quote: WHO SAID MUTATIONS WEREN'T A FACT? THEY SIMPLY DO NOT DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO. And as I pointed out, even if they did they COULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT TO GET A BREED OR A VARIATION REQUIRES A REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY.
Species are not mere "breeds' or "varieties". Breeds and varieties are derived FROM species by human breeding efforts and need to be artificially maintained by those efforts.
quote: THAT DOESN'T CHANGE, MUTATION OR NO MUTATION. AND THAT REDUCTION MEANS THAT EVOLUTION EVENTUALLY COMES TO AN END LONG BEFORE IT COULD EVER GET TO PRODUCING A NEW SPECIES (MEANING A REAL NEW SPECIES, NOT THE VARIATIONS THAT SIMPLY CAN NO LONGER BREED WITH THE MOTHER POPULATION),.
The evidence says that you are wrong. I know that you dismiss both the evidence and expert opinion (do we need you review your statements on expert opinions here ?) but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence is against you - and all the lies and slander you can muster won't outweigh that in the minds of rational people.
quote: AND EVEN IF MUTATIONS SOMETIMES DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO, YOU WERE STILL MAKING IT ALL UP OUT OF THIN AIR IN YOUR POST. BUT WHAT IF THEY DID DO WHAT YOU SAY THEY DO, AND INCREASE THE GENETIC DIVERSITY. THEN, AS I'VE POINTED OUT BEFORE MANY TIMES, YOU CANNOT HAVE BREEDS, RACES ETC., BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY FORM FROM A REDUCED SET OF ALLELES, I.E. IN THE SITUATION OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY. SOON AS YOU INCREASE DIVERSITY, GENE FLOW, EETC., EETC., YOU INTERFERE WITH THE BREED. BUT EVOLUTION HAS TO FORM BREEDS AND "SPECIES" THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION DOES. ERGO, END OF EVOLUTION.
As I have pointed out evolution does NOT act like human breeders trying to maintain a breed. Your assumption to the contrary is merely an assumption and one with no foundation in evolutionary theory. Evolution cares nothing about some abstract idea of the "breed".
quote: AND EVEN IF MUTATIONS SOMETIMES DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO, YOU WERE STILL MAKING IT ALL UP OUT OF THIN AIR IN YOUR POST. BUT WHAT IF THEY DID DO WHAT YOU SAY THEY DO, AND INCREASE THE GENETIC DIVERSITY.
Obviously mutations MUST increase genetic diversity at the level of the genome - especially when variation is low - and there is no good reason to think that they cannot produce new phenotypic traits either (in fact we know that they can).
(And don't forget that the standard YEC view that whole taxonomic families were formed from a population of only TWO individuals ! Obviously that isn't possible in your view)
quote: THEN, AS I'VE POINTED OUT BEFORE MANY TIMES, YOU CANNOT HAVE BREEDS, RACES ETC., BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY FORM FROM A REDUCED SET OF ALLELES, I.E. IN THE SITUATION OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY. SOON AS YOU INCREASE DIVERSITY, GENE FLOW, EETC., EETC., YOU INTERFERE WITH THE BREED. BUT EVOLUTION HAS TO FORM BREEDS AND "SPECIES" THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION DOES. ERGO, END OF EVOLUTION.
And you are wrong. Certainly you have never come up with an argument other than the assumption that evolution somehow "wants" to prevent the addition of diversity.
quote: AGAIN, CONSERVATIONISTS AND BREEDERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY ALL THE TIME. THIS WE KNOW IS REALITY. MUTATIONS EXIST BUT THE ROLE EVOLUTIONISM ASSIGNS TO THEM IS ALL SPECULATIVE.
