MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

All this focus on species as opposed to other homogeneous populations is really a red herring. To get any homogeneous population requires selection which is a loss of genetic diversity. I'm always talking about a smooth ideal that I know doesn't happen frequently in reality, so I know there are going to be lots of detours and deviations from it; the processes I'm talking about could take ten times as long as the ideal because of all the interferences, but there is still no getting around the basic fact that to get a new homogeneous population requires the loss of genetic diversity, and that any form of addition only interrupts the process.Also you assume a lot about numbers and time that is probably not true.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree you could get a homogeneous population by leaving dogs to their own devices, but it still takes selection to get evolution and that means reducing genetic diversity. You aren't getting evolution with addition, that takes selection and selection reduces genetic diversity.

Mutation is not at all necessary; all it takes is the built-in genetic diversity. But it's the selection that brings about evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

All you do is keep repeating the ToE so I keep repeating my contrary view. You say this or that hasn't been observed but that's just an assertion like everything else you've said.Believers in the ToE are certainly going to follow the party line you are repeating, and I'm going to keep on asserting what I know is the truth instead. You HAVE to lose genetic diversity with selection and you HAVE to have selection for evolution to occur.We can declare an impasse if you like until something new comes along. You shouldn't be declaring the status quo over and over either since you can't prove it.About built in genetic diversity it's interesting that the mathematical formulas of Population Genetics seem to affirm it. Mendelian genetics affirms it. Of course it's been "observed." The idea that mutations are the source of all variability is pure ToE based assumption. It's an interpretation. The better interpretation is built-in genetics. There is no way DNA could have evolved, and each species has its own identifiable genome which is a clue that each was created and didn't evolve. There's no way mutations could alter it to make a new species. All they do is mess things up for a given species.

Evolution off the ark wasn't particularly rapid, it was quite normal, and mutations certainly played no part in it, unless they provided some sort of interference. And I'm not arguing for speciation, I think that idea is a crock. Whatever fits the definition isn't what it is thought to be, it's some kind of crippled population, no doubt brought about by mutations, and unlikely to evolve much beyond its current genetic situation. So "rapid speciation" has nothing to do with what happened after the ark. There should have been a period of population growth followed by migration which would be all that's needed to form all the new species. Interbreeding is irrelevant.Oh. Loss of genetic diversity means that evolution comes to a halt at the boundary of the Kind. There is no such thing as macroevolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Evolution has not come to a halt" you say. Good grief HBD you really aren't getting anything I'm saying. The point is that it must come to a halt after enough selection occurs in a PARTICULAR LINE which is evolving. There are plenty of other populations that aren't evolving and there are plenty of other evolving lines as well, and most of the evolving lines aren't anywhere near the stopping point, it's a projection of what has to happen if the processes continue in the same direction, meaning in the direction of evolution.I'm not arguing that loss of genetic diversity causes inability to interbreed, HBD, although I used to think that must be the explanation; but of course I am arguing that a species is like breeds and varieties in that they have to have less genetic diversity. OK? Can we please keep that distinction in mind?I would welcome your attempt to prove me wrong which you keep saying you could do, except for the fact that your arguments are too hard to understand. I just don't get what you are saying and that gets frustrating and proves nothing. Turns out your last incomprehensible attempt was to prove something wrong that I'm not claiming, which you seemed to think was my whole argument. That gets very frustrating HBD."More to the story?" There must be lots of byways and detours, but I have no doubt whatever that what I'm arguing is in principle what happens.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What?Wrong about what?You were making an issue of speciation. Speciation is not my issue.But of COURSE I believe species are like breeds and varieties in having reduced genetic diversity. What is your problem?I have the impression watching the videos on population genetics that they take for granted the Mendelian formula. They don't mention mutations, they just calculate frequencies based on the usual Punnett square. You'd think they'd mention that mutations are a big factor in calculating frequencies of alleles if they were a big factor, but so far I've only encountered the usual general statements about how mutations are the source of variability, and of course I just sadly shake my head at that. I suppose it doesn't prove much, but it did get my attention.How do I define species? As whatever population is normally called a species. Whether they can interbreed or not isn't important. I don't think I could ever have said anything about "rapid" evolution from the ark, because I've only been interested in arguing that greater genetic diversity on the ark would have made possible the whole array of species we see. Rapidity doesn't enter into it, although I do think evolution happens a lot faster in general than is generally believed, and that may be where people get that idea, but that has nothing in particular to do with the time immediately following the ark.Every species having its own genome is a separate subject. That fact strongly suggests separate creation of each species. Otherwise why should there ever be an identifiable species at all? By the created genome I mean the general genome "cat" or "dog." I'd prefer to call species of cats or dogs "subspecies" but since "species" is the usual term I don't.I don't believe I'm wrong and need to rethink anything. I would suppose that's the reason I don't "admit" it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I argue about what I understand and I don't go beyond that. If you can't address MY argument in a way that's understandable YOU are the one who has no business in this argument. There's plenty of scope for addressing any point I've made, you have no need to throw a whole technical discussion at me. You obviously have no idea what is required in a discussion with someone who is arguing from a very limited area of knowledge. If you really have evidence it has to be possible to make it intelligible in my context. If you can't that's your failing, not mine, and you have no business here at all. I already said your arguments are incomprehensible so obviously not. Take a hike. I WAS ANSWERING YOUR BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT EVOLUTION ITSELF COMING TO A HALT. FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT. LEARN TO READ. TAKE A REMEDIAL ENGLISH COURSE OR SOMETHING.You say it's trivial, I say it proves my claim about how evolution has to happen. Sorry, your refrain about triviality is just a distraction. OF COURSE IT'S MY ARGUMENT! AND I'VE SAID SO A MILLION TIMES. YOU THINK I'M DENYING IT? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT IDEA? OF COURSE IT'S THE POINT, IT'S NOT HIDDEN, IT'S NOT OBSCURE, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. SHEESH. You keep calling it trivial, you keep dismissing it, so I have to keep repeating it; and you haven't given any idea why it's wrong you just keep saying it's wrong. I've pointed out SPECIFIC things you've gotten wrong about what I'm saying, REALLY GOTTEN WRONG. Are you denying those SPECIFIC things? I don't know why there is this problem but I haven't changed anything in my argument, so it has to be some way you aren't getting something.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Did you actually say anything at all substantive in that whole post? If you did I can't find it.

