MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

I'm going to be continuing to watch the videos on population genetics so maybe eventually I can give you some math. But it will be a while.Meanwhile you've got a clone in your example? How much genetic variability did you have to lose to get that?

It's hard to read your white chart. But from what you said my answer is that there should be less genetic diversity down any evolved line from the first population in the line, and of course humans are not primates, they are humans so there is no evolved line in that case to think about, only in a numan line from the ark to the present or any known level of genetic diversity in any population in an evolving line to the present. keeping in mind that added genetic diversity from gene flow of any kind including mutations will change the percentages.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm coming to the conclusion that nobody knows what brings about speciation, defined as inability to breed with former populations or other populations of the same species. If severe reduction in genetic diversity doesn't, then although I think that must be the actual genetic situation in most supposedly new species, or at least clearly reduced genetic diversity compared to the parent population, something else must bring it about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which videos: I'm skipping around in those listed at You Tube on the search term "Basic Population Genetics" The first short one is quite informative but I'm going to need to hear it again and take notes. The long one by Jorde is full of Evo assumptions that are driving me crazy but I hope to get through it eventually. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right, so how are those genetic differences accumulated? What brings that about?My argument accounts for a great deal of genetic difference accumulating between separated populations, but the differences I keep saying accumulate don't do it for you. So please explain how you think they are accumulated. Different alleles obviously don't or that would be the case in my scenarios. Different genes -- where do they come from? Do you have even a shred of evidence of different genes occurring and causing speciation?:If you do, which I strongly doubt, my guess is you're talking about a severely deleterious situation, just another way further evolution becomes impossible and most likely a step on the way to extinction.

Maybe I'll never be able to prove it, though I think it's obvious from everything I've argued about this. There's nothing "religious" about it at all, it's all about genetics, whether anybody gets it or not. If breeds are developed by losing genetic diversity, so are varieties, races and yes, species. You are all fooling yourselves that genetic diversity has to increase or that it even could increase when selection has to cut it down over and over again to get a population with a new character. The ToE has all of you under a spell, not persuaded by evidence at all, just under a spell.

Of course it's true that you don't have selection without variation. My argument is that ultimately you WILL completely run out of variation so there is nothing more to select, which means evolution must stop. That would be the point where there is so much homozygosity you've run out of variation. All of it could be recently accumulated mutations but once they've been reduced to enough homozygosity, end of evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus. All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics. I don't even believe there is such a thing as speciation, not as you all understand it though the fact is no doubt real enough, but since you all do I'm asking what you think brings it about. And please point to an example. It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evidence? Nobody's given any evidence of anything. All you're doing is slinging assertions.

Yeah you all do keep "explaining" this and completely missing the point.Whatever.

Good thing that's not what I'm trying to prove then.All I'm proving and have proved is that selection brings evolution to a halt. Mutations can't stop it.The idea that the RATE of mutation makes a difference is an illusion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Increasing genetic diversity misses the point. Increase it all you want, you still aren't going to get evolution without selection, which reduces genetic diversity. It isn't about rate, it's about outcome.

You think I haven't thought about that? I've mentioned it many times. Both populations evolve their own characteristics depending on their initial size and gene frequencies.You aren't getting it HBD. I'll prove it yet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sigh. At this point all I'm going to say is that this doesn't happen. It's like with the cheetah, after the genome has reached the point of extreme homozygosity due to selection you aren't getting new genetic diversity.And second, this is not the way the beloved ToE is supposed to work, an endless chain of adding and subtracting, and the picture is really quite ludicrous. You really think you're going to get macroevolution out of this bizarre scenario?But again you are NOT getting the increases in genetic diversity you think you are anyway.Hey I'll prove it eventually. All you've got on your side is the blindness brought about by faith in the ToE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Breeds is sufficient to make the point.