And the reason they have to face this is because of short-term concerns relating to reduced and fragmented populations, exactly in line with evolutionary theory. There is no reason to believe that genetic diversity could not recover in the long term, if the species survived that long (cheetahs are recovering, although the more recent bottleneck was a setback - and before you reflexively disagree it is only because of the increases in genetic diversity at the level of the genome that we can detect the timing of the bottlenecks - or that the second even occurred)
quote: The only reason it works, you credulous people, is because it CANNOT be tested. The unwitnessed PAST CANNOT BE TESTED, it is purely, always, and completely a matter of speculation. Speculation can be "confirmed" endlessly by people who believe it, they can cram all manner of data into it because there is no way to prove them wrong. There is NO objective way to prove any of it, that's why it is so successful. Poor deluded people
Of course this is all wrong. We CAN test ideas about what happened in the past. For instance evolutionary theory predicted that we would find transitional fossils - and we did.
quote: Look, I've given FACTS in support of my position that you can't get "evolution" without reducing genetic diversity, it's something breeders and conservationists have to deal with IN REALITY all the time, and guess what, reducing genetic diversity means that eventually as creatures are engaged in evolving you run out of the stuff that fuels evolution. End of evolution. This is all about REAL FACTS, not imaginary charts and speculations that cannot be tested.
However your argument relies on an assumption - a big assumption that you have no evidence for. The assumption that diversity cannot recover. We know that diversity can and does increase at the level of the genome. We have every reason to believe that the same applies at the level of the phenotype - especially given the timescales involved. We also know by your own admission that your theory is not compatible with an old Earth and old life - and we know that the Earth and life on it have been around for a very long period of time.
So there is no rational reason to accept your opinions.
quote: No, you have never found transitional fossils according to the huge numbers and varieties that Darwin recognized would be required to prove the theory, in the bazillions. You've found a few fossils that share features of different species and you call those transitions. Just part of the way you all delude yourselves.
On the contrary, Darwin never gave any such estimate. And even Kurt Wise - that rarity, a YEC palaeontologist - has admitted that they are significant evidence for evolution. The transitionals we find do not merely share features found in other species (and if they did they would NOT be expected follow the pattern predicted by evolution!). They link major groups - such as birds and dinosaurs.
The truth is no delusion.
quote: No, this is not my assumption. I do believe that mutations cannot bring about such recovery, but recovery is possible by many means. The point I have made over and over is that increasing genetic diversity can only defeat the purpose of developing varieties or breeds, or new "species."
As I have pointed out this is simply not true. There is no such purpose. There is no breeder or other force to enforce such a purpose. There is not even a problem with the outcome - adding new variations not found in the parent species does not make a new species any less a species. The idea is absurd.
Your problem is not that your idea has not been seriously considered. It is that it HAS been considered - and found wanting.
quote: Producing a new phenotype is a very simple matter of reproductively isolating a small portion of a population and letting it inbreed for some number of generations. You don't need massive timescales, all you need is GENETIC REDUCTION.
An increase in phenotypic diversity is caused by a REDUCTION in genetic diversity ? That does not make sense. Dogs as a whole have great phenotypic diversity but that involves the genetic diversity of the whole species, not that of a single breed.
quote: What you think you "know" is just a matter of what you BELIEVE, as you cannot KNOW anything about the unwitnessed past, ALL you can do is speculate. That's why the ToE is, always was and will remain a "theory" in the sense it was a theory in Darwin's day.
And even in Darwin's day it was far better supported than your opinions. And we have discovered much since then.
quote: Finally, the fact that you are NOT getting what I'm saying, and I'm sure you are representative, is coming out
It looks more like YOU failed to get what I was saying. I was talking about an increase in the number of phenotypic variations found within a population. It doesn't make sense that reducing genetic variation would cause that.
quote: Yes, to get a new phenotype requires that the genetic material for OTHER traits be eliminated from the new breed, which is a reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population, the new breed, from the former population or from the species population as a whole.
But I'm not talking about "getting a new phenotype" or a "new breed". I am talking about within-species phenotypic variation increasing, mainly because you refuse to accept variations in gene sequences as increases in genetic variation.
quote: Yes, that is how it happens in the wild and in domestic breeding. You are breeding angus cattle, then you cannot have alleles or whatever genetic material applies, for any other breed of cattle. Ideally purebreds have fixed loci for the traits that define the breed, or much homozygosity in the genome for those traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced genetic diversity.
