How do you define the word Evolution?

Thank you for your well-reasoned, dispassionate, and superlatively objective assessment.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sarcasm aside, Dr Adequate is right. You haven't come close to showing that there must be an inevitable decline.

The pocket mouse population has gained multiple alleles for dark fur. This is an increase in genetic diversity. If this increase was wiped out, such that only the dark mice were left there would still be no overall decrease in diversity, from the state before the mutations occurred but there would be a change in phenotype.

Thus it is obviously false to say that evolution requires an overall decrease in genetic diversity.

And that has been obvious all along to everyone who has actually thought about the issue.

I've shown over and over that evolutionary processes do use up genetic diversity, that mutation gets used up like any other allele in the same processes, even if it's rarely reached there is a point at which there is nothing but fixed loci left beyond which further evolution can't happen.

I know that so many others have tried to explain to you that you are concentrating on one aspect of evolution while ignoring the others. So let's try a really stupid analogy instead.

Airplanes.

Airplanes have wings and they have engines. They also fly, undeniably.

Look! We have all these aircraft with wings but no engines. They cannot fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look! We have all these aircraft with engines but no wings. They cannot fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, you fracking idiot! you need both wings and an appropriate power plant (engines) to achieve flight. To leave out either requirement is nothing but deception.

Faith, you are doing the exact same thing by concentrating on natural selection and ignoring the factors that increase genetic diversity.

I am not ignoring the factors that increase genetic diversity. I've accounted for them. Evolution cuts down ALL genetic diversity no matter what its source. You can't get evolution -- new species of new phenotypes without losing genetic diversity. Sorry.

The decrease occurs in the EVOLVING population, and it must occur. Doesn't matter what the source of the black fur is, to get a whole population characterized by that black fur means losing the alleles for other colors of fur. This is not particularly important in this situation with the variation of only one trait, it's more of an issue in a population that forms by migration and reproductive isolation, which brings about new gene frequencies. There is always a trend to reduction but it would be only at the extreme that it would become noticeable, such as at the end of a series of ring species. Founder effect makes the case just fine, it creates a new species too.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The decrease occurs in the EVOLVING population, and it must occur. Doesn't matter what the source of the black fur is, to get a whole population characterized by that black fur means losing the alleles for other colors of fur.

---

Again you miss the point. If you start with one allele, add others and then reduce the number back to one there is no overall decrease. 1 + 1 - 1 = 1

quote:

---

This is not particularly important in this situation with the variation of only one trait, it's more of an issue in a population that forms by migration and reproductive isolation, which brings about new gene frequencies.

---

Of course there is no reason why the same cannot happen with other genes, so the number of traits involved is irrelevant.

quote:

---

There is always a trend to reduction but it would be only at the extreme that it would become noticeable, such as at the end of a series of ring species.

---

That is your assumption. You've produced no evidence of ring species showing any reduction. Indeed, since the inability to reproduce is far more likely to be due to mutations than it is to genetic depletion it is hard to see how you can even imagine it to be true.

Oh you know I've given the evidence many times. The evidence is in the obvious logic based for one thing on breeding practices (until the recent recognition that they have to keep up some level of genetic diversity to prevent genetic diseases), which make it very very clear that you don't get a breed, and certainly not a pure breed, without the loss of alleles for other characteristics. The ultimate condition of decreased genetic diversity is fixed loci, or homozygosity for all the salient characteristics of the breed -- or wild population. This evidence is inferential but it's ironclad and must be demonstrable if anyone took the trouble. You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't.

Faith writes: You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't.

Obviously you can. Brown mice get a black gene by mutation. Black gene is dominant brown is recessive. Gain in diversity.

quote:

---

Oh you know I've given the evidence many times.

---

I know that you are pretending to have evidence.

quote:

---

The evidence is in the obvious logic based for one thing on breeding practices (until the recent recognition that they have to keep up some level of genetic diversity to prevent genetic diseases), which make it very very clear that you don't get a breed, and certainly not a pure breed, without the loss of alleles for other characteristics.

