Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Peg writes:

quote:

---

Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.

---

And now for the most important question:Do you understand what this study is saying? Specifically, do you know what an "indel" is? No, don't look it up. No, don't look up the original study to see if you can glean something from it. You tell us right here and now what you think this study is saying with regard to the genome and what the indels have to say about it?This is actually an important paper you mentioned because it talks about the reason why human/chimp hybridization does not occur. You did read this paper first before you referenced it, yes?And most importantly, why would this paper be indicative of humans and chimps not sharing a common ancestor? Especially since the paper makes great use of the fact that humans and chimps do share a common ancestor in order to make its conclusions?You did read the paper before you referenced it, yes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

There are no specifics except that the animals of the same kind/genus could reproduce.

---

Then how does a ring species fit into your schematic?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

i find it hard to imagine how the two can really compliment each other.

---

How is a method of transferring characteristics from one generation to the next which is not a perfect replication (as no chemical process is ever perfect) problematic?Remember, Darwin was of the mind that the entire body provided the material for heredity, like Lamarck. Lamarckian evolution had the heritable traits collected from throughout the body and distilled into sperm and egg which is why he thought you could have, in the classic example, giraffes getting longer necks over the generations: In the course of living, one's body changed and your reproductive tissues matched since it was made of your longer neck.The problem, of course, is that this means a parent that has had an arm cut off should, in a Lamarckian system, be more likely to have children that don't have that arm. This, of course, isn't true. But while Darwinian evolution avoids this clearly false claim, Darwin still didn't understand exactly how detailed the heritable traits really were. Mendelian genetics actually enhances Darwinian evolution.

quote:

---

If one says traits are inherited, and one says traits are the result of random mutations that lead to new species, how can they be complimentary?

---

Isn't it obvious? In order for traits to pass from one generation to another, they need to be packaged up somehow and delivered to the next generation: The chromosome.But the method by which that chromosome is created is not perfect. No chemical reaction is ever perfect every single time. It necessarily mutates.Thus, the very thing you are railing against is the only rational conclusion: Morphology is governed by the chromosome which is not perfectly transmitted from generation to generation. The morphology most adapted to the environment in which it finds itself is most likely to reproduce. Thus, we see heritability with mutation followed by selection.That is evolution.Your claim requires that the chromosome replicate itself perfectly every single time. Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

You know the fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, no amount of mutation has been shown to change species from their parents form.

---

Incorrect. The exact opposite is true. The fossil record shows nothing but change with new species arising, mutating, and creating even newer species in the blink of an eye. The fossil record is overflowing with transitional forms.Why would you have us lie about that?

quote:

---

it fits the scientific facts.

---

No, it doesn't. We have seen both in the lab and in the wild, changes up and down the taxonomic tree: New species, genera, families, even orders. In our own lifetime. Your undefined "kind" label is nothing more than a dodge to account for the fact that you cannot deny actual speciation. It is naught but the same "micro"/"macro" fallacy.Again, how does a ring species fit into your scheme?

quote:

---

Do you believe that humans evolved from the apes?

---

Your question is a bit nonsensical as it presumes that humans aren't apes. But, if we go with the taxonomic distinctions between humans and other primates, then the answer to your question is no. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor that was none of them.I am not my cousin.
My cousin is not me.
I am not descended from my cousin.
My cousin is not descended from me.Instead, my cousin and I are descended from a common ancestor who is neither my cousin nor me: Our grandparents.

quote:

---

For example there are hundreds of different dog breeds but none of these varieties is another kind.

---

You really think an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua are capable of breeding?Ah, but you're referring to simple conjugation, so I ask you once again, how does a ring species fit into your scheme?

quote:

---

I dont really know, but we know it happens because humans with chromosome problems are generally handicap.

