MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Look it isn't a strategy. It's impatience, it's not expecting any kind of reasonable discussion, and the chart is blinding and as I skimmed through his post it was clear he DIDN'T say anything substantive, so I see no point in answering it carefully.

Oh blah blah blah. I've answered all that a million times.

No, you haven't.In my example, you start and finish with the same amount of genetic diversity. You claim that this can't happen. If you can't address my post, then your argument has been refuted.

This example is too ridiculous to think about for half a second. WHERE IS THE SELECTION??? IT'S SELECTION I KEEP SAYING REDUCES GENETIC DIVERSITY AND BRINGS EVOLUTION TO A HALT. ALL YOU'VE GOT IS SOME DEMENTED MADE-UP SERIES OF MUTATIONS.There is no point to this discussion at all until somebody actually deals with what I've actually said instead of giving such ridiculous answers and instead of just accusing me of a million crimes I'm not guilty of, which seems to be the bulk of both Percy and HBDs recent posts.

I don't have much to contribute to the technical aspects of this discussion, but it's worth pointing out that you are asserting what you thinkis the truth.There is a gigantic difference.

I finally gave up even reading through all the posts, they're mainly just a list of accusations anyway. So if there's anything substantive in any of them please extract those parts and present them in a new post as actual refutations of my argument. And I do hope somebody will properly characterize what my argument IS so the supposed refutations will at least make sense.
Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This example is too ridiculous to think about for half a second. WHERE IS THE SELECTION??? IT'S SELECTION I KEEP SAYING REDUCES GENETIC DIVERSITY AND BRINGS EVOLUTION TO A HALT. ALL YOU'VE GOT IS SOME DEMENTED MADE-UP SERIES OF MUTATIONS.

---

Since you include drift as selection the increase in the frequency of allele B is entirely due to what you call "selection". Really, how could you miss that ? The same way you missed the strong selection in the "weasel" program?

quote:

---

There is no point to this discussion at all until somebody actually deals with what I've actually said instead of giving such ridiculous answers and instead of just accusing me of a million crimes I'm not guilty of, which seems to be the bulk of both Percy and HBDs recent posts.

---

Of course people have been dealing with what you have said and - as HBD and Percy have noted - you have responded with your usual dishonest bullying.Really what do you expect when you keep trying to argue a claim disproven years ago, when you won't even honestly answer the disproof and instead resort to tricks like misrepresenting your own argument ?

Selection is what changes the population from homozygous AA to heterozygous AB, and finally to homozygous BB.At the beginning you start out with homozygous AA. You finish with homozygous BB. That is the same amount of genetic diversity at the beginning and at the end.

Faith, I found a chart that may be easier on your eyes: This chart tracks primate evolution from an early mammalian ancestor to modern species.Your argument is that there has to be a loss of genetic diversity during this entire process.The evidence shows that the modern species as a group contain a lot more genetic diversity than the original mammalian ancestor.That extra diversity had to come from mutations.

Let's fill in a few blanks here. So the animals that leave the ark have built-in genetic diversity that is stored in their junk DNA. Their populations swell over time, and they migrate, and this somehow initiates a speciation event where the built-in genetic diversity in the junk DNA becomes working DNA in their offspring, which are now a new species. Do I have this right?If so, there is no genetic evidence of this ever happening. This couldn't happen without leaving behind genetic evidence.Let's take an example from HBD's Panthera diagram (there are apps that can reverse the colors in browsers, I made it small, click to enlarge): The clouded leopard (N. nebulosa) is basal (if you don't know what basal means then think ancestral) to the lion (P. leo), so if you're right then genetic analysis should have revealed junk DNA in the clouded leopard that has become active DNA in the lion, yet no analysis has ever found such a thing. Besides, since the time when creationists latched onto junk DNA as if it were the holy grail, as suspected there's a lot that junk DNA does, we just didn't know what that was. These functions are now being gradually uncovered. There *is* DNA that does nothing and has no effect, but a lot of what was called junk DNA is involved in gene control and other functions. If a gene has only two alleles then sure, a Punnet Square is sufficient to describe the possible combinations and calculate probabilities. And when more alleles are involved then there's the forked-ilne method. This reads as if it's about a video you're watching. Is that what this is about? If so you're going to have to tell us which video and where in it these issues come up. But what does this have to do with "mathematical formulas of Population Genetics" that "seem to affirm" built-in genetic diversity? Is that just another of your made-up assertions?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Punctuation.

Wow, several items from your list of prevarications all at once. You *have* changed your arguments. For example, you have repeatedly bounced from (sic) "I'm not focused on speciation" to "I've been arguing all along that speciation can't happen" and back again. For another example, you have argued you had the answers, then that you would have the answers one day, then that you had the answers again.The problem with your argument has been clearly described a number of times. Summarizing, breeding is not evolution in miniature, and reduced genetic diversity is not evolution.--Percy

What video are you watching and how far along in it are you?--Percy

Oh really? Do you never tire of being wrong? This is from your Message 714: These are just a series of false statements. The "mathematical formulas of Population Genetics" do not affirm "built-in genetic diversity." Mendelian genetics does not affirm "built-in genetic diversity." "Built-in genetic diversity" has never been "observed." His title threw you? You mean "RILs refute your idea of speciation?" Why would that throw you? In any case, RILs show that reducing genetic diversity does not cause speciation, which was one of your claims about breeding, and before you deny it let me quote you from your Message 673: There you go changing your argument again. Is proving speciation and macroevolution impossible your central point or not? If not, then what's your main point? Taken as a whole this is incorrect. The part that is true is that breeding can reduce genetic diversity, but we should not lose sight of the fact that breeding can also increase genetic diversity. When breeders cross one breed with another then they increase genetic diversity. For example, cross the American house cat with the Asian leopard cat and you get (after several rounds of cross breeding) a Bengal house cat, a new breed with more genetic diversity than the American house cat, not to mention a unique phenotype (a spotted house cat).So no, new characteristics do not require a loss of genetic diversity. What *is* true is that selection reduces genetic diversity, and that focusing selection on certain qualities can produce unique phenotypes, for instance, the pigeon breeding noted by Darwin. This is just a baseless statement. Gene flow between populations certainly boosts diversity, as does mutation. Selection removes unfit individuals (and their genes and alleles) from the population.--Percy

He said a great deal that was substantive. Your lack of knowledge and often confusing arguments stem in large part from not reading so much of what is written to you. Your ignoring of this post from HBD is just another example.HBD made a couple important points in his Message 725. First he described how wrong it was to take ideas from selective breeding and extend them to all of evolutionary theory. In other words, you can't say, "This is all selective breeding can do, therefore evolution can only do the same thing."HBD then provided the Panthera diagram (I know, your eyes, I left it out, your loss) and described how it didn't support your views no matter which way you argued. If you argue that reduced genetic diversity produced all the different species in the Panthera genus, then that's simply not possible, for reasons HBD presented in prior posts and which hopefully you read. And if you drop your argument about reduced genetic diversity causing speciation then all that's left is a statement about breeding that everyone agrees with.Clearly HBD said a great deal that was substantive.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Ah, yes, the old familiar "I've already answered that" excuse. I'll add this to the list.Those who actually have answers to challenges are eager to repeat them and prove people wrong. "I've already answered that" is one of the most obvious forms of "I have no answer."--Percy