MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Mostly all these posts are discussing the topic, but they do often note when you're acting like an ignoramus. Like here: There's good information in almost all the posts. The only participant resorting to short content-free rebuffs is you. You're unable to articulate a consistent and accurate argument because you don't have one, but instead of taking the feedback you're being provided to refine and improve your argument you're instead blaming everyone else. If you're looking for someone to blame, try a mirror.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You got THAT out of what I said?
Oy
OK, try again: The animals that leave the ark have intact genomes, intact DNA from Creation, intact functioning DNA, except for maybe some small amount of junk DNA since the Fall, but very little. Nothing is "stored in their junk DNA," what is junk DNA NOW was maybe 90% functioning intact DNA then. So if our genomes have 95% junk DNA, theirs would have had less than 10%. So their entire genome minus maybe that much junk DNA was all functioning intact genes. Hardly any junk DNA, so lots of traits we no longer have, my guess being most of them were for much more acute senses than we have now, acute sight, including more colors, acute hearing, maybe better than dogs', functioning appendix and other "vestigial" organs and so on. I can hardly wait to find out. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.I don't know if there ever was a "speciation event," but there would have been many different varieties/races/subspecies of each animal formed within a few hundred years from the ark.At the rate of six to ten kittens say twice a year, for instance, cats could have grown their population enormously in not many years. Single-offspring animals, if there were any then, somewhat longer.Then each parent population breaks up into separate daughter populations which migrate away from each other. Each new population has a different set of gene/allele frequencies, proably each set different from all the others. As they become reproductively isolated from the other populations, each new population continues to grow in numbers, and sexual recombination among its unique set of gene frequencies starts to produce phenotypes that are different from those in all the other populations because of new combinations of alleles.Over some number of generations -- whatever it takes to mix the genotypes of the entire population pretty thoroughly, it should have a distinct appearance of its own. And it too should break up into separately migrating populations, maybe before, maybe after, the parent population is completely mixed; and again each will have its own set of gene frequencies which will bring out a new look to that population eventually too.And meanwhile all these animals are moving away from the ark and away from each other and eventually there should be many different subspecies of this animal spread through the world. Give it a few hundred years from the ark to get a pretty good collection of different species spread over a pretty good-sized area of geography. A hundred years could even do it, but two or three anyway. What YOU said couldn't happen on any planet anyway. But I didn't say that, and what a bizarre idea. What I said was that what is junk DNA NOW was NOT junk then, it was mostly functioning genes (I guessed 90% at the ark, ALL functioning of course at Creation). Junk doesn't become active, but active could become junk, mostly due to mutations... And ALL animals today should have a lot of junk in their genomes so I don't know how you could track it back to stages where there was less. No surprise to me I can tell ya. Yeah, so I've heard. I tend to disagree with other creationists about this, they liking the idea that it has functions, me thinking it's better explained as dead genes. My guess is that some of it still does something, just not much. My only point was that I'd expect mutations to be mentioned if they were a big factor, rather than just give us the usual Punnett square. Not important, we can drop it. I was paraphrasing from a bunch of videos I've been watching, but maybe the one that's clearest on this subject is the one called Biology 312 or something like that. If that's wrong I'll come back and fix it: It's Biology 312, Video 62, and he starts off using the Punnett square at about 2:42.All I meant about it "seeming to affirm" built-in genetic diversity is that a Punnett square is sufficient for built-in genetic diversity but not for including mutations, and they use the square and don't mention any need to count mutations in their introductory lectures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My guess is that when I answer in a particular context I say it differently, that's all. It is true that "I'm not focused on speciation," but if it comes up my view is that it doesn't happen, but I also say I think something exists that is called by that term, I just don't think it's what it's conventionally thought to be. And, again, I'm not focused on speciation. I used to accept it for the sake of argument and figured that if it does happen then it must happen at the end of a series of populations of continually reducing genetic diversity, and I thought perhaps that alone could account for the inability to interbreed. So you can say I changed my mind about that if you want. If it can't it can't, but it remains true that it really doesn't matter because "I'm not focused on speciation" and my opinion as of this current conversation is that what is called speciation isn't speciation anyway. I've never said I have the answers so I don't know how you got that I said that. I haven't studied the math and I don't have the answers but maybe I will some day. Let's straighten out this bit of nonsense too. I would never say breeding IS evolution, but I have said many times that it makes a model for what must happen in evolution in that to get a new phenotypic presentation of a new population requires losing the genetic material for other phenotypes. that has to happen wherever you are getting a population with a new phenotypic character. That indeed is my argument.I also don't say "reduced genetic diversity is evolution," what I say is that SELECTION is what brings evolution about, all forms of addition only interfere with the formation of new varieties or races or subspecies (and I'm using "subspecies" now instead of "species" because although using "species" solves some communication problems, it's causing more in this discussion than it's solving so "subspecies" seems the better choice). Again, all forms of addition interfere with the formation of varieties and subspecies, including mutation and any kind of gene flow, that selection is THE driving force in the formation of such new populations, and in a sense is what evolution IS. And it always entails loss of genetic diversity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you're misusing the term "built-in diversity." I think what you really meant to refer to was "existing diversity" or "existing variation." "Built-in diversity" is a term used by some creationists to refer to the preloading of genomes of animals on the ark with the genes and alleles needed for the creation of more species after the flood.So when you said that the equations of population genetics support the existence of "built-in diversity," what you really meant was that they begin with "existing variation." By the way, in case it doesn't come up again I'll mention that a large part of population genetics deals with the propagation of mutations through populations. If you look at the section on Mutation in the Wikipedia article on genetics you'll see that it begins by saying, "Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation in the form of new alleles."Anyway, it turns out you weren't saying what I thought you were saying when you used the term "built-in diversity", but let me read and understand your post and respond, then we should probably move on soon because this isn't really the topic. Well, yes, because you used the term "built-in diversity." If we substitute the term "existing variation" then your statements become about a completely different topic. You're just making this up. There's no evidence that most junk DNA was functional in the sense of coding for proteins a mere 4000 years ago. And of course, as I said earlier, we're discovering that most junk DNA does have function in the realm of gene regulation. Again, just made up, no basis in fact, evidence or observation. Nothing recorded in the history of 4000 years ago supports this. I was just repeating back to you what you said in your Message 715: But then you say in this message: So first you say in Message 715 that population growth followed by migration forms new species, then in this message you say you don't even know if new species form. Which is it?You try to have it both ways in this next paragraph, first saying subspecies form, then saying species form: Which is it? Does this population increase followed by migration result in different subspecies or different species? Ah, accelerated evolution. There's no evidence that anything like this ever took place. We have DNA from many ancient animals, older than 4000 years, and there's no evidence of dramatic changes in the amount of junk DNA. For example, the DNA from a 50,000 year old mastodon tooth was sequenced and found to be closely related to the African elephant. Because their DNA was so similar, obviously the amount of junk DNA was roughly the same. "Built-in diversity" is a term used by these creationists you disagree with. If you disagree with them, don't use their terminology. Mutations are a huge factor in population genetics. He covers mutations later on in the course, starting here: A lot of population genetics is about how mutations propagate through a population. Again, by "built-in genetic diversity" what you really mean is "existing variation", or as that Biology 312 video you referenced might have said, "existing alleles".--Percy

