MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Again, you'd never ever get an identifiable species or variety or breed or race if beneficial mutations kept occurring in the sex cells at the rate necessary to stop the loss of genetic diversity that is NECESSARY to the formation of species or varieties or breeds or races.

Please show your calculations.

Oh, you don't have any? It's just an uniformed fantasy?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Logic yes. Logic based on false premises is false.

Do you have any calculations or observations of the real world whether there are enough beneficial mutations (or neutral but beneficial when the environment changes, or detrimental but conferring some benefit before it's lost) to account for no inevitable loss of diversity?

Of course you don't.

You made it up, you believe it, and you think that everything you believe should be regarded by all as established fact.

Doesn't work that way.

This is absurd

Nope.

The understanding that mutations are predominantly neutral, many deleterious and a very very few beneficial is so commonly known I wouldn't expect to have to justify it.

That's true, but irrelevant. They are very rare but that's not enough to support your argument.

The evidence shows us that they aren't too rare to offset loss of genetic diversity. You claim they are too rare to offset that loss. That's the foundation of your claims. If it's false your claims are false.

So it's up to you to produce some analysis or measurements that show they are not just rare but too rare to offset loss of genetic diversity.

But you have none. Because the claim that they are too rare is false.

{ETA} I've deleted those extra forward slashes three times and they keep coming back.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix italicized/bold text.

Even if ALL mutations were beneficial, selection inevitably brings about loss of genetic diversity.

Show your calculations.

Oh, wait, you have no calculations. It's just another of your fantasies.

Each human has something on the order of 100 mutations. That's about 700,000,000,000 in all the humans on earth. Is that not enough to offset the loss of genetic diversity?

Gosh I make a lot of snarky assertions, without one iota of actual substance.

FIFY.

Based on the assumption that mutations are too rare to compensate for loss of genetic diversity.

For which you have no support.

"Rare" is not necessarily "too rare".

Mutations add genetic diversity with every new daughter population. If that were so you'd never get a new species.

I might well have missed something, but I can't think of any possible reason why increasing genetic diversity prevents the formation of new species.

Gaining beneficial mutations is very unlikely on a human timescale except for species with very, very short generational periods, like bacteria. So we agree, o happy day.

Pretty obviously not. You are claiming that mutations can't happen at a rate fast enough to make up for lost genetic diversity. Pointing out that beneficial mutations are rare is not agreeing with you.

Again "rare" does not necessarily mean "too rare". "Too rare" is the foundation of your argument. You've made no attempt to support that assumption.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I'm going to keep on asserting what I know is the truth instead

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.

Oh I know what it would take and would pounce on it if it came my way, fear not.

You don't have what you need to demonstrate that your ideas are valid but you insist your ideas are valid and people who don't accept them as valid misunderstand or are brainwashed.

Of course you see no problem there.

The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.

Maybe. But logic isn't sufficient. To produce a true result it must be based on true premises. Your false assumption that mutations cannot be significant renders the whole thing invalid.

You all like to think it's ignorance to object to the ToE.

Definitely untrue. We think it's ignorance to make claims about the real world that are known as false. Such as "mutations aren't required"; you fantasize a incoherent hypothesis that is soundly refuted. And you ignore the refutations.

ETA such as the "elegant original design of DNA". You made it up from nothing, with no evidence at all, and all you offer is more accusations and wild claims.

You certainly come across as a person with no understanding as evidence. You seem unable to distinguish between objective facts and your fantasies. I hope you aren't really like that, but I certainly suspect you are.

(Cue flounce in 3 - 2 - 1...)

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

mutations, you make it sound as if they just come along exactly as needed to further the claims of the ToE.

Actually mostly they don't come along at the right time. About 99% of all the species that ever lived are extinct. They sure wouldn't agree mutations come along at the right time. Obviously that's difficult to measure but it is definitely a very high percentage.

You are only seeing the winners. It's exactly the same as surveying lottery winners and expressing surprise that every one of them won a lottery!

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.