Summations Only

The Linnaean classification was just one man's ponderings, it is not based on genetics so it is open to question, and to my mind logic requires that cats be cats.It is not really important to my point anyway, Tangle. The same processes I'm talking about apply in either case. Reduction of diversity occurs as breeds develop whether big cats and little cats are of the same species or not. That's just a red herring.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here are just a few shining examples: Message 59Message 65Message 82Message 114Yea, Faith. You have used words in such a manner as to represent ALL young earth creationists. Words have meanings and common usages and if you wish to communicate properly and effectively, you have to use those words in an accepted fashion and not just make shit up. Now that you disagree with most of them, you are trying to backtrack. Good god you are a dishonest one.I even called you out on it earlier, before it was pointed out that you disagreed with AIG and CMI and you didn't object. Message 83 and Message 85

In other words it follows from your assumption that genetic diversity inevitably decreases. However the fact that you need it to be so for your belief to be true is not EVIDENCE in itself. At the least you would need evidence that your assumption is true - and you don't have that.

Then how can you say what "would" have happened? Logic is only as good as its premises, which is why you need evidence before you can predict what "would" happen. Since you admittedly have no evidence that it did happen, your claim is empty. So, presumably the greatest genetic diversity was immediately after the Creation (because you can't extrapolate any further than that) and it declined steadily until the Flood?

There s no evidence on your side of this either, it's all conjecture, and I do have logic on my side. Again if it could be tested genetically as I've described then we'd know if my prediction is correct or not.

Yes it has been shown and repeatedly. Pre-flood and even pre-Adam critters show about the same genetic diversity as today.You, of course are free to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Nah nah nah, can't hear you" or shut your eyes and shout "I can't see what you wrote" but honest people have and can.You even took part in the Oetzi thread where genetics of humans, plants and animals that would have been contemporary with Adam had Adam existed were discussed and there are also studies from humans, plants and animals that lived 10,000, 20,000 even 50,000 years ago and nowhere is your nonsense supported. In fact, humans today show greater genetic diversity than those from over 50,000 years ago.

quote:

---

There s no evidence on your side of this either, it's all conjecture, and I do have logic on my side.

---

No, the weight if the evidence is against your idea of inevitably declining diversity and if you have "logic" on your side I have yet to see it. Certainly you have not been able to answer my reasoning that a mere reduction in genetic diversity cannot explain loss of interfertility or offer any explanation of how it could to point to just one example. If the loss of interfertility relies on genetic change as I would argue then your argument is in trouble.And I'll add that given your assumption that Noah's Flood the genetic diversity of species prior to the Flood doesn't matter. All the matters is the genetic diversity of the survivors on the Ark. And for unclean species, restricted to a single pair that amounts to 4 alleles per locus unless you want to propose exotic genomes again (and THAT would be sheer conjecture).

quote:

---

Again if it could be tested genetically as I've described then we'd know if my prediction is correct or not.

---

I think you mean that you reject the tests available because they don't support you.It's a fact that we haven't seen domestic varieties "speciating" in your sense even though they are placed under more intense selection than natural species - and still need a degree of artificial selection to be to be maintained. You can't show a single example that supports your "species are just genetically depleted varieties" argument.

It seems to me that when new species are formed, they usually contain more genetic material and not less.

But that is not what "species" means.Apparently you want to deny that evolution has produced new families. So, here's an idea, you could say: "I deny that evolution has produced new families". Instead, your plan is to go about saying that evolution has produced no new species, while also demanding that the word "species" should be redefined to mean family.This is moronic even for you. Why not just say what you mean in the English language as it exists?If you wanted to say you had a pet cat, would you go around saying that you had a pet elephant and demanding that the word "elephant" should be redefined to mean cat?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, of course it is, 'cos it's not true.It is, however, possible to produce evidence for the exact opposite. Remember how I did that?

They are formed from a split off a larger population. The smaller population cannot possibly have more genetic material than the larger. It takes the reduction or loss of alleles for the former characteristics for the allleles for the new characteristics to increase, and often the former disappear from the population altogether if the population is appreciably smaller than the original.

This is absolutely wrong.If every population has a range of variation (for the sake of a round number we'll call that 10%), then when speciation occurs, the two subpopulations--species--each contains both the differences one from the other and the 10% range of variation.Multiply this by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of species, all having descended from a common ancestor and each carrying distinct differences one from the other, plus that 10% range of variation within each species.It is completely irrational to claim that the resulting genetic variation is less than that contained in the original common ancestor.

Meanwhile, back in reality ...Does it not disturb you at all that the things you imagine happening are the exact opposite of the things we observe happening?

So if I've got this right, all those species that we know existed 4,000 years ago - bears, pigs, goats, sheep, cows, wheat, cyprus and so on were different from those that occur today because they had a super-genome from which all today's animals and plants came from. Even though todays animals and plants would all be recognisable by Noah?We know (sic) that ravens and doves were on the boat - did they contain the genome for ostriches, robins and kiwis too?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You're right.But, really, so is Faith... in a way that doesn't seem to coincide with her main point.Faith is referencing the cheetah's low amount of genetic variation in being a diverse species. This is true.
But it's not true because the cheetah has evolved over many, many years. It's true simply because there aren't many cheetahs.Think of a population... then split that population between 2 factors.
Then take each of those groups and split them between the same 2 factors again.
Do this over and over again many times.
Obviously... any particular 1 group will be much less "diverse" than the original, entire population.Now, kill off all groups except for one.
This one group is all that's left, and it has a "low amount of genetic variation."This is what Faith's talking about. Except she's claiming that it's due to evolution... just because the selection process has occurred many, many times. But that part isn't true. It's not due to the evolution process... it's due to the killing-off-of-all-the-others fact.Take humans as the example for the other side of the fence. We've evolved over the same number of "many, many years" as the cheetah. But we are very genetically diverse. This is because nothing is "killing off" all the splits that we've been making.