A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

The mere existence of many mutations does not prove the specifics asked. Their existence does not prove that they function in any specific case to increase usable new alleles, as opposed to the commonest kind which simply do nothing (knocking out others that do something too)*, or increase fitness, or do anything at all to counter the FACT that all the random and targeted selecting processes over time reduce them.As usual, breeders face the facts of what really happens genetically in teh development of new traits/phenotypes/species: http://www.canine-genetics.com/pgbreed.htm*Dog breedingWhere are all those known mutations? We know they occur, but they aren't doing anything we WANT them to do except in those extremely few cases, cases that don't have anything to do with the question on the table too, which is this claim that mutations make up the allele losses in bottlenecks and other situations that reduce alleles.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This hasn't been shown, merely supposed from the fact that mutations occur. You have to show that they DO increase usable alleles after a selection event that has caused loss. The loss is a known fact, the increase is pure speculation.

This is the NORMAL way selection processes work, they select pre-existing alleles. Therefore, you cannot simply assume that it was a mutation as you all do, you have to PROVE it's a mutation. I'm not "claiming" I'm countering this unsupported claim that mutations are doing everything when it's always been the pre-existing stash of alleles that do it. Where is the actual evidence in the salamander case that mutations actually had anything to do with it? There is NONE given at all. Mutations are ASSUMED.

It's been amply shown that the selecting processes reduce alleles, and until you actually have real evidence that mutations undo this effect rather than mere assumption -- specific cases where the "new" alleles are KNOWN to be mutations and actually do something useful -- the fact that speciation involves reduction of genetic diversity IS the barrier. But of course you don't HAVE millions of years. One beneficial mutation every 1000 years in what, an individual, a population, what? In either case, that rate couldn't possibly counter the selecting processes that are constantly acting on and within populations, making changes within years in some cases, certainly in hundreds rather than thousands, and in sudden events. How many generations should it take to get a new species of chipmunk or salamander in a ring species? Ten? Twenty? And this alone is your proof it was a mutation that did it? What's wrong with the possibility that you merely incubated a previously low-frequency allele or more like it, combination of alleles? Maybe not so easy to see in a degraded, fragmented and corrupted genome that has to be reconstructed from the pieces. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, in that case I'll have to give up that idea.But do you happen to have some references for this, a good description of what the ancient genomes look like, a discussion of the similarities and differences from the modern genome, etc?

I've told you what's wrong with it.It's all hypothetical, an assumption. No actual evidence has been given in response to a specific question.What shows that alleles increase after the decrease brought about by population splits? You can't answer that by simply asserting in general that mutations do. You have to show it and nobody has.The fact that mutations occur frequently is not an answer to this specific question. This is a general answer, not a specific answer. It hasn't been demonstrated in relation to the specific instances.Certainly that short list of supposedly beneficial mutations is not an answer. Only the bacteria examples really seem to show that a real mutation occurs after reduction to a single bacterium. It's way too big an extrapolation from that to chipmunks or human beings.

Please don't get hung up on terminology here. You have to SHOW it, you can't merely assume it. Is that better?As long as the most likely possibility is that it's a pre-existing alleles, you can't just assert that it's a mutation instead. You may be able to reduce a bacteria culture down to one and get a beneficial mutation, but try that with a mammal. You know very well that mutations can't be counted on to rescue a severely genetically depleted mammal. Why not? You can count on it with bacteria after all.When you have pre-existing alleles in a population THAT is the LIKELY explanation for new traits in that population. Nobody said it's not reasonable. The question is what those alleles DO. A dog breeding link I posted back there somewhere says most alleles cause a gene not to function at all. We've all agreed that a large number of mutations produce BAD alleles, that cause disease. And again, the list of good alleles from mutations is so far minuscule, and two of those are in bacteria, which just doesn't work well as a model for mammals or other higher creatures. I don't know. I guess it occurs. I don't have an issue with its occurring, I have an issue with its usefulness for furthering the survivability or thrivability of the species. Again, I haven't proposed a barrier to its mere occurrence, only doubted its usefulness for evolution. Maybe it would be possible to design a less cumbersome experiment. I'm the one who has provided examples from the world around us, from the world of dog breeding and the world of animal conservation. So far nobody has given evidence that mutations do anything to contradict the trend to genetic depletion that is a hard cold fact experienced in both those arenas, the same trend that usually occurs more slowly but just as inexorably in all cases. In bacteria. Period. In higher animals the trend to reduced diversity continues at a steady pace. Meanwhile reality continues to reduce diversity in the higher animals even as they produce new phenotypes and even as they speciate.