Well, that's as confused a statement as I've ever seen. It seems that you don't have a position you understand, let alone that anyone else could understand. You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Selective breeding is not "a model for what must happen in evolution." Selective breeding does not include mutation while evolution does. And another type of breeding, cross breeding, does introduce new genes and alleles into a population. A breeder who is carrying out both selective breeding and cross breeding at the same time could be said to be modeling evolution somewhat. I say "somewhat" because the selection is artificial and the genes and alleles introduces are never novel. Another distinction without a difference, and wrong again. Evolution consists of reproduction (selection) and modification (mutation and changing allele combinations). Selection alone is merely analogous to selective breeding.--Percy

Question: if you can't read white diagrams like this: Then how in the world did you watch the video you just referenced which is nothing but 12 minutes of black ink on white paper (I've positioned the video a minute and a half in, start it up to see what I mean): Can't see white, huh. Hmmm.Anyway, why don't you keep a pair of sunglasses next to your monitor. Or there are ways to invert colors depending upon your OS and browser.--Percy

For those who claim evolution is not science because it does not use maths ... Looks like a good resource to put in Links and InformationEnjoy

I have found that polarized sunglasses reduces I strain.Enjoy

The white chart is blinding, the video is actually a lot grayer. However it too is hard on my eyes so I don't watch for any great length of time.
I wear a special pair of glasses made for video gamers. I can't say they help a lot but they help some. My sunglasses are too dark.

