Steviepinhead
Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
And, davey, while I kinda hate giving you by-the-numbers instruction, let's keep these few simple points in mind:
1. Nobody's saying that a species cannot survive a genetic bottleneck. It's just a riskier proposition, since all that whole Ayala-reservoir of variability has been pared down to whatever alleles happen to exist for each gene among the few founding members (as few as one fertilized female...) in the new niche (or devastated old niche).
2. Nobody's saying that a founding population cannot eventually recover variability after a bottleneck event. (This, apparently, is the intent of your repitition-loop about the macaques. But what you aren't getting--because you're willfully refusing to, as usual--is that the macaques, while they appear to be in the course of founding a new population, will have decreased genetic variety for quite some period of time. Building up a new reservoir of variation--assuming their currently-limited (and perhaps "unrepresentative") variation does not reduce their chances of surviving some environmental challenge in the meantime--Will Take Time, because the reservoir has been pared down, and only the accumulation of new mutations will restore it.)
3. The "flood" represents a bottleneck event. Whatever wonderful and immense variation existed in the human, dog, macaque, beetle--whatever "kind" you think made it onto the "ark"--genome before the flood was pared away because the whole population didn't get the ride; only two (or seven) individuals got the ride. (And, no, davey, the two--or seven--don't get to zip and store all the variation available across the entire pre-existing along with them in a fanny-pack. The variation is reduced because only two--or a few--individuals won the ride-the-ark lotto, and those two only have two alleles each, max, at each gene locus. You don't get to keep sneaking the "pre-existing variation" past the bottleneck. Like your too-large can of shaving cream, you've got to chuck it before you go through security: you can't go back and stuff it into the bags you already checked and you're just gonna have to deal with shaving with your sister's hand-soap at the other end of the flight until you've had enough time to make it down to the Wal-Mart--er, that is, until the entire ecosystem has recovered from the "Grand-Canyon"ing-of-Everything for long enough for the Wal-Mart (and all its supporting infrastructure) to recover.)
4. Unless and until you begin to indicate some slightest understanding of the problems caused by the genetic bottleneck caused by the arkification of all earth's biosphere, nobody's going to give your "hypothesis" the courtesy of a snicker.
5. To wit (singular of wit used advisedly), you not only need to recover the variability of each and every species in an incredibly short time (no time for the mutations to replenish the reservoir, which you deny anyway because all these "fallen" genomes would be deteriorating ever since the "flood" with little to no (whatever it is this week) new information resulting from the mutational copying "errors") for that species, you need time and more time for the much-more explosive growth of variability that would be required for each kind to speciate (davetalk: develop distint breeds within the ark-cestral "kind") into hundreds or thousands of daughter species (sub-kinds, whatever...). (Meanwhile, back in daveworld, you don't even believe that the breeder-driven variation among dogs has generated even one new species of canid over the exact same time period... Whether or not you see the problem this contradiction creates for you, please be assured that everyone else does.)
6. This is really a deal-breaker, davey. This one little problem with your "Hypothesis." It encapsulates your ignorance (no clue what alleles were when you formulated your crap in the first place), your lack of simple logic, your deep depths of denial, your lack of ethics, your inability to face facts, your inability to juggle the inherent contradictions that multiply everytime you tap your keyboard, your quote-mining and other dishonest tactics, your cowardly refusal to deal with weaknesses and refutations of your "points," and your dishonesty, all in one well-wrapped tortilla.
Sorry, dude, but on this one of all the objections that have been raised to your steaming pile of baloney, You Are Outta Here.
Which isn't to say that we won't continue to countenance your ongoing expostulations, simply for the entertainment value, but any potential relevance any of your utterances might ever have is not just in shreds at this point (the shredding occurred somewhere toward the bottom of page 1 of Part I), but in sub-atomic smithereens.
Trainwreck, meet the end of the line.
|