MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

quote:

---

Adding gas doesn't destroy what the engine is doing, but adding mutations would destroy existing species.

---

How would it do that ? This seems a bizarre claim. At what point would the species be "destroyed" and how ? Wolves aren't destroyed despite having at least a good deal of the genetic variety found in dogs. And it is hard to see how one or two or even a dozen minor variations spread through the population could change that.

quote:

---

The original beetle probably had no junk DNA for starters and many genes for every trait. That would very likely be quite enough to account for that many different species without any mutations at all.

---

What you said about beetles is incorrect. You made it up. It is complete fantasy without a single shred of evidence and is not supported by a single study in the whole history of scientific research.This is a science forum, not a fantastical imaginary make up any dimwitted idea forum.

So I'm not allowed to give an alternative explanation or hypothesis here, only the establishment view is allowed. Well, that figures.

Oh come on. If you have an established breed you don't want alien genes messing it up, that's the whole point of reproductive isolation. Nature doesn't "care" but the fact is that species in the wild do have established identities that do persist, but that couldn't persist if mutations kept changing their look. So we know it doesn't happen, unless a separate population is formed by selection which eliminates the former phenotypes and then you have yet a new species with the usual loss of genetic diversity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not all alternatives are of equal value, not are they supported equally by scientific evidence."The moon is made of green cheese" is a good example. It is an alternative explanation without any scientific evidence to support it, hence its value is nil.Many of your "alternatives" fall in the same category.

My alternative theory has been very well supported.

Creationist fantasies and scripture are not scientific evidence.

What I've said here is just genetic facts, haven't even mentioned the Bible.

The EVIDENCE refutes your "explanation." It belongs in an imaginary fantasy forum.

quote:

---

If you have an established breed you don't want alien genes messing it up, that's the whole point of reproductive isolation.

---

You are making no sense. Why would the new alleles be "alien" ? How would they "mess up" the species ? Why is it "not wanted" ?

quote:

---

Nature doesn't "care" but the fact is that species in the wild do have established identities that can't persist if mutations kept changing their look.

---

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. How would a dozen minor variations - in addition to those already there, spread through the population as I suggested - "keep changing their look" ?

quote:

---

So we know it doesn't happen

---

Well we know that the look doesn't drastically change but since that could easily be true if new variations were being added it's rather hard to attribute any significance to it.

Scattered mutations don't change a species, it takes selection to do that. But in the case of breeding, breeders don't want anything to change their breed even a mutation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Scattered mutations don't change a species, it takes selection to do that.

---

Exactly my point. I'm glad you see your error.

Yes, selection of new mutations that increase genetic diversity. Every offspring they produce has mutations their parents didn't have.

In our analogy, you are saying that driving another foot destroys the purpose of driving to the spot you were previously at.

Selection which must decrease that very genetic diversity.