First, I don't see how organisms could survive after losing 90% of their genes.Second, how in the world would different species just happen to lose nearly all of the same genes and keep nearly all of the same genes? That doesn't make any sense. Diversification through losing different genes just doesn't work since they have nearly all the same genes.Third, that still doesn't explain the genetic diversity at a single locus which is completely inconsistent with a genetic bottleneck just 4,000 years ago. Genes are found at the same location on the same chromosome in all individuals. A specific gene isn't spread around the genome among many many copies. Therefore, claiming that junk DNA was functional in the past doesn't get around the problem of the observed genetic diversity at each position in the genome.Fourth, species from different kinds, as you would define them, share the same mutations in the same pseudogenes. This isn't consistent with independent events. This is consistent with shared ancestry where the shared ancestor already had the mutation in the pseudogene.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Lost 90% of their genes? What am I saying that you could possibly read that way? I said they had 90% functioning intact DNA or about 10% junk DNA.About the genetic bottleneck I've many times explained that at the time of the ark there should have been so much more genetic diversity than we have today that the bottleneck would only have increased the homozygosity to some relatively small extent, unnoticeable by today's standards.I think it's interesting to consider that mutations in the same pseudogenes could very well have occurred independently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've never heard that and it's absurd. "Built-in" suggests it was part of the original design. But I'll try to make what I mean clearer. I mentioned a couple of times that I expect it to come up eventually in the population genetics discussions AND that I frequently encounter it in those videos and in other general discussions how mutation is the source of variability.Yes I know the party line about junk DNA and I still think what I think.I don't believe "speciation" exists as defined. I am not going to use the term "species" any more because of confusion about that, and as I keep saying it's irrelevant to my argument. I see that I said something in a way that implied population growth had something to do with the formation of new subspecies but it's migration that does that so I hope that clears up that confusion.The formation of a daughter population that migrates away from a parent population is a form of random selection of a portion of the population so that new gene frequencies occur in the new population -- and in the old as well in some cases. It's the new gene frequencies that change the phenotypic presentation of the new population from the old and eventually bring about a new subspecies or variety or race after enough generations of breeding within the population. The original random selection of the founders of the new population is the source of the reduced genetic diversity, just as it is with natural selection or artificial selection.I'm dropping "species" altogether because it implies speciation which I don't think has to occur, but I had been using it where I now use "subspecies." Unfortunately there's so much semantic confusion involved in this discussion it's hard to sort it out. I would think the context would make the terms clear but obviously it doesn't. Seems to me "species" is often used without any concern to find out if it's strictly correct, but I realize I can't get away with that so I'm usuing subspecies from now on to describe the new populations that emerge from the processes I've described -- random or other selection, changed gene frequencies, new phenotypic presentation of daughter population, new race or variety or subspecies.The lack of evidence for something so obvious as the speed of microevolution is the result of evo assumptions, not reality. The rapid formation of the Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle populations are what one should expect from microevolution: the normal effects of the formation of a small daughter population then mixed by the seasonal breeding pattern of any animal. The millions of years of the ToE are a ridiculous assumption, and there is no evidence for THAT either, it's ALL a ridiculous assumption. If you aren't going to accept my entirely different way of looking at these things there is no point in discussing any of it. You are just going to keep imposing your false ToE assumptions on me, accuse me of lack of evidence when I've made the case well without it and so on. This is to be expected in a paradigm clash. Your paradigm forces terms and conditions on me that are false and I've been trying my best to make mine clear in spite of that for years now. I would have thought a fair reading of how I use English words would clarify but I'm finding incredibly absurd straw man renderings of my simple statements instead. So absurd I've suspected intentional obfuscation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your post makes it painfully clear that you haven't the slightest interest in fair discussion. An honest attempt to understand what I'm saying shouldn't be all that hard but if it is the discussion is hopeless. It's only become clear in the last few posts how much of the problem is semantic. Plus a lack of interest in understanding what I'm saying. Seems to me there's no point in continuing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right now, about 5% of the human genome is functional DNA, much of which is made up of genes. By my math, you are going from the genome being made up of 90% genes to 5% genes. That's a loss of 85%. Your explanations are wrong. At most, you can only have a handful of alleles for each gene. In real species, there are thousands and thousands of alleles for some genes. It isn't interesting. It is wrong.

Then please tell us how long it should take to get the 40 million mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes with known mutation rates, known generation times, and reasonable population sizes. We are all ears.Should it only take 1,000 years to get humans and chimps from a common ancestor? 500 years?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.