Oh my, more silly semantic hurdles. The term "speciation" describes something real, a real population that can't interbreed with the rest of its species, but it isn't in fact speciation as the term is understood. That is, it does not represent a stage of evolution called macroevolution as a step to further evolution, it is merely a population that has some kind of genetic problem so that it can't interbreed, and very probably (we'd need examples) can't evolve further either.
So it doesn't have to be the case that a breed must cease to be able to interbreed with others of its Kind to be a model of what happens in the wild.
Speciation definitely is not inability of a species to breed with itself. By definition there can be no such thing.
Where do you got this piece of craziness? Oh "others of its Kind" must be your excuse, It doesn't mean to you other populations of its Kind, oh I see, amazing how many ways you are able to completely distort anything I say. Yes I suppose if I could anticipate all your absurdities I would make an effort to cover all the possible loopholes but such weirdness is really beyond me.
The context alone should have told you I'm talking about the standard definition of speciation as a new "species'" inability to breed with other populations of its Kind, but such simple context clues either elude you or are intentionally ignored for the pleasure of pretending I'm saying something stupid. When it's you being stupid.
Selection in any given situation "does not inevitably lead to loss of genetic diversity" but as I've said many many times it's a trend that will ULTIMATELY end there if it gets that far.
Grizzly to polar bear then, why do you make mountains out of molehills? The point is a simple one: different "species" in the wild may nevertheless be able to mate and have viable offspring. If a particular pair can't so what, the point is still valid. Sheesh The point is that Speciation as conventionally defined is NOT necessary to the formation and existence of Species as conventionallyl defined.
There is plenty of evidence for an original created genome. Just eliminate the mutations and suppose the junk DNA to once have been functional operating genes and there it is. And a lot of it is still intact fortunately.
My Flood scenario does not require "speciation" meaning the genetic inability to interbreed with the rest of the species. All the formation of subspecies requires is reproductive isolation which after the Flood probably resulted from simple geographic dispersal to distant locations, as well as mating preferences. Speciation was not needed, and the context in which this case came up was the accusation that breeding can't be a model for evolution because of the lack of speciation, but my argument is that speciation doesn't happen in the wild either and where such a population does exist it isn't what is meant by speciation anyway.
Mutations can mess up all kinds of genetic relationships, no mystery there.
You're very good at stating the establishment paradigm. It's all an elaborate fantasy but you're good at it.
And breeding is not a model of speciation. Breeding cannot produce new species because offspring are always genetically compatible with the rest of the species.
Except in those cases that get called "speciation" but are really just members of the same species that have undergone some kind of genetic glitch.
I know you see contradictions everywhere in what I write, but I don't see saying there's no point in defining Kind as contradicting the idea that there's a functional boundary to the Kind. Surely a boundary that is only discovered through the processes of evolution isn't the same thing as a definition of what constitutes a Kind.
If there were any truth to the idea of original created kinds it would have been discovered by genetic analysis long ago. There is no evidence for any classification category like the Biblical kind. It's a religious invention and has no scientific merit.
The definition you attempted to offer for kind, that it's when selection depletes genetic diversity, is useless because of the inherent vagueness in the word "depletes". Selection depletes genetic diversity each time it removes an allele from a population, but such a minor thing as removal of a single allele can't define the boundary of a kind. So does it take the removal of two alleles. Three? How many? And how does genetic depletion define the boundary of a kind, since it was already a kind. You're saying things that are both untrue and that don't even make sense. Try to get a handle on the part about making sense. Even if "original created kinds" were true, you're still saying things about kinds that make no sense.
Two alleles per gene is plenty, all the extra alleles are superfluous even when they seem to do something.
Now you're way off into la-la land and making things up. Diversity ("all the extra alleles") is important to the fitness of a population.
I do doubt that you have DNA ancient enough to prove junk DNA was never functional. Timing isn't very trustworthy in that context.
