A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

quote:

---

You persist in your weird illusion that you argue from evidence and I don't.

---

It’s not an illusion. It’s a fact.

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet. According to the ToE this situation is called "speciation" and "macroevolution" but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion. In any case it can't be a springboard for further variation/evolution as the ToE assumes it is. So I regard this situation as an illusion foisted on us by the ToE without the slightest actual evidentiary support.

"Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line."--FaithI consider dogs and catfish to be separate species, but apparently you think their inability to mate is an artificial dividing line because they are able to interbreed.Also, you keep acting as if combining different alleles will get you all the phenotypic variation that is needed. If this were so, then combining different chimp alleles should produce any other species that exists, including humans. If, as we have been saying, that you need mutations in those genes to get new species then you shouldn't get humans by mixing and matching chimp alleles. Which do you think is the better model? Why wouldn't we need mutations to produce different species? Chimps and humans are different species, so wouldn't we need mutations if they evolved from a common ancestor? Every generation is born with new mutations.

Since your evidence is an illusion in many cases, such as in the case I've been discussion of "speciation," it's no fact.

Can you cite a single example of this?

That says absolutely nothing. You'd have to show that those very mutations, or some of them or even one of them, 1) did something new, and 2) made some difference in the next generation.

How can I give an example when all you guys do is assert it without evidence anyway? I've seen examples of a frog that is supposed to be a new species on this standard but I haven't seen a DNA analysis of it. Plants are often given as examples, similarly without any DNA analysis. I'm giving a different interpretation of what you describe as a fact but is also only an interpretation.

quote:

---

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet.

---

That is obviously not true. The definition of species is problematic but that is because we don’t use clear criteria like the inability to produce fertile offspring as the sole criterion. Obviously it doesn’t apply to species that only reproduce asexually, and it can’t be applied to extinct species, but that doesn’t make it any less natural a dividing line.

quote:

---

...but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion

---

And therein lies one of your problems with the evidence. Breeds will likely (in some cases certainly) be more “genetically depleted” than natural species. Yet they do not show this inability to interbreed.

quote:

---

In any case it can't be a springboard for further variation/evolution as the ToE assumes it is

---

Would you like to back that up with evidence? Since there are no obvious problems with what the ToE actually says.

quote:

---

So I regard this situation as an illusion foisted on us by the ToE without the slightest actual evidentiary support.

---

And yet you have no evidence for this opinion.

The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation" -- They are the scientists after all. DNA analysis would show whether there is enough genetic diversity for further variation or not.

quote:

---

The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation" -- They are the scientists after all.

---

The evidence should come from you, since it is your claim.And we have adequate evidence against your ideas. Even though you try to pretend otherwise.It is a fact that domestic breeding, despite working faster than natural selection (and thus doing more to reduce genetic diversity) does not seem to produce new animal species.It is a fact that we do not see the extreme genetic depletion your ideas would predict in natural species.It is a fact that you have no examples of bottlenecks producing new species either. Despite your claims that the cheetah bottleneck made significant phenotypic changes you produced not the slightest evidence, nor did you with regard to the elephant seal.

I suppose you would need mutations to get from one species to another as the ToE requires, although I don't think mutations could accomplish that anyway, but since in my model there is no genetic relationship whatever between humans and chimps no mutations are needed. Since the way they are described is pretty muddied I can't even get a grip on what they actually do so I've not be able to say much about how my model would deal with them except to say that I regard them as mistakes that don't contribute to the normal mechanisms of variation.

You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.I wonder how many of the new "species" according to the ToE have actually varied beyond their current situation. I think they'd be lucky to increase in numbers, that would at least show a level of vitality such as is possessed by the elephant seals, but further variation? Any examples?

There are no new combinations of alleles that were not possible in the parent population, and if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population.Variations in markings would be due to modified development (see silver foxes) from changes in hormone levels or modified genes for markings. Otherwise they should be in the parent population as well. Again, there is no new characteristics when all you rely on is pure Mendelian reproduction, if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population. At best you get a variety of racoon, not a new species that cannot reproduce with the parent or other similar sub-populations. Typical. Open your eyes, Faith.You are limited in your ability to understand by your ability to understand ...Enjoy

quote:

---

You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.

---

Odd how you keep failing to see the evidence in my post. Here it is again:

It's possible but not necessary. In any case they are going to get emphasized in this new population until they become part of a new general appearance that is different from the parent population, which is what I'm saying is all there is to the formation of new species, such as ring species for example. As I say above, they could, but it's not necessary for them to have been expressed there beyond the occasional occurrence which is hardly noticeable in a large population of motley traits with a general homogeneous appearance. It's all a matter of gene frequencies. I assume they were all in the parent population but for some reason more potential than expressed. This is why I got interested in the exaggerated traits of the pigeons and the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, and the question of how you can have a pretty homogeneous population such as the original lizard population, or the wild pigeon population Darwin had to start with, and get dramatically new phenotypes from it through reproductive isolation. Darwin selected individuals with very slightly enlarged chest or chest feathers, or fan-shaped tail feathers from the normally very homogeneous pigeon population, traits that most of us would probably not notice at all looking at a flock of pigeons, or even examining them individually. He kept breeding those with the most noticeable versions of those selected traits until he got what you see in the pictures. Somehow genes build on themselves: that's what I've been wondering about. You can start with a whole flock of birds of a feather as it were and end up with something dramatically different simply by controlling the gene pool.So there is also the case of a very large herd population with high genetic diversity that can be the source of strongly different traits in daughter populations. So I now have the idea that traits don't necessarily manifest in some obvious way at first, just enough to be selected in breeding, or even in nature, but not enough to show up in a herd unless you go through it individual by individual. It takes the new gene frequencies to begin to emphasize such traits and bring them to observable expression in the new population. You all rely on mutations to explain all this although I don't think that's even possible, but in any case my model has new characteristics emerging even in dramatic ways in daughter populations that didn't get expressed in the parent population, or not to any noticeable degree. Yes, but this becomes a semantic problem because one often runs across such phrases as "species of raccoon" and "species of wildebeest" although there is no reason to think they can't interbreed. I can go back to "variety" if necessary" but I keep finding that no particular terminology is sufficient.To the rest of your post:"whatever." I'm dealing with your objections so you don't need to resort to insults.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.