MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

What I see coyote saying is that creationist try to make the blue block(humans) a separate clade from the green block above (chimps and other apes) when science shows they are all one clade. So much for presumed neutrality. Science is a tool that can be used to uncover reality, and like all tools it can be misused and mishandled. Much of creationism is full of the misuse and mishandling of science, often outright lies and misinformation. The goal in science is to explain all the evidence, not just that which fits inside your personal bubble of "convenient truths."Science is agnostic to religion and there is no "evolutionist religion" ... and it always amuses me when creationists try to insult evolution by calling it a religion.Enjoy

Most of the time using the term inbreeding is fine, but when discussing population genetics and changing allele frequencies and such, the term has important implications to the discussion. "Interbreeding" would be a more appropriate term for general breeding within a population.Still, the point is that in small populations, inbreeding will affect the genetics of the population. Inbreeding, along with drift, are the main factors that cause small populations to become increasingly homozygous and lead to the fixation of a disproportionate number of alleles. Randomly mating populations tend toward Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. They may or may not be... it depends on the mutation. Besides, one single mutation is unlikely to cause genetic incompatibility. It is the accumulation of mutations that would lead to incompatibility. Not necessarily. There are several ways of developing reproductive incompatibility. For example, the main characteristic that causes reproductive isolation in Greenish Warblers is mating song recognition. If you took gametes from individuals on opposite ends of the ring and combined them in the lab, they may produce viable offspring (I don't know if they for sure if they can actually produce viable hybrids or not) but in the wild, they don't recognize each other as potential mates and so are reproductively isolated, even though their ranges overlap. How many mutations did that take? Plumage, nesting behavior, and genital incompatibility can also play a role in reproductive isolation. It is not limited to the failure of gametes to form viable hybrids.HBD

Funny... when I first glanced at the image in your post, I thought "That green block is not a clade! Why are they depicting it as a clade?" Then I read the caption... HBD

Exactly, and a major point of my example of RIL populations. The effects that you are expecting in daughter populations cannot happen any faster than they can in a population derived from a single parental line, isolated individually and self fertilized for several generations. That breeding strategy operates at the MAXIMUM potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization.If a system that operates at maximum potential for fixation of alleles and homogenization cannot produce new species in 10 generations (98+% homogeneous populations), how could a wild population do it... that is if isolation and changing allele frequencies are enough? Nonsense. The initial parental cross distributes the alleles to the offspring as predicted by Mendelian genetics. Each RIL begins with a single individual or breeding pair which would have an allele frequency for each gene. In the case of an individual, allele frequency would be 0%, 50% or 100%. In the case of a breeding pair, allele frequency would be 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. So each RIL starts with an allele frequency that may or may not be different than the parents at each gene loci. For sure the combination of alleles across all genes will be different in every single RIL individual. What is important is taking those alleles to fixation. How would having a different allele frequency produce different phenotypes? What needs to happen is one population needs to be fixed for allele 'A' and the other fixed for allele 'a'. You have mentioned this yourself, that the other traits, the other alleles need to be eliminated from the population in order to have differentiation. So fixation of alleles is what is important to differentiating populations. RIL is the most efficient method for doing that across many loci.BTW, I already mentioned that this system is used for animals... it is how laboratory mice and rats are produced. They use sibling crosses rather than self crosses, but otherwise it works using the same principles. Sibling crosses would actually result in a slower rate of homogenization and fixation than selfing, but still would operate much faster than a wild population.And don't forget, as a wild population grows, the effect of inbreeding will be reduced and the process will slow even further.And... you yourself have recognized this system in breeding programs. Isolate and breed within a small population until desired trait is fixed. The main differences in a RIL population and a standard breeding program are:1. The RIL program produces homozygotes and fixed alleles much faster than traditional breeding approaches2. The RIL population is not selected for any specific trait (ie. there is no directional selection)3. The RIL population consists of numerous (hundreds) or lines, each with its own unique set of traitsYour objection to this being done with plants is unfounded. For one, it can and is done with animals. Secondly, genetics of plants and animals operate in the same way. They undergo meiosis and mitosis; they reproduce sexually; they undergo recombination; they respond to inbreeding, outcrossing, bottlenecks, selection, drift, etc. the same way animals do. If fact, most of what we know about population genetics and breeding comes from plant systems. Plants are easy models to work with that don't have the same ethical implications that animal models do.RIL populations demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that isolation and changing allele frequencies alone are not enough to produce new species.HBD

