WTF is wrong with people

quote:

---

Mindspawn apparently agrees with the geological time scale, which means that YECs would NOT agree with him.

---

LOL! Mindspawn says that the Triassic began 4,500 years ago !What is more, even if you were right it would still be irrelevant to the point I was making.

quote:

---

I did explain that: Far greater heterozygosity the further back you go

---

Want to explain how you can have MORE alleles than Mindspawn is assuming (two different alleles per individual per species) ?

quote:

---

Human beings today have been found to have 6.7% heterozygosity, which is probably similar to that of the animals that descended from those on the ark.

---

But humans also have genes with many more than the 10 alleles allowed by the usual interpretation of the Ark story.Obviously heterozygosity is far from the whole story.But I invite you to investigate genetics and discover if your idea is really an adequate explanation. I have good reason to think that you will find that it is not.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I am not claiming there's a natural drive in this direction, but it is a very common occurrence nevertheless. I emphasize it because it is best for demonstrating the trend to reduced genetic diversity which is more obvious in these situations

---

That's a fallacious argument. Even if it is a fact that reducing genetic diversity is good for making phenotypic changes it doesn't follow that phenotypic change is generally caused by reducing genetic diversity.

quote:

---

The populations founded on large numbers aren't evolving to genetic depletion, but those founded on smaller numbers are, and as I said this is a very common situation, probably the most common.

---

So why can't you find a single species that is evolving to genetic depletion ? Something that is common should be common, not vanishingly rare.

quote:

---

But of course they do show up because if they are passed on they do eventually pair.

---

The question is not whether the traits show up, but how much natural selection can help them spread. Because there is only an advantage for homozygotes they benefit less from selection, just as disadvantageous recessive alleles are less efficiently removed by selection.

quote:

---

But again I'm only interested in the situation involving new phenotypes developing from reduced numbers because of the reduced genetic diversity which ultimately leads to inability to evolve further. Often at the point so wishfully called "Speciation" too.

---

You assume that, but you have yet to make a decent case for it.

quote:

---

The problem with "neutral" alleles is that they alter another allele that may have been perfectly functional.

---

That isn't a problem. Especially as it is all but absolutely certain that the unaltered allele is present in other individuals in the population.

quote:

---

You are all so mutation-happy you assume if you aren't getting a disease-producing mutation all is well. And for the most part the neutral changes don't change the function of the allele either as I understand it. But all of them destroy SOMETHING that was already there, and since enormous variety is quite possible just from the existing alleles by shuffling their frequencies through population splits, you aren't getting any real improvement in diversity by substituting something else for them. You THINK you are because the ToE SAYS you must, but there is no evidence for this. The next changes in those same sequences are far more likely just to destroy the allele altogether and make Junk of it rather than produce something viable.

---

A mutation can only remove an allele if there are no other copies in the population. That is so unlikely that it can be ignored.The rest of your rant makes no sense to me. Diversity is diversity. Claiming that it isn't is just silly.

quote:

---

I'm trying to make a point about how changes come about and that includes all kinds of varieties, not just speciation. You can get a very large population from a totally genetically depleted creature such as the elephant seal too. It shows the animal is healthy enough, or "successful" as you put it, but it also has no ability to vary beyond its current genetic condition, so that it is at the end of evolution for its line of variation. That's "success" in one sense, but not in the sense that it gives you any kind of platform for further evolution, just the opposite.

---

Which supports my point that attaining a large population is not the major barrier that you claim to be. (As for the "failure" of Elephant seals to recover I need only point to the timescale).

quote:

---

As soon as you get any kind of Selection, whether Natural Selection or geographic isolation or migration or so on, you are going to see the supposedly increased diversity start to cut down as particular traits are selected for the new variety. This can happen even WITHIN a population if there is some kind of reproductive selection going on among individuals. The evolving population will lose the alleles that compete with its own traits, thus reducing its genetic diversity.

---

Neither geographic isolation nor migration are examples of selection.And again you are making assumptions about rate that need to be supported by evidence. I've pointed out this error time and again but apparently you can't stop making it.

quote:

---

None of it's false and I think I get it said better over time, and better many times in this thread too.

