What would a transitional fossil look like?

No. Microevolution combines alleles to vary the creature from what exists in the creature's genome. Macroevolution would need something outside the genome to create a new creature.

You were talking about tracking the line of descent. I'm saying that's imaginary no matter what your data, the only line of descent possible is variation within the genome, it is not possible to get anything outside the genome which is what is necessary for one species to descend from another.

Sorry but when an alternative theory is in competition with yours -- you know, it's called "paradigm conflict -- definitions have to change because meanings change. What you call macroevolution is simply not macroevolution because all that is happening is normal variation within a genome; and what you call "speciation" is not speciation because all that has happened is that one variation from the genome has become genetically depleted due probably to many phases of reproductive isolation. It's still within the genome, the fact that interbreeding is no longer possible with the parent population is just a genetic or behavioral event that occurs within the genome. I keep emphasizing this because you can't get something new, a new creature, without something drastically changing in the genome, not just the usual variation of traits of the creature but something entirely new. You don't get a human being from a chimpanzee genome, the chimpanzee genome or that of whatever ape creature you prefer, has to be significantly changed, and absolutely nothing I've ever seen described amounts to such a change, all the descriptions are of the built in variation potentials of a particular genome, without any changes that suggest a change to a new genome. Show me one. Everything you've described is microevolution, change that is programmed into the genome.Again, what you call macroevolution is a self deception preserved by your insistence on the establishment definition, but in reality it's meaningless and deceitful. Macroevolution has to refer to a new creature outside the variations of a particular genome or it means absolutely nothing and just makes a mockery of the whole ToE claim that species evolve from other species. It is indeed word magic which in this context basically means the reification of an idea which is purely imaginary into a "reality"you all believe in though it has no more actual reality than a string of words has in themselves. I know you believe in your definitions as pointing to actual realities but they don't. However the biological sciences discuss these things they are wrong. I very rarely "rant" but it's kind of a form of fake news to say I do, fake news of a common sort practiced by today's leftist media, which amounts to mischaracterizing the opponent, in this case me, in a derogatory way, hoping the term will suffice in the place of actual facts to persuade any readers that I'm simply a foul and stupid person rather than somebody who is actually thinking about these things fairly. It works for the Left, so why not for evos? (This form of fake news is no doubt the most common used against Trump all the time these days: no actual fact or evidence need be given, just the use of a derogatory adjective to characterize his style, tone, a phrase or anything at all, or something like "what is he trying to hide?" or other suggestions of immoral or criminal behavior when all he's done is say, perhaps, that he isn't going to hand over his taxes, probably because it is an intrusion on his privacy and he's not obligated to hand them over, as no other citizen is either, and Pelosi hasn't been asked to hand hers over although she is also in a position of influence and power -- although there is nothing at all wrong in them, especially since he's perpetually under audit and the IRS is good at its job.).Sorry for the digression. OK, give the evidence. But all the evidence you've already given shows no such thing. Mutation can only change what the genetic stuff of the genome already codes for anyway -- it can only come up with a new version of the same trait because that's what the underlying DNA requires. You can get a grey crow, but you can't get a small yellow warbler or a buzzard. And all selection does is eliminate some alleles in favor of others, isolating the grey crow from the black crow for instance. If mutation has produced a brown crow perhaps it might be selected for its own population, though the selection of a mutation has got to be a rare thing. They can't not be because the gene determines what it codes for. You get a new series of codons for a new protein but there's nothing really new about the result. A different eye color is still an eye color and it's probably not really new anyway, just hasn't shown up for a while. A new fur color isn't really new either, it's still a fur color. A disease in the immune system is an interesting thing to contemplate since it is probably truly new, and has a destructive effect on the gene that is supposed to protect and no longer does. But I'm sure you don't count diseases as macroevolution.

Sometime I wish you, any of you, would just think for a change instead of always shooting out your first stupid thought.

I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions. Make up your mind. I use "microevolution" only to demonstrate to evos what I'm talking about when I say it's all variation within a species genome. I don't use the term "speciation" either except for the same purpose, to say how the actual event described by the ToE by that term is not really speciation, it's nothing but one variation within a species genome that happened to lose its ability to interbreed with the parent population, due to factors I think may explain it, just an ordinary event that is certainly not macroevolution.Oh I'm bored to death with this, I'm going to have to come back to it.

