A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

In the case of separately created Kinds, however, there would be no older parent ancestor species before the original created Kind. AND, as I've been arguing, there wouldn't be anything further either, AFTER a certain number of daughter populations have formed, because each population has to reduce genetic variability in order to develop as a species distinct from both the parent population and the other daughter populations. If there is a lot of genetic diversity it will take longer than if there isn't a lot, but the end result is inevitable if the series continues.PaulK argues that there is a "steady stream of mutations" that should supposedly prevent this from happening, but that's really a pipe dream. It doesn't happen in reality. If it did we'd see it in domestic breeding series and we don't. In the wild the development of one species from another isn't going to take much longer either: it only takes whatever time is needed to produce enough generations to blend the new gene frequencies from any founding group. That can happen in a matter of years, the same way the Pod Mrcaru lizards were a brand new species after thirty years, that had been built from only five pairs of founders, and thirty years is probably just when they were found, not a measure of how long it took. And the Jutland cattle formed their four new populations in a matter of years too. (The common idea that evolution takes millions of years is clearly nonsensical in light of the actual time it takes to form a new species. Well in the examples given there is nothing but microevolution happening. Daughter populations may increase in PHENOTYPIC diversity, certainly, but for that to happen genetic diversity has to be reduced and eventually severely reduced as new populations develop from previous populations. See my discussion above of your similar points for the earlier example. What's happening is normal sexual recombination from species to species and of course the first new population will have more recognizable traits from the parent population, and new gene frequencies that form as the series progress will be using the recombined genes of the second and later populations. Same situation as what I describe above. It's all a matter of a new set of gene frequencies occurring with the founding of each new population/species, simply the result of a new set of individuals with their own unique set of alleles. insofar as you've accurately described the sequence this is all the result of different founding sets of gene frequencies for each new population/species. Nothing new has to occur, no mutations, just recombinations of the alleles that existed in the original/parent population. I'm afraid I don't see any importance to such a pattern still, even if it does occur. I don't see how it is "predicted" by the ToE either. I can't imagine how it could be seen in the fossil record at all, and I certainly can't see how it's "congruent" or in any way validates the ToE. OK, but again it just seems circumstantial rather than of any importance. Yes they should begin with the original Kind and as I say above, they should also end when the continuing evolution of new populations/species runs out of genetic variability. Maybe it's because I interpret the processes involved so differently than you do, but I don't see this at all. This, however, is clearly a failed assumption because nothing you've shown above demonstrates anything but normal microevolution through sexual recombination from population to population until a particular lineage runs out of genetic variability. I guess you think you've demonstrated all this but all I see is the usual ways a given species or Kind varies from population to population creating new varieties by losing genetic diversity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes mutations add to genetic diversity and the formation of new species requires subtracting from it. Mutations prevent a species from forming and destroy one that has already formed. But nature produces new species so we can assume that mutations don't occur in any numbers or patterns that keep preventing or destroying them. Yes, theoretically they could add a new trait, but in practice I don't think they even accomplish that much, but if they do nevertheless they do prevent a species from forming or destroy one that has formed so all you get, maybe, is a new trait or set of traits in your new species. Which is all theoretical since I don't think even this much actually happens.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This just caught my eye as I was scrolling through all the ignoring and trashing of everything I posted yesterday. As I think about it, RAZD did not offer any evidence for anything he said either. He gave illustrations, as did I, but no evidence.

The evidence of genetic loss through evolution is in domestic breeding where it's obvious that you can't get your chosen breed without losing all the genetic material for anything that would interfere with it. That could actually sum up the whole method of domestic breeding: eliminating everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits. It's good evidence and it has to apply to the development of species in the wild too, but I realize that since the ToE depends on increase rather than decrease I'll just continue to be trashed for saying it. I've also of course many times given the example of the cheetah and the elephant seals, and those are rejected too. I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does? There are other places I can take the argument. But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes.So unless I get a second wind there's no point in continuing with this predictable futility.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it doesn't happen and isn't going to happen but I guess that doesn't deter you.