---

Your whole attempt to avoid counting neutral mutations in your measure of diversity is obviously false. And the main "improvement" you have made in this version is dropping the silly idea of trying to exclude increases of diversity on the obviously spurious grounds that they would "blur" the new species. Not that you have come up with anything significantly better to replace it.

quote:

---

The telling situation IS when you get a new population from small numbers. That's when it's obvious that mutations make no difference whatever, assuming they are involved at all of course;

---

In fact it isn't "telling". What is telling is that you refuse to consider 99% or more of a species lifespan.

quote:

---

they either underlie the traits of the new population or they don't figure in the new population at all, and the new population has reduced genetic diversity even with whatever mutations there might be. If you are expecting mutations to come along THEN of course, you're going to be waiting a long long time

---

We've got a long, long time. That was one of my points.

quote:

---

Soon as I see a word like "Triassic" in a supposed creationist's post I don't bother to read it.

---

And you've just demonstrated why that's a mistake.You don't have to read what he says, but you do need to stop jumping to conclusions WITHOUT bothering to read what he says.And to show just out of step with mainstream YEC your attitude is try this: Mentions of "Triassic" at Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

Yes, this is true and something I think about from time to time. We'll have an answer for you eventually.

---

Mutation is the obvious answer.Edited by PaulK, : Made the title more acurate.

quote:

---

But it doesn't matter to me how a creationist uses or misuses the word "Triassic", he's wrong to use it at all

---

As I've shown mainstream Creationists disagree.But let's make some points more relevant to the thread. You made a fool of yourself by jumping to conclusions - and you didn't even have a relevant point. The only timescale relevant was the time since the Flood. And that was given as 4500 years.So why do it at all ? If you don't know what you're talking about why risk showing it to everyone when you don't even have a point ?Think about that.

quote:

---

OK, let's say Mutation IS the answer. It's a possibility. What we need to know, then, is what all the different alleles DO, what traits they bring about. We have x number of alleles beyond those that could have existed on the ark. Might it be possible to establish that the number on the ark are clearly functioning alleles for definable traits? (Maybe not if mutations simply destroy functioning alleles as I think is most often the case). Are x number or at least some of them duds perhaps, mutations that didn't really alter a previously existing allele's function? I mean do you KNOW what all the various alleles actually do or not, or are you just counting differences in he DNA sequence without assessing their function?

---

Woodmorappe says a maximum of 16,000 animals (including amphibians, birds and reptiles as well as mammals) giving us an absolute maximum of 32,000 alleles per locus between ALL such species. So that's one influential creationist opinion.And let me add that we only need to count genetic variations to conclude that mutations have happened. (IIRC the most variable genes are in the immune system and for that reason it is very likely that many of the differences are functional).

quote:

---

Or is there possibly a valid role for mutations that accords with the principles of creationism? I also ponder this, but it would be awfully hard to sort out the valid ones from the majority which are invalid.

---

There's nothing in creationism that needs to deny that mutations happen. You don't deny it for positive reasons, but for negative ones - to protect your argument from inconvenient facts.

quote:

---

The general rule for creating phenotypic change is population splits which bring about new allele frequencies in the new populations. I'm guessing that a majority of the daughter populations are going to be founded by a smaller number of individuals by comparison with the population left behind, but I suppose I could be wrong about that. In any case, some are not going to be so small and some splits may even be about equal. But if reproductively isolated for enough generations all will create a new variety from their new allele frequencies.

---

That really doesn't address the fallacy in your argument. It tries to replace it be a completely different argument. It certainly doesn't establish that speciation is only changes in the frequency of existing alleles. As I've said before there are reasons to think otherwise. If establishing reproductive isolation is an important part of speciation and if significantly reduced interfertility is a part of that (as it often seems to be) then it's rather more likely to be due to mutations than a simple redistribution of existing alleles.

quote:

---

I don't think it could possibly be rare. It happens in nature often enough to require intervention from conservationists. If the lizards on Pod Mrcaru should produce a new daughter population from some small number of individuals that new population would have even further reduced genetic diversity than its parent population.

---

No, reduced genetic diversity often occurs - but most often as the result of human activity. Your idea of evolution alone producing a continuous loss of diversity has never been found.

quote:

---

And of course here you are going to assume mutations save the day again, and all I'm going to say to that is that as a matter of fact they simply do NOT.

