What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?

I'm pretty sure it's been explained to you here that a bottleneck in the Cheetah population around 10,000 years ago is responsible for this lack of diversity, not a limit to speciation.I should know, given that I am an internet cheetah. ;-)Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

A bottleneck is simply a dangerous reduction of population.Given enough outbreeding the Cheetah could regain diversity. It certainly hasn't hit any kind of "limit".

This is a good thread, Faith. However:-1. You have yet to define "kind" in any meaningful way.2. You have yet to show any evidence contrary to what others have told you about mutations other than your own opinion.I find it inriguing how far you are prepared to accept evolution in the hope of finding some sort of limit to it. You might want to be careful though, you might suddenly realise you've crossed the point of no return.... Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

What evidence? Your layman's opinion does not equate to evidence.I never cease to be amazed at your belief that you can overturn entire branches of science with your layman's insight.If you were THAT clever, you'd have hard evidence....Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Ah, but your scientific reasoning (just like my own) counts for nothing without physical evidence!You're certainly smarter than the average bear, but IMHO your brand of faith requires you to jump through hoops that are beneath you.The kind of evidence I'm talking about is based on clear definitions (of "kinds", for example) and experiment (with regard to mutations). As far as I can tell, you have no such basis.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Faith,Im a little confused as to what exactly you are arguing against here.You define "genetic adaptation" as:- What intrigues me is your acceptance that "genetic adaptation" takes place at all! In your rush to debunk the idea of mutation you are giving tacit acceptance to the idea of "genetic adaptation"!Also, you have still yet to give any evidence other than your own opinion.

Oh really? This is news to me. Could you please define for me what you mean by "natural selection" and "genetic adaptation"?It seems to me that aside from accepting the possibility of new alleles arising you have finally embraced evolution as a concept!Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Evidence? Because you have no evidence.

I've followed this discussion closely, actually. Your have made many assertions but you have provided no evidence. Your written logic is not empirical evidence!Do you expect me (or anyone else) to regard your words as innerrant like those of the Bible? That isn't evidence, Faith. I'm not suddenly going to "see the light" on your word alone.Have you put your thoughts to the test? Are there any experiments out there that give weight to your ideas?Also, any replies to message 188?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

You are arguing that mutation cannot drive evolution on the basis of rarity, am I right? You are making a rational assertion about the physical world. You need empirical evidence to confirm it. But you are contradicting other known facts about mutation! You keep asking me to "just follow the argument". Are you incapable of accepting that your arguments do not equate to evidence? I'm sure Percy and others have provided several examples of mutations being seen to occur in isolated bacterial populations. In any case there's plenty of stuff out there for you to find.Here's one about the rapid mutation of a particular allele in fruit flies.
High mutation rate of a long microsatellite allele in Drosophila melanogaster provides evidence for allele-specific mutation rates. | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicAlso, I am still a little puzzled by your stance on this subject. On the one hand you accept that "genetic change" and speciation occur, whilst on the other hand you deny that genes mutate.With this in mind I think you need to further clarify what you mean by "species" and "genetic change".Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Hi Mod,What is ultimately confusing to me is Faith's apparent acceptance of both "speciation" and "genetic change", but only as long as the they don't invove new alleles.Isn't the mutation of an allele an example of "genetic change"?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Even if life was in some sort of post-fall slowdown, is Faith now accepting that some form of "evolution", complete with some form of "speciation" and "genetic change", will be at work for as long as any viability remains?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Sorry Faith, but this statement is dripping with mendacity. Your attempt to paint Christianity as a (rather covenient) umbrella for all the world's faiths certainly doesn't square with your stated views on Islam. Nor does it provide for polytheistic, dharmic or Mesoamerican belief systems to name but a few. Using general terms doesn't dodge this bullet, Faith.Anyway... Do you have any evidence that demonstrates the manner in which spiritual obediance is able to repress gene mutation? Do you have a hypothetical chemical process of some kind?Is a given individual more likely to pass on a degenerative "fall-mutation" to a child she conceives prior to learning "obediance"?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Environment and geographical division.1.The pigment is an adaption to the environment in which they live. Vitamin D plays a large part in this. Human skin color - Wikipedia2.The formation of distinct races was aided by limited movement between populations (most especially in the pre-industrial era) - local traits were reinforced.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Sorry Nosy. I really am hopeless at remembering to use those!