Another Run at the End of Evolution through Genetic Processes Argument

Otherwise known as The End of Evolution by Natural Selection, and various other titles.Yes of course I get tempted by some of the answers to my arguments to continue them, despite my really really not wanting to because even I get tired of repeating myself; and Percy wants me to either start a new thread or go back to the last one I started on the subject, Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity , which is just too too boring to continue, so I'm proposing a new one, although all I can do is repeat the same arguments. They are of course arguments that absolutely kill the ToE but because the ToE is this wiggly amorphous thing that doesn't require evidence, nothing can ever really be proved against it. So one is reduced to repeating the arguments that would kill it if the evos appreciated them properly.Anyway, here's another go at it, starting from RAZD's last post on the thread, How Long Does It Take to Evolve? (The answer to that question, of course, is, not very long at all, reckoning in comparison with the absurd ideas of time required by the ToE. Domestic breeding demonstrates that it CAN be very fast, although nature would only operate that fast in the case of severe bottlenecks. They do happen of course. And the example given here a couple years ago about the Pod Mrcaru lizards that evolved a larger head and new digestive system within thirty years, is still one of my favorites. Also the Jutland cattle example from that same old thread is a good one, four different species or races of cattle developing out of one herd in a matter of years.All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a limited number of individuals, which brings about a new set of gene frequencies, which all by themselves are all it takes to create a new subspecies or race or variety or breed etc, in whatever time it takes for all the new genetic possibilities to work their way through the entire new population. There's the time factor: no time at all really, by ToE standards. A smallish number of founders makes the point best but even half the original population should have a new set of gene frequencies and eventually create a new subspecies in reproductive isolation as well. It would just take somewhat longer because all the different genetic possibilities of the new population would have to work through the whole population to create the new subspecies (RAZD I believe, or someone, suggested I should use the word "phenome" for this new subspecies but the definition at Google doesn't clearly suggest this meaning.)The processes that bring about these phenotypic changes and ultimately can create a subpopulation that is distinctively different from the parent population and from all other related populations of the same species, reduce genetic diversity with each new subpopulation. This means the trend of evolution itself is reduction in the very genetic possibilities that make evolution possible. If subpopulations form from the subpopulations, as in a ring species, that line of possible variations can ultimately reach genetic depletion, beyond which any further evolution is impossible for lack of the genetic fuel as it were. Normally genetic diversity is necessary for a healthy population, but the genetically depleted population may be able to survive. The cheetah is genetically compromised for instance though it hasn't become extinct and may be able to continue despite its state of genetic depletion for some time -- although human help may be required, which is how genetically depleted domestic breeds are able to survive as well. The elephant seal has proliferated in great numbers after having been drastically genetically reduced.Mutation doesn't change this fact, though it is the usual argument against it here: mutation, if it did create viable alleles as is claimed, and there is no evidence that it does, would only be the source of the possible variations, and it would therefore be subject to the processes that reduce their diversity the same as if the alleles were built in from Creation. It makes no difference to the end result. If mutation occurred in anything like the numbers required by the ToE species like the cheetah would not be endangered. BUT if mutation DID occur to such an extent, you'd never get new subspecies, because new phenotypes are built on new genotypes, new variations on new gene frequencies, the alleles for the former genotypes having become low frequency in the new population where in the former population they were high frequency. Eventually they may drop out of the new population altogether.What this implies is that the genome of each species defines the limit of that species' possible variations, beyond which no further evolution is possible.So, with all that usual background, here's RAZD's latest post to me: True, and you made your point on the question of whether a brain is needed for the various different kinds of eyes. But in the process of course you treated those different kinds as if they were stages of evolution, for which there is no evidence whatever, and that's what prompted my answer. Yes, again you made your point. But they are no doubt not "levels of development" at all but simply different creatures altogether with their own design. My argument is that there is no evidence whatever that it's possible to get genetically from one kind to another. It's all pure wild imaginative conjecture based on subjective assessment of the various kinds of visual equipment and how the more primitive "must be" related to the more complex visual equipment. As I said on that thread, I'm astonished at how readily you scientifically minded people reify a mere imagined pathway from one to another as if it were fact. Which of course ought not to be regarded as evidence for evolution at all, since it's nothing but the mental juggling of different forms of light sensitivity. There is no support whatever for the idea that they "evolved" at all. The best explanation is that they were all separately designed for each creature's needs. Sure it's "easy" in your imagination for the eye to evolve if you turn the different visual capacities into stages. Imagination can invent all kinds of relationships between things that are similar enough but different enough. It's enough of a leap to insist that the fossils appear in such an ordered fashion that they must be explained as evolution from one level to the next, though even there you have zip evidence that such evolution is even possible, it's all a matter of imagining how one structure coulda turned into another one small increment at a time, without any evidence whatever that this is even genetically possible. But you even go so far as to imagine how structures that haven't even the superficial temporal relation to one another that the fossils do must have evolved from the one kind to another in stages of evolution, imply because you can imagine the incremental structural changes that would be involved. You don't even have one example of a precursor type of eye in relation to a later type on your morphological tree, or in the fossil record, the way you seem to have with the reptile and mammal ear structures. The eye types are scattered all over the Linnaean chart (as the other ear structures are too except for that one example); yet you are convinced by a mere seeming, a mere subjective mental conjuring and you call it science. The ToE is made of such stuff. It's the biggest flimflam ever pulled on the human race.So let the usual excuse for a debate begin.ABE: Might as well give a quick answer to dwise's next post on that other thread while I'm at it: The obvious answer to this is that the Designer knew what He was doing from the getgo and didn't need to go back to the drawing board to accomplish His purposes. One shot was enough, no need to start with crank engines on cars that looked like the buggies of the horse and buggy days. His designs are suited to life on this physical planet for a variety of different kinds of creatures with different functions. We got our creative abilities from the image of God but for us it's all trial and error, for Him it was a matter of speaking and it was done. Well, but it obviously doesn't look like that or your apparently omniscient human race would have developed the theory long before Darwin. And then he got most of it wrong. His stuff was all speculation too, you know, just an exercise in imagination, and even he could see ahead to problems with it, which are now claimed to have been solved but weren't. He knew there had to be an endless presentation of transitionals, gradations galore, not the occasional seeming transitional that only emphasizes the fact that there are indeed discrete species that don't blur together either in the fossil record or among living things.Genetically evolution is impossible. He could only get a few bizarre sorts of pigeons out of his breeding attempts. Did he run into the problem of reduced genetic diversity I wonder? Breeders did all the time until they got smart and realized they were producing ill health in their breeds and needed to breed in some genetic diversity for health's sake, even survival's sake.He also postulated evolution by natural selection to explain the different finch beaks and the different tortoise shells of the Galapagos island, when nothing more is needed to understand them than the usual variations possible within the genomes of the finch species and the tortoise species, microevolved due to reproductive isolation of portions of the population varying their different gene frequencies in different locations. Darwin was quite wrong about the importance of natural selection; it probably has some role but hardly any compared to the role of simple reproductive isolation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : spellingEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thread copied to the A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.