---

Faith you can't establish facts be decree. You aren't God.Evidence and reason say that mutations DO work to restore diversity, as I've argued. You haven't been able to refute my arguments or support your assertion. So why should I believe you ?

quote:

---

Especially in such a short time frame as it took the large headed lizards to emerge, and there's no reason to suppose the daughter population is going to need much more time to develop its own characteristics as well. One thing evolutionists do seem to agree on is that evolution by mutation takes a LOT of time. But evolution from mere change in allele frequencies does not.

---

If you think that I've made the claim that the lizards in the video lost a significant amount of genetic diversity and had it restored then you are very much mistaken. I haven't mentioned that case at all before now.

quote:

---

I've many times pointed to ring species as an example of a species evolving toward genetic depletion. These are generally misinterpreted by evolutionists to be formed by mutational changes from one population to the next, and great lengths of time are usually assumed for each to develop.

---

You've claimed it. You haven't given us any reason to believe it.

quote:

---

But the most likely explanation requires no more time for each than the lizards needed. A small number of individuals migrates from a former population and inbreeds over some number of generations, producing its new trait picture from its own set of allele frequencies, and then after some time, a matter of years or decades at most probably, a small number of individuals migrates away from THAT population and the same thing happens some miles down the road as it were: the new numbers inbreed among themselves and produce their own new trait picture from their own set of allele frequencies, and so on. Sometimes there are hybrid zones in between of course, so that the reproductive isolation isn't perfect but still you get a new recognizable phenotypic variation from the new allele frequencies.

---

What makes it the "most likely" scenario ? What is your evidence ?

quote:

---

These different populations migrate around some sort of geographic barrier, chipmunks around a mountain range, seagulls around an ocean, salamanders around a desert, greenish warblers around I-forget-what-barrier, etc., until the last population may actually bump into the first, and at that point the usual situation is that the two different populations cannot interbreed with each other.

---

Finding out the basis for the failure to interbreed would seem to be rather important before jumping to conclusions about how it happened. Have you done that ? What did you find ?

quote:

---

If you explain this entirely from mutations you are going to completely miss the fact that all this is possible from built-in alleles, and that each new population with its own particular characteristics is founded on increasingly reduced genetic diversity from one daughter population to the next, so that the last population in the series most likely develops its inability to interbreed with the original (which may also have evolved, however), strictly from genetic incompatibility due to severely reduced genetic diversity (which most likely means great homozygosity for its characteristic traits as compared with a greater heterozygosity as you go back around the ring).

---

So basically your point here is that if we don't assume that you're right we won't conclude that you're right. Please let me know how you came to your conclusions before simply telling me to accept them because you call them "facts". I prefer evidence and reason to opinions no matter how forcefully asserted.

quote:

---

ABE: Perhaps it would be useful to point out to Percy here that "ring species" are called "SPECIES" although most of the different populations have not lost their ability to interbreed with the others, especially those nearest in the chain. Creationists did not name them "species." So are these separate populations considered examples of Speciation or not, and if not, why not?

---

"Species" is both singular and plural and the term "ring species" tends to suggest a single species rather than multiple species as you understand it. Really this is just another example of life being too complex to fit into neat categories.

quote:

---

Where did I say anything about a large population being some kind of barrier?

---

I didn't say that you did. I said that you thought that a large population was needed as if that was a significant problem, It isn't. Message 271

quote:

---

I've said that if mutations increase diversity that would interfere with the processes of selection that form varieties / "species"

---

And it's still a silly claim - as shown by the fact that even you can't explain how it makes sense.

quote:

---

The elephant seals have just about no genetic diversity though a very large population. It's the nil genetic diversity that makes further variation, or evolution, impossible, not the size of the population.

---

And we know why that is, and it isn't relevant to the point.The point is really very simple. You say that we need large populations - but we have every reason to expect large populations. So it isn't a problem.

quote:

---

And in so doing you are merely pointing to an assumption, an artifact of the ToE, as if the elephant seals HAVE thousands or millions of years in which to recover.

---

This is completely false. I neither assume that the elephant seals DO have thousands or millions of years nor would any such assumption be based on the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

Sorry if I confused you with the word "selection," although it fits just fine if you think about it.

---

You didn't confuse me at all. You just made a mistake. And you're wrong again - natural selection is called natural selection because it has a selective element. Migration and isolation don't have a similar selective element - they don't "choose" based on traits.

quote:

---

They are all examples of processes that lead to reproductive isolation of a subpopulation.

