A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

Which "basic claims" have we not substantiated? No.The new population starts off small, and if it survives, will grow. The population from which its derived need not decrease in size (for more than a generation). Why should it? This does not make for loss of genetic diversity.You are mixing up the unfortunate fate of the wolves with the colonization of a new niche. The effects on genetic diversity are quite, quite different. So reluctant that we have done so several times on this thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You have not substantiated that mutational rates are sufficient to overcome forces limiting genetic diversity in microevolution.You have not substantiated that microevolution is macroevolution, or works towards macroevolution. You have not provided one peer-reviewed study verifying the 2 basic claims of evos above.Why is that?

Well, we have in fact. See above for more details. Which no-one has claimed. It is patently obvious that a sequence of small changes add up to one cumulative large change. Because whenever you manage to raise a definite issue, the answer is bleedin' obvious. If you like, I'll produce peer-reviewed papers to prove that the human Y chromosome is heterozygous, but I assumed you knew that.

Actually, it's patently obvious that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. You failed to provide one study substantiating the claims of evos we have been discussing, and you made the absolute ludicrous comment above.By your logic, anyone could up and swim to England because, you know, little steps can add up. This is the kind of idiotic simpleton type of thinking evos engage in. Rather than listen to criticism and look at the actual process for what occurs (decreases in genetic diversity via isolation as one example), evos just assert that magically small changes add up to macroevolution, or large-scale changes.In other words, you guys have not, will not, and cannot substantiate your claims because you beleive in them without any empirical evidence or logic whatsoever beyond child-like, simpleton analysis which totally avoids the actual process itself.I suppose since prop airplanes can fly that they can also go to the moon and back, eh?

Well then why not put up a specific targetted level of change, otherwise all we have are the automated creationist shifting goalposts.If you think you think you have a simple general formula for the level of reduction in genetic diversity then why no let us have it?I doubt any such formula exists different populations under different environmetal conditions will develop in different ways, and some will fail to develop further and become extinct.If you there taht a barrier exists then why is the onus not on you to prove it ratherthan on us to disprove it? We can show you hundreds of studies showing various different types of mutation rates all of which contribute to genetic variation. We can also find lots of studies of different populations undergoing different trends in terms of population genetics.If you really think there is a scientific case to be made then why not continue as you were with th wolf studies rather than retreating to the typical demands that we satisfy your fanciful objectives to prove that such a barrier doesn't exist.Can you point to a single genetic sequence that could not arise through mutation?If you think such genetic systems exist surely the burden is on you to demonstrate their existence?There are still worthwhile arguments to be made that the mechanisms of macroevolution need not merely be those of microevolution writ large (Penny and Phillips, 2004), but you don't seem to be in a position to make them.TTFN,WK

It's not shifting the goalposts to insist evos substantiate their claims. I really don't get why you guys are so resistant to the idea that basic evo claims should be backed up with empirical study and analysis. It seems evos want everyone to just accept that their claims are true because they say so.It's up to evos to demonstrate their claims, not for critics to disprove them, draw lines, etc, etc,.... Once again, it's up to evos to account for the process we observe, not for others to disprove evo claims and handwaiving away reality. Wrong again. You are claiming that a process can add up to macroevolution without doing anything but asserting it must be so. Where are the studies accounting for limiting genetic diversity within population isolation? Where are the studies accounting for the fact that mutations are necessarily limited in scope. Otherwise, the mutated individual could not mate with the parent species.Just saying it doesn't cut it, and the fact evos think just making the claim is the same as backing up the claim is evidence that evo theory is more based on wishful thinking that empirical analysis.The bottom line is you guys have not ever substantiated one of the most basic claims of evo theory. You haven't shown that mutation rates are sufficient to overcome loss of genetic diversity due to smaller populations becoming isolated. It's Haeckel all over again, but just a more sophisticated form where instead of outright forged data, evos just offer no data at all.....Btw, thanks for the link......it's interesting that well over 100 years after the fact, evos are getting around to even thinking of trying to test their claims that microevolution adds up macroevolution.....the article itself is confirmation of what I am talking about. This most basic claim, which many evos claim even is a fact, is really an untested claim.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

We're not; they have been.If you think there's some particular observation that should have been made, but hasn't, or some experiment which should have been performed, but hasn't, or some calculation which should have been made, but hasn't, then please say what it is. Well, we've given you observational and experimental data proving this. I'm sure I could dig out the maths for you. What more do you want?

