What this shows is that each population is adapted to their specific climate.What is the basis for this adaptation?Well to answer this, the researchers developed a series of RILs (recombinant inbred lines - we have talked about this before) and planted them at each location (a total of 16,736 plants/year for three years yielding a total of 565,000 fruits). Then they plotted fitness onto the known genotype of each RIL and this yielded 7 QTLs that were associated with freezing tolerance (QTLs are when a particular phenotypic trait is statistically correlated with specific genetic loci). one of the QTLs had a large effect, 25% so they considered this to be a candidate freeze tolerance gene.So they sequenced this gene (named CBF-2) and found that the Italian population had a deletion of 13 nucleotides which resulted in a stop codon and a truncated protein (sound familiar?). When they inserted the Italian CBF-2 allele into a Swedish genetic background (all other loci were of Swedish origin except the Italian CBF-2 allele) the plant lost its freeze tolerance. SO we have a Swedish CBF-2 allele that helps the plant tolerate freezing temperatures and an Italian CBF-2 allele that does not have freezing tolerance.Here we have two populations that are adapted to their specific climate and they differ by at least a 13 nucleotide deletion at a freeze tolerance gene.No, they have not speciated. However, that's even better for illustrating how this process occurs because there is not a huge difference between these populations (they can still interbreed). Looking back on speciation can be difficult, but here we have the very beginning steps. Now what would happen if these two populations were isolated so that all gene flow stopped? Has there been a reduction in diversity? Now that's just not so is it? What is your real evidence?HBDSources in case you're interested Reciprocal transplants demonstrate strong adaptive differentiation of the model organism Arabidopsis thaliana in its native range
QTL mapping of freezing tolerance: links to fitness and adaptive trade-offs

quote:

---

the environment weeds out unproductive changes.

Pure ToE, purely hypothetical. If this really happened in reality nobody would survive.

---

So now you're rejecting natural selection ? Unfortunately for you natural selection is a fact. And a fact that is the basis of your argument anyway.And since natural selection is a fact, it must be your assumptions that are at fault. Very likely your dismissal of the idea that mutation counteracts the loss of genetic diversity caused by selection.

I've acknowledged that natural selection occurs in some cases (peppered moths for instance) but at the same time I've argued that I think it is far less often the cause of adaptive changes than mere reproductive isolation of a randomly assembled smallish daughter population. I've argued this in relation to Darwin's finches for instance, and the large-headed lizard on the island in Croatia.

I know you'll think I'm just being difficult for no good reason, but really I'm not. Even though you haven't used any highly technical language it's still too technical for me to follow easily, there's too much detail and I really wish you would just boil it down to simple English.OF COURSE THERE ARE ADAPTATIONS. Darwin's finches' beaks are certainly adapted to their chosen food sources, the large-headed lizard is certainly adapted to its food source. The question is how these adaptations came about. The usual idea is that the creature changed to adapt to the environment or in this case food source, but I suspect the creature evolved its characteristic first, due to simple change in allele frequencies brought about by a population split, and then found the food that suited its characteristic best.I can't tell from your example if this possibility has been addressed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First I'd point out that even if this is true there's nothing in creationism to object to it and I don't know where you get that. I'm sure there are instances where it is true but I'm questioning it as a general rule. This appears to be the case I admit but there are some racial groups where the rule doesn't hold which calls the theory into question. The Inuit and Mongolians for instance have darkish skin which doesn't fit with their high northern location; the pygmies have quite light skin for their African environment. Is it possibly that the adaptations came about more through people with certain traits being comfortable or not in their chosen locations?People by the way can develop an adaptation to altitude, and also temperature and humidity changes over time. Lungs adapt, sweat system adapts etc. Not genetic adaptation, just the flexibility of the organism. Well the adaptations do appear to be fact except for some of the exceptions, but I'm not sure the standard interpretation has been demonstrated to be fact. Plausible theory, yes, but fact?

First I'd point out that even if this is true there's nothing in creationism to object to it and I don't know where you get that. I'm sure there are instances where it is true, though not very likely among human beings, but I'm questioning it as a general rule. (certainly people die of lethal genetic diseases before reproductive age, but the adaptations that characterize races don't make a survival level difference. We're human beings, we make clothing to adapt us where needed. [/qs]This appears to be the case I admit but there are some racial groups where the rule doesn't hold which calls the theory into question. The Inuit and Mongolians for instance have darkish skin which doesn't fit with their high northern location; the pygmies have quite light skin for their African environment. Is it possibly that the adaptations came about more through people with certain traits being comfortable or not in their chosen locations?ABE: Saw an article recently about a baby deer that had been abandoned by its mother, which its rescuers interpreted as due to its white face which would make it too vulnerable to predators. If that's the correct interpretation here we have a mother deer that "knew" her baby would be a liability, rather than letting natural selection take its course. So polar bears, so nicely fitted to their snowy territory, could have evolved their white fur over time, but perhaps there was also being aware that they aren't so visible against the snow? [/ABE]People by the way can develop an adaptation to altitude, and also temperature and humidity changes over time. Lungs adapt, sweat system adapts etc. Not genetic adaptation, just the flexibility of the organism. ABE: Even skin color can adapt to a certain extent, white skin sometimes tanning well, dark skin losing some of its darkness where it's not subjected to intense sunlight. /ABE Well the adaptations do appear to be fact except for some of the exceptions, but I'm not sure the standard interpretation has been demonstrated to be fact. Plausible theory, yes, but fact?
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.

quote:

---

I've acknowledged that natural selection occurs in some cases (peppered moths for instance) but at the same time I've argued that I think it is far less often the cause of adaptive changes than mere reproductive isolation of a randomly assembled smallish daughter population.

---

So you agree that it is NOT "purely hypothetical" as you claimed. And so far as the rest of your claims go, are you REALLY relying on drift to get all your "loss of genetic diversity"?

quote:

---

I've argued this in relation to Darwin's finches for instance, and the large-headed lizard on the island in Croatia.

---

Have you even read the popular literature in the studies of natural selection with regard to Darwin's finches? If you haven't, isn't it your position that is "purely hypothetical"?

The declaration that it's all so much more complex is not evidence.

Everything I've seen about the cheetah is that it was formed by a bottleneck, a purely random and not health-promoting event. The best interpretation then seems to be that its wonderful body design for speed was also purely accidental or random.As with most interpretations of evolution by adaptation the reasoning is rarely convincing. The peppered moths and the pocket mice are examples where they must have adapted in response to the environment, but why should the cheetah? The bottleneck is what brought out its traits, but what makes their great speed in any way more useful for survival than the speed of the lion or the jaguar or etc? It's not necessary, it's just one of the beautiful possibilities nature built into the cat genome. A likely story, that's all, the usual plausible explanation that can't be proven and probably isn't true. Pure hypothesis, or fiction, especially in this case considering that they are understood to have been created by a bottleneck which doesn't take more than a few generations to bring out new traits.. Again this too is just hypothesis, a Likely Story. There is no evidence of any of this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My hypothesis IS also hypothetical. It just seems to me to fit the facts better, and it's far less costly than natural selection.

quote:

---

Everything I've seen about the cheetah is that it was formed by a bottleneck, a purely random and not health-promoting event. The best interpretation then seems to be that its wonderful body design for speed was also purely accidental or random.

---

False. Everything you,ve seen about the cheetah's genetic problems is attributed to the bottlenecks. That's not the same thing at all. You haven't seen anything supporting the idea that the cheetah's speed is "purely accidental or random".