In other words you are talking about a REDUCTION in phenotypic variation not an INCREASE. I think that adequately demonstrates which of us is "NOT getting" it.
We can dispense with the next paragraph since it simply repeats the same error.
quote: I mean that if you don't get species or breeds you are not getting evolution, that's all I meant by the word "purpose."
But increasing genetic diversity doesn't interfere with getting new species. Once the species has formed of course it can add new variations without losing the distinctive features we use to identify it (and if a few such features were lost they would simply be discounted as diagnostic features for identifying that species - so even that is not a problem).
quote: Evolution isn't happening if you aren't getting new species or breeds or varieties and to get them requires the elimination of genetic material for everything but the traits of that group. In the wild this is usually a random process, not intentional in any sense of the word, except where natural "selection" has a role, but it's still true that the development of a new phenotype, a new species, is built on the elimination of alleles or genetic material for other traits in the previous population or the species as a whole, even in the mother population from which the new "species" has migrated or otherwise become reproductively isolated. So if you have mutations or any other way gene flow is increased, that are introducing genetic diversity into a breed or new "species" you are destroying the breed, interfering with evolution.
Gene flow from the parent species is a potential problem (which is why reproductive isolation is an important criterion for identifying species). An incipient species could be reabsorbed into the parent species. But once it is distinct with reproductive isolation established that cannot happen. The rest of your argument is just false. New variations created by mutation AFTER a new species has formed do not in any way threaten its existence as a species.
quote: Since to get a new "species" requires that a new set of alleles for traits characterize this population, i.e. reduced genetic diversity with respect to previous populations from which it is now isolated, adding back anything to increase diversity only defeats the "purpose" as it were of forming new species.
You keep making that claim but you've never offered any reason to believe it. And as I say it's obviously false. Only reversion to the parental species' phenotype would "defeat" evolution and adding variations not found in the parental population will obviously not do that. To point to just one example, the short legs of dachshunds do not make them wolves rather than dogs.
quote: This is absolutely contrary to the idea that the ToE is only onward and upward with the development of varieties or "microevolution," having no stopping point. What's to stop it? everybody asks. Well THIS is what stops it. You can't have a continual increase in genetic diversity along with every new speciation event. THAT idea is pure fantasy, absolutely contradicted by the reality of what has to happen to form a new species.
If your opinion was sufficient to settle an argument then you wouldn't need your argument in the first place. So you need more than your opinion that adding new variations to a newly-formed species somehow makes it less of a species. It is obviously absurd to say that the appearance of a new variation not found in the parent species represents a reversion to the parent species. And yet, that is what your argument seems to amount to.
Let's boil it down to that question:
We have a new species.
A new phenotypic variation appears in that species - it does not cause any of the features that distinguish the new species from it's parent species to be lost. It is not found in the parent species at all.
How does this make the new species any less a species ?
Until you can give an answer to that question that makes sense your argument fails.
quote: Which, again, is exactly how you are failing to get what I've been talking about lo these many posts back through many threads over many moons. Finally you at least get what I'm saying and you think it doesn't make sense. That's a good start, finally.
Just to be really clear you are claiming that increased genetic variation measured at the level of the phenotype is produced by reduced genetic variation ? Because if you aren't you're the one failing to understand the point.
quote: New phenotypic variations emerge when you have new gene frequencies or allele frequencies, will you allow that much? And will you allow that this only occurs in an isolated subpopulation, because if it occurs in the larger population the changes will get rapidly diffused or absorbed? Somehow even within the larger population, then, you have to have some form of reproductive isolation occurring.
