Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?

quote:

---

There HAS to be a point in a series of such evolutionary processes where genetic diversity is reduced to the point that further evolution cannot happen, a hypothetical point in most cases but sometimes real.

---

As I've pointed out in the past this is false. So long as new genetic diversity can arise - and it can - evolution can continue.

quote:

---

IF YOU GET MUTATIONS AT THAT POINT you start losing the species, you go back to genetic diversity, you get a motley collection of new phenotypes, not an identifiable species

---

In other words you consider actual species that exist - such as wolves - to not be an identifiable species, just a "motley collection of phenotypes". Which is pretty obviously silly. Obviously it is possible for a species to contain a good deal of genetic diversity - and from that it follows that a species completely lacking in genetic diversity can add genetic diversity while remaining an identifiable species.

quote:

---

No evolution cannot continue.

---

Obviously it is possible for a new variation to appear and to eventually take over the population - or even better for the population to split with the new variation taking over one and being eliminated from the other.

quote:

---

It's all theoretical anyway because mutations don't occur after you have a species or breed, beyond the occasional fluke

---

Which is quite enough given a timescale of hundreds of millennia.The rest of your rambling is pointless. Obviously it is possible to have genetic diversity and have a recognisable species. Obviously a species low on genetic diversity can add more and still be a recognisable species.

quote:

---

YOu can't even show a species that developed from mutations beyond a single trait

---

Given that we don't have genetic surveys of species living a few million years ago I wouldn't expect to be able to show it to your satisfaction. All we have is strong evidence that it happened in the genetic similarities and differences of modern species. Which is rather better than denying obvious facts.

quote:

---

"Gain then loss" cannot work, you aren't thinking.

---

Of course it can - and if you really thought about it you'd see that.

quote:

---

...but IF such changes did occur, you nevertheless will not get a new species unless you lose most of them

---

And here we have proof that you aren't thinking. There is no need to lose most if them. If, for instance a dozen genes got a new allele then keeping all of them - in place of older variations would be the most effective way to move towards a new species.

quote:

---

... the more selections occur from daughter population to daughter population the more traits are lost as particular traits get expressed

---

You assume that, but if there is any such effect then so far it has been overwhelmed by other factors. Like, for instance, the fact that the number of genes is not fixed, and genes can get added.

quote:

---

Since the traits can only be variations on the basic genome of the Kind the variations could only be within the Kind -- and they always are.

---

Since all life on Earth is the same Kind - to the extent that "Kinds" can be said to exist then that is trivially true, but completely useless to you.

quote:

---

It doesn't happen, it can't happen, it doesn't need to happen.

---

It certainly can happen, the evidence says that it has happened and reality doesn't care whether it "needs" to happen.

quote:

---

There's quite enough variety created in the genome for all the variation we see

---

That's your assumption, and the evidence disagrees with you.

quote:

---

Mutations really don't do what they are claimed to do.

---

And another assumption contradicted by the evidence

quote:

---

BUT EVEN IF THEY DID the end result has to be loss in order to get new species

---

Obviously wrong. Replace enough alleles with new ones and you'll get something that would be considered a different species from the original population, without any net loss of diversity.

quote:

---

Mutations make no difference.

---

Obviously untrue.

quote:

---

Domestic breeding is evidence that reduced genetic diversity is necessary

---

The fact that domestic breeders can and do use mutations they consider desirable proves that mutations do add genetic diversity - which evolution can use. They also prove that existing species can have considerable genetic diversity while still being recognisable as a species.

quote:

---

And it would be simple to confirm this with wild creatures too in the simple lab experiment I've so often suggested, of creating a series of daughter populations and checking the DNA for rate of homozygosity.

---

How would this experiment allow for the relatively slow pace of evolution ? A typical speciation event is expected to take hundreds of years, while the time between speciation events should be hundreds of thousands of years. Unless you are somehow going to find a way to dramatically speed up all the processes involved by the same factor and can show that the acceleration won't significantly affect the outcome your experiment is utterly impractical.

It's not just that you answered the question, it is that you answered it in a rude and arrogant way that completely discounted whatever CRR might mean. Asking CRR to clarify something he said should not be seen as "utterly silly" and if you find it "incomprehensible" the problem is clearly with you.

quote:

---

What are you talkiing about?

---

I am talking about the exchange in this thread.RAZD asked CRR a question. You butted in and rudely answered it as if the question was about your ideas.

quote:

---

You need to provide links when you sling accusations

---

The links are already provided by the forum software. All you have to do is to follow the discussion back a few messages. Is that too difficult for you ?In that caseCRR posted Message 74
RAZD responded Message 75
You rudely butted in Message 76Less than twelve hours after posting that message you've apparently forgotten all about it.

quote:

---

And you are certainly not the one to correct me if I'm wrong.

---

If you can't manage to follow the thread of a conversation then someone has to.
Why not me ? And why not simply follow the discussion a few steps back rather than making angry demands ?

quote:

---

I "BUTTED IN" ON A QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST TO CREATIONISTS AND ANYONE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTION. CRR CAN ANSWER IT IN HIS OWN WAY. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

---

You butted in on a request for CRR to clarify his views. Since you aren't CRR and don't have any special knowledge that would let you answer for him, you can't offer anything more than your personal opinion. You were also extremely rude about it, despite not even bothering to understand the context. Simply pointing out that you don't believe that would be enough.You should also know by now that trying to cover up your silly mistakes by bullying me into silence doesn't work. it just makes you look even worse.

I don't think that there is any doubt that literalist inerrantist theology is bad.