In the previous
A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it there was a lot of discussion going on about how mutation might make up for the loss of alleles due to speciation. Both myself and Parasomnium brought up some objections:
Jazzns writes:
I would like to point out one thing though and I would hope that this might recieve a number of responses from participants in this thread especially Faith.
When has it ever been SHOWN that speciation can occur by the mere loss of alleles when populations diverge?
Maybe someone did spell this out and I just missed it in the mix. There is a lot of talk going on about how things can speciate by a decrease in diversity. Faith did a good job of trying to establish this as a basis for talking about if mutation can THEN be the cause of increasing diversity. I just don't recall when if ever anyone established if this speciating via loss ONLY can even happen or HAS EVER happened.
Parasomnium writes:
Faith writes:
so far I haven't seen that mutation could do anything anyway since the main processes in bringing about new traits reduce genetic diversity a lot faster than the slow process of producing a beneficial mutation ever could keep up with
Let's assume that you are right and that those processes do indeed reduce genetic diversity. What does that mean, "reduce genetic diversity"? It means that things become more and more the same, right? I mean, a reduction in diversity must mean an increase in uniformity, or else we need some new definitions of the words 'diversity' and 'uniformity'.
So, here's an interesting question for you: how can a process that reduces genetic diversity, a process that leads to more uniformity, how can such a process bring about new traits? It should be painfully obvious that these two effects, the reduction of diversity and the creation of new traits, are contradictory. Please explain how you come up with such a strange concept.
Faith's most recent reply was the following.
Faith writes:
I've argued strenuously that
allelic reduction is the overall trend of all the processes that lead up to speciation, not that it directly causes speciation, although when the conditions are ripe that's what happens then too. It hasn't been treated as a "given" it's been argued up one side and down the other through many threads, and I believe well defended.
The ONLY thing that could possibly prevent this effect is mutation, and that is why eventually the discussion goes in the direction of arguing what mutation is and whether it happens in anywhere near the numbers or usefulness needed to contradict this process. Mutation is ASSUMED in all the studies and arguments so far given on the evo side, without the slightest evidence that it does what it is claimed to do. Mutation is obviously needed if the ToE is true, and it is not questioned by evos, but it has to be questioned. The argument is always that since mutation exists that proves it powers evolution. I'm sorry, it does not prove it at all. Far from it. You have yet to prove it. I thought the cod allele count study was a good start toward discussing the actual problem instead of assuming it.
Emphasis mine.
I feel the response given by Faith was wholly unsatisfactory as the underlined section needs to be established. If it is not a "given" that allelic loss does cause speciation then why is it necessary to show that mutation MUST make up for allelic loss?
Faith and MJ identified a potential "barrier" to macroevolution by saying that mutation was insufficient to account for the increase in alleles necessary for significant novelty during series of speciation events that REDUCE the frequency of alleles in the population. This is FOUNDED on the idea that speciation is accomplished by allelic loss. That this CAN EVEN HAPPEN must be established before one can even examine that mutation needs to make up for anything.
It is my understanding that mutation in and of itself is NECESSARY for speciation even of the "microevolution" type that creationists identify as "change within a kind".
I don't want this to be too much of a continuation of the last topic. I want this thread to focus on if speciation CAN occur in the normal sense without the presence of mutation. Also, are there any documented instances of speciation that have occurred without mutation?
I would ask Faith and MJ, without this verification, how can you continue to hold such a requirement to overcome your "barrier" without this concept as a base mechanism of speciation?
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
™ Version 4.2