We are now in essence a banana republic as they are called, complete with bogus "President Elect" who is not legally President Elect but is called that by our corrupt media and the whole corrupt leftist gang, who continue to force their views on the rest of us, yes, even to the point of election fraud which very probably replaced enough Trump votes with enough Biden votes to steal the election. We might have a chance to save ourselves from this destruction of our great American system except for the fact that there are among other things all too many nonleftists who think Donald Trump is a fascist or something other than the effective defender of true American values his supporters know him to be. Thus are we likely lost. Doomed. No more America. Well I knew it was coming years ago, why make a fuss about it when it's finally come? We tried. They were smarter.
So I'm trying to ignore it all, there being nothing I can do
about it, and have been entertaining myself with such pastimes as rereading the
UC Berkeley web pages they call Evolution 101.
There is one subject that is particularly relevant for my
purposes, the "mechanisms of evolution," also called there
"mechanisms of change" and "mechanisms of
microevolution." The same four "mechanisms" are listed for
each designation.
They are Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift and Natural
Selection. As I recall, when I read this site some fifteen or so years
ago now-- it's changed some since then but this concept is pretty much the same
-- it was this part of it that contributed most to launching me toward the
thoughts I've been elaborating ever since. I think the first post I wrote
on the subject at EvC was titled something like "Natural Limitations to
the Processes of Evolution" I've been blocked from EvC so I can't go
find out for sure. I'd read up on some population genetics and spent some
time thinking through the genetics involved in breeding programs, mainly
dogs.
So, Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift and Natural Selection
are given as the "Mechanisms" of the biological changes that are
mistaken for evidence of the ToE.
These four "mechanisms" are not very similar
to each other. Mutation hapopens at the genetic level, producing a new
sequence for better or worse, Migration is the movement of individual animals
from one place to another, Genetic Drift is the consequence of random selection
of traits/genetic material that creates a subpopulation within a larger
population, and Natural Selection is one of the ways a trait and its genetic
substrate is favored in reproduction which results in the creation of a new
gene pool, or supposedly ultimately a new species.
What I noticed back then was that that Mutation and
Migration add to the genetic pool while Natural Selection subtracts from it and
Genetic Drift is one of many possible effects of a subtractive process. I
already thought of natural selection as a subtractive process because I'd been
thinking about domestic breeding and how it's all about preeserving chosen
traits from contamination by alien genes. In other words nothing is
ever added, all alien or unwanted traits are eliminated -- that's the
subtraction -- and the whole idea is to pare down the genetic stuff to as many
fixed alleles as possible, which is what creates the breed you want.
After having thought about this for so many years it's hard
for me to understand why it isn't obvious that getting new phenotypes in nature
has to follow the same path as getting them in domestic breeding: in
selecting a trait or set of traits you are eliminating all competing traits,
and this means you are reducing the genetic variability in the new
population. And reducing genetic variability means you are reducing its
opportunities for further phenotypic change. If the genetic variation is
quite high to begin with, continued development of new phenotypes can go on
occurring for some time, even the formation of daughter populations with their
own different phenotypic presentation, but the trend is always toward the
reduction of genetic variability. This fact absolutely defeats the ToE
but it's utterly ignored. Even when reduced genetic variability is
recognized its implications for the ToE never enter the discussion.
So I discovered that such things have been discussed in
population genetics circles but always with the idea of which phenomenon being
considered has most to do with furthering evolution.
I've always struggled with why Genetic Drift is taken so
seriously. I don't get it. It's just one version of the processes
that bring about a new population phenotype or its gene pool. In other
words it's just a version of the subtraction of traits and their alleles or
genetic material of whatever kind, in order that others come to
expression, the old having disappeared. It's always emphasized that genetic
drift is random, as if this distinguishes it from other ways populations
change. The only method that could be considered not to be random is
Natural Selection but the effect is the same. A trait is eliminated,
others favored and the allele for the rejected trait disappears from the
population. Subtraction. The alleles for the selected trait or
traits increase in number but nothing new has been added. All that has
happened is that one or some have been lost. Subtraction. Loss of
genetic diversity.
Migration is just the REconnection of one population with
another that had split at some time in the past. During their separation
new genetic combinations would have emerged, bringing out new phenotypes so
that it looks like they are something new and different. What keeps
getting overlooked is that you can get dramatic differences in appearance just
from inbreeding a new set of gene/allele frequencies in reproductive
isolation. Quite dramatic. But the point here is that you get them
because of the elimination, subtraction, of other forms of the traits
involved.
The ToE seems to be talked about as if there were endless
genetic possibilities for change. But if the phenotypic changes that
suggest evolution in the first place turn out to be the product of eliminating
genetic material the opposite from the usual expectation is the reality.
Mutation is like migration or gene flow except that it
actually does bring something new into the genetic picture. Usual a bad
something or a neutral something. But for it to be part of the population
phenotype it has to be selected and all its competitors eliminated.
There's always going to be subtraction meaning always a loss of genetic
diversity when you get new phenotypes.
This is true even at the individual level. Sexual
reproducion is the process by which traits for the offspring are selected,
quite randomly, all other possible traits possessed by the parents eliminated
from the chosen genetic collection. That's the formula. It's elimination
or loss that brings out the new traits.
In one of the Attenborough films I watched recently there
was footage of him as a younger man meeting an isolated tribe somewhere like
Borneo or Irian Jaya, I don't remember. Every time you see such a tribe
of people who have been isolated for a very long time you can't fail to notice
how strikingly distinct they are as a population, very similar to each other,
clearly all of the same family, but identifiable as a group. That's what
a race is, just a population that has developed its own identifying traits in
isolation over time.
That's how the ten lizards loosed on Pod Mrcaru developed
their characteristic huge head and jaws over the thirty years they were left
alone there. they started out with normal sized heads and jaws like their
parent population and all it took was their reproductive isolation over
somenumber of genertations to bring out the traits they now all shared.
Breeding only among themsleves their own peculiar set of gene frequencies got
recombined and passed on over and over again down the generations without the
input of genes from the original population they'd come from.
There is no exception to this. Evolution is impossible because of how genetics works. Certainly there are lots more examples to be explored and lots more angles on the question that are also fun to pursue, but I dare claim that this is the rock bottom definitive falsification of the ToE. Tty all the chess moves you can think of, if you're smart enough and honest enough you have to come to this same conclusion.
