How do you define the word Evolution?

Then you misread me or I wasn't clear. I mean and always mean that A WHOLE POPULATION of a particular phenotype is produced by selection, not the black fur itself. I've said over and over that it doesn't matter how the genetic diversity is produced, whether by mutation or built in alleles, when you have evolution, meaning the production of a population of new phenotypes, it can only happen by the reduction of genetic diversity. If the mutation for black fur is selected then you have to lose the alleles for light fur.

Would you also agree that black fur color was produced by a mutation, and that mutation is beneficial? At one point there was just brown mice. Due to a mutation, there is now black and brown mice. This is evolution. How is this a reduction in genetic diversity when you go from one phenotype to two phenotypes?

I don't know what to think of the mutation theory. It may be a mutation, but it doesn't matter. Again, it's the selection that reduces the genetic diversity, and it's the selection that creates the new population, or in some cases "species." In the new population there is only the one phenotype.

It matters. A lot. If it's a mutation your claims about loss of genetic diversity are false.

No no no no no. Loss of genetic diversity is necessary to evolution, to the formation of new phenotypes, new species etc. It does NOT matter what the source of the genetic diversity is from which the new gene frequencies form, you still have to reduce or get rid of the genetic material that is not part of the new phenotype/species.

This change only requires the - eventual - replacement of one allele. And the arrival of a number of different alleles for black fur - maintained by natural selection in the regions where it is beneficial - has increased the genetic diversity of the species.Thus we do not need an ever-declining diversity. A fluctuating diversity, where new alleles are introduced by mutation and eventually replace the "originals" is quite sufficient. And the pocket mice are strong evidence that it is possible.

Still wrong, still invalidated by polyploidy increasing genetic diversity. Still invalidated by actual evolution. Without mutations adding to the genetic diversity selection has nothing to select other than the old phenotypes.The scientific evolution - not Faitholution - includes mutation and selection in a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesisNeutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.Those are four facts that make up the actual real world process of evolution -- it is observed, documented fact.Denial is delusion. The source of genetic diversity is mutations. This gives selection something new to work with to adapt a population to an ecology, something that didn't exist before.Polyploidy, for example, provides another copy of the genome to mutate and then the organisms have both the original version and the new version. Thus they have more genetic diversity ON THEIR OWN than their parents.Denial is delusion. Where do the alleles for larger size come from in Pelycodus Faith? Selection is removing the alleles for the smaller organisms, but where do the larger organisms get the alleles for increased size?

quote:

---

---

How has all of Pelycodus jarrovii become larger than all of Pelycodus ralstoni except by the addition of alleles for larger and larger organisms, while selection removes the old alleles for smaller organisms.Selection removes alleles when there is a choice, and choice is provided by mutations.Evolution and anagenesis explains this very simply, with no torturous mental fantasy.Denial is delusion.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

Heritable traits like fur color will never lead to macroevolution. And reduction of genetic diversity is ALWAYS necessary to get a new species, can't happen any other way. Drift also loses genetic diversity to produce its new phenotypes.Mutations are not needed to produce new varieties, but even if mutation was the cause of a particular change, the same processes have to occur in order to make a species out of it. What has to happen is that an existing or mutated allele or set of alleles for larger size be selected and become characteristic of a new population. And for the larger size to become characteristic, the genetic material for the smaller size will be reduced or lost. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except when it is cause for a population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one fur color remains in its current ecology and the new fur color moves into a new ecology and starts evolving independently of the original fur color population.Except when simple size difference causes one population to divide into reproductively isolated populations as one size inhabits outer tree branches while the other inhabits a more ground based ecology, foraging and reproducing in those different habitats. Totally and utterly falsified by polyploidy, failure to understand this is not a refutation of the facts.Denial is delusion. Except when it so obviously does.Denial is delusion. Except when there are prior mutations that provide alternatives and it is this gain in genetic diversity that provides the ability for drift into develop a new phenotype. Except when mutations provide the traits for the new varieties, as in the black mice.Denial is delusion. You mean the division of the population into two independently evolving daughter populations, as in polyploidy species and fossil species like pelycodus, where the opportunity provided by mutation allowed the original population to inhabit a second ecology. That didn't exist in the previous population, so it must be a mutated allele/s that are selected. Because they have been replaced/displaced by the new larger allele that were just gained by mutation. Net change in genetic material hovers around zero in a never ending equilibrium between new and old as new becomes old.EnjoyEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.

All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race, evolution within the Kind, not macroevolution. You get a population of blue wildebeests that split off from the black population; you get a new pattern of colors on the new population of salamanders, new plumage on the new population of green warblers and so on. You do not get macroevolution.You don't need mutation for adaptations either, just new combinations of existing alleles.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Polyploidy isn't any different really from any mutation, it doesn't make anything new, in fact it doesn't even make anything as new as a mutation can supposedly make if it codes for a new protein.

All the division into separate reproductively isolated populations does is create a variety or race or species, evolution within the Clade, which is the definition of (scientific) macroevolution. Anagenesis⁽¹⁾ and cladogenesis⁽¹⁾.Can you tell me what your definition is for macroevolution?Inquiring minds want to know.Enjoy

• quote:

  ---

  Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic transformation", and in contrast to cladogenesis, is the process in which a species, gradually accumulating change, eventually becomes sufficiently distinct from its ancestral form that it may be labeled a new species (a new form). When this is deemed to occur, no branching or splitting off of new taxa in the lineage is shown in a phylogenetic tree. When no populations of the ancestor species remain the ancestral species can then be considered as being extinct.

