MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Let's see if you can comprehend the simplest of points.

Start -Mutation---Selection-----Middle-----Selection------End
allele:       AA                               AB                       BB

You start with a homozygous AA population. A mutation occurs producing allele B. Due to selection that B allele becomes more common, resulting in a heterozygous AB population. Selection continues until you have a homozygous population of BB.The genetic diversity at the end is the same as the genetic diversity at the start. Evolution does not run out of genetic diversity.

To get the AB and the BB you had to lose As. In the end it came out even but even with mutations you aren't going to get an increase because mutations simply replace other alleles, and with randomly selected population splits eventually you'll lose low-frequency alleles for a net loss. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have been claiming that evolution will run out of genetic diversity, yet we can see with this simple example that this isn't the case. Do you agree?

Masquerading your religion as science is not a paradigm. Charming.Anyway, seeing you "sketch it all out again" should be interesting. Let's see if you can say anything that has evidence (that we don't already agree about, like selective breeding) or that isn't made up. The major forces behind species change are mutation and selection. Sufficient change to genes and alleles results in genetic incompatibility and a new species. The most famous example of this is Darwin's finches on the islands of the Galapagos. How long it takes is dependent upon many factors. The evidence of the fossil record tells us that trilobites and coelacanths existed millions of years ago over periods of many millions of years and evolved over many millions of years, in the case of the coelacanth right up to the present. The claim that they "formed within the same short periods of time" has no supporting evidence and is contradicted by the existing evidence. In the absence of mutation, which you don't mention and so I assume you're excluding it, what you're describing is analogous to breeding, about which we agree, though you forgot to mention that selection continues through the generations after the population's founding. The rapidity of change is a function of the particular selection forces and genetic drift. For example, a founder population in the identical environment as the original population will only be subject to genetic drift and will likely change little and slowly, while a founder population in an environment far different from that of the original population will be subject to strong selection forces and might change rapidly, or even go extinct. Obviously mutation produce change, so that isn't in dispute. Mutations are necessary to produce change beyond the species level. Without mutation genetic incompatibility will never be achieved. There is no evidence that that there is any such thing as original created species. Species change gradually over time. There is no evidence that great amounts of functional DNA became junk DNA, and a great deal of evidence that the DNA of ancient animals is much like the animals of today.Death has been part of life since life's beginning. The evidence of the deaths of billions of individual organisms over billions of years is recorded in the fossil record. This is impossible. It's simple math and the ark is a fairy tale. Except for creatures classified as clean, there were only two creatures of each kind on the ark. This means there could be at most four alleles per gene, and since you're ignoring mutation you have no mechanism for producing additional alleles. Since many genes of modern creatures have more than four alleles, your ark explanation is impossible. All the evidence we have says that mutation is the source of all alleles and genes in all populations today. New races and varieties can be produced by either subtracting or adding alleles (or doing both). Selective breeding removes alleles, cross breeding adds them. "Kind" is a Biblical term, not a scientific term. It has no scientific definition.And calling this "the boundary of a Kind" is clearly wrong even in a creationist context. Two separate breeding populations taken to the extremes of homogeneity and reduced genetic diversity through selection will not form any boundary between them. As creationists are fond of saying, "They're still the same kind." Every offspring of every breed, be it cat or dog or cattle or human or whatever, experiences mutations, and yet breeds continue to exist. Mutations obviously do not destroy breeds on human timescales, at least not unless they have very short generation times.But for longer timescales this is course true. The forces of mutation and selection guarantee change. Evolution means that change is a constant. This is nonsensical, since mutation is part of evolution. Mutations add diversity to a population and can be beneficial, neutral or deleterious. In other words, mutations can affect fitness. Individuals (and their genomes, which consist of genes and alleles both new and old) are selected based upon fitness. This is nonsensical. Evolution includes both mutation and selection - you can't redefine it. Say what? Maybe you want to rephrase that. You're talking religion, not science.--Percy

Darwin's finches didn't need mutations, just the appearance of different beak types due to changed gene frequencies due to random selection of portions of the finch population. Then they gravitated to whatever food best suited their beak.Nope, a created Kind is a physical reality. Religion is something else.

My claim is that ULTIMATELY, down a PARTICULAR LINE THAT IS EVOLVING (the clearest example of which is ring species), it has to end up at a point of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. How often this extreme situation occurs I have no idea but it is inevitable given the processes that bring about new subspecies.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your arguments have been shown baseless or wrong, not because they weren't understand, but because they were. Yes, we know, everybody's fault but yours.--Percy

I think what you need to do is stop trying to find blame and instead try to find arguments that don't ignore known evidence, that are themselves based upon evidence, and that make sense.--Percy

I just showed you that this is false. Want to see it again?

I think what YOU need to do is stop accusing me of everything in the book and think fairly about what I'm saying. You won't so go fly a kite, a really really big one that will carry you to the moon, how about that.

Follow the argument. You proved no such thing.

Of course they did. These finches were blown to the islands from the mainland and possess genes and alleles not present in the most closely related mainland species. Research has demonstrated that the selection forces on Darwin's finches were distinctly non-random. Actually, just the opposite. Food availability drove selection. Now you're just in denial. You can't even define kind, let alone find its expression in "physical reality".--Percy

You're wrong.

Nobody can define Kind because there's been too much change since Creation. But I have a functional definition which is more than anybody else has: the point at which selection depletes genetic diversity in an evolving population.

Different genes even? There are probably many genes that govern beak size and type that already existed in the genome, which is all it would have taken to produce any given beak type from simple population splits. The whole variety of beaks needs no mutations at all. If all the known skin colors are available from two genes of two alleles each, as I've shown many times before, there is no reason for any extra genes or alleles above and beyond those originally created to explain all the different beaks in the finch genome.The standard Darwinian explanation is that the food drove the selection. That is immensely costly and unnecessary, especially since all it takes is ordinary genetic recombination to produce every kind of beak for every kind of food. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.