I was talking about using different words too.No point in any further discussion here.

I hope I'll be up to this tomorrow.

You don't have to use any particular term, you just have to be clear what you are talking about. The main point I keep making is that the examples people keep putting up as illustrations of the ToE are really just examples of standard variation within a Kind, determined by its genome which is nicely programmed for all the variations we see in separate species. The genome is a self-limiting closed system that provides the genetic stuff for a huge number of variations without any violation of the genome itself. Mutations do nothing but change the existing sequences within specific genes, they do not change the genome itself. It is genetically impossible to get from there to the kind of changes that would be required if species-to-species evolution were possible. And so far nobody has offered a single example of how that could come about, it's all nothing but variation within the Kind or individual species.

The amount of variation possible in any given genome of a given species is very large as long as there is still a lot of genetic variability available (usually meaning heterozygosity at a great number of gene loci). The differences will never ever be of a sort that is not clearly within the parameters defined by that genome, producing interesting variations on the species and nothing outside the species. New combinations of traits, even quite dramatically new and different, is what happens when a small part of a population gets isolated from the rest, otherwise known as selection. The differences from the parent population can be dramatic as the new population gets homogenized by breeding in isolation, all the result of built-in variations on the traits of that species and nothing else. Of course but this is not speciation, just standard variation. the parent population can be equally split or there can be any number of smaller parts of it that can split off and whatever new gene frequencies exist in each will " (micro) evolve independently of each other. " I've discussed these phenomena over and over on many threads here. I often imagine a large wild population of cattle, small numbers of individuals get isolated and domesticated over time, each new group developing its own typical character from selection, isolation and inbreeding. That is how all the different cattle breeds must have developed. In Africa there are millions of wild wildebeests, divided into a couple of different subpopulations that must have developed by isolation of the subpopulation at some point. That overall population has not been split by domestication but it might develop a similar range of different breeds if it were.I've also used ring species as examples many time to show the large range of differences that can develop through mere separation and isolation of small numbers off the parent population. Such divergences are built into the genome of the species.I've covred all these things in great detail in the past which obviously you either never read or didn't understand. I'm getting bored again. Back later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It isn't speciation. Speciation is a made-up concept to keep believers in the ToE convinced of the fantasy. It's nothing but variation on a given genome.It's all a semantic game. Common sense should be enough to make the point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No that is not what happened. I indulged the term for the sake of communication, or really, because of the usual misguided pressure to use establishment terms, until it was clear that it confused things instead. I always knew that what is called speciation is just an evo conceit.As for what other creationists believe, it's always very disappointing to find out how much they accept of what they shouldn't accept. Right now dredge accepts an enormous list of evo tenets. Confusing and sad when creationists do that, and unfortunately all of us have different views on these things. Very frustrating.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, since YECs believe there are many separate Kinds each with its own genome, and it's only within each Kind that the kind of variation occurs that I'm talking about. It is not the case because there are separate Kinds each of which possesses its own genome for its own characteristics. Yes, this occurs with each Kind. It's a form of selection which promotes new populations with new phenotypes. To explain what we see all around us all that is needed is the separately created Kinds each varying according to the programming of the DNA that defines itself and only itself.As I understand Lenski's experiment, despite far more generations than are needed to test the reality of the ToE all he ever got was variations on more of the same. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh don't be silly. Each Species has its own genome and in many cases the species can be recognized just from the genome. I was told this a few years ago on a thread where I brought up such questions. IIRC you were even on that thread.Each individual of course has a variation of it because of the variations that occur from generation to generation but it's still a genome for whatever, a human being for instance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My faith does not dictate how I think about these things, that's just a convenient way for you to dismiss anything I say.New features that occur within the genome of the creature are just variations on what is already there, not truly new. Not new in any sense that could justify the claims of the ToE with its species-to-species assumptions. Nothing has ever demonstrated any such thing. You get only varfiations within the genome of any creature but if they meet some questionable standard of newness you call them evolution in the ToE sense. Just the usual semantics that keep the ToE alive in your mind although if the actual facts were recognized it would be shown to be dead.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry I think you just got it wrong.