MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

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.

Another example of a reproductive barrier would be the timing of mating season. Let's say we have two populations of foxes. One in the north and one in the south. Litters in the south are born in late February to early March, but in the north conditions in late February may not be suitable for giving birth. The population in the north adapts to the conditions by mating later so that litters are born late March to early April. If these populations then come together for some reason, they may not be able to interbreed because their reproductive cycles are not syncronized.How many mutations would that take to shift the mating season to 3 or 4 weeks later?What allele frequencies would each population need to have in order to have different mating seasons?Why would you think allele frequency is a good explanation for that type of adaptation?HBD

Link

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.

And so begins the insults... I assume that means you have no answer to my critique other than you can't understand it, it seems irrelevant and I am being pedantic.Got it. I'll stop now.Anyone else have a relevent response?HBD

A link for DOCJ: Message 3

Not related. Different kinds. There is not any evidence suggesting the 2 species are related. Having similarities is a weak point to argue evolution.I'm not neutral but I can see different perspectives. I have not always been a beleiver. I took anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry and many other courses in college and started realizing the universe is to organized, and life is to organized to not accept creation.Edited by DOCJ, : Err

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.

Look, I get it that you don't understand basic population genetics concepts. However, I have no doubt that you could if you were only willing to give up your misconceptions about how population genetics work and actually learn about the concepts. But alas, you are only willing to dip your toes in and not go any deeper than that. The problem is that by dipping your toes in, you think you know what the whole ocean is like. I bring what I want to the discussion. I already explained that this same thing works for animals such as laboratory mice and rats and is routinely used for that. Also some plants are not self-fertile and so are done using the sibling-cross method. Same thing...Your objection regarding plants is unfounded dismissal. I study population genetics, not as my main subject, but as a specialty within my main subject. Why shouldn't I be confident? You're a Trump supporter aren't you? Good DayHBD

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.

Odd... nothing you have said thus far has given me any indication that you have training in the biological sciences. Granted. I also accept creation. I believe that the God of the Universe created all that is and all that will be.I also accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have on earth.Not incompatible. Only incompatible with certain interpretations of the Bible. Science and creation and not incompatible with one another. If, for example, we share a common ancestor with chimps... so what? It doesn't make me any less human nor does it change the relationship between God and myself. If you insist on a particular interpretation of that relationship, then yes, it could be incompatible.HBD

Unless the new population is a family group, "inbreeding" would not be the correct term to use for "breeding within the new population." "Inbreeding" is about mating between closely related individuals. The mutations that accumulate over time to form a new species are unlikely to be deleterious, because that would make the population less fit. It's not pedantic or irrelevant. HereBeDragons was responding to your assumption that genetic incompatibility is necessary to produce a new species. He used the example of the ring species Greenish Warblers. Though individuals at opposite ends of the ring may not be genetically incompatible, they may not recognize each other as mates and so are reproductively isolated. Speciation is not solely dependent upon the failure of gametes to fuse.--Percy

Everywhere I used the word "plant" substitute the word "mouse." And everywhere I mention "selfing" substitute the word "sibling cross." No one does Faith, it's stuff that is made up in your own head. Maybe if you could provide a mathematical model or diagram the process so we could see where we are going wrong as far as understanding what you are saying.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : grammar

HBD was agreeing with you - that's why he began his paragraph with the word "Exactly."But he went on to explain again the great utility of his RIL example, that it achieves your goal of diminished genetic variation far faster than your daughter population example. And the end result? No speciation. Some animals self-fertilize, some change sex, some do both. HBD is just emphasizing in different terms what he just said. The "fixation of alleles" part is about reduced genetic variation, and "homogenization" you already understand because you've been using that term yourself. HBD is explaining why your claim that reduced genetic diversity causes speciation is wrong. The RIL example produces reduced genetic diversity and homogeneity much faster than any breeder (and much, much faster than the wild) could achieve, yet still fails to produce new species.--Percy

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.