MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

The only way mutations could be fixed is if they are selected and other alleles drop out, which is a loss of genetic diversity. You aren't getting a species if new traits are emerging. I'm only talking about how you get a species and that requires selection which requires loss of genetic diversity. You obviously aren't interested in the arugment, you probably haven't even read half the posts I've made where I explain this, you are just going to go on bleating about mutations whether it makes any sense or not.

You so consistently misread just about e4verything I say it wears me out. Where did I say anything about pocket mice and peppered moths not being species?Evolution does have to stop because it runs out of genetic diversity wherever you are getting new species. Adding mutations is not how you get new species. A mutation has to be selected to contribute to that.

I don't know where you got that quote. It's at least out of context and I've said so much that should show I can't possibly mean the mice and the moths are not species that you are being underhanded in your use of it.You don't get species unless you lose genetic diversity.

I see, I get it now. You are failing to see that to get a whole population of black mice requires selection and selection gets rid of all the white mice, which is the reduction in genetic diversity I'm talking about that always has to happen with the formation of a species. Same with the population of white mice, black moths and peppered moths.

HOW MUCH genetic diversity is NOT the point. The point is that TO GET A SPECIES REQUIRES ITS REDUCTION OR LOSS.

Evolution EVENTUALLY will run out of genetic diversity because selection reduces genetic diversity. That is the case with the mice and the moths too. Not all examples show complete loss of genetic diversity, in fact that is very rare, it's the inevitable end point that is rarely reached in reality so far though it will eventually, but all of them show the trend toward it. I think it should be apparent in the end specied of ring species. You keep misunderstanding what I'm saying but you can't make your misunderstanding the meaning of what I'm saying. The principle I'm talking aobut holds up in all cases.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just showed YOU how YOU are wrong. Sorry you don't get it.

It's not gene loss, it's allele loss and it has to happen when other alleles are selected and especially when they become fixed or homozygous. To get a Great Dane requires losing genetic material for Chihuahuas, Poodles, Golden Retrievers and so on.

Not at all, there's plenty of genetic diversity available from which to select for a new species without adding even one mutation. New traits emerge because of changed gene frequencies, not mutations.

Adding diversity does not contribute to the formation of a species. That takes selection. Selection reduces genetic diversity. When you are getting a new species you are losing genetic diversity. Adding genetic diversity does not contribute to the formation of a species. The formation of a species is what evolution does. Adding diversity does not contribute to the formation of a species. The formation of a species requires selection, selection reduces genetic diversity. Adding genetic diversity does not contribute to the formation of a species which is what evolution does. Getting a few mutations does not contribute to evolution. Evolution requires the loss of genetic diversity.