---

Are you going to say that it is always, no chance of deviation, result in less fitness? That it is impossible for chromosomal variations to result in equal or increased fitness?Because that's the entire point behind selection: Those variations that aren't as fit as their compatriots will be less likely to reproduce while those that are as fit or more so will be more likely to reproduce. So even if it is a rare occurrence for these variations to come up with something good, the good ones will be selected for when they do come up.So again: Are you saying that all chromosomal variations are always deleterious, no chance of ever being beneficial, ever?Because you do realize that you are a chromosomal variation compared to your parents, yes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to Bluejay:

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is absolutely no reason to think that Mendelian genetics cannot create new species.

---

​

why?

---

Because the replication of the chromosome is not perfect from one generation to the next. No chemical process is.Are you suggesting that something other than chemistry is involved in chromosomal replication such that it is always perfect?

quote:

---

They are relevant because some dogs cannot breed with other dogs due to differences in size/shape/genetics...but they are still the same kind.

---

Why? Wouldn't reproductive isolation be the hallmark of being different kinds?But if you're going to insist upon conjugation as the defining characteristic, then how does a ring species fit into your scheme?

quote:

---

If other kinds also cannot breed as in the ring species, then why should it be considered as an entirely new species?

---

Huh? This sentence makes no sense. Can you expand upon it, please? A ring species is precisely the thing you are claiming cannot possibly happen: Inability to reproduce through a clear reproductive history. Each adjacent species is interfertile, but the two on the ends are incompatible.By your logic, there is no shift in "kind" as one traverses the ring, but there is clearly a shift in "kind" once one finally reaches the other end. Each individual step is small, but the accumulated steps take you as far away from the original spot as you care to go.

quote:

---

However, mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism.

---

They've also been shown to be neutral and beneficial to an organism. Surely you aren't saying that every single mutation is always, without exception, deleterious, are you? Because you do know that you most likely carry three to six mutations compared to your parents, yes?You are neglecting to account for selection. Even if we assume that most mutations are harmful (and they are most decidedly not), those harmful ones will be selected against. The beneficial ones, even if they are rare, will be selected for. Accumulate enough, and reproductive isolation and speciation will necessarily take place.There's no way to stop it.

quote:

---

They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now.

---

There isn't a single word in that sentence that is true.Not one.They produce everything new and this has been shown in every single experiment ever conducted.Here's an experiment that you can run in the privacy of your own bio lab. It's simple, inexpensive, and can be done by high school students:Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.We have seen evolutionary change from the smallest shifts to new species, genera, even orders and families, all right in front of our eyes.Why are you demanding that we lie about this?Simple question: What would it take for you to say that evolution has been shown? What experiment would have to be run and what outcome would it have to have in order for you to conclude that it was evolution?Be specific.And then tell us why you think what you are demanding hasn't been done. Note: Just because you are unaware of the experiment having been done doesn't mean it hasn't. When was the last time you were in a science library reading the literature to look for this information? If you aren't looking for the answers to your questions, is anybody surprised that you haven't found it?And no, "But it's still a bacterium!" is not a rational response. This is not about speciation. This is about your direct claim that "mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism. They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now."There's an experiment that you can do for yourself which has mutation happen not once but twice, both times resulting in beneficial results.So do you still stand by your claim?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your claim requires that the chromosome replicate itself perfectly every single time. Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

---

​

depends what you mean by perfect.

---

Let us not play dumb.

quote:

---

in humans the number of chromosomes of the newly replicated individual consist of 23 from each parent, so the new individual should have characteristics of both parents which gives them their individuality.

​

If thats not perfect, then what is?

---

Let us not play dumb. "Perfect" would mean that every genetic sequence in the child, every gene, every intron, can be found in the parents: Absolutely no mutations of any kind. No point substitutions, no insertions, no deletions, no repetitions, no frame shifts, no nothing. Every sequence of codons in the child can be found in either the father's chromosomal sequence or the mother's.Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

prehistoric creatures are still alive today

---

Incorrect. Creatures that are alive today are not the same as those that were alive hundreds of thousands of years ago. Their gross morphology may be similar, but their fine structure is not and for when we can find genetic sequences, we find those have changed, too.

quote:

---

and havent changed their form

---

Incorrect. They have changed their form. Not so much that an untrained observer such as yourself would notice, but then most humans think all squirrels look alike. It takes someone who is trained in the morphology to be able to notice the changes.

quote:

---

the frill shark and goblin shark are recent examples of being found alive.

