Faith writes:
I think you're misusing the term "built-in diversity." I think what you really meant to refer to was "existing diversity" or "existing variation." "Built-in diversity" is a term used by some creationists to refer to the preloading of genomes of animals on the ark with the genes and alleles needed for the creation of more species after the flood.
I've never heard that and it's absurd. "Built-in" suggests it was part of the original design. But I'll try to make what I mean clearer.
Yeah, I thought you had moved on from talking about population genetics to another topic when you started talking about "built-in diversity," but I understand what you meant now. But the existing genetic diversity in the world today cannot be explained by a flood scenario that reduced the number of alleles for each gene to at most 4 for species with 2 pair and 28 for species with 7 pair.
Yes I know the party line about junk DNA and I still think what I think.
What you think about junk DNA is just something you made up. What the rest of us think is based upon actual biological research.
I am not going to use the term "species" any more because of confusion about that, and as I keep saying it's irrelevant to my argument.
Avoiding the term "species" will just make it harder to understand you than it already is. When you mean "subspecies" then say "subspecies". When you mean "species" then say "species". Easy.
I see that I said something in a way that implied population growth had something to do with the formation of new subspecies but it's migration that does that so I hope that clears up that confusion.
I don't think you mean migration, either. I think you mean populations separating into subpopulations (which may or may not involve migration) with limited or no gene flow, and with each subpopulation having less genetic diversity than the original population and continuing to lose more. This is consistent with your focus on reduced genetic diversity creating new breeds, and that's probably why you originally mentioned population growth, because you can't have populations separating into subpopulations if you're starting with only the few individuals from the ark.
The millions of years of the ToE are a ridiculous assumption, and there is no evidence for THAT either, it's ALL a ridiculous assumption.
Yet millions and billions of years is precisely what the evidence tells us. There's no evidence for the things you believe, and all the evidence is against it.
If you aren't going to accept my entirely different way of looking at these things there is no point in discussing any of it.
I think if you change your approach and begin introducing evidence for what you believe along with arguments that make sense that you'll have much better success.
You are just going to keep imposing your false ToE assumptions on me, accuse me of lack of evidence when I've made the case well without it and so on.
You not only have a lack of evidence, you ignore and reject the mountains of evidence that do exist. That's why your ideas are a fantasy.
This is to be expected in a paradigm clash. Your paradigm forces terms and conditions on me that are false and I've been trying my best to make mine clear in spite of that for years now.
What you're doing isn't a paradigm clash within science. It's religion rejecting science.
I would have thought a fair reading of how I use English words would clarify but I'm finding incredibly absurd straw man renderings of my simple statements instead.
I don't think we'd characterize your problem statements as "simple". Confused and willfully ignorant would be more like it.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)