Adding variety for selection to work on isn't necessary for starters, and if a daughter population has already begun it will only interfere, as any gene flow interferes with the formation of a species, which is well known. The addition does not contribute to the formation of a species, it can only interfere.You've never even seen a "successor species," that is pure hypothetical hoohah made up to try to make the idea of continuing addition of genetic diversity seem plausible. It doesn't happen and when it does, where there is resumed gene flow from any source at all, the loss of reproductive isolation or mutations or whatever, it destroys whatever species you already have. Species happen to persist in nature for a long time, you don't see additional genetic diversity coming along to alter them, at least not very often. When you do it's usually the reintroduction of a formerly split off part of the population and it changes the species. What you see more often is further selection events as individuals migrate to new locations and their new gene frequencies bring out new phenotypes which over some generations form a new species while losing genetic diversity. You don't need mutations at any stage and they are destructive at any stage except in a static population.Evolution occurs in specific lineages, the way breeding occurs, in a reproductively isolated small population. It isn't always occurring, it occurs most often in these small populations here and there that separate from a larger population, or even form within the population on occasion. It has to lose genetic diversity so there always is a point that may or may not be reached in a given case where genetic depletion makes further evolution impossible, and if that situation is NOT reached or potentially reached you don't have evolution, you don't have new species. Your mutations contribute nothing to evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't possibly have said any such thing. Where are you getting this from? In Message 424 which is the one you seemed to be answering, I said only that there would have been a lot more genetic diversity or heterozygosity on the ark. Except it isn't my claim. My usual estimate is something like fifty to seventy percent heterozygosity on the ark based on around 7% in humans today, since the formation of new species down the centuries would require the loss of heterozygosity or genetic diversity from population to population.Yes, with functioning genes where there is now junk DNA there would have been a great great many more genes but judging from the fact that human beings lived hundreds of years up to the Flood and the first few centuries after the Flood, I think that probably means greater longevity for animals too, greater strength, better functioning hearing, eyesight, smell, etc. more protections against disease, rather than big differences in morphology or general appearance. I'd guess many more genes per trait, making for much more variation in every trait, including possibly more colors and textures of fur or plumage or that sort of thing, but outright differences in morphology I wouldn't think so. Some variation no doubt but not to the point that the animal wouldn't be recognizable from its fossil. I think the whole animal kingdom as well as human beings have lost an enormous range of abilities given us at the Creation. If that were so you'd never get a new species.ToE wishfulness dies hard.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And that is also the case with the elephant seal and the cheetah. That's the problem: when genetic diversity is depleted to a great extent there is no way to reintroduce it because interbreeding has become impossible and mutations don't occur at any rate that would help the situation. The seals were able to build up their population which is some protection of course, but cats being more loners don't have that advantage. So we agree, o happy day. That makes no sense. You fail to appreciate how much variety occurs through simple changed gene frequencies as a result of nothing more than the reproductive isolation of a small number of founding individuals. All the variety is potential in the combined genomes of the founders, you do not need mutations. There is no reason whatever that a new species would not be the result of many generations of inbreeding in such a population, even to the point of loss of ability to breed with other populations of the same species.\

The alleles are versions of the gene, or in a sense ARE the gene, they don't "contain" it.

If introducing the Texas puma into the Florida panther population "helped," that means the panther was not completely genetically depleted and was able to breed with the puma, so it was not a situation like the elephant seal or the cheetah as was implied. If it were possible to help the cheetah by introducing another cat, that would have been done by now so apparently it is not possible. Yes i8t would possess only the same genes and alleles, but depending on how different the gene frequencies are it could possess strikingly different phenotypic characteristics because of different combinations of those genes/alleles, a different frequency of heterozygosity or homozygosity for different traits and so on. It is the changed gene frequencies that bring about the new characteristics of a new population, and that alone is capable of creating all the different species in a ring species without a single mutation.;As for mutations, just how often do you get a brand new trait from a mutation anyway? Hardly ever is my guess. In the former discussion about these things a new rabbit fur color was given as an example. (Let's leave out the immune system for now since it seems to be different from other genes in many ways). My jaundiced view of mutations suspects that it was really the recovery of a lost color, since alleles are just sequences of chemical codes, but even granting that it's a brand new color, fur color is a pretty innocuous variation, not much to hang macroevolution on.Maybe we need to try to imagine our way through what mutations really would do if they occurred at various points in the formation of a daughter population. I guess the idea is that the new fur color if selected would make a new species of rabbit. Of course as that happens all the other colors are lost as I keep saying, reducing genetic diversity again in order to bring out this new population with this new color. So is it imagined by all those who keep throwing mutations at me that a series of changes at the level of rabbit fur, even through a dozen new "species" with different colors of rabbit fur, EACH LOSING THE ALLELES FOR ALL THE OTHER COLORS, is a viable model of evolution?abe: To be fair I have to include in this picture that when one trait is selected, again in this case if not by drift within the population then by migration of some number of individuals to start another separate daughter population, you can't avoid simultaneously selecting others, getting yet a new set of traits through a new set of gene frequencies for the whole population and not just the fur color. So as in ring species you now have a new species, but it's necessarily lost more alleles in the formation of its new set of phenotypes. Those new phenotypes will form a new trait picture for the new population after some generations of inbreeding to homogenize it as it were. What do you want to do at this point? Introduce a whole bunch of new mutations? Do you picture their spreading for a while in the population? What exactly is the picture here? Do you want to have another migration of some small number to form a new daughter population that contains some of these mutations? Are you imagining enough new variability from these mutations to offset the necessary loss? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.