"New alleles" can be useless alleles, alleles that stop the functioning of a gene, alleles that are incomplete, alleles that cause disease etc etc etc. The mere fact that mutation happens says nothing at all about SPECIFICALLY what a particular instance of it does in a complex organism -- that has to be demonstrated in each case. You can't just assume it furthers evolution, furthers survival, furthers thriving, or doesn't interfere with either. You have to look and see if it does. And meanwhile pre-existing alleles are all it takes under random or intentional selection to produce new phenotypes and even speciation; mutation is not needed.The title of the thread is barrier to macroevolution, not to mutations. The barrier is the tendency of all selection processes, usually known as evolutionary processes, to reduce genetic diversity. That is the barrier.Mutation is tacked on presumptively.

Built-in genetic potentials play out in all the diversity that is seen. Pre-existing alleles in a population are all it takes to bring about speciation.

You just haven't bothered to think through the argument. But that's OK, you aren't alone.

Thank you for coming up with a real example. Sorry I didn't see your post until now. But I can't follow it very well so I need some answers to questions. What is a "temporal series of archived North Sea cod otoliths"?How many fish are represented, what proportion are these of the entire population? I've run across the word "microsatellite" but don't understand what it means. What does "total" mean in this context? Total number per how many genes? How many fish are in the population? I gather these are fish in the sea. A guaranteed isolated population with no gene flow with another population? I guess this means new phenotypes / genotypes. Genetic drift can produce divergence, so can migration. But "replacement"? That would seem to imply immigration TO the population, to "replace" it. This would certainly increase diversity and mutation wouldn't have anything to do with it.Migration usually means a smaller population of the whole that becomes isolated from the original, and contains its own allele pool that doesn't mix with the alleles of the original, correct? I just don't know what this is saying. Can you please translate it into ordinary English?Thank you.{By the way, I keep getting kicked off the internet because of computer problems so it may be a while before I get back, don't know. May be able to keep going like this for a while.} Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : part of abstract was left out, now restored

I've provided evidence, in fact I've provided more evidence than anybody else here, actual factual scientific evidence. The claim that I haven't is some kind of delusion.Besides that, I've provided predominantly reasoned argumentation, which is a perfectly acceptable debate offering.Having said that, I am through debating with you and many others here. Mick has offered an actual example to discuss and when he gets back I expect to discuss it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not interested in Mick or any of you, but the example is interesting. And since when is impatience a standard for truth? If it were I'd win this debate hands down.

It is not an assumption, in fact I haven't denied it at all. I'm sure mutations create new alleles.But I have concluded, not assumed, from the fact that all the "evidence" is inference, speculations, assumptions and hypotheticals, that these new mutated alleles really do not play the role claimed for them in increasing genetic diversity that has been depleted by the normal processes of selection, random selection, population splitting, and so on.Now there is this exception of an abstract linked by Mick in Message 189 that does appear to address this very issue, but it has yet to be discussed because the terms of the abstract are too technical for me, as I say in Message 208.If you understand that abstract and can translate it into clear English, please do so. I'm not debating anything else.Edited by Faith, : Sorry, necessary rewrite of a long sentence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to change the title

Listen, that mutation makes new alleles has been acknowledged all along. You obviously have not been following the argument. Your first post was clear enough that that was the case -- nothing but misrepresentations because you aren't grasping or trying to grasp what I'm trying to say. The question is whether those new alleles do what is claimed for them. There is "diversity" and "diversity." You have to prove that the new alleles in any way whatever benefit the species, in the face of the fact that MOST mutations are KNOWN to be deleterious, or functionless. How many times do I have to repeat this?You haven't answsered my questions concerning the cod example either. But I no longer want you to. I hope someone who has a better grasp of the situation will do so. What a big waste of time. You all come on here repeating the same old same old as if it answered me when it's what I've been addressing all along.You want to call mutations "alleles," so fine, they are different base code sequences so I guess they are "alleles," but that doesn't prove anything about mutation's producing USEFUL alleles that further the survivability or health of the species. THIS is what I'm focused on. This needs more evidence than this mindnumbing refrain about how mutations EXIST, which is NOT being contended. Sheesh. FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT, deal with what's really being asked. And since you can't follow the argument, please just desist from posting.What I want to know about the cod example -- and not from you or from anybody who keeps beating this dead horse -- is information that shows beyond a doubt that the "increase in alleles" is brought about by mutation without any other possible source, and that these alleles are BENEFICIAL, or at least potentially so. Don't bother telling me again that alleles ARE mutations! I also want to know exactly WHAT alleles these are, and why they are focused on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.