---

Except they don't look like their ancient ancestors. As an untrained observer, you will be hard-pressed to see the differences, but someone trained in the morphology will be able to show you the changes that have arisen over the generations.

quote:

---

So why havnt they mutated after millions of years?

---

They have. What on earth makes you think they haven't? Surely you aren't suggesting that mutations must cause drastic changes in morphology, are you? Have you forgotten about selection so quickly? When selection pressures are strong, morphology will be conserved even though underlying mutations are still taking place.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You really think an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua are capable of breeding?

​

Ah, but you're referring to simple conjugation, so I ask you once again, how does a ring species fit into your scheme?

---

​

perhaps the same way a wolfhound and a chihuahua does.

---

No. Do you even know what a ring species is? An Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua will still be capable of conjugation of their gametes. But the ends of the ring species cannot achieve that.By your logic, that is impossible. And yet, that is precisely what we observe.Why would you have us lie about it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you going to say that it is always, no chance of deviation, result in less fitness? That it is impossible for chromosomal variations to result in equal or increased fitness?

---

​

That is exactly what we see.

---

Incorrect. The E. coli experiment proves you wrong. Not only once but twice. Mutation results in increased fitness: The first time when the bacteria mutate to survive the phage infection and the second time when the phage mutate to gain a new host specificity. In both cases, it results in increased fitness because the generations survive to continue to reproduce.That's the entire concept behind antibiotic resistance: Mutations result in increased fitness to the environment.Or are you saying there is no such thing as antibiotic resistance?

quote:

---

If a human gets 1 extra chromosome, it becomes a down syndrom with sever mental retardation and many physical abnormalities.

---

Incorrect. Plants go through polyploidy all the time. Those gigantic strawberries you get at the market? They're the result of not just an extra chromosome but rather wholesale duplication of the entire chromosomal package. Rather than having one set of chromosomes, they have two or three or even more. They're still quite fertile, quite capable of reproduction, and given that humans like them so much, they tend to be the ones that get selected to reproduce.What makes you think that the only way to increase chromosomal number is by complete duplication of a chromosome? Looking at our chromosomes, it appears that some of them broke apart and then acquired genetic mutations that inserted new material. Certainly in the case of chromosome 2, it is a fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes that are found in other primates.There are plenty of ways of changing chromosomal number that aren't detrimental to the organism.Take Przewalski's Horse. It has a different number of chromosomes than common horses: 66 for Przewalski compared to 64 for common horses. And yet, they can interbreed.Guess how many chromosomes the offspring of a common horse/Przewalski horse has?Hint: It is neither 64 nor 66.Why would you have us lie about this?

quote:

---

Spontaneous abortions are believed to be the result of the fetus lacking a chromosome. So, in humans, it is impossible to be born with an incorrect chromosome number and be fitter then ones parents.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?Hint: What aneuploidy might you have right now and not even know it because you've never bothered to test for it and it doesn't present itself as that unusual?

quote:

---

Yes i realise that, but I also have exactly 46 chromosomes

---

Are you sure? Have you actually had a genetic test to determine that? There are some aneuploidy traits you'd never know you had unless you deliberately went looking for them. Are you sure you don't have one?

quote:

---

which is why I am capable of reproducing

---

And the aneuploidy trait I'm thinking of leaves you fertile. Are you sure you don't have it?

quote:

---

anything less and i wouldnt have survived, anything more and I wouldnt be able to reproduce.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?We see various ploidy variations happening all the time across all species without there being any barrier to fertility or fitness. Have you bothered to check your chromosomal makeup to determine that you don't carry one?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

This is exactly how genetics work

---

But the example I gave is of evolution. According to you, genetics and evolution are incompatible. So how is it that evolution can be shown to occur precisely and specifically because of genetics?

quote:

---

the problem is that this isnt an example of 'mutation'

