MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Since you are insisting that I grapple with your example I'll try tomorrow. My guess is it doesn't prove anything like what you think it proves and has nothing in common with my scenarios.

You know what? I'm not going to work on it more. You can't just come along and use an example from an entirely different science and claim it disproves my argument. If your example could be done with animals that could be fair, and if it can then that's what you need to do. Plants no, they are too different. If your claim is true it ought to be true for my kind of example so that's what you need to prove.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When stuff you say catches my eye and I have a thought about it I'll respond. That's what happened here: Although I do focus quite a bit on such small populations I claim the same trend exists in larger daughter populations, it just takes more time for the effects to be worked through, and when the daughter population is large enough it also has to be understood that the same kinds of changes are going to occur in the parent population as well because its gene frequencies will also have changed quite a bit.Also the most important thing in my scenario is the initial random selection of the founders of the daughter population, which you don't pay much attention to. It's that original founding number that determines the new gene frequencies that determine the traits in the new population and what has to be lost to bring them about. I've been claiming that it only takes a few generations too even in a wild population. I don't think it took all those thirty plus years to develop the Pod Mrcaru lizards for instance. I don't attribute changing allele frequencies to isolation and homogenization; I attribute one new set of allele frequencies to the number of individuals in the founders of a daughter population. Isolation is what is necessary to making sure the new gene frequencies are the only source of the traits in the new population. Homogenization is the result of the multiple sexual recombinations from generation to generation that eventually blend all those traits together for a distinctive identifiable character to the new population as a whole.Since you are not describing these things as I describe them I have no reason to think anything you say has anything to do with my argument.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Although I occasionally mention that I think the bottlenecked cheetah and elephant seal constitute genuine species, I avoid making my case from such a small founding number because they are considered to be different from species because of the bottleneck. That makes no sense, I don't think it's true, but I don't want to get into a fight about. Perhaps you can get away with it because you're talking about plants. I don't see how the number of offspring relates to the number of daughter populations. I haven't yet been able to understand enough of your argument to have any idea how long it takes RIL to produce anything. In the case of my scenario daughter populations develop a lot faster than the ToE supposes, in however many generations it takes from founding to homogenization, and if the founding number is as small as yours that should be a very very few years, five? ten?

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.

It HAS to take more time to blend together the gene frequencies in a larger population than in a smaller population. More combinations are going to occur and it's going to take time for all the igenetic lines to mate with each other.And I'm sorry but plants with their self-fertilization simply will not do in this discusszion. Animals don't self-fertilize. Just another bit of mystification. Maybe your professors would give you high marks but you need a new approach if you are trying to answer my argument. I have no idea what you are talking about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HBD, I'm aware that there are many complications and details that eventually have to be taken into account in my argument, but at this point in the discussion when I don't have any sense that you've even grasped what my argument is despite the fact that like everybody else you keep saying you do, this is a side issue and a distraction.

Yes I get to the point that your answers to me are so frustratingly opaque and apparently irrelevant while being presented with such total confidence I feel like punching you. You don't understand what I'm saying or you could address it in a way I could follow. Yes do please stop and please don't bring a plant example to this discussion again.

Actually I've been watching presentations of population genetics at You Tube. So far I object to their insistence on mutations as the source of variability. Of course. Otherwise nothing has been a problem so far, just not related to what I'm arguing.If your example applies to mice then use mice. And use them in a way that relates to my argument. Otherwise go home.Just6 your title about refuting my "idea of speciation" shows you don't have a clue what I'm arguing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mutations occur in individuals.They can only show up here and there in individuals in a population.They will be completely different from each other.If you got a new phenotype in each individual in a population, so that you have a scattering of different traits through the entire population, that's not a new species, right?What has to happen is selection to spread the mutation or mutations.Selection is what forms new populations, not mutations.Selection eliminates alleles in order to bring out the new phenotypes.It doesn't matter whether you are getting a new variety or new species, all I'm talking about is getting a new population that looks different from the parent population and that means losing the characteristics that were in the parent population to get the new ones in the daughter population. I don't know what you think brings about speciation that's different from this process but since a new species is also a new population that has different characteristcs from the parent population it still can only be formed by replacing those former characteristcs with the new ones, which is a loss of genetic diversity. For it to remain stable at all would also require that there be no gene flow and no new mutations. That's how a domestic breed is maintained and it has to be how a species is maintained as well. Soon as you get new gene flow, new mutations, drift, a new migration you are losing the homogeneity of your population. Which is fine except that it's not evolution. Evolution requires selection and selection reduces genetic diversity.ABE I watched the sunlight go dim out my window. It's bright again. I guess the eclipse is over.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It isn't a strategy, it's an expression of frustration at being put through an irrelevant intellectual wringer.

Don't ask me why but the total eclipse is over here already, it travels west to east for some reason.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see any point in following your instructions. To get new phenotypes you have to lose the genetic stuff for other phenotypes. Even PaulK admitted that. The only controversy is whether mutations overcome this effect.

Wrong about what?I say mutations cannot overcome the fact that you only get a new phenotypic look to a population by loss of the genetic stuff for the other phenotypes which is a loss of genetic diversity which has to be the case whether we're talking about a new variety, breed, race or species. You do not get new species by addition, by gene flow, by mutations, only by selection, substraction, reduction, loss.

Add all you want, that won't get you a new variety or species. You still have to subtract to get that.