If it's boring then don't read it. And nothing's been proved against this argument, that's just your typical fallacious tactic of "poisoning the well," which is really quite underhanded of you. Basically it's lying.
You have nothing to say anyway, and should be given another twelve hours for a contentless post like this one, one of that 98% of your worthless productions that are against the rules of EvC, or indeed of reasonable discourse at all.
The reasoning I laid out in that post holds up and perhaps others will be able to follow it although you are unable to. To that end I will copy that paragraph here. I urge you to ignore it.
ABE: OR, if you are going to answer, then please give a very very brief statement of what you think proves me wrong. A sentence or two.
In the thread I linked to, I gave six observed examples of new varieties being produced in the way you say can't happen. By contrast you gave no examples of new varieties being produced in the way you say must happen, preferring to produce a lot of words and no actual evidence. You are still producing words purporting to prove that what we can see happening can't happen. But it can, and we can watch.
I am not going to read a whole thread to find a few posts of yours.
Do you really not know how to do this?
This is a typical ploy of yours to confuse and obfuscate, which is a violation of decent debate practices.
Faith, it does not require a "ploy" to confuse you.
It is your job to produce the evidence you are claiming, a link to the relevant posts or just a restatement of the evidence.
You have a poor memory. I instanced six breeds of cat: the American Curl, the Scottish Fold, the American Wirehair, the LaPerm, the Selkirk Rex and the Munchkin. In each case the variety is recent and the distinguishing trait of the variety was dominant, and so it was possible to pinpoint the exact time and place of origin of each breed and to trace its history. See posts #267, #272, #282, #287 of that thread.
I don't recall reading anything you wrote about any of that except the American Curl, which is a completely different breeding process than the normal one, with different objectives. It doesn't produce just one single breed but a large variety of cats with curled ears. When enough numbers of cats with curled ears exist so that the trait is assured continuance, then the usual breeding process I've been talking about takes over, the process which requires the reduction of genetic diversity in the effort to develop a distinctive breed of cat with curled ears.
So we can imagine that in the future people might reduce the diversity of the breed. But unless they do so by making them all clones of one another, the diversity of the breed will still have undergone a net increase from the point at which it consisted of only one cat.
As to whether the process I've described is completely different from normal, I would point out that I've produced six instances of it happening, and you've produced no instances of a breed being produced the way you say must always happen.
Remember, I'm talking about what happens in the development of a race or breed or subspecies, not a single trait.
ABE: HOWEVER, I would also point out that to get that curled ear in any population requires the suppression, reduction or complete elimination of the alleles for straight or any other kind of ear. So the same principle operates even here.
And yet despite the words you have written, the six breeds I've instanced have in fact increased in diversity. It's almost as if your words don't magically make facts disappear.
I am actually talking about what I'm talking about
Black cats, calico cats, longhair cats, shorthair cats, all having the curled ear, do not constitute a breed. In a dog or cat show the whole animal is judged as to whether it is a good representative of its breed, not one single feature.
Which is true exactly as I've presented it. The example of breeding is the only accessible example of how this has to happen to get the new traits of a new breed, and it's perfectly good as an example of what has to happen in the wild too. The alleles for other traits can't remain in the population, period.
Hey, you remember we can see what actually happens? Since it's the exact opposite of what your reasoning tells you must happen, this rather suggests that there's a flaw in your reasoning.
Why do you keep talking about phenotypic diversity?
He was talking about genetic diversity. That's why he wrote: "Let's suppose in the wild, a mutation gives a wolf a curly ear ..."
You may have set a new personal record for how quickly you can get to a risible misunderstanding of the point under discussion. The mistake was in the seventh word of your post. But I'm sure you can do better.
This just seems like a semantic game to me, like Dr. A's examples. You get a new population that is distinguished by only one trait and call it a new breed or subspecies. OK, where do we go from there?
Well, first you could admit that you were wrong. Then you could move on to learning the difference between "playing semantic games" and "speaking the English language". And then you could try a little harder not to be wrong about things in general.
Yes, RAZD, but the point I'm making is that this process brings about the [abe] removal of traits [/abe] along with reduction of genetic diversity I've been focusing on, and if the culling is radical even possibly the complete loss of some alleles from the population, and this loss of genetic diversity is what compromises the ability of the species to vary further [abe] as it continues to evolve [/abe]down the path of variation or speciation, which is the whole thing I'm focusing on here. The very processes that bring about a new species eventually make it impossible for the species to continue to vary.
Unless mutation exists. Oh look, it does.
A new population that is separate from other populations of the larger Species that has developed distinct traits of its own that clearly differentiate it from the mother population from which it has diverged, as well as any cousin populations, which happens because of reproductive isolation of the new population, which may be the result of geographic isolation or natural selection etc. Over time this can lead to inability to interbreed with the other populations which is of course where standard evolutionary theory identifies it as a new species.
So, consider the following scenario. A species is homozygous for traits A and B. A breeding pair of the species is marooned on an island by a freak wind. Some years later, an allele A* arises in the new population and replaces A. Then an allele B* arises in the new population and replaces B. The parent population continues as it was. Now if zygotes with the alleles A and B* are inviable, then by definition the new population is a new species (if not it is at least a new variety).
Note that the clade has undergone a net increase in genetic diversity and that neither species has undergone a net reduction in genetic diversity.
Now there are two points in this process where the daughter group loses genetic diversity --- where it goes from a mixed A/A* to an all A* population, and then again where it goes from a mixed B/B* to an all B*. But there is no net loss of diversity in either species.
Re: " narrowing down of traits" and the "expansion of traits"
But that scenario is also covered by the scenario I'm describing. You have your source of traits and then you have the processes that mold or evolve them into a new population. The processes that evolve them, the selection that removes the less viable traits does exactly what I'm describing: it favors the proliferation of the adaptive traits WHILE IT ELIMINATES THE UNADAPTIVE TRAITS, which creates an overall loss of genetic diversity in that population.
In the first place, you seem to have missed the bit where I wrote: "an allele A* arises in the new population and replaces A." Please write a new post the stupidity of which relies entirely on your ignorance of genetics and not on your inability to comprehend simple sentences written in the English language. Thank you.
No. A* and B* replace A and B (respectively) throughout the population by either genetic drift or natural selection, it doesn't matter which.
Now, if B* and A are incompatible, producing inviable zygotes, then the A*, B* population cannot interbreed with the A, B population, and so we have a new species. And yet none of the events described lead to a net loss of genetic diversity in either group.