---

Incorrect. It is precisely an example of mutation. Remember: All the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor. Therefore, if there is no mutation, then the entire lawn is genetically identical. But if the entire lawn is genetically identical, then absolutely none of them should survive the infection of T4 phage.But some colonies do survive.Therefore, there must have been mutation.And, indeed, when we sequence the genome of the survivors and compare it to the genome of the originating ancestor, we find mutations.If you claim there are no mutations, then please explain how identical genomes have different reactions to infection by T4 phage.As I mentioned in my post, you need to examine the case of bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon oligimers. It is the result of a single frameshift mutation.Or are you saying that there was no such mutation? That the scientists who examined this were incompetent fools at best, evil liars at worst?

quote:

---

its an example of how 'genetics' work

---

You do understand that genetics includes mutation, yes?We're back to the question you tried to play dumb to:Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

and how its presence in one individual can show up in some but not all at different times.

---

Incorrect. The bacteria necessarily act as a group if there is no mutation: Either all live or all die because they are all descended from the same singular ancestor.So please explain why genetically identical organisms have one live and one die when infected with T4 phage.Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

You call it mutation, i call it genetics.

---

Mutation is part and parcel of genetics.Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So do you still stand by your claim?

---

​

Yes, I sure do.

---

Then you did the experiment, yes?If not, what makes you think you're in any position to stand by your claim?Please explain how two genetically identical organisms will have one live and one die when infected by T4 phage? Especially when the ones who live always seem to be clumped together? If it were completely independent of any chromosomal mutation, then the bacteria that would survive infection would be scattered throughout the lawn uniformly.But that isn't what we see. Instead, the survivors always appear in colonies, as if they had inherited their resistance via mutations in the chromosome.Why is it your explanation looks exactly like what mutation would cause and yet not be mutation?Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

a dog will always produce a dog and a cat will alway produce a cat

---

Then are lions and ocelots both "cats"?And how do ring species fit into this scheme?

quote:

---

Evolution would have us believe that these animals will eventually go thru so much change that they will become a different type of animal with different traits and different habits, instincts and diets

---

That's what the fossil record clearly shows. It's how we have the transition from Hyracotherium to Equus.Why would you have us lie about this?

quote:

---

Creationists accept that variety exists within the different 'kinds' of animals, and this is due to genetics.

---

Indeed, but this is only after they spent decades indicating that there couldn't be any variation at all. When it became clear that speciation could actually happen, they simply moved the "kind" definition up the taxonomic tree.It's why they came up with the false "micro-"/"macro-" distinction.

quote:

---

this is factual and has been proved beyond doubt that its an accurate description of life and why it changes.

---

There's not a single word in that statement that's true. The exact opposite is true: The chromosome does not replicate perfectly but instead mutates to provide different morphologies. Those genetic mutations are then subjected to the selection pressures of the environment. Eventually, the accumulated mutations cause enough morphological change that a new species arises.Question: Do you think speciation has ever been observed?Question: If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Indeed, but this is only after they spent decades indicating that there couldn't be any variation at all. When it became clear that speciation could actually happen, they simply moved the "kind" definition up the taxonomic tree.

---

​

im not sure if thats true or not

---

It's the entire basis for creationists whining about "microevolution" and "macroevolution": The original claim was that evolution was absolutely impossible. In no way, shape, or form could there ever be evolution.But then it became to difficult to deny the evidence staring them in the face. When you can achieve reproductive isolation in 13 generations, it becomes difficult to say that it is a biological impossibility.So they simply moved the goalposts: OK, so evolution is possible, but it's "microevolution" and not "macroevolution," as if there were such a distinction at all. If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10 and the genome can mutate and change as much as you like. There is nothing to stop it.Witness your own claims: In trying to pin you down as to what you mean by "kind," you've kept moving the goalposts. Anything to allow you to keep your "kind" categorization pristine and unsullied by having one "kind" give rise to another.It's why you keep saying "cat kind" without explaining why lions and ocelots are somehow not the same kind while lions and tigers are.

quote:

---

but it certainly sounds familiar...when people began to realise that life does not spontaneously generate, evolutionists changed tact too

---

Evolution was never about spontaneous generation.Why would you have us lie about that?

quote:

---

great, so now genetics has nothing to do with evolution either?

