How do you define the word Evolution?

My definition of the Kind is functional, defined by the point at which evolution runs out of genetic diversity. I don't think there is any way to define the Kind otherwise, except for certain creatures, such as cats, where of course the fact that some can't interbreed doesn't change the fact that they are Cats. I've argued my functional definition for years now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There isn't a definition, you see, because the taxonomic categories are all over the place with respect to what a Kind has to be; and although I think my "functional definition" is true, that is, the point at which evolution runs out of genetic diversity must be the boundary of the Kind, it isn't exactly a definition either. But it has to be true and it has to mark that boundary. I've shown over and over that evolutionary processes do use up genetic diversity, that mutation gets used up like any other allele in the same processes, even if it's rarely reached there is a point at which there is nothing but fixed loci left beyond which further evolution can't happen. And that has to be the boundary of the Kinhd.

The enormous diversity in the originals turns out to be easy enough to account for. Enormous variety is possible from creatures with high heterozygosity, multiple genes per trait with two alleles per gene (even if some got more alleles by mutation later they aren't necessary to the enormous variability), and all or most genes intact (little or no "junk DNA). The fact that all it takes is two genes of two alleles to produce all the human skin colors from black to white in sixteen combinations, plus the fact that there are more genes than two for skin color, ought to demonstrate the enormous variability in ordinary Mendelian genetics.

No miracle, just simple elegant design, as explained in the above post. Nothing miraculous about it. A few hundred years is all it should take to disperse the animals and begin creating new species. Plants should have become copious by then for sure, already within a few years of the Ark for that matter. Genetic change is simply a lot faster than the ToE has conditioned you to think. You can get lots of new breeds from wild stock, say cattle, within a couple hundred years. All it takes is reproductive isolation of a portion of the original population. Some are, some are close, but there are others that still have a lot of genetic diversity, the ones that haven't evolved as much, say the wildebeests, which exist in huge populations but with only three varieties or races. It's evolution that eats up genetic diversity, but there are animals, herd animals in particular I would guess, that retain most of their genetic diversity from the Ark.

I wasn't talking about the act of creation, which of course was miraculous, I was talking about the design itself which is simple and elegant and understandable and operates by normal physical processes. Who has said there was only one? It had been what? -- 1500 years or so -- since the Creation? That means there had already been a lot of microevolution of all the Kinds. If there was only one version of marsupial on the Ark it wouldn't have been a kangaroo. Because it exists in huge herds, a million of the black wildebeests. Evolution occurs when you get a portion of a population reproductively isolated, by natural selection or by random selection such as migration of a portion away from the main population, so that the new population inbreeds among a very limited new set of gene frequencies. That isn't happening, the herd is staying together and that's why it's not evolving as a more independent or solitary kind of animal would. There is a blue wildebeest herd that lives at some distance from the black herd. One of them evolved from the other. The different characteristics are due to the different gene frequencies brought about by the population split. Some drift probably occurs within each population but nothing yet to produce a strikingly new phenotype. NO idea what you are saying here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have some idea about God's plan in relation to evolution? Where are you getting such an idea?I'd guess a pair of marsupials. Nobody could possibly know, it's all educated guessing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for your well-reasoned, dispassionate, and superlatively objective assessment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not ignoring the factors that increase genetic diversity. I've accounted for them. Evolution cuts down ALL genetic diversity no matter what its source. You can't get evolution -- new species of new phenotypes without losing genetic diversity. Sorry.

The decrease occurs in the EVOLVING population, and it must occur. Doesn't matter what the source of the black fur is, to get a whole population characterized by that black fur means losing the alleles for other colors of fur. This is not particularly important in this situation with the variation of only one trait, it's more of an issue in a population that forms by migration and reproductive isolation, which brings about new gene frequencies. There is always a trend to reduction but it would be only at the extreme that it would become noticeable, such as at the end of a series of ring species. Founder effect makes the case just fine, it creates a new species too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh you know I've given the evidence many times. The evidence is in the obvious logic based for one thing on breeding practices (until the recent recognition that they have to keep up some level of genetic diversity to prevent genetic diseases), which make it very very clear that you don't get a breed, and certainly not a pure breed, without the loss of alleles for other characteristics. The ultimate condition of decreased genetic diversity is fixed loci, or homozygosity for all the salient characteristics of the breed -- or wild population. This evidence is inferential but it's ironclad and must be demonstrable if anyone took the trouble. You can't get a new species, or breed, without losing the genetic material for other traits. Can't, just can't.