Dawkins likes to spell out the definition of evolution as evolutin by nautral selection, and he once made a little visual of stick figures that change from one kind of figure to another as they roll around, presumabley undergoing evolution. they just go on and on changing and changing and changing from one frame to the next. Ir remember thinking to mysel fthat the man obviously has no notion whatever that there are barriers to that process. Of course not, but then that was the title of my first post on the subject at EvCforum as I tried to put together my thoughts on that subject for the first ftime and in fact forthe next few times as well. Natural Barrier to Processes of Evolution or something olike that was my title I think.
The natural barrier is easily enough statesd as the fact that phenotypic change occurs as the result of loss of genetic diversity. You can get change from population to poplation as long as you have enough genetic fuel for the change, but eventually as you reduce genetic diversity from change to change you will run out of the ability to change further, and that that point you've reached the end of th epossibility of evolution.l Evolution itself brings evolution to a halt. And tall that's really happened is that the variation built into the genome has reached an end down one or another patheway of change. It's all within the genome, you can't get out of the geneome, but of course the ToE depends on being able to continue change beyond the genome and that's what ADwkins is assuming.
Yes, assuming. they assume it all, there is no evidence for anyiy of it, evolution is all assumed it's all theory, meajing ALL theory, not a theory that has evidence backing it, just all theory, theory from beginning to end, fantasy from beginning to end, all imagined, conjured, projected etc and then treated as if it were reality. His little figures keep rolling along without a hitch, but in reality there are plenty of hitches.
I always take breeds, domesting breeding, because it's handy and tracing a patho fol of natural eselection itn eh wild is a lot harder. it can be done I think with ring species but I usually end up thinking it would hae to be donein a laband then it would rapidly become unwieldy although perhaps not impossiblyle. Anyway I go to breeding becuase I know the processes are identical to what would happen in the wild despite the fact that they are selected by a human being. Yes I get objections to this idea but such objections are ridiculous, the processres are the same, the source of the selection is really irrelevant, but they always want to make issues out of anyting. Oh well. Darwin himself used domesting seslection as a n example to make his case for natural eselection as the mover of evolution. He'd bred pigeouns and knew how powerful selection is in making changes from generation to generation.
So pick a breed of dog, there are hundreds you can pick any you like, they all became the breed they are by the same process of selection. Traits are selected and the same ones selected over and over as new generations are born, always the best examples of the desired traits being breed bred and preserved from contampin ation by the introductionj of other genetic types.
Someone somewhere on the internet wrote that a pure bred is an animal with many fixed loci or many homozygoud genes for its salient tratits. Homoszyugosity is a crucial element in the defvelopment of breeds or probably ring spiecies or any animal that develops from an isolated number of individuals that inbreed only among themseles. This is how you get change from population to population, this is what evolution is, although it is really just variation built into the genome and there is no such thing as eovlution ibn the sense the theory requires. You cN'T EVER GET BEYOND THE GENOME OF THE CREATURE, ALL THE VARIATION IS WITHIN THE GENOME AND YOU CAN GET SOME REALLY DRAMATIC NEW KINDS OF ANIMAL MERELY THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE ISOLATION OF A POPULATION OF CERTAIN TRAITS . sO A FEW WILDEBEEST WANTED OFF FROM THE MAIN HERD OF MILLIONS AND GET LOST AT SOME DISTINACE FROM THEHERD SO THAT THEYU BECOME THEIR OWN HERD AND OVER A NUMBER OF GENERATIONS THEY DEVELOP A WHOLE NEW LOOK FROM THE ORIGINAL HERD. tHAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS. IT'S REALLY JUST THE MIXING OF VARIATIONS BUILT INTO THE GENOME THROUGH INBREEDING UNTIL A NEW TYPE EMEGERES THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS NEW POPULATION AND DIFFERS IN DESCRIABLY WAYS FORM THE ORIDINGAL . tHAT'S HOW YOU GET BREEDS, AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET NEW POPULATIONS IN THE WILD. yOU WILL ALWAYS GET A GDOG HOWEVER, YOU WILL ALWAYS GET A WILDESBEEST, IT WILL JUTS HAVE ITS OWN PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS ALTHO8UGH ITS BASIC BODY PLAN WILL ALWAYS BE A DOG OR A WILDESBEEST.
wHEN YOU BREED FOR A GREAT dANE, SAY, YOU ELIMINATE ALL THE GENES FOR dACHSCUNDS, CHICHUAUAS, HUSKIES AND SO ON. yOU elimjinate , THAT'S THE POINT. yOU REDUCE GENETIC DIFVERISTY IN ORDER TO BRING OUT THE NEW PHENOTYPE.
aND THAT FACT MAKES EVOLUTION IN THE SENSE OF THE tHEORY OF eVOLUTION MJUST PLAIN IMPOSSIBLE.
yuES i CAN ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT MUTATIONS.
i'M TRYING TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE USUALLY i GET INTO LENTTHY DRAWN OUT ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER EVERY OBJECTION THAT COMES TO MIND, AND THAT WOUILD STILL HABVE TO BE DONE IN ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION BUT HERE i JUST WANT TO SKETCH IT OUT KNOWING IT WILL RAISE MORE UESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS.
nOTE: aS i LITEN BACK TO MY POSTS OF COURSE i NOTICE ALL MY TYPOS ABUT i ALSO NOTICE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT MORE ERROS THAN i MYSELF CREATED. yES i DO THINK SOMEONE HAS TAMPERED WITH MY BOG AND MAKE MY POSTS EVEN WORSE THAN i MAKE THEM. yES i THINK THAT. oNCE WHEN i WAS TYPING ON wORD IN MY OWN COMPUTER AND NOT ON THE ITNERNET i GOT THE MESSAGE THAT SOMEONE ELSE WAS EDING WHAT i WAS WRITING. sOMEONE DOES THAT TO ME. DID IT THERE, DOES IT HERE.