In which you can, apparently, point out no flaw. No. ... that creationists attribut to evolutionists because you can't debate with what we actually claim. That is not, in fact, what happens. Remember? I explained your mistake. Don't you people ever learn? Er ... magic is not required for that to be true. Magic would be required for that not to be true. Yes, a lot of small changes add up to a lot of change. If many changes are made to a genome, then it will be considerably different from the original. This follows from the meanings of the word "change" and the word "different". Do you see how this works? Yes, we "totally avoid the actual process itself" by talking about mutations and the genome, where as you look at the fine details of the process such as swimming to England and prop airplanes.You so funnee.

How many times do I have to ask for this before you admit you don't have it?Please provide the peer-reviewed studies that show mutational rates are sufficient to overcome forces limiting genetic diversity as a result of population isolation? Please show the studies that examine the limits of the types of genetic mutations within the study mentioned above?I have repeatedly demanded specifics. You have repeatedly failed to provide them, and yet you continue to claim you have. At some point, I think questioning your integrity here is in order, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you still have failed to see what the discussion is about.Providing data that mutations occur is not the same as providing analysis and peer-reviewed study to show that those mutations, and the rate of those mutations is greater than forces limiting genetic diversity as a result of population isolation.

please provide the peer-review studies that substantiate evo claims, as requested, Dr Adequate.You are the one claiming "magic"; that a process hostile towards macroevolution, namely the process of variation where groups of species are isolated, losing genetic diversity, is actually the same as macroevolution, being the small steps that add up to macroevolution.You have provided no peer-review studies at all, whatsoever, to substantiate your claim, and in fact, offered the nonsensical and idiotic comment that "it is patently obvious" when in reality it is patently obvious you have been so soundly defeated in your argument that all you are doing now is trying to avoid the topic. The idea that small steps, which decrease ability to evolve further by a process of limiting genetic diversity, can add up to macroevolution is an unfounded and untested assumption of evos. You have no data to support that claim, and it's no more patently obvious than thinking a bird can fly to the moon and back, or that I could swim to England from the US east coast.

No. Your demands have been incredibly vague, this is why I'm trying to pin you down on them. You wish that some experiment should have been performed, some observation made, some calculation done. What, precisely?What do you find wanting in all the experimental and observational data with which we've supplied you? Why won't you even discuss it?

I made no such claim. Put down that riduculous straw doll and argue with me.

But there is no such claim. You are saying that we should see mutation providing sufficient additional genetic variation to a population to overcome the effects of drift and selection in terms of reducing variation. And you have been specifically wanting to talk about small isolated populations. OK, how small? How isolated?Just saying 'small' and 'isolated' is vague. What might be true for a population of several hundred may not be for one of several thousand. Similarly if there is even a very small amount of gene flow with related populations it can change the population dramatically. going back to the wolves the same authors had a paper showing that the introduction of one outsider to a highly inbred population, one starting from only 2 wolves, was sufficient to hugely increase heterozygosity and lead to a large population expansion (Vila et al., 2003).You also now seem to be conflating these measurements of variation with macroevolution and for the life of me I can't see how that is supposed to work. To say macroevolution cannot be a result of microevolutionary processes because in small isolated populations genetic variation tends to reduce seems like almost a classic example of bait and switch, one does not follow from the other.TTFN,WK

Sorry, but you have, repeatedly. Maybe you don't realize what you are saying. You also ignored repeatedly just about every point put to you, including the rebuttal of your "patently obvious" point where I showed small steps or changes in a process are not sufficient automatically to add up to large steps.Keep in mind this forum is unmoderated, but at the same time, should you continue to ignore the points I have made to you, nearly ad nauseum, then you will not be welcome on the thread.

wk, evos have proposed a process whereby they think small changes can and do add up to macroevolution. Is it so much to ask they come up with peer-review studies to back that up?You want me to discuss "how small" a population. Sorry, but the answer to that question has to come from evos that believe population isolation is one of the ways evolution occurs. It is incumbent on evos to come up with ways to assess various, reasonable scenarios, such as smaller populations and in doing so answer questions on how small, and come up with a range, and it is incumbent on evos to estimate mutation rates (which I think they have done actually via the molecular clock).Personally, I am not sure the molecular clock and mutational rate estimates are valid, but it seems the evo community often is, and so arguing these things cannot be reasonably done is inconsitent with evos' sometime dogmatic assertions of when such and such species or genus diverged, etc, etc,....But if conducting such studies is indeed too hard, it is up to evos to admit they are basing their models and examination of data on untested and unproven assumptions instead of calling "evolution a fact" and suggesting just because they say microevolution can add up to macroevolution, that it does.Maybe it would be beneficial to recall JAD's discussions and quotes from evos that admitted that variation and speciation and subspeciation were really more of a dead-end in evolution rather than a means for macroevolution. He cited some noted evolutionists in his argument, and I beleive you particupated in that discussion. So you should be aware of the argument.Edited by randman, : No reason given.