As a rule mutations do not show up to change the traits of purebred animals, and I suppose if it happens it gets weeded out of the population anyway. And of course we know the cheetah is still waiting for the mutation that could save it from extinction, and while the elephant seals seem to be doing fine even with their depleted genetic diversity so they aren't desperate for a mutation, as far as I know none has shown up in their population anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, well, all the debunkery notwithstanding I'm standing with my views as usual. I don't accept that mutations cause the differences in the different populations or species either in the anagenesis example or the cladogenesis. For one thing such poulations form a lot faster than the ToE acknowledges, which is exemplified by the Jutland sheep and the Pod Mrcaru lizards, and mutations don't occur that fast to become part of a population in such short order. As Percy mentions if they are mutations they've been around a while, but of course I don't think they are mutations at all because I don't think mutations account for normal alleles.And I'm more convinced than ever that this nesting hierarchy argument amounts to nothing.And the debunkery of domestic breeding as a good example can be dismissed too. The same processes occur whether they are intentionally directed or random. Also the cheetah and the elephant seals are just fine to represent the end stage of the formation of species even though they were formed by severe bottlenecks.And once species are established they don't change rapidly either, the way some here expect to happen with mutations cropping up. They don't often crop up in established breeds or in wild species, which you'd think they did the way people here carry on. But they don't, and there is no need to invoke mutations for any part of any of this, normally occurring alleles do just fine at making breeds and making new species.So any time someone wants to get rational and acknowledge any of this I'm listening, but I'm not holding my breath.

Most of your posts to me are full of nasty interpretations of my motivations. That's pretty foul debating tactics. What I say is what I mean, oh foul one. if I say I'm not convinced of something it's because I'm not convinced of it, not because I "can't refute" it. Not only did I find out in discussion with RAZD that there are species that don't form nesting hierarchies, but there is absolutely nothing at all meaningful about those that do.And by the way your posts in general are obviously meant just for debunkery without any concern at all for truth. I'm sure you know that but it needs to be said once in a while, because the powers that be at EvC are very much llke the media who oppose Trump, they have no interest in truth at all, they are only interested in killing whatever they dislike, as are you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Concerning the argument that genetic diversity is lost: And you've missed the whole point that anything that gets added has to get cut down to create a new species.But I've made the case so many times to such utter futility I'm too tired, if that's the word, to continue it now. I just wanted to say that much.Once the establishment has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.