No, I won't grant that. Changing the frequencies of genes won't change the combinations possible so without the addition of new genetic variations the possible range of phenotype so remains the same. At most you can produce phenotypes that would be incredibly unlikely given the original gene frequencies.
quote: You say these phenotypic changes are found WITHIN a population, whereas my examples have been exclusively of new populations formed apart from a former population. But in either case you have to have reproductive isolation in order to get identifiable variations in the phenotype in an identifiable subpopulation, so this would have to be the case within the larger population wherever this is happening, by some form of sexual selection on the part of individuals within the population perhaps.
This seems to be nonsense. A "new population" is a population so the idea that I couldn't mean that just because I used the word "population" is so obviously silly that it needs no further comment. All species display a range of phenotypic variation, and we can get distinct subspecies without absolute reproductive isolation.
quote: The reason I am talking about establishing a new breed or species is to answer the common refrain that there is nothing to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Evolutionists treat all variations of the microevolution sort as open-ended, such that there is nothing stopping fishes from evolving into zebras among other things, according to the typical evolutionist chart of the sort Coyote posted back in Message 49. My argument is that in fact there are GENETIC limits to this open-endedness, such that to get a new "species" REQUIRES that its genetic diversity be reduced from that of the population it diverges from. My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
Speciation is, as you know, macroevolution in the scientific use of the term. But again you need to produce an argument that shows that genetic diversity cannot increase after the new species has formed.
quote: You seem to be talking about a new phenotype in a very limited sense, the result of a mutation in an individual within a population that may produce a new trait in that individual
Of course I am talking about new phenotypic variations because that's the point I am making. And the only reason I am talking about phenotype is that you apparently won't accept changes measured at the level of genotype.
quote: But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution
Actually it IS evolution - microevolution. And I must say that not thinking about a point that could defeat your argument is hardly a good way to answer it.
quote: If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
The trouble with this argument is that it fails to establish an overall trend. If the new species can increase in genetic diversity to the same level as the parent species there is no need for a long-term overall decline - just a pattern of peaks and troughs. By not considering increases in genetic diversity you missed this obvious and serious problem in your argument.
quote: No, I'm saying that to get a new phenotype, which is an increase in phenotypic variation, requires that you not have alleles for other phenotypes, and that is a situation of reduced genetic diversity in the population of your new phenotype with regard to the original or mother population of the species
Obviously you are talking about reduced phenotypic VARIATION.
quote: Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes. As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
But THAT population has reduced phenotypic variation. That's the whole point of your argument. So you're the one not getting it.
quote: It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
No you've expressed it clearly enough. You just haven't offered any explanation of how it could possibly be true.
quote: You are talking about details, I'm trying to stay focused on the big picture, that you don't get a new population of a new phenotype, a new set of traits, without a reduction in the underlying genetic diversity within the new subpopulation with respect to the earlier population from which it diverged. And this is most apparent with the smaller numbers of individuals that form the new population, although it is the trend even with larger groups.
No, I'm taking a BROADER view than you. Where you only think about soeciation I am thinking about what happens to the population in the periods between speciation events as well - which is a considerable majority of the lifespan of a successful species.
quote: Yes they would if they affect traits considered characteristic of that species. This is only of importance in domestic breeding where you risk losing some crucially defining characteristics, and the main thing if this occurs in the wild is that you have the absurd situation of forming a new species on the basis of its reduced genetic diversity, which is THE way new species have to form, and then you add in stuff that blurs the picture but it would never be enough new diversity to make up for the necessary and essential loss that creates the species in the first place; so what you are picturing is something like losing genetic diversity and then adding back in a little genetic diversity, then if a new species forms from that losing genetic diversity again and so on. Halting steps forward and backward forever. This is NOT how evolution is presented, as a straightforward increase in both genetic and phenotypic diversity without any glitches between the fish and the zebra.
There are no "crucially defining features" of a wild species. There are only the features we use to identify a species and if members if a species lack one or more if those traits we were wrong to regard them as reliable identifiers in the first place.
And you are even more wrong about evolution. Evolutionary theory never says that the within-species level of genetic variation - which is what you are talking about in your argument - must increase. Yes if you add the genetic variations in zebras to those in fish you will find a lot more than in any single species but your argument says nothing to that could get in the way of that.
