How do you define the word Evolution?

Inability to interbreed is what speciation is, Faith. You can still make me laugh out loud. Don't ever change ... by, for example, learning anything.

That's pretty cool.

Is that a typo? Because probing something logically is no guarantee that you're going to get ANY answer, much less the right one.

.lighter than air that is.The surface to volume is such that a breeze that we would barely notice is a enough to blow them away. But the spider and silk is denser than air.

Typo. Should be "proved."

I guess you guys just can't see how laughable the idea is that inability to interbreed is the definition of speciation. The usual situation must be a condition of genetic reduction to depletion which in itself could be the cause of inability to interbreed, just by genetic mismatch, the furthest possible thing from anything deserving the term "speciation." It's really astonishing how you all go on talking about absurdities with a straight face.Oh, and "probed" was a typo, I meant "proved."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Using your definition, there are no species on Earth since all populations gain genetic diversity with new mutations in each generation.

Well, set us straight. I'd have said that when a polyploid hybrid between Helianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris is able to breed with others of its kind but not with either of its parent species, this constitutes the production of a new species. But if it is not, then pray tell us, Faith, which old species does it belong to, and by what criterion? I know that. The word that made me laugh was "logically", which you spelled perfectly but used incorrectly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Logical proofs are only true in the real world when the premises are true in the real world.The errors in your made-up unreal premises have been pointed out many times.

And like math, logic can only model the real world not cause any changes to it. If that model is invalidated by reality it is not reality that has to change, it is the model.Polyploidy does cause speciation. That is an observed objective empirical fact.Polyploidy does cause an increase in DNA. Polyploidy organisms can carry more alleles than normal diploid organisms, and -- curiously -- this has been one of Faith's argument for original kinds, that they carried more alleles.Polyploidy also allows mutations of one set of the DNA to add new traits to the populations. Thus polyploidy logically causes an increase in information (however it is defined).Enjoy

Sorry, my premises are ironclad and never disproved. Loss of genetic diversity is the necessary condition for evolution of new phenotypes. This is demonstrated all the time in domestic breeding, and although in nature it's often not as streamlined, mere population splits and reproductive isolation bring about the same conditions. This produces new phenotypes by losing the alleles for other traits. The logic is impeccable and the only reason it isn't recognized is the devotion to the false ToE which pretends loss of genetic diversity is not necessary to evolution. Speciation is not macroevolution no matter how the ToE insists that it is. In reality it isn't and can't be. At best it is a new "species" or subspecies or variation of the Kind. Since loss of genetic diversity is necessary to produce it, each new species has less genetic diversity than the last, and after a series of such population splits it's no wonder if ability to interbreed has been lost by simple genetic mismatch. Not speciation in the sense of macroevolution which is nothing but a wishful fantasy of the ToE.As for polyploidy loss of ability to interbreed with other populations is just another form of genetic mismatch. The whole idea of "speciation" as defined by loss of ability to interbreed is sheer absurdity.And again, mutations can only vary what the gene does, they can't produce anything newer than another fur color or the like. To get evolution beyond the Kind would require major changes in the structure, completely new genetic material. Mutations can't do that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You ignore and deny observed addition of genetic diversity. QED.{ABE} Falsified by observation. Unsupported assertion. But we can discuss it when you provide an operational definition of "kind". Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

No, I argue rightly that any additional genetic diversity must be reduced or lost to produce a new phenotype. Evolution requires it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

FIFY.See my edited message above.

You've observed no such thing. And I define the Kind as the boundary at which genetic diversity has been reduced to the point that no further evolution is possible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.