---

Clearly you're confused. We don't label processes purely by their outcomes - we also use the nature of the processes in question and it is this that disqualifies geographic isolation and migration.

quote:

---

I keep insisting on because evolutionists make all these distinctions that only obscure the simple fact that ALL varieties arise as a result of population splits and there are many different ways of splitting a population.

---

I'm afraid that your egotism is showing here. Not only do you label your opinion a "fact" when you have failed to show that it is one, you also try to write off an important distinction without even considering the real reason for making it. Instead it all has to be about your ideas. Well it isn't. A process that selects based on phenotypical traits is far more efficient at perpetuating "desirable" traits and elimination "undesirable" traits (if they are heritable) then a process that perpetuates or eliminates traits based on chance alone.

quote:

---

I'm POSTULATING that the rate is much much faster than evolutionists assume, and the lizard example is one confirmation of that, and ring species don't need any more time than the lizards did to develop population after population. No error, different theory. As usual.

---

Actually you seem to be postulating that the rate at which mutation replaces lost diversity is much SLOWER. And you haven't established anything about rates of loss with the lizards or ring species so you haven't even explained that. So not only are you defending the wrong claim, you're defending it with assumptions rather than facts.

quote:

---

The time factor is a big one. You don't have TIME for the changes you impute to mutations.

---

That's a moot point. For the purposes of this argument you should be allowing us the timescales established by science - because the timescales you prefer already rule out evolution. If your argument can't stand without your timescales then it is simply not worth making.

quote:

---

You mean I refuse to accept the pure assumptions that are designed to confirm the ToE, that have no evidence for them. In other words, what is "telling" is that I refuse to be an evolutionist. Imagine that.

---

That you refuse to accept scientifically established facts - on completely false grounds is telling. That you expect us to accept your opinions as facts just because you say that they are is telling too. Well I guess you're contributing to the topic again. Although maybe you should explain WHY you take these attitudes.

quote:

---

That isn't a "point," that's a raw artifact of the ToE, pure fantasy

---

It's scientific fact. And the main evidence supporting it is completely independent of the theory of evolution. Really, why say these things when any reasonably informed person knows that they are completely untrue ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I try to stick to concepts I've thought about and feel I understand well enough to argue them, I don't have an opinion about T Rex

---

We've seen some pretty clear failures in this thread.While we're on the topic it's interesting that so many creationists either assume that all other creationists agree with them or should agree with them, even when it is pretty easy to see that isn't the case.

quote:

---

I think it ought to be considered on topic to try to answer the accusation that macroevolution is continuous with microevolution.

---

The topic is "what's wrong with creationists". Evolutionary theory would seem to be altogether outside it. Besides that's clearly a topic you don't understand.To add to the ACTUAL topic, Faith's attitude to macroevolution really shows a problem. Back then she said that she believed in speciation and I pointed out - quite truthfully - that she believed in macroevolution as it was scientifically defined. (This may be why she now claims NOT to believe in speciation as such). And we got the usual angry rants because Faith just can't believe in macroevolution - as if the word itself mattered more than the meaning. We've seen related issues with "mutation" recently and not just in this thread. Irrational hate for words, a hate that doesn't consider the meaning (or even attacks a simple and correct description of the meaning!) isn't rational or wholly sane,

quote:

---

And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.

---

You haven't really touched on that topic. The question is whether additional processes - beyond the mutation, natural selection and drift of microevolution - are involved in the formation of species and larger taxonomic groups. You insist that it's all selection and drift so you're mostly agreeing with the position that microevolution does add up to macroevolution.

quote:

---

And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.

---

Having checked both posts I can say that you are in error on both points. Especially as Percy's post was clearly an attempt to return to the topic (how can you judge whether a point is on-topic or not if you don't know what the topic IS ?)

quote:

---

The only thing I would add to it is that among the reasons I wouldn't expect people to be interested in experimenting to demonstrate how population splits bring about new varieties is that most people believe that change in nature takes a very very long time, which they've all learned from the ToE.

---

You won't try an experiment to support your views BECAUSE most other people disagree with you ? How is that at all rational ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How fitting, a totally off-the-wall mega-bizarre misreading to end the discussion.