---

A species is not the same as a "pure breed". Besides all you are doing is repeating the argument I have already refuted multiple times.

quote:

---

The ultimate condition of decreased genetic diversity is fixed loci, or homozygosity for all the salient characteristics of the breed -- or wild population.

---

And yet the pocket mice demonstrate otherwise, as has already been pointed out.

quote:

---

You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't.

---

And repeating the same falsehood again after I have shown it to be false doesn't help you.

Thank you for your well-reasoned, dispassionate, and superlatively objective assessment.

For that, you must consult other threads. I've already killed your dumb argument, here I'm just commenting on how its festering corpse is stinking up the joint.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh you know I've given the evidence many times. ...

Repeating assertions ad nauseaum is not giving evidence -- actual evidence would be objective empirical evidence, not opinions based on fantasy, which has been notably missing from your posts.

... The evidence is in the obvious logic based for one thing on breeding practices (until the recent recognition that they have to keep up some level of genetic diversity to prevent genetic diseases), which make it very very clear that you don't get a breed, and certainly not a pure breed, without the loss of alleles for other characteristics. ...

What you have is an extreme artificial bottleneck population where each breed is artificially kept from (a) mingling with other dogs (and sharing genetic material) and (b) gaining any new traits by mutations (they are selected out) to maintain an artificial stasis.

There is no way that breeds represent a real world evolution situation.

But I also note that this is the way you claim new species arise ... are these breeds new species then (they are reproductively isolated and they have traits different from general dog (mongrel) populations?

Or are they "outside" the "Dog Kind" ? -- you ever going to tell us what that means?

... The ultimate condition of decreased genetic diversity is fixed loci, or homozygosity for all the salient characteristics of the breed ...

Which is the goal of the artificial selection to maintain the breeds, not a natural occurrence, as any deviation is eliminated by the artificial selection of the breeders.

... -- or wild population. ...

Where such strong single-minded selection is extremely rare if it exists at all.

... This evidence is inferential ...

What you are talking about is logic, not evidence. Logic, like math, can only model reality, it cannot alter or control it in any way. Any error in your premises (as noted above) and your conclusions are invalid.

When the model fails to represent reality it is the model that is invalid, not reality, not FACT.

You don't know what real evidence is. Real evidence is FACT, such as plants that you can pick up, dissect and evaluate the actual factual DNA structures.

... You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't.

Except when you can, as demonstrated by real objective empirical evidence, such as polyploidy species. So your conclusion is wrong, and that means your model is wrong, that you are wrong. Again.

Denial of the facts of reality is delusion.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Faith writes: I don't know what to think of the mutation theory. It may be a mutation, but it doesn't matter.

It does matter. The paper lists the mutations in the Mcr1 gene that are associated with black fur. Do you have any reason to doubt that these mutations are the cause for black fur in these mice? Why are you so reluctant to accept these mutations as the source of black fur?

Again, it's the selection that reduces the genetic diversity, and it's the selection that creates the new population, or in some cases "species." In the new population there is only the one phenotype.

There are two phenotypes in this population where there used to be one. You keep ignoring this fact.

Faith writes: No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, new species etc.

These mice did not have lose their brown fur in order to evolve black fur. Before the mutations there was just brown fur. After the mutations, there are now mice with black and brown fur. How is this not an increase in genetic diversity?

you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species.

Reduction of one allele is now considered a loss in genetic diversity? Really?

Before mutations: 100% brown allele
After mutations: 10% black fur, 90% brown fur

You are saying that after the mutations there is less genetic diversity?

Faith writes: My definition of the Kind is functional, defined by the point at which evolution runs out of genetic diversity.

Evolution never runs out of genetic diversity because new alleles are created by mutations all of the time.

Faith writes: You don't need mutation for adaptations either, just new combinations of existing alleles.

What combinations of existing human alleles will produce an elephant?