MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Well, consider the odds. Not only does your mutation have to occur at the gene locus for the long haired trait, it has to be a particular sequence that would code for the protein for that trait, it also has to be dominant and able to be expressed even if ten other genes also code for hair length and they are all homozygous for short hair, and it has to occur in a sex cell in order to be passed on. Then if it gets passed on and shows up in half the pups in that litter it will probably only be a LITTLE longer than the short haired type anyway, but you could start your new breed from there. But again, consider the odds. See above for the odds based on a mutation. My guess is that it would in fact be impossible and that even if you got a slightly longer haired pup it would take many generations before it got long enough to be what you have in mind by simply multiplying the effect of that one gene. And I don't even know if that's possible. The odds are seriously against you. I'm saying that such specific mutations as described above are highly improbable. I think the odds are astronomically against it. But as I say above if the allele hasn't completely disappeared from the population but pops up now and then it could be exploited to get long-haired versions of your dog. It entirely depends on whether that trait is still in the population here and there I think if you learn more about the steps taken to that end you'd find out it's probably a case of the allele still being present and showing up here and there to be exploited. Sometimes people do impute the appearance of a rare trait to a mutation that isn't really the result of a mutation.Consider the case of the cat with the curled ears, the "American Curl." It was originally a mutation in a single cat, so for it to be passed on required breeding the cat with that trait with a whole variety of other kinds of cats to preserve that one trait. Now there are many different kinds of cats with curled ears, not a particular breed with it, although they call all of them the American Curl. A single mutation in other words doesn't have much of a chance of becoming part of the trait picture of a given breed. Please ponder what I've written about this above about the odds against getting a particular mutation in the right place to be passed on etc etc etc. It's all a matter of getting a particular DNA sequence that codes for a particular protein in the germ cell. Consider the odds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1st: I do not believe you can tell the difference. It is almost like you knew Moses and can read my mind.

---

I've seen how the word is used in the Bible and there is nothing that suggests that it is anything much more specific than the English "kind", which could easily refer to species or even breeds. If you have contrary evidence now would be a good time to produce it.

quote:

---

2nd: If you don't accept the definition of kind within the written word that is a moot point.

---

Which written word ? Am I expected to believe anything written by a creationist ?

quote:

---

Remember nothing some how must produce everything...

---

It must ?

That's going to require math... of which you posted none.Setting up a seemingly impossible tasks tells us nothing if we don't consider how many tries are offered.Sure, the right mutation at the right place at the right time may seem far-fetched, but given there's a bajillion mutations occurring all over the place then the odds are that it will eventually happen.

The point is only that it has fixed (homozygous) loci for all its characteristic traits, and although in the case of the cheetah that genetic condition was the result of a drastic Founder Effect, the same situation should certainly occur with a series of migrating populations over many generations of evolving new species or varieties etc. Whatever brings about the condition of severe genetic depletion, it's nevertheless a condition from which further evolution is impossible. The cheetah manages to do surprisingly well considering its genetic depletion. It has compromised ability to reproduce but it still does reproduce, so what the genetic depletion does is make further evolution impossible.(And by the way the bottleneck at Noah's Ark didn't bring about the same degree of genetic depletion we see today from bottlenecks because there would have been much more genetic diversity (heterozygosity) in all the animals on the ark. The bottleneck would have increased the percentage of homozygosity in all the animals but since the original percentage would have been very high, the bottleneck wouldn't have compromised the ability of any of them to survive and proliferate. I also think they would have had much less junk DNA in their genomes, so they would have had many more functioning genes than any animal has today, which would greatly facilitate evolution/variation.)It's not about niches and adaptation etc, it's about the degree of genetic diversity or genetic depletion. The bear in its niche probably has a great deal of genetic diversity left so it's not threatened by genetic depletion as is the cheetah.Different animals evolve at different rates. Herd animals for instance should be able to maintain high genetic diversity in the wild for hundreds of years because they don't split into smaller populations very often. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

According to the interpretation of the evidence by hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years. If you think their scientific interpretation of the evidence leading to the conclusion of universal common ancestry is wrong, then perhaps you could present the scientific case for a lack of common ancestry.