Hybridization, or combining species together is a completely different pro0cess than the one I'm talking about. As I often say when discussing my point of view, gene flow interrupts the processes I'm describing, adding anything disrupts it and prevents the species from developing, including mutations that show up at the wrong time in the process. That's why I keep emphasizing reproductive isolation as the necessary condition.In any case you're never going to get anything really new, no matter how hard the believers work to convince themselves of that. You can combine species to create hybrids but that's not a real increase, you're just reshuffling the gene pool. It's a very good method especially for improving plants, and in limited form it's what breeders have started doing too, since it was recognized that the usual method of isolating the desired traits was too severely depleting the genetic variables and causing vulnerability to disease. So they've learned to sacrifice the perfection of purebreds for health.Anyway what you are describing is a completely different thing. I'm describing the normal process of getting a species by isolating a portion of a population, whether that is brought about by natural selection or random migration or any other process that reproductively isolates a small part of a gene pool. In domestic breeding this is brought about by the intentional selection of desired traits to be bred. In all cases, the result is a new set of gene frequencies in the newly isolated population, which, when worked together over some number of generations, brings about a new species. There is always a genetic cost to this process: new phenotypes emerge as a result of eliminating the genetic material for other phenotypes. It's the standard method of domestic breeding, or was until fairly recently when the drawbacks of that method began to be recognized. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it's possible to select all mutations for the new species, but whatever is selected requires the loss of other genetic material that is excluded from the new phenotypes. I question the existence of mutations in any numbers to influence any of this, but that's beside the point in this context, since yes, the new population could be made up completely of mutations, but it would still be only those mutations selected at a loss to all the others. You still end up with an overall loss of genetic variability, even if you manage to get a new population completely made up of brand new mutations. ( You won't, you can't, but I'm trying to entertain the possibility for the sake of discussion)
\Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As usual you keep ignoring all the arguments and examples I've given that prove it is necessary to lose genetic diversity to get new phenotypes. All you are doing is trying to sound authoritative without actually saying anything. No, I've made the case, and made it many many times over many threads and even in this thread, and I have indeed presented the evidence of domestic breeding which is about as clear a description as you can get of what happens to develop new phenotypes, and I've given plenty of illustrations of that same thing happening in the wild. Interesting that you never discuss any of this. Yeah I get tired and cranky, it's a karacter flaw, sorry. Interesting how my opponents usually completely ignore my arguments in favor of interpreting my supposed frame of mind toward their assumed and asserted superior evidence. Seems to me my evidence is way better than yours. You assume mutations that you can't demonstrate and ignore the argument that even if they existed as you claim they wouldn't change the basic facts of ultimate genetic reduction as I keep describing it. Sometimes I think you really don't get what I'm describing at all since you ignore it so completely, although you all love to claim you understand it perfectly.And you continue with more substanceless personal comments so I won't take the time to quote it. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dear dear Razzymatazzy:
You really are not at all aware that you are assuming a lot about mutations that you cannot demonstrate.Breeders cull traits to preserve their breeds, for sure, but traits are not necessarily mutations, in fact most of the time all they are doing is choosing to mate individuals that have the positive traits they desire and don't have to focus on the unwanted traits. You haven't shown, and cannot show, that mutations are ever a problem in breeding, at any stage of the process. You assume that all traits are the result of mutations, and that always has been an assumption and remains an assumption but you take it so for granted it is just about impossible to get you to consider any other way of looking at it. Well, that is of course the standard problem in paradigm conflicts. And getting the Old Guard to rethink their stuff is asking WAY too much, isn't it? And here we have the very center of the paradigm clash. You seem to be unable to think at all about any of this without assuming evolution and assuming mutation as the fuel of that evolution. You think the traits of the chosen breed MUST have evolved by mutation from the parent stock. You can't prove this, you assume it, it's simply an article of the ToE faith that isn't questioned.My contrasting model/theory is that there is no difference whatever in the genetic material between generations, the only difference is the different combinations. All you need is a large population of mutts as it were from which random processes or intentional processes select individuals for an isolated population. The original population need not have a single reproducible mutation in it though I suppose it could have some, all that is required is that it have been reproducing long enough to grow its population. It need not even be mutt-like, or a motley crew of individuals. For instance the wildebeests. Tes I love the wildebeests, gnus I guess in English. Their main population, even in the millions I believe, is very homogenous, that is they all look alike although I'm sure they have plenty of genetic diversity. But if a small number of them wander off and get lost and start their own isolated population they will dvelop a new set of characteristics that distinguishes them from the main population. So we get the "blue" wildebeests" which look appreciably different from the main herd of "black" wildebeests, though I think they look more brown than black but anyway. They didn't need any mutations to get their blue look or it would have shown up in the main population. All they needed was the new set of gene frequencies brought about by the isolation of a limited number of individuals from the main gene pool. All they needed was that isolation of those new gene frequencies and over some number of generations they'll all acquire the bluish tint of the hide and the smaller stature and the different form of antlers that were all the result of the sexual recombination of the genetic factors in that new set of gene frequencies.No mutations needed, dear Razz. Now there may have been a few, but I doubt it and they aren't needed. The Pod Mrcaru lizards that developed from a mere founding population of ten pairs needed nothing more than a set of gene frequencies that combined in such a way as to bring out larger heads and jaws when the population was thoroughly blended, in a matter of years. Like Darwin's large-chested pigeons: he just kept mating the ones with the largest chests until that feature got extremely exaggerated over a few generations. There is no need to assume a mutation in any of that, and certainly you couldn't expect a mutation to show up in each generation to add to that particular chest-expanding tendency. No no no, all it took was whatever genetic processes occurred as that particular trait was selected generation after generation. And that makes a fine model for what must have happened with the Pod Mrcaru lizards: a set of gene frequencies that contained a slightly larger jaw combined and recomgined over some generations to get the much larger head and jaw that was discovered on that island after thirty years.It's a different paradigm from your evolutionary pattern, a different way of explaining how species develop, and I have at least as much evidence as you have for mine. In fact I think I have more. Mostly all you have is the assumption of mutations. At least the lizards and the Jutland cattle should have disabused you of any notion that developing interesting species takes a great length of time.My eyes are hurting. Sorry, I have to come back to this later.