---

It's not at all bizarre. You refuse to do an experiment to support your claims. The reason given is other peoples beliefs, beliefs that you clearly disagree with and that you think would be refuted by the experiment.As usual it seems that you "bizarre misreading" is what you said,

If it's a misreading, explain what you meant. That should be easy for you.

quote:

---

About those Berkeley webpages you referenced, they're pretty poor (incredibly poor, actually, and the explanation of mutations, migration and drift unbelievably bad) and only seem to be increasing your confusion. I encourage others here to take a look at this page in particular and comment about how Berkeley could have produced something so awful:

​

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution

---

That's not great but Faith's understanding of it is worse. How could anyone figure out that when she talks about migration, she means individuals from other areas bringing in alleles for phenotypic variations not found in the local population ? That is NOT reproductive isolation or a reduction in genetic diversity! It's gene flow and an increase in the genetic and phenotypic diversity of the local population.

quote:

---

You have the most amazing talent for misreading me.

---

Funny that you have yet to demonstrate that at all.

quote:

---

My view of migration is that a subpopulation splits off from the mother population and moves some distance away where in reproductive isolation it inbreeds among itself. There IS no "local population" in my scenario, the migrating subpopulation has found its own home for itself in which by inbreeding among its individuals for some number of generations it produces its own new characteristics and becomes a new variety or race or "species" or "breed." All based on its own genes/alleles.

---

The amusing thing is that I was reporting the description of migration on the Berkeley site. Which presumably reports how the term is used in evolutionary science. YOUR usage isn't even a mechanism of change. In itself it is just a form of geographic isolation of a small population - and that small population and lack of gene flow with the larger population make genetic drift stronger - but drift is the mechanism of change there.

quote:

---

I'm sure there are many ways my argument could be improved, but all I have is what I have and I'm doing the best I can with it.

---

Evidenced estimates of the loss and gain of genetic diversity over the full lifespan of a species would be a major improvement. In fact it's hard to see how your argument can possibly work without them.Showing proper humility about the limitations and weaknesses of your argument would be another. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I am not in a position to judge the weaknesses and limitations of my argument because so far it's been just about impossible to get across to anyone just what my argument IS, so that the answers I get back are usually not helpful, a lot of accusations of being wrong about things that seem to be mostly misreadings of what I'm trying to say.

---

The argument seems to be simple enough. Leaving out various minor problems with it it can be summaries as:1) Speciation reduces genetic diversity2) Genetic diversity inevitably decreases3) Evolution stops when genetic diversity runs out.4) Genetic diversity will inevitably run out and evolution would stop long before the timescales shown by geology and palaeontology5) Therefore the theory of evolution is false.There are two big problems.First, you haven't made a good argument for 2).Second the evidence that we do have is strongly against it - showing that evolution has gone on for hundreds of millions of years despite a number of mass extinctions.Now if there's anything significantly wrong in that summary please explain it.Now I admit that nobody was able to make sense of your argument that increasing diversity would be a problem because it "blurred" the new species. But that was because you could never explain why such "blurring" WAS a problem - and quite frankly it's pretty obvious that you didn't know.

quote:

---

Now I'm finally getting some idea of what is in my opponents' minds that needs to be taken into account in order to have a better chance of getting my argument across.

---

I told you years ago that you needed to properly account for the increases and decreases in diversity and show that diversity DID inevitably decline. And I've said it again, since. So how can you say that you didn't know it ?

quote:

---

The expectation that selection is what drives all changes seems now to be a big factor, with Percy's last few posts and now Tangle's. There may be other hidden assumptions and expectations I need to find out about as well. Evolution IS defined as change in gene {allele} frequencies but it's also defined other ways.

---

Nope. You need to show that diversity inevitably declines in the long term. Show that the losses must be greater than the increases. That's it. It's the central claim of your argument so how you can imagine that you don't have to support it is completely baffling. What you've written above is irrelevant.

I hope that you intent to answer my message above Message 341. It seems rather important if you want your argument to be understood.

quote:

---

Look, people are always saying Darwin has been transcended. (that's when a Creationist is the one quoting Darwin of course.) Mutations for one thing are THE change factor now. Not that Natural Selection has gone away and I've never denied it, ever, in fact I've kept including it as a change factor all along. It's just that many other concepts have entered into the theory since Darwin, and a big one is the population genetics understanding of evolution coming about through change in gene/allele frequencies.