And simply assuming that the increases in genetic variation cannot balance the losses is just an assumption.
quote: The point I'm trying to keep in focus is that the FORMATION of a new species, that is, the emergence of new traits that come to characterize a new population-wide phenotype, always involves the reduction of genetic diversity; that is the DIRECTION of such changes, you don't get new species from the addition of genetic diversity. In the case of domestic breeding that will only produce a mongrel. Perhaps you can argue that in the wild it doesn't matter if the phenotype keeps changing, OK, but again that's a trivial point. I think what I'd say here is that it doesn't actually happen. You don't get that kind of blurring of the phenotype in the wild as a rule, or ever. You get pretty clearcut traits in your new inbred subpopulation, whether of Darwin's turtles or the island lizards or a subpopulation of chipmunks or whatever, as long as reproductive isolation is maintained
You say that we get no "blurring" but what does that mean ? You can't imagine that every member of a species is identical to the others in phenotype or genotype. But what is this "blurring" other than variation within the species ?
quote: Hardly. Increasing genetic diversity is just a side issue to my argument.
Then you don't understand your own argument.
quote: I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it. I'm just trying to answer the constant refrain that assumes that mutations are always adding genetic diversity, saying that even if that happened it couldn't counteract the necessity of reducing genetic diversity in order to get a new "species" and THAT is what my argument "amounts" to, that's what it's ABOUT. Even if mutations do increase genetic diversity the effect has to be small and it is only going to create that situation of a step forward and a step back that I described above anyway, which in itself contradicts the smooth unhindered path pictured by evolutionists from micro to macroevolution.
In other words you are just making assumptions. At the level of the genotype most mutations are neutral anyway. Likely a lot of phenotypic mutations are neutral too. And, of course, natural selection weighs in to spread beneficial mutations and remove deleterious mutations. I've made this point before but it seems I must make it again. Assuming that numbers you don't know happen to favour your view is not an argument. It's just an assumption.
quote: Again, THAT is NOT "my argument" and for my answer to this side issue of a challenge see above.
But it is your argument. You even used it in this post:
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
quote: The diversity argument you find so irrational seems to me to be the soul of simplicity and obviousness, not necessarily easily grasped due to evolutionist assumptions but nevertheless simple enough if one makes an effort to see it within the creationist paradigm, and aids to understanding it are available from a basic knowledge of how breeding works and what conservationists do. It is indeed frustrating not to be able to get something so simple across. To my mind this is a frustrating but interesting case of paradigm clash.
Of course the paradigm clash here is not about understanding (except in the broader sense that the creationist paradigm favours dogma over understanding).
The problem is that your argument has a serious hole in it, and has from the start. It is necessary for your argument that any increases in diversity are insufficient to raise a new species to the level of diversity found in modern species. But you've found no argument for that except the one that it somehow interferes with the formation of "species" - but you cannot offer any reason why.
Saying that your argument isn't understood just because we see the obvious problem - a problem that has devilled all the forms of your argument so you can hardly be unaware of it - is not a sensible response.
Now in the creationist paradigm arguments are judged by conclusions. not quality. Obviously creationists will tend to be deceived by your argument because they won't bother to understand it. Lies and slander against evolution and evolutionists are plusses as well so obviously creationists will be very willing to accept your argument.
And indeed we see that creationists obviously DO accept bad arguments like "the population argument" or the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Arguments which do not stand up to examination. Occasionally a more critical creationist will make an attempt at intellectual honesty, For instance Answers in Genesis once produced a list of arguments which they felt weren't good enough to use - and they were blasted by Kent Hovind for doing so. Glen Morton ran into similar problems pointing out problems in Flood Geology. And Kurt Wise's assessment of transitional fossils seems to have fallen through the cracks, too.