Except that you aren't going to get the new population unless you have the decrease. Pretty obvious if you think about domestic breeds. You could start with a very homogeneous original/parent population with a distinct appearance and high genetic diversity, a species in itself, but getting a NEW breed requires a portion of that original population to be separated from it and isolated for breeding just within itself. THEN you get a new species or new breed.RAZD diagrams such a situation, and in fact a whole series of populations, without recognizing that each must entail genetic loss. That's the common mistake made by believers in the ToE: the genetic capacity is assumed to be adequate to creating any number of new species, the fact that it necessarily shrinks simply does not get recognized. And of course mutations are always the fuel in those scenarios, as if mutations are always available and always viable without any mention of what is so frequently said about how they are mostly neutral, very rarely beneficial, and I don't think they ever make anything truly new, at best they make something that fits into the particular gene to do whatever that gene does. So RAZD draws those daughter populations as if they have the same amount of genetic fuel as it were as the parent population. Nope.There can be hybrid zones between the two and you can think of them as species in their own right if they are homogeneous enough, but the whole point of what I keep saying is that getting a strikingly new species takes a reduction in genetic diversity just as it does to get a new breed of whatever you want to get a new breed of. A reduction of genetic diversity doesn't mean a total reduction in most cases, it only gets to the point of genetic depletion after many such species-creating events, which I believe are represented well in ring species. Each new population has more genetic reductiohn than the previous, which makes for new sets of gene frequencies for each new migration, which then blend together to make the new species over whatever number of generations it takes.Yes you can have species with high genetic diversity, but the TREND I'm talkinga about toward MAKING new species always requires some degree of genetic reduction to produce NEW phenotypes and get a new species blending those phenotypes. That's what happens in breeding programs. Dogs, cats, cattle, whatnot. You CAN have hybrid species if you want, which just means having less reduction in genetic diversity. You can have resumed gene flow and populations can also merge together after some period of isolation and there will be a difference in the phenotypes then too, and that way you'll get an increase in genetic diversity, but only back to the original level at best. You'll never get an increase. Increase, mutations, more gene flow, just destroy the homogeneous appearance of the species.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.

You say you can demonstrate mutations. But you don't, and can't.Anyway, probably the best way to prove my contentions would be in the laboratory experiment I've often suggested. Mice are always a good choice for their size and habits but you want to start with a population that has a pretty high genetic diversity and I wonder how much diversity remains in the wild populations of mice. Maybe enough.The experiment might take up a lot of room in a laboratory, you might need to get a warehouse. Start with fifty to a hundred mice. You'd probably have to do DNA analysis on each of them to do it right and tag them so you know exactly who is who and what it's doing.Let the first population grow until you need new habitats to hold it, then split it up into smaller populations each in their own habitat. Check their DNA and tag them so you know which generation they are and can track them. Let these new populations breed until they make a homogeneous new population, probably pretty large. Split it into new groups in their own isolated habitats, analyze DNA, tag and track.Continue until the latest daughter populations run out of genetic variability. They will. It will only take as much time as each population's breeding blends to homogeneity before you split it, added to the same for all the other populations in a lineage.I'm sure anyone who works in a lab with mice will see all kinds of problems with my view of it but I think the principle should hold even if modifications of the method are needed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.