  ---

  ​

• quote:

  ---

  Cladogenes is is an evolutionary splitting event where a parent species splits into two distinct species, forming a clade.[1]

  ​

  To determine whether a speciation event is cladogenesis or anagenesis, researchers may use simulation, evidence from fossils, molecular evidence from the DNA of different living species, or modelling.

  ---

Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems. Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind,--- abe: no not ANY change, I mean a new population -- but it can't happen, you run out of genetic diversity at that point. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A lot of semantic stuff, RAZD, you can define anything to prove anything it seems

---

That is what you hope however it is obviously not the case.

quote:

---

Macroevolution would be any change beyond the boundary of the Kind

---

As we see this attempt fails because the whole idea of "the boundary of the Kind" is meaningless. Oh, I suppose we could more accurately phrase it as "evolution which creationists reject" but that is somewhat subjective and not exactly useful to science.

quote:

---

no not ANY change, I mean a new population -- but it can't happen, you run out of genetic diversity at that point.

---

That's your opinion but the evidence is still against you. And your opinion hardly outweighs the evidence.

Which seems to be your way of "proving" your opinions, semantics and twisted definitions to fit your opinions ... So you have: Macroevolution is any new population beyond the boundary of their Kind, yes?What is "the Kind" and what is the "boundary of the Kind" and how do we identify and find them?If a new population is descendant from an existing "kind" species, isn't it -- by definition -- a part of that "kind" (and thus cannot be outside the "boundary of the Kind")?Without knowing this your definition is useless and as arbitrary as your opinion.Let us talk about dogs for starters, Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species. Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection of new mutations, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species, because the mutations occur randomly and the only difference is the selection and viability of the populations (artificial selection does not test for survivability in a natural environment because the breeds are kept in protected environments -- this artificially increases the different types that would survive). Some are much more viable than others, especially when the breed is used for specific purposes (eg - sheep herding, fox hunting, etc).So how big is the "Dog Kind"? We have dogs (all breeds) and wolves (all species) and presumably all other members of Canidae:

quote:

---

The biological family Canidae /ˈknᵻdiː/ [3] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈknᵻd/, /ˈkeɪnᵻd/).[4]

---

How do we know if these are "Dog Kind" members?OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Caniformia:

quote:

---

Caniformia, or Canoidea (literally "dog-like"), is a suborder within the order Carnivora. They typically possess a long snout and nonretractile claws (in contrast to the cat-like carnivorans, the Feliformia). The Pinnipedia (seals, walruses and sea lions) are also assigned to this group. The center of diversification for Caniformia is North America and northern Eurasia. This contrasts with the feliforms, the center of diversification of which was in Africa and southern Asia.

---

Caniformia also includes bears and badgers -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too?How do we know?Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary?OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivora:

quote:

---

Carnivora (/kɑːrˈnɪvərə/;[3][4] from Latin carō (stem carn-) "flesh" and vorāre "to devour") is a diverse scrotiferan order that includes over 280 species of placental mammals. Its members are formally referred to as carnivorans, whereas the word "carnivore" (often popularly applied to members of this group) can refer to any meat-eating organism. Carnivorans are the most diverse in size of any mammalian order, ranging from the least weasel (Mustela nivalis), at as little as 25 g (0.88 oz) and 11 cm (4.3 in), to the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which can weigh up to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), to the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina), whose adult males weigh up to 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) and measure up to 6.9 m (23 ft) in length.

​

Some carnivorans, such as cats and pinnipeds, depend entirely on meat for their nutrition. Others, such as raccoons and bears, depending on the local habitat, are more omnivorous: the giant panda is almost exclusively a herbivore, but will take fish, eggs and insects, while the polar bear subsists mainly on seals. Carnivorans have teeth and claws adapted for catching and eating other animals. Many hunt in packs and are social animals, giving them an advantage over larger prey.

---

Carnivora also includes cats and other members of Feliforma (jackals, mongoose, etc) -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too?How do we know?Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary?OR is the "Dog Kind" inclusive of all Carnivoramorpha:

quote:

---

Classification and phylogeny

• Clade Carnivoramorpha
  ​
  • Superfamily Miacoidea
    ​
    • Family Miacidae
      • genera: Chailicyon, Eostictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaemus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
    • Family Viverravidae
      • genera: Bryanictis, Didymictis, Ictidopappus, Mustelodon, Pristinictis, Protictis, Raphictis, Simpsonictis, Viverravus
  • Order Carnivora
    • Superfamily Caniformia or Canoidea
    • Superfamily Feliformia or Feloidea

---

Carnivoramorpha also includes the (extinct) Miacoidea -- are they members of the "Dog Kind" too?How do we know?Are they outside "the boundary of the Dog Kind" and if so, how do we know? What's the boundary?Before we can say that something has evolved outside the "boundary of the Kind" don't we have to know what that boundary is and how we can test species against that boundary?Enjoy