The evidence we have says the timing is trustworthy, and you have no evidence that it isn't. Check out the Wikipedia article on Ancient DNA. DNA from millions of years ago has been studied, and DNA from humans back as far as 17,000 years, way before creation and the flood. I know you reject the evidence of age, but you do so because of your religious beliefs, not because of any supporting evidence of your own. Some of the DNA comes from Egyptian mummies, whose great age of as much as 5,000 years can't be disputed.
How is supposing there were probably a lot more genes per trait "clearly not true?" With 95% of the genome junk DNA, if it was all once functioning it had to do a lot of things that don't get done now and as I think about the weakness of so many of our capacities, such as our senses, and the "vestigial organs" it just seems logical to me that they would have been much stronger at the beginning. And I'm talking about human capacities, not HBD's absurd parody implying I think we'd have NONhuman capacities like breathing underwater, flying and walking up vertical walls. Makes sense to me that all the animals would have had better versions of what they have now given the greater vigor of life at the Creation.
And none of this ancient DNA contains any evidence of the kind of incredibly significant differences you're describing, including that most of the junk DNA was functional and only became junk DNA in the period after creation and the flood. You also ignore the evidence that a great deal of junk DNA does have a function in the realm of gene regulation. There is no evidence of better senses or greater robustness or longer lifespans or anything. Life in the past was pretty much the same as life today.
I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry.
You're committing false denigration again. There's every reason to place the greatest trust in the evidence that has been gathered and analyzed with the greatest care. You certainly have no evidence of equivalent quality, or even any evidence at all.
ABE: Oh and anyone who says the Flood has been disproven certainly deserves no trust. Strata to three miles deep and fossils in the bazillions. (Strata turned into Time Periods is the most absurd thing the human race has ever come up wityh.)
I was referring to your ideas of what happened genetically after the flood. Disproven is too kind a word. Most of your genetic claptrap is self-evidently impossible.
Science isn't going to discover anything that contradicts its favorite system of interpretation, especially since all the terminology is interwoven with the system, making the recognition of different interpretations impossible for those of a lockstep mentality..
And "Kind" is just the English word for "Species" which is necessary in these discussions because "Species" is so wrapped up in evo definitions. I'd happily use "Species" instead except for that problem.
"Depleted" just means can't evolve further. Like the cheetah. It would have lots of fixed loci, for the genes that distinguish it as a subspecies, but there's no need for ALL loci to be fixed.
Yeah I know, I'm way out in la la land because I think the ToE is the biggest delusion ever foisted on humanity. As for "denigrating" it by distrusting the evidence for it, I don't regard it as a legitimate science. REAL science however I do appreciate. I've been watching a series on Netflix about Forensics, REAL science that really proves things of real value. Very satisfying to see real science in action.
The boundary of the Kind is where further evolution is impossible. Like it is for the cheetah. Lots of homozygosity. It's only a boundary for a particular evolving line of course. Every evolving line will reach its own boundary. That's why it isn't a definition, just a marker.
Considering that you can get a whole new "species" of lizard in thirty some odd years from ten founders, and four distinctively different breeds of cattle in a few years just from separation of parts of the original population, certainly backs up my "claptrap" that it shouldn't have taken more than a few hundred years from the Ark to bring about all the species and subspecies we see today, especially given much greater heterozygosity and much less junk DNA in the Ark animals.
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.
Are humans a kind? If so, please show how selection is depleting genetic diversity.
You are right, there's no point in addressing all that to me, but I do appreciate your simple reminder that it's a big waste to talk to a YEC about supposed chimp-human relatedness.
All I am asking is how long you think it takes for two lineages that share a common ancestor to differ by 40 million mutations through the accumulation of mutations that happen after the lineages split. 1,000 years? 10 years?
The finches probably possess lots of mutations but mutations are not needed for the emergence of different kinds of beaks.
It isn't necessary for an airplane to have jet engines. Does this mean that there are no airplanes with jet engines?
Just because you don't think something is necessary does not allow you to ignore it. Even if mutations are not necessary for speciation, it doesn't change the fact that speciation still can and does occur through mutation.
quote: Yeah I know, I'm way out in la la land because I think the ToE is the biggest delusion ever foisted on humanity.
