MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

I think it's a false analogy. Loss of genetic diversity doesn't slow down evolution at all, it is necessary to evolution. The point is that eventually, with enough continuing selection (reduction of genetic diversity) in a particular evolving line you arrive at the condition of inability to continue evolving, a condition where you have fixed loci for the salient traits of the new species.A better analogy is running out of fuel, but that one's not all that great either.ABE: Realizing this fuel analogy does have the virtue of showing why adding mutations doesn't stop the process of running out of genetic diversity. All you are doing is replenishing the fuel supply; until it is used the car isn't running, you aren't getting evolution in any meaningful sense, meaning phenotypic changes from population to population.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is why I said that speciation begins with two isolated populations. For this example, they are beneficial mutations. It doesn't matter if they affect phenotype or not. If different mutations are accumulating in each population then speciation has occurred. If they were interbreeding then you would find the same allele in both species. There are more differences between those alleles than there is between humans and chimps, two species that creationists claim are in different kinds.

You are overlooking mutations which increase genetic diversity.

Something like 3.8 billion years later and we aren't running out of fuel yet.Maybe there's something wrong with the way you are thinking about evolution.

Extremely rare is often enough to keep new variations arriving on a continual basis. Mutations never stop. Selection has no purpose, as you have already been told several times now. Selection is simply what happens when you have imperfect replicators competing for limited resources. Also, all species have a spectrum of features.

I'm coming to like my fuel analogy just above. The point is that adding mutations is like adding fuel to an engine. Unless the fuel is used up the engine isn't running, you aren't getting evolution. The analogy is far from perfect since the actual situation is dynamic and not a matter of guzzling fuel, but it's better than most.

Mutations keep occurring which produce new alleles for those that are fixed. Mutations are the gas stations where they keep adding new variation to the tank of evolution. Since gas is added to every tank in every generation, it never stops.

Imagine if there is a fuel station every 5 miles, and you top off the tank at every fuel station. That is how evolution works.

Extremely rare means too rare to have any kind of effect on the formation of new species or varieties, which is typically a lot more rapid than assumed under the ToE. Jutland cattle. Pod Mrcaru lizards.I'm using selection to refer to the isolation of a portion of a populatlon with its limited collection of genes/alleles, creating a new set of gene frequencies from that in the original population, a new gene pool from which new phenotypes are expressed, so that the high frequency genes in particular come to be characteristic of the new population. Classical natural selection has the same effect of reducing genetic diversity in the bringing out of new characteristics of a new population, but I think it's a lot rarer than the random selection I'm talking about.

That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently, and even if you were you'd just have that situation I keep talking about, where you are getting a scattering of new phenotypes within a population, which isn't evolution because evolution makes new populations and that requires selection of some kind (using up the fuel).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please cite some references on the rarity of beneficial mutations. Otherwise, you are just making stuff up. Mutations add genetic diversity.

The fact that evolutionary processes must inevitably run out of fuel proves that evolution from species to species cannot happen and has never happened and the whole ToE scenario is shown to be false.

Prove it. I already showed that you can get a beneficial allele in the human population in less than 2 years.Let's say that there is only one possible beneficial substitution mutation in the human genome, a diploid genome that is 6 billion bases long. Since there are 3 possible substitution mutations at each position, that is 1 substitution mutation out of 18 billion possible mutations. Each human is born with about 100 substitution mutations. This means that on average you need 180 million births to get that one mutation. There are about 130 million human births per year. This means this mutation will take less than 2 years to occur.

quote:

---

Extremely rare means too rare to have any kind of effect on the formation of new species or varieties, which is typically a lot more rapid than assumed under the ToE. Jutland cattle. Pod Mrcaru lizards.

---

I think you are making the error of assuming that mutations are irrelevant because few will beneficial mutations will arrive during the speciation event.This is a mistake because it neglects - yet again - that most mutations will occur during the far longer period (with a far larger population) between speciation events. Also the mutations that prevent interbreeding are mostly likely to be neutral (that effect cannot be beneficial until the populations meet again, and there is a possibility of interbreeding)

Mutations continually add fuel.