---

No, genetics has everything to do with evolution. You're the one trying to portray a false distinction between them.In short: You don't know what "genetics" is and thus, your description of what it is and how it works is fundamentally flawed and your statements contain no veracity.Notice your claim that somehow an organism that reproduces by cloning isn't "mutating" when it gives rise to new genetic traits. You call the appearance of these new traits "genetics" rather than "evolution." You pretend that those aren't the same thing. Evolution is genetic change over time.

quote:

---

and im not sure what you're trying to imply with your 2nd equation

---

If you can evolve a little, you can evolve a lot. There's nothing to stop it. There is no "kind" barrier. How on earth does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate anymore because that next one will result in a different "kind" compared to the original?That's why I keep asking you about ring species: Each adjacent species pair is interfertile, but the two species at the ends are not. The genome changes little by little, each time maintaining compatibility with the close neighbor but by the time the journey is finished, there is so much change that it is completely incompatible with the point of origin.And thus, we have a new "kind" which is, according to your definition, two organisms that cannot achieve gamete conjugation.A ring species is a direct presentation of new "kinds" arising via evolution.Why would you have us lie about it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

but i didnt draw the conclusion in the experiement I posted, the scientist did.

---

Incorrect. That is not what was concluded.Again, you are pretending that there is some distinction between "genetics" and "evolution." This is because you don't know what "genetics" is.Once again, I ask you directly:Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

jasonlang writes:

quote:

---

Sexual reproduction inevitably reduces genetic variation, regardless of whether you believe in natural seleciton or not (only 50% of the DNA from your parents is in you, the other half is lost).

---

Um, I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that only 50% of an individual parent shows up in any individual offspring? If so, that's true. But in a reproducing population, you have to remember that there is more than one offspring and the genes are continually being mixed among each other. So yes, 50% of your particular set of genes is lost, but chances are a good deal of them are present in your mate and thus your offspring will have most of them.Other couples have different starting sets and thus the general population of organisms maintains the diversity of the genome. This is basic population genetics. Assume a simple dominant/recessive allele pair:Let p be the percentage of the dominant allele in the population.Let q be the percentage of the recessive allele in the population.Thus, p + q = 1.But here's the thing, the breeding square for the population is:p² + 2pq + q²This is the percentage of organisms that are homozygous dominant (p²), heterozygous (2pq), and homozygous recessive (q²). But this equation also equals 1. That's because it is stable. It is only if there is a selective pressure regarding some morphology that the frequencies shift.This was a question from my intro bio class when we hit population biology:Suppose there is a dominant/recessive trait where the expression of the recessive trait is 1-in-1,000. Suppose no organisms who express the recessive trait reproduce. How many generations will it take before the expression of the recessive trait falls from 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-1,000,000?This is where the "founder effect" comes from: If you reduce the population of breeding pairs sufficiently, you don't have a spanning set of the original diversity. Whereas the original set had a larger number of possible alleles to undergo mutation, the founding set has less. Thus, any mutations that do show up have an easier time becoming established in the population because there is less competition from other alleles.

quote:

---

Maintaining a continuous level of genetic diversity in the face of inevitable reduction requires mutation. Without it all species would end up as clones.

---

This isn't true. All you need is a sufficiently large population to maintain genetic mix. In a stable environment, there is little pressure to have allele shifts. It's how neutral drift works.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

does this happen in human populations?

---

Why is this important? Surely you aren't saying that unless we see reproductive isolation right here and right now, then humans are somehow immune to evolution, are you?But the answer to your question is yes: Humans and other apes are no longer interfertile.

quote:

---

but as i said earlier, genesis speaks of both domestic kinds and wild kinds

---

But you still haven't defined what a "kind" is. Instead, you always approach it ad hoc: Looking at what the evidence shows and then altering your definition of "kind" to fit. You are incapable of predicting whether or not two organisms will be of the same "kind" because you don't know what a "kind" is. It is a desperate clutching at straws specifically designed to maintain a preconceived idea.

quote:

---

therefore, there would have been a domestic cat kind along with the wild cat kinds created.

