MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

No, that is a false analogy. losing genetic diversity in the emergence of a population with new phenotypic characteristics is not just a matter of addition plus subtraction.; The loss is NECESSARY to the formation of the new population, it can't happen unless there is such a loss, and that's why continued selection would eventually have to arrive at a point where further evolution couldn't occur. It's not a matter of add and subtract.A big part of the problem here seems to be that this is the first time you've ever encountered my argument. However, I don't know what your evolution simulating program does or how same or different it is from Dawkins.' When I joined this conversation I commented on having seen Dawkins' program demonstrated some time ago and it was clear that it represented the usual idea of unimpeded microevolution becoming macroevolution without any recognition of the necessary loss of genetic diversity. And so far nothing you've said shows that your program takes it into account either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gosh you make a lot of snarky assertions, without one iota of actual substance.

quote:

---

The gas analogy doesn't work

---

Why not ? We have a supposedly limited resource but we have something that keeps replenishing it. That's exactly the case. And the mere fact of replenishment is enough to show that evolution doesn't have a built-in stopping point.

That's been answered a million times already. I know you aren't stupid so you must keep asking it to distract from the argument.

quote:

---

That's been answered a million times already.

---

By asserting that the car will run out of fuel even if the tank is kept topped up. Message 301. Message 306Or asserting that the rarity of beneficial mutations somehow invalidates it (which would come down to a numbers argument - except the numbers aren't there - and mistakenly ignores neutral and mildly detrimental mutations) Message 310

quote:

---

I know you aren't stupid so you must keep asking it to distract from the argument.

---

I'd have to be stupid to accept those answers. And as I pointed out the mere fact that diversity is replenished - even if it is only occasionally - kills your assertion that evolution must end. Looking at a vital point is hardly a distraction - am I supposed to think that you are too stupid to realise that ?

I have not seen any evidence suggesting species within any kingdom can produce a new kind.Here is a quote from the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon regarding kind at
blueletterbible.org.

quote:

---

Outline of Biblical Usage:
kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)
Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool. This does not preclude new species because this represents apartitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost orconservednot gained. A new species could arise when apopulation is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition anew species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of anexisting "kind".

​

H4327 - mn - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

​

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
  —blueletterbible.com

---

-DOCJ

Loss is necessary?Not so. What is necessary is change!

I'll say two things.First the Blue Letter Bible apparently can't tell the difference between modern creationists and ancient Hebrews.Second, of course evolution can't produce a species with no ancestors, which is what would be required to meet that definition of "kind".So, pretty pointless.

Yes. There's genetic gain and loss happening in populations constantly, and a loss or gain can produce "new varieties or races or breeds or species." And added. Balance, meaning that the amount of genetic information remains unchanged, is probably the least likely possibility. PE is just an illusion created by the nature of the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record must involve many agencies operating both singly and together - allopathic speciation is just one among many.Faith is fixated on a single scenario and insisting it's the only possible one.--Percy

quote:

---

Balance, meaning that the amount of genetic information remains unchanged, is probably the least likely possibility.

---

Meaning that the amount of variation in the population remains roughly constant - in the sense of fluctuating about a mean rather than never changing.

Nope. That's true, but irrelevant. They are very rare but that's not enough to support your argument.The evidence shows us that they aren't too rare to offset loss of genetic diversity. You claim they are too rare to offset that loss. That's the foundation of your claims. If it's false your claims are false.So it's up to you to produce some analysis or measurements that show they are not just rare but too rare to offset loss of genetic diversity.But you have none. Because the claim that they are too rare is false.{ETA} I've deleted those extra forward slashes three times and they keep coming back.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix italicized/bold text.

Show your calculations.Oh, wait, you have no calculations. It's just another of your fantasies.Each human has something on the order of 100 mutations. That's about 700,000,000,000 in all the humans on earth. Is that not enough to offset the loss of genetic diversity?

FIFY.

If I were a dog breeding lineage (me, my children, their children, their children...) and selected dogs with short hair and small stature over the years while not selecting too fast and keeping the general population numbers high... I could end up with a small dog with very short hair, yes?Then, if my lineage decided to change it's selection to dogs with long hair and large stature over the years, again while not selecting too fast and keeping the general population numbers high... I could end up with a large dog with long hair, yes?Isn't this what Faith is saying is flatly impossible?
That breeding a small dog (or pick whatever feature you want) "loses" the ability of being a large dog (or anything that is not-the-feature-in-question)?Isn't this done by many breeders today? I thought there were many breeds of things (birds, fish) that were bred in one direction traditionally, but lately breeders have been reversing the trends to give a "shock factor" in their attempts to sell animals? Sort of an "Oh my! A traditionally short-haired dog with long hair! I must buy it, my friends will all be so impressed because they've never seen such a thing!!"Doesn't such breeding tactics fly directly in the face of Faith's breeding examples for this "loss" she claims to exist?Or, maybe I'm just not understanding any of the arguments here... Edited by Stile, : God's will

Just using some ballpark figures, if each individual has 100 mutations, and the probability of a beneficial mutation is 0.000001%, and the population is 1 billion, then there are 1000 beneficial mutations per generation.A recent study showed the probability of beneficial mutations at the SNP level is far higher than thought. I read about this recently, wish I could find it again. Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects isn't the study I read about, but seems somewhat similar, and it says in its abstract:

quote:

---

We found a rate on the order of 10−5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates,...

---

--Percy