You would have to be to think that, and that's not even the craziest thing you've said. It's not even the craziest in this thread.
quote: As for "denigrating" it by distrusting the evidence for it, I don't regard it as a legitimate science
Of course you do. It contradicts your beliefs. And so you resort to your usual lies and slander.
quote: The boundary of the Kind is where further evolution is impossible
Which is really not a sensible position. There can't be any fixed boundary of that sort.
quote: Considering that you can get a whole new "species" of lizard in thirty some odd years from ten founders,
Can we ? Have the Pod Mcaru lizards been classed as a new species ?
quote: ...four distinctively different breeds of cattle in a few years just from separation of parts of the original population, certainly backs up my "claptrap" that it shouldn't have taken more than a few hundred years from the Ark to bring about all the species and subspecies we see today,
The fact that your examples are so weak rather suggests the opposite. And the fact that we know it didn't happen puts a further damper on the idea
quote: ...especially given much greater heterozygosity and much less junk DNA in the Ark animals.
Let's not forget that the "less junk DNA" is an ad hoc assumption that hardly makes sense in itself. In fact it's another good reason to think that you are "off in la la land".
Once again Faith, reality shows you are simply wrong and perverting the Bible and Christianity as well as making Americans look stupid.
We do have evidence; to claim we do not is just a falsehood.
We do have genetic samples from humans and many other animals from before your imaginary Fall; from before your imaginary floods and from after your imaginary floods. Those samples show that the genetics of humans and other animals and plants are similar to samples of the same plants and animals living today.
Where is even a single example of the genetic diversity you claim existed?
There is absolute evidence that there has never been a world wide flood during the time humans existed and repeating the falsehood of some Biblical flood does not make it real.
There is absolute evidence that the Earth is old and repeating your fantasy does not make it real.
Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years.
I wasn't suggesting you read it. For one thing it's very long. I was just providing a reference to the source of my information.
And the article is glaring white.
Most articles are. You're using your eyesight as an excuse for maintaining your ignorance.
Population splits by themselves do not create new phenotypes. It takes a split accompanied by different selection pressures.
Depends on the size of the population whether the split itself is selection enough to bring out new phenotypes from its new set of gene frequencies.
What I said is self-evidently true. Let me repeat it more precisely. The generation in which a population split occurs experiences no new phenotypes. It takes selection pressures over succeeding generations to produce any phenotypic change. You left that out of your description, and I was just calling it to your attention.
Actually that shouldn't be a problem, but genetic diversity may not show a lot of reduction in the first rounds of population splits, some but not a lot.
You're still leaving generations of reproduction and selection out of your description. A population split cannot by itself change phenotype.
Population splits ARE selection.
I suppose, but if you split a population into two, the phenotypes of the individuals won't change. That can only happen in succeeding generations through selection.
The idea of selection pressures is way overrated.
You're being absurd again. Manipulating selection pressures is how breeders get different phenotypes, and it is analogous to natural selection in the wild.
The finches probably possess lots of mutations but mutations are not needed for the emergence of different kinds of beaks.
I don't know if mutations were "needed" or not (and neither do you), if there were perhaps other ways the beaks could have been achieved, but mutations are how the beaks happened.
What I said about skin color is that all it takes to produce the whole range of colors is two genes of two alleles each, and the fact that there are more genes than that governing skin color does not contradict that simple statement.
Actually, it does pretty much contradict that simple statement. The proteins produced by the different alleles of hundreds of genes cannot possibly be replicated by "two genes of two alleles each". Simple math says no.
And the point holds that if all the skin colors can be produced by two genes, there is no problem producing the whole range of beak types and sizes with a very small number of genes too.
If you were doing the genome design yourself then maybe you could accomplish things with fewer genes and alleles, but genetic analysis says that Darwin's finches didn't follow your path.
A fine parroting of the establishment view but I don't accept the establishment view.
Yes, we know, but not for any reasons based upon evidence from the real world.
If the environment was responsible for selection all living things would have gone extinct a long long time ago.
You're being absurd again. It's because the environment is responsible for selection that there's such a thing as adaptation. Adaptation to selection pressures has been established by breeding experiments and field work over and over again.