MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

OK, my mistake, the program isn't a model of evolution.What it is a model of doesn't interest me, though, so I guess that's the end of that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A population reduction to 2 or 14 is a far, far more severe bottleneck than anything seen with species like the cheetah. All the species on the ark, even if every gene was heterozygos (a completely unsupported assertion), would have possessed much less genetic diversity than any species alive today that isn't on the edge of extinction. Another completely unsupported assertion.--Percy

I've been following skeptically along because mutations have played a very minor role in the history of breeding, even if you extend the breeding period to 2000 years. And if you're waiting for a specific mutation, then that seems very unlikely. I think all animal breeding programs depend upon manipulation of existing variation, rather than waiting for mutations. Poking around on the web I did notice the some plant breeding programs use chemicals and radiation to induce mutations.--Percy

Here is the original exchange, where Taq is asking that you back up your assertion that "beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information": I agree with your claim that "beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information", but how does your response about the probability of a beneficial mutation support that contention, or even have anything to do with it?If I could attempt to answer the question myself, I think any mutation that results in an allele not previously in the population must be considered to have increased genetic information. The number of alleles across the population has increased from n to n+1. How could that not be an increase in information?--Percy

Well, duh! That's a given. What good would it do to talk about mutations in a kidney cell or a liver cell? Those mutations would have no chance of propagating throughout the population.So 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. So when you say: Apparently untrue.Plus beneficial mutations are more likely than previously thought.--Percy

What does this even mean? Can you give us a couple examples of "science changing like the wind?" So, which are you arguing? "Which does lead to a type of knowledge", what does this even mean?Science is a standardized method of discovering things about the Universe that is intentionally designed to correct errors in conclusions by refining experiments and observations. What? Is English not your native language? Evolution is a conclusion based on evidence and observation.What does "evolution such as hawking" even mean?

I'm not intending to use "breeding" as part of this example.I'm only intending to use "dogs" and things like "hair length, strength-of-smell" because they are easily understood traits.
I'm attempting to put a more practical-side (and perhaps easier-to-understand) spin on the conversation.However, I am an amateur and am not familiar with how long things tend to actually take.If we did have a dog species that was "all the same"... how long do you (approximately) think it would take to produce differences in the population like long hair/short hair and strong smellers/weak smellers for 5 different traits?I just guessed at 2000 years (also, trying to keep the number low because I know Faith gets uncomfortable with higher numbers).
Do you think such a thing would more reasonably be looking at something like 200,000 years? 2 million?

Exactly.
It depends on if the population is large enough to recover from the population bottleneck or not.
The cheetah seems to be having issues recovering.
The bear does not.We will see what happens to our dog population... Yes, I completely agree with the idea of going into a "mutt."What I described with all the differences (hair length, smell strength...) becoming apparent after 2000 years is very validly described as turning the "once-all-the-same" dog population into more of a mutt population.However, the size of the overall dog, the colour of it's hair, the shape of it's skull, the intelligence-range... any and all things not mentioned are assumed to still be the same.Therefore, the "mutts" would all be recognizable as the same sort of dog... just some have long hair, others short. Some smell better, others weaker...But yes, the variation that has gone through the population creates more of a "mutt" as opposed to a very-specific "breed" definition.This does, however, still increase the genetic variety of "the population" of that dog.Now, onto some more agreement with you: So, after 2000 years, we have this:Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - some dark, some light
Nail length - some short, some long
Ability to smell - same (all strong)
Length of legs - some short, some long After 200 years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this:Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - same (all dark)
Nail length - some short, some long
Ability to smell - same (all strong)
Length of legs - some short, some longWe have "lost" the light coloured eyes. After 200 more years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this:Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - same (all dark)
Nail length - some short, some long
Ability to smell - same (all strong)
Length of legs - same (all long)Here we have lost the short legs, and with the speciation events so close together, there isn't much time for the population to recover. Our dog population is becoming smaller and smaller and having to turn to more and more inbreeding.
Just like the cheetah, reproduction for the dogs is becoming harder and harder. After 200 more years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this:Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - same (all dark)
Nail length - same (all short)
Ability to smell - same (all strong)
Length of legs - same (all long)More trouble for the population... After 200 more years, we have another speciation event... leaving us with this:Hair - same (all short)
Eye colour - same (all dark)
Nail length - same (all short)
Ability to smell - same (all strong)
Length of legs - same (all long)And now we have a dog population with extremely little genetic variation (much like the cheetah).We have lost genetic variation over each speciation event, the population has gotten smaller and smaller.
With a much smaller population, much more inbreeding occurs. With more inbreeding, reproduction gets more difficult (more likely for babies to die).
Because the population is so small, and the speciation events happened to0 quickly... random mutations didn't have a chance to create any additional genetic variation.This dog population is in danger of becoming extinct. Like the cheetah.Is that an accurate representation of the ideas you've been trying to convey about how evolution *must* lead to a decrease in genetic variety?I hope so, because that is what I was aiming for. If not, please let me know what you disagree with.

That indicates that gains of function do occur through random mutations.

They didn't in the example we are using. Humans and chimps don't interbreed. What you apparently won't do is address the example I have given where there is no interbreeding.

When DNA accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift then there is reason to think that it has lost function. About 90% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. If that were so then there wouldn't be any humans. Each human is born with 50-100 mutations. If you are correct, then every conception would end in a spontaneous abortion. If the DNA sequence differences between species are not responsible for the physical differences between species, then please tell us what is.

If I write a book that says the Sun orbits the Earth, the Sun will not start orbiting the Earth. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years now. Still going strong.

Not if they were, as you yourself suggest, all heterozygous at all loci, and even I don't go that far. I'd guess some large percentage of heterozygosity, at least 50% or so (based on my understanding that the average genome today has about 7% heterozygosity). If it's also true that there was very little junk DNA in their genomes, it all being functional genetic material, then there would have been a lot more genetic diversity available than just the heterozygosity. No, because high heterozygosity IS high genetic diversity, so they had to have possessed much more than today's species. And again I suppose far more functioning genes as well, which have since become junk DNA, due largely to deleterious mutations.Of course it's hypothetical, just as all the ToE's stuff is too. If what I suppose IS true it does account quite well for what we see today.There has to be much less genetic diversity in all species today than there would have been on the ark though it must vary a great deal from species to species. There would be less for the reason I'm arguing here: the selection processes that bring about new varieties and species lose some genetic diversity with every new daughter population. Founder Effect is one way it happens all at once, but otherwise it's the same process that goes on in all populations built from a selected number of founding individuals whether randomly by migration or drift, or by natural selection.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Isn't correcting yourself better than staying wrong, like religion does?

I feel it necessary to point out that the mutation has to occur in a germ cell because the usual reference to the constantly occurring mutations in every generation don't distinguish between those very very rare occurrences and the huge number of somatic mutations that don't get passed on. Sorry if you had it in mind but you didn't say it.