My generous assessment of the creationist paradigm is that it is based on prejudice and a disregard for the truth. Something you've quite adequately demonstrated in this thread.
quote: This is a misstatement... "insufficient to raise a new species to the level of diversity found in modern species?" I'm not sure I even know what you are talking about. If you are using the term "new species" to refer to new varieties or breeds or microevolution, as I am, then their "level of diversity" IS the level of diversity found in "modern species."
It doesn't seem to be a misstatement. If the diversity of species is - in the long run - fixed at the current level then there is no inevitable decline in diversity.
quote: No, that is not a hole in my argument, it is simply hard to get it said what is really going on.
It certainly is a hole in your argument - and if it were simply a matter of explaining it you wouldn't be offering a completely new argument here,
quote: If a reduction in genetic diversity is necessary to the creation of new varieties or breeds, which it is, and if the creation of new varieties or breeds or "species" is the very stuff of evolution, which it is, then an increase in genetic diversity is obviously of no value whatever, AND all you are doing is increasing and decreasing to no purpose.
There's a lot to disagree with there. But the fatal flaw is that is doesn't matter if it is "of value" or not. What matters is whether it HAPPENS to a degree sufficient to prevent the inevitable decline you propose in your argument. And, as I pointed out above this has no relation to your assertion that new variations would somehow interfere with speciation! which you used before.
quote: An increase in diversity through mutation MIGHT become the genetic basis for a new trait, IF it actually occurs which is questionable, but even if it did, for that trait to become part of a new "species" it has to be selected, become part of a population that is reproductively isolated from the rest, and that's where we get a REDUCTION in genetic diversity
But that reduction is a reduction from the full diversity found in the parent species at the time of the split. This is why gains in diversity are a problem for you - the mere fact of their existence, combined with what we know of the timescales strongly suggests that genetic diversity is,overall, in a state of dynamic equilibrium, oscillating about a mean rather than inevitable declining.
quote: Adding genetic diversity is never going to get you past the necessity for reducing it to create a new "species." And I realize that this too no doubt doesn't say it much more clearly yet.
As I said above it's a matter of looking at the bigger picture to consider the overall trend in diversity. Just looking at speciation will mislead you badly because you are ignoring so much.
quote: You are likely to object to the part where I say that the creation of new varieties or breeds or "species" is the very stuff of evolution, so I have to go on to point out that much of the argument here revolves around the evolutionist assertion that microevolution just smoothly transitions into macroevolution, meeting with no hindrances, but if reducing genetic diversity is necessary to microevolution, which it is, then there is one big fat hindrance right there.
Of course the appearance and spread of new alleles is also microevolution. And it is essential to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, for instance. If such a common example of microevolution depends on the appearance of new variations, obviously your idea that they "have no value" is wrong from the perspective of evolution.
quote: Interesting how dictionaries can be written to prove anything, such as that mutations are mere "variant forms that may be transmitted to future generations."
Dictionaries record the way that words are used. And anybody with any understanding of genetics would understand that that IS how the word "mutation" is used in genetics. Even creationists are happy to use that definition.
quote: The ToE requires that it be so, therefore it is so.
I think that fact that is IS so has more to do with it....
quote: No such thing has REALLY been proven but they can now just define it into existence so that it convinces people that it has been.
No. The fact is that these things exist and people use the word "mutation" to describe them. There is no special "true" meaning of the word "mutation" to contradict it.
quote: Pure word magic.
Obviously not. The fact that a word is used to describe something is not in any way magic. It is your objections which seem to be founded on the idea of "word magic".
quote: Whoever has the power runs the show. It sure isn't truth and reality running the show.
Well that doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously truth and reality DO have rather a lot to do with it. The truth and reality that that is how the word is used to describe things that are known to exist.
Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
quote: I also have no interest in pursuing questions about mutations and allele formation because that was a side issue brought up by ramoss in giving the tendentious evolutionist definitions of them, and I answered that to my satisfaction.