---

That's a pretty massive misunderstanding right there. Of course we've advanced since Darwin. Science doesn't stand still. And by combining Mendel's genetics with Darwin's theory the New Synthesis (which is no longer new) actually solved a problem that Darwin had no good answer to. But even Darwin knew that he needed a source of new variations for his theory to work, and recognised the appearance of "sports".

quote:

---

So don't get so uppity about what I know and don't know. I'm emphasizing change in allele frequencies and I've been arguing all along for it as the biggest change factor, caused by population splits alone, and I've ALWAYS included Natural Selection as one of the ways reproductive isolation is brought about, which is THE way change occurs, NS being one version of it, according to my argument.

---

If you don't like people pointing out that you don't understand the subject of discussion it really is down to you to get that understanding or avoid the subject.Change in allele frequencies is change, not a cause of change, and population splits in themselves do nothing to cause it.Natural Selection MAY be a cause of some reproductive isolation (though generally NOT in the case where the population is already isolated by geographical division !). It will only ever be a direct cause of reproductive isolation where breeding between two populations is disadvantageous.

quote:

---

I've been expecting everybody at least to know that change in allele frequencies is A change factor, and until now NOBODY said uh uh, Selection is the big change factor. Mutations mutations mutations has been the theme song. I could have addressed NS months ago, years ago, if it had been made THE issue as it appears to be now.

---

THe emphasis on mutations is due to the fact that they are a source of genuinely new variations. This counters your idea that diversity must decrease, the central point of your argument. That other issues are also raised to answer other points that you introduce does nothing to change that.

quote:

---

And it turns out you all even deny change in allele frequencies as any kind of driving element. You mentioned drift and mutations, PERIOD and treated the very idea of change without those or Selection as IMPOSSIBLE and even DAFT. Percy absolutely denies change without Selection.

​

This is not MY problem, sorry.

---

I'm sorry Faith, but if you are unable to distinguish between cause and effect that IS your problems. Natural selection and drift CAUSE changes in allele frequencies. Change in allele frequencies is NOT a "driving element" - it's what the driving elements cause. [quote] Evolution by descent with modification is STILL the basic plank and that plank is assumed in my argument. Change (modification; new phenotypes) occurs down the generations ("descent"), but I think NS is only one not very typical way it occurs, WHICH I'VE SAID over and over. CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCIES is THE way change occurs, the way modification is brought about, the way new phenotypes are brought about. Natural Selection is one way allele frequencies change because it's one way a new subpopulation is created.
[.quote]No. Natural selection does not create a new sub-population. Natural selection produces adaptive change within a population. And - like drift - it works faster in a small population. Natural selection is a driving factor in the CHANGE of small populations - but it rarely causes divisions.

quote:

---

Subpopulations are often smaller than the original population and when they are then we have the trend to decreased genetic diversity that shows that evolution has a stopping point.

---

It shows nothing of the sort.

quote:

---

Even if you add in mutations this trend is not affected.

---

Faith, I asked you to be honest about the limitations of your argument. You replied that it is difficult. But it shouldn't be difficult for you to admit that this is just your opinion. THat you haven't done the work to show that it is true - or even come up with an argument to show that it is true. Te evidence that we have show no sign of your trend being a significant factor over hundreds of millions of years of evolution, including a number of mass extinctions.It's all been pointed out to you. And even if it hadn't been you should known the difference between what you assume and what you've shown. So be honest and at least admit that mutations will go against your trend and could counter it instead of denying the possibility.

quote:

---

Once Natural Selection or any other "mechanism of change" that brings about a new subpopulation kicks in then you have the trend to reduced genetic diversity and it juust swallows up your mutations.

---

Of course it doesn't have to, in fact it's very unlikely that it will. The loss of alleles will slow as more alleles are lost (going to zero when the population is completely uniform). The gain of new alleles is NOT slowed in the same way. And circumstances can favour increase over decrease (large population, weak selective pressures).So all you have is a rather implausible assumption. That is WHY YOU NEED THE NUMBERS. I really don't see why you can't understand that.

As I've been saying to Faith it mainly comes down to rates. Adaptive evolution is the combination of two processes, one generating variations, the other culling them.Artificial selection drastically emphasises the culling, and in the short term it will deplete the variation needed fuel the process, because of the greatly accelerated rate of of selection. As a result any attempt to use the breeding process as a guide to evolution will get a very one-sided picture.(And, I will note, when even the limited role that mutations have played in actual breeding is denied or minimised the picture is even more one-sided and inaccurate.)