Everything I've said is truthful, I really don't u7nderstand your problem.

Yes, built in at the Creation. abe: if you add functioning genes where there is now junk DNA, and assume much greater heterozygosity, say at least 50% I'd guess that's enough to account for all of it. Who knows, maybe eventually I will be able to show this mathematically, but it's not as if I've left you in the dark about what I think accounts for it all. /abe It6's the lack of reference to mutations, which would have added alleles and changed the allele frequencies in the calculations that I was referring to. Abe: In the Punnett square you have an A allele and an a allele and their combinations are the basis of the calculations of their frequencies in the population. If mutations are occurring all the time there would be many more alleles for a given gene that would change the frequencies. Even if there was only one mutant allele, say A' that pairs with the a in other individuals, that changes the frequency of the a. Maybe this is taken into account later on; I was just saying I would think it would be mentioned at this point if mutations are a big factor in population genetics. /abeI get the basic idea of the math but I don't think I could calculate the frequencies beyond the examples given. abe: That's why I said I'd hyave to listen again and take notes. Even then I don't know if I could get goot enough at understanding the math to use it freely for such calculations. /abeEdited by Faith, : ADDED QUITE A BITEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't read your long post. I can't see the chart, it's blinding.If I don't know the order of evolution of one kind of cat from another how could I possibly know where to apply my argument to the example? ABE: the little I can see of your chart suggests it's the usual taxonomic arrangement? What is it supposed to demonstrate that you think disproves my argument? /abeYou are accusing me of stuff based on nothing. I haven't lied about anything, I haven't changed my argument, and so far I still don't have a clue what you think is wrong with my argument, or even if you yet really understand it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I realized I didn't think it through right about the effect of mutations. It wouldn't be "other" individuals with the mutant A, all the individuals would be counted for that particular gene, but the possibility of an A' should have been noted if mutations do occur as much as is claimed. How it would be counted I don't know. The a frequency should be constant in any case since it's the same in all individuals.

I can't possibly have said that.HBD's plant example uses plant language that I can't translate into my own context. Then his title threw me, the claim to be disproving something about speciation which is at best a side issue in my argument.I use the breeding example as the basis for showing that to get a new population with new characteristics requires selection which requires a loss of genetic diversity. I'm not aware of changing anything in my argument, it can only be that when I answer in a certain context I don't make the whole argument and you and HBD then misread it. Nothing has ever changed in my basic argument. Breeding is the main example I use to demonstrate what selection does, which is loss genetic diversity, and that you can't get a new population of anything in the wild either unless genetic diversity is lost and that mutations only interfere.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.