I think this is the crux of your issue with random mutations increasing genetic variation.Here's a new example:We have a population of wolves.
They are all the same.
They do not breed with any other wolves at all.
They only breed within their own population.Here are some traits:Length of hair - Same - all short
Length of nails - Same - all short
Colour of eyes - Same - all grey
Colour of coat (hair) - Same - all black/white/grey
Length of tail - Same - all short
Width of paws - Same - all small
Sharpness of teeth - Same - all sharp
Angle of ears - Same - all sharp
Broadness of chest - Same - all small
Strength of heart - Same - all strong
Strength of legs - Same - all short
Ability to smell - Same - all strong
(All other traits not listed... of which there would be thousands... are all the same).After 500 years, we now have a population that looks something like this due to random mutation:Length of hair - Same
Length of nails - Same
Colour of eyes - Different, some are blue, some are grey
Colour of coat (hair) - Same
Length of tail - Same
Width of paws - Same
Sharpness of teeth - Same
Angle of ears - Same
Broadness of chest - Same
Strength of heart - Same
Strength of legs - Same
Ability to smell - SameThis would occur due to a random mutation that caused some eyes to be blue.
As well, no wolves cared if the eyes were blue or grey so the ones that had blue eyes still reproduced and the trait spread throughout the population.
The blue eyes simply were not selected out, and they grew to be a larger and larger part of the population.
No speciation event.
No selection.
There's just wolves now with blue eyes in the population due to random mutation.Are you saying such a thing is strictly impossible?
If so, why? What would prevent it?

Science is still Science. Science has not been used to show new kinds from different kinds. Thus it is not in contradiction to creationism. Further Science is not in the business of finding God. And it is a joke to pretend Science can find origin.Further Science can only do so much in finding reality, it can only study what is observed.Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up. Edited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : Err

Hmmm. Better not try and tell that to forensic anthropologists.

Ref fossils not corpses. And I took that out of my post as I knew it would be spun incorrectly. Edited by DOCJ, : No reason given.

Still wrong. We can indeed read the distant past just as forensic anthropologists read the more recent past.You probably aren't aware, but a lot of forensic anthropology deals with bones, as a corpse left out in the open is mostly bones within a few months depending on conditions.Once you are at the bones stage, there is little difference between that and analyzing fossils.You are parroting creationists' silly ideas about separating science into two parts because a lot of science disproves religious claims.(By the way, I do consulting for local coroners on bones, and half my Ph.D. work was in the field of fossil man so don't try and tell me that my field of science isn't valid.)

[Preachers are always complaining that scientists are playing God, but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist--The Sensuous Curmudgeon.]

Ok. Provide evidence.

The evidence is in university libraries, and takes up several floors in most cases. It is also in museums and other similar places.Unfortunately, most creationists avoid these places and avoid examining the evidence as much as vampires avoid garlic.

FyiYou are spinning my post incorrectly. I completely support anthropology. However nothing discovered has disproven the bible.

Archaeology has disproved the idea of a global flood during historic times. This is not the appropriate thread for that topic, but I've presented evidence, as have a number of other posters, in other threads.

I want a term to make it clear I'm talking only about breeding within the new population. All I'm talking about is recombination through enough generations to blend all the gene frequencies together and produce a homogeneous character to the new population.. Well DUH. But the only kind of mutations that should be a problem are the deleterious ones. And this collection of pedantic irrelevancy contributes what to the discussion?Edited by Admin, : Fix closing quoted section.