Summations Only

I don't think you have the reality of a population split in mind. The likelihood of getting the same proportion of alleles in the daughter population as in the parent is just about nil. And except for your one drop-out that's what you have, identical proportions.ABE As for the Lenski remark, I'd want to use a small animal, not bacteria. And a decade should be more than enough time to prove or disprove my argument. In fact the trend to reduced genetic diversity should be clear enough with the first population split, but since I'm predicting a measurable loss at the end of a series of population splits, a few years would be needed at least.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The allele frequencies are the most important thing because that's what makes the changes that bring about the new subspecies. Change in allele frequencies is the definition of evolution according to some. You can't prove anything with your unrealistic representation.

They sure are made up. That's almost funny how you put yourself out to justify your own opinion. What I said to your last post still stands, you have no sense of how a population split would lead to a new subspecies -- over time, not immediately because the new gene frequencies have to be worked through the population down a number of generations to see the effect.Picture ring species. You imagine mutations which aren't needed, just the playing out of the built-in genetic variability in new gene frequencies, to get all those amazing changes from population to population. Yes, I'm disagreeing with the standard explanation of all these things, so what else is new? I'm a creationist, I know the evo explanations are wrong.And all you are doing is making up a phony scenario to justify your own belief system. I'm pondering ways I could answer you with the same sorts of notations but it's so very much more complicated than you've presented it I probably won't be able to do that.1) Even if mutations did play a part, that wouldn't happen fast enough to make a difference in the population, and 2) it wouldn't happen in anything like the numbers you imagine, and 3) if they did play a part, as I keep saying, they are only going to be incorporated or cut down like any other allele, and in the end the whole shebang has to run out of genetic diversity even if a mutation is part of the finished subspecies.It would be nice if I could get all that expressed in numbers. I'm sure I'll go on trying.

1) Cuz makin new species costs alleles, and
2) if you guys were honest about it you'd have to admit mutations couldn't do what the ToE requires them to do anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lots I'd like to refute in some of the other summaries but I'll refrain. This thread was mostly about design as implying a designer but my own favorite argument about loss of genetic diversity as a result of evolution also was a big part of it. That is now continuing on Genomicus' thread on Molecular Population Genetics and Mutation as a cause of genetic diversity.Although I did try to include some examples of design as evidence, I think this thread needed a lot more of that. I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the diehard evolutionists in any case, who are going to go on insisting that mechanical physical unconscious processes are quite sufficient for the job, but there IS evidence for design, at least characteristics of design that can be discussed as definitional, that distinguish it from nondesign or the random chaos and disorder which is the opposite of design.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.