I'm just talking about what it takes to get a new variety/race/breed.
Yes, but the point that you're arguing is the formation of a wide range of new species from a single pair of ark passengers possessing very great genetic variability. How long does that take?
I guess you want a wild estimate? A thousand years to get the whole range perhaps? But "new species" or varieties should form a lot faster than that. First the pair would produce offspring, the offspring would produce offspring, there would be different variations among all those offspring already, meaning different phenotypes, then you get more offspring from the original pair and from the offspring of each generation and you could have a few hundred individuals in just a few generations of this, a pretty motley crew at this stage I would expect, lots of individual variation. Then some of them move away from the parent population, maybe three or four such groups, forming daughter populations, and they all keep producing offspring, and maybe you get hundreds of those in each subpopulation after a few generations too. You're going to have a lot of phenotypic variety in individuals in those groups, too, but over time a reproductively isolated subgroup is going to start to form its own phenotypic appearance that differs from the other groups and from the original population. The farther away they move from each other, ensuring reproductive isolation from each other, the more each population will develop its own characteristics.
Would there be anything like a stage you could identify as transitional in all that? People here seem to think there would be but as I think about how at first you're going to get a lot of different individual phenotypes in any new population the more I think it's really not all that certain that any of them would be clearly transitional between the original and the ultimate population. If you confined a motley bunch of alley cats to an island where they inbred for many generations, wouldn't they go through stages of producing all kinds of different individuals before maybe after many many many generations they might start to look more alike than different and become an actual variety or race of cats? Which of the many different individuals in the intermediate stages would you pick as the transitional type?
So your question was How long? To get a new "species" which I call a variety a few hundred years.
By concentrating only on variation within a single species and how long that takes, you are avoiding the question that your position (that all related species originated from one pair of animals on the ark, a "basic created kind" in standard creationist parlance), since your position does require multiple speciation events.
Not if speciation merely means the group doesn't breed with other populations, since there are many reasons for that. Lions CAN breed with tigers but normally don't, but both are "species" as usually understood aren't they?
And by misrepresenting the time needed to produce variation within a species as being the same as the time needed for speciation to occur, you are dead wrong.
I doubt it.
The standard creationist claim of "basic created kinds" is that the number of animals on Noah's Ark can be very greatly reduced if it carried single pairs representing "basic created kinds", such that those individuals carried a great amount of genetic variability pre-loaded in them, and that all the species within each "basic created kind" then descended from those representative breeding pairs. Thus, there would be a "basic canid kind" from which wolves, foxes, dingos, coyotes, and dogs descended. And there would be a "basic feline kind" from which all cats descended, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, panthers, pumas, and tabbies.
Yes, that's the basic idea.
What happens when you cross a dog with a wolf? You get offspring which I believe are fertile. In fact, there are breeders who do just that; there's a market for it. But then from biological research we find that there's not that much genetic difference between dogs and wolves; there simply have not been enough generations (AKA time) that has passed since we domesticated wolves and started breeding them.
What is your point here? While I believe all it takes is a pair on the ark to get all the variety we see today of any given species, I try not to be too strict about exactly what that original pair would have been like.
What happens when you cross a house cat with a tiger? Of course, we would employ artifical insemination or petri dish techniques for that experiment so that no animals would have been harmed. What happens? I'm willing to bet that house cats and tigers are not interfertile, that they cannot produce any offspring. Clearly, too many generations (ie, time) have passed since they diverged from each other. You can cross a lion and a tiger to produce a hybrid, a liger, which I believe to be sterile, so much less time (AKA generations) has passed since they nothing will happen, because they had diverged from each other more recently than they had from house cats.
Again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Whether producing offspring is possible between any given cat groups I don't consider to be definitive of what a cat is. They all descended from the cats on the ark and wherever there was great genetic divergence between different groups, yes, they could lose the ability to breed with other populations. But they are still the same species. The criterion of loss of ability to interbreed is artificial.
There can be some room to argue that dogs and wolves are just variations within the same species, but it is unavoidably clear that house cats, lions, and tiger are different species.
No it isn't. But I don't see any need to decide these things.
You have deal with speciation and how long that takes to happen.
I figure speciation, the development of inability to interbreed with former population, is simply going to happen after many generations of genetic divergence from the other groups, and I can't think that the amount of time is any kind of indicator of that. It would depend on accidental circumstances.
But you have forgotten the Bible! You keep insisting that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and is so authoritative that they must supersede reality itself.
Let's be fair now. I assume reality conforms to the Bible whether anyone can see it or not.
Well, that must also include the ages given by the chronologies in the Bible, since that is the basis for your rejection of an old earth.
OK, anybody can play the Ussher Game. A local creationist published somebody's study which traced through the begots and the reigns of the various kings to get a time-line with dates relative to the Creation. Then he got to a historical event that we have a date for and used that to tie his AC ("After Creation") dates with our Anno Domini system (AKA "Common Era"). He came up with Creation occurring in 4185 BCE, not quite 500 years earlier than the Jewish Calendar would have it.
But even if we couldn't fix the date of Creation according to our system, that wouldn't matter. Because what does matter is that we can fix the date of the Flood relative to Creation. The Flood happened in 1656 AC ("After Creation"), in 2529 BCE to us (but that doesn't matter).
Those "original basic created kinds" were created at the time of Creation, and with all their great genetic variability. Then 1656 years later, single pairs got onto the Ark. The problem is, as you yourself described, Faith, they would have already spent all that genetic variability long before the Ark.
Oh not ALL. They would have lost some heterozygosity due to death (which of course was not part of the original plan), the percentage of homozygosity would have been higher, more fixed loci for some traits, but if there was say 80% heterozygosity at Creation, there could still have been 50% on the ark. Or let's say only 30%. But today, in humans at least, there is only 7%. Yes I can find the reference if necessary. It's heterozygosity that provides the genetic variability. Even 30% on the ark would be enormous genetic variability compared to today's 7%, and we still have a lot of genetic variability left in us, right?
The individuals representing those "basic created kinds" would have had no more genetic variability left than extant species have now.
Nope. See above.
You haven't thought this through, have you?
Oh many many times. And I've argued it here many times before as well.
™ Version 4.2