Tell that to the cheetah.

Please explain why it is impossible for mutations to occur in these breeds leading to larger bodies.

What is stopping mutations from increasing genetic diversity in cheetahs?

If the odds are not zero, then it will happen. Humans have shown us that there are many mutations that produce the same phenotype, such as skin color or eye color. The same would apply to hair length. Where did you calculate the odds?First, how many mutations will produce long hair in dogs. Please list them.Second, what is the mutation rate in dogs.Until you supply those numbers you are just making stuff up.

Using that definition, how do you determine if two species belong to the same kind? What criteria do you use?

I see.So you don't think it's impossible, just improbable. But I was talking about my lineage doing the selecting. My lineage is very good at identifying long hairs vs. short hairs. They look at the hairs and the longer one wins.And many generations of dogs aren't a problem either... we're already going many generations of humans (my lineage) so for dogs it shouldn't be an issue at all.Seems like the odds are somewhat better than being "seriously against me."But, that doesn't matter. As long as you accept that such random mutations can happen, I think you're being reasonable. I understand that this would be more rare for a specific gene in my specific breeding example.
But now let's go back to the wild with this information.Now we're not looking for any specific gene. In fact, in order for random mutations to increase the genetic variety... they don't have to be for any specific gene or any benefit or any negative thing at all. All they have to do is occur. As long as random mutations are occurring (especially neutral ones), and the population is still reproducing and growing... then the genetic variety is going to increase.If random mutation do not occur and this increase in genetic information doesn't happen before the next speciation event... and the next, and the next and the next... then I agree with you. Eventually the species will die off, like the cheetah... because of population bottlenecks.However, if the next speciation event doesn't happen for, say... hundreds of thousands of years... That's plenty of time to build the genetic variety as well as the population up so that the next possible loss in a speciation event doesn't hurt the population as a whole.

Highly improbable because you have to get the mutation at a particular locus for size, and there are probably many genes that affect size so getting just one at one locus may not produce much change anyway because they've all become homozygous for the smaller size through generations of breeding for the smaller size. If they haven't all become homozygous then you may not need a mutation, just the occasional appearance of the larger sized animal in your litters which you can exploit in your breeding program. But if in fact your small short-haired breed has reached the point of homozygosity for all the genes that govern size you have to count on a very specific mutation that codes for the protein for larger size at the right locus, and in the germ cell too, where it can be passed on. Highly improbable wouldn't you say?And the usual reminder: If a mutation hasn't occurred at the right place for the cheetah in all the time of its sojourn on the earth, what makes it even remotely likely to occur in any other genome?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Exactly what is written in 2 tim 4 3-4.FYI science changes like the wind. However, you do make it sound like scientists only believe in evolution. Lol.

The drastic problem that happened to the cheetah was population bottlenecks. A lot of them were killed off. Perhaps by natural causes (earthquakes? famine? fire?), perhaps by people hunting them.And, yes... the same thing happens to any species that goes through a population bottleneck. If the population bottleneck is too much... then the species has too much trouble reproducing due to inbreeding (lack of genetic variety)... and it goes extinct. If the population bottleneck is not too much... then the species recovers.Bears have the same situation as cheetahs. They migrated populations over many generations of evolving new species or varieties just as the cheetah has. But the bear is not in trouble. The only difference is that cheetahs went through a population bottleneck. Bears did not. Exactly.The reason why bears have a great deal of genetic diversity is because there's lots of them. There's no population bottleneck. The large population allows time/chances for the random mutations to occur in bears over and over again in order to increase the genetic variety.The reason why cheetahs have low genetic diversity is because there was only a few of them because of the population bottleneck. The small population is not allowing enough time/chances for the random mutations to occur in cheetahs so that the genetic variety cannot increase. Absolutely. The only thing that allows for high genetic diversity is whether or not something happens (like a population bottleneck) that would limit the amount of random mutation that can occur within the population.

You need to provide some evidence for these claims. You also need to show your math. What is the "right place" in the cheetah genome? Please cite evidence.