I think that we are all satisfied that you proved that there is something seriously wrong with you in those rants,
quote: The topic we got off on for most of the thread so far was my familiar argument that the development of varieties or breeds or "species" all require reduced genetic diversity, and that was to answer the usual evolutionist insistence that there is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, that there is nothing to stop the one from becoming the other. But the requirement of reduced genetic diversity does indeed bring an end to the processes of phenotypic variation, otherwise known as evolution, bringing an end to the ability of evolution to continue past the genetic content of the particular genome of the Species that is undergoing phenotypic variation/evolution.
Of course the problem with that argument is - and always has been - that it is necessary to also account for increases in diversity. Indeed, the mere existence of any increases in diversity is a challenge. When there are processes acting in opposite directions the final state is almost always a dynamic equilibrium. Indeed, given that we can justifiably conclude that evolution has gone on for hundreds of millions of years the reasonable position is that overall that balance has been achieved (although human activities may be driving diversity down in many species). You may object that you do not accept the timescales, but that would be a different argument altogether, and we are certainly entitled to accept solidly established scientific facts,
quote: As usual everybody wants to add in mutations as if that would change this basic picture, but of course it wouldn't. Eventually if you are going to get new breeds or speciation you are going to run out of genetic diversity. If you aren't getting new breeds or "species" then evolution isn't happening at that point anyway.
Mutations represent an increase in diversity and as I point out above that is a serious challenge to your argument. I guess that in your world 5 + 3 - 3 = 2. Because that is essentially what you are saying. In the real world it is possible for an increase to counter a decrease and just insisting that it is absolutely impossible is silly,
quote: Mutations as believed in by evolutionists at best provide the stuff that the selection and isolation processes work on to develop a new breed, variety or "species" but those very processes are what reduce the genetic diversity, so whatever provides the alleles for the traits, whether they are built in or the product of mutations, they all go through this same process if they become part of a new "species" and there we are again at the end of any further ability to vary or evolve.
A decrease followed by an increase followed by a decrease is different from a decrease followed only by more decreases. That is not a difficult concept. As I pointed out the first time I you trotted out this argument it is necessary to take the increases into consideration. Simply trying to hand wave them away as irrelevant is an obvious falsehood,
I think that this is Faith demonstrating that there is something wrong with her again.
If decreasing genetic diversity increased phenotypic diversity the most phenotypically diverse population would be genetically identical. It's so obviously absurd if you think about it that it's hard to see how any sensible person could suggest it.
quote: I’m trying to make a point about how new characteristics arise and all of it comes down to population splits, and ultimately you get the most phenotypic change from the least genetic diversity because you force dramatic new allelic combinations that way. You can get the most dramatic new varieties just by dramatically reduced genetic diversity, and breeding ought to be a good clue to that, no matter what differences exist between breeding and the wild methods.
Maybe it is possible to maximise phenotypic change by reducing genetic diversity, but why should that be relevant ? There's no drive to maximise differences in phenotype, the only drive is to maximise fitness through selection
And one important difference between natural selection and breeders is that while breeders can choose to strongly select for recessive genes without any great difficulty, recessive alleles are much less affected by natural selection than dominant alleles. This is why genetic diseases are recessive.
quote: But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one; then it has to get passed on which may not happen right away; then it has to be favored among competing alleles which is far from guaranteed, and meanwhile there are plenty of other mutations of the deleterious and "neutral" sort that go on cropping up unhelpfully, so why would I NEED a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating? OR, this very scenario IS that mechanism.
As I've pointed out again and again we don't need beneficial mutations to restore genetic diversity, neutral mutations are fine. Two distinct alleles are still distinct even if neither confers a selective advantage over the other. This should be obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the concept of "diversity".
The large population isn't an issue either - successful species will have large populations (that's what you miss by only looking at speciation).
So, we have a large population, a long period of time and neutral mutations ARE helpful. It seems that you DO need a mechanism to stop mutations from increasing genetic diversity - because in this scenario it WILL happen.
So we're back again to the hole in your argument that has been obvious from the beginning. You've spent years trying to patch it and you still haven't come up with a working answer. Isn't it time to retire the argument until you actually have an answer that isn't obviously false ?