---

Huh? Lions are "domestic cats"? Ocelots are "domestic cats"? Domestic cats are a very specific species: Felis catus. It would help if you could tell us why lions and tigers are the same "kind" but lions and ocelots are not. What is the biological description that causes you to put one set of species together but exclude others.

quote:

---

Genesis does not imply that only one kind of cat was created.

---

Great. Now all you need to do is define what a "kind" is. And do it in such a way that you can predict where organisms will call rather than only ever doing so after the fact.

quote:

---

More evidence of this is with the birds. Noah had on the ark numerous birds of different 'kinds' and we know this because he was said to let our of the ark a 'raven' and a 'dove'

---

But why? Why are ravens and doves different "kinds"? And which raven are you talking about? Which dove? Do you realize just how many Corvids there are? How many Columbiformes? If a "kind" is that far up the taxonomic tree, then you run into the hyper-evolution problem where you necessarily require extinction after the first generation because the genetic change required to get from the original "kinds" to the outrageous diversity we see now would require every single individual to be incapable of breeding with any other individual due to the need to expand genetic diversity from those original "kinds."

quote:

---

perhaps you should ask those who have tried to cross breed monkeys with humans and dogs with cats

---

What on earth does this have to do with anything? The fact that the genome can evolve as much as you like doesn't mean every organism is gamete-compatible with every other organism. That would be a huge blow to evolution if that were true.It is because the genome can evolve as much as you like that there is a problem cross-breeding wildly different species: Way back when, the ancestors of all those organisms were interfertile because they were all the same species. But over time, the genome evolved and populations split off from each other, becoming reproductively isolated.

quote:

---

Saying there is no species barrier

---

Huh? Where on earth did I say there was no species barrier to reproduction? What I said was that there is no barrier to evolutionary change. The genome can change as much as you like. In fact, it can change so much that it becomes incapable of breeding with its ancestral stock.How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate anymore because the next mutation will result in a different "kind"?

quote:

---

Ok, and what are the examples in the human population of a ring species?

---

What on earth are you talking about? Why does there have to be a ring species in humans in order for humans to have evolved? Surely you aren't saying that unless we see reproductive isolation right here and right now, then humans are somehow immune to evolution, are you?You still haven't answered my two direct questions:How does a ring species fit into your scheme?Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?This is at least the third time I have asked you both of those questions directly. How many times must I ask them before you bother to answer?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

so can you tell me if the bacteria are still bacteria?

---

Hah! Just as I predicted! Message 195You're moving the goalposts again, Peg. First, you were claiming that it was impossible to have mutation. Now you're whining that the mutation we've shown you to actually exist didn't result in the equivalent of an ostrich being hatched from an alligator's egg, as if evolution predicted such a thing.Of course they're still bacteria, Peg. This is an experiment that takes less than a week from start to finish. What on earth were you expecting? That Adam would emerge from the petri dish? The entire point of the experiment was to show you that your fundamental claim that there can be no mutation is absolutely and completely flawed. That your claim of "mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism" is nowhere near true except in the most naive sense. That your insistence that "They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now" is naught but a lie born of ignorance and fueled by zealotry.This is precisely what I predicted you would do, Peg.What do you have to say for yourself?

quote:

---

and how long should it be before the see the bacteria going thru so much change that it is no longer a bacteria?

---

We can achieve reproductive isolation in as little as 13 generations.What were you expecting?If you have to move the goalposts, Peg, it means your argument is wrong. If you want evidence of speciation, then that's a different question.If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

I didnt explain it but in terms of the different breeds, which i'm told are different species, then any two cows could be taken on the ark and we could still end up with the same number of breeds we have today because all cows are the same 'kind'

---

But you're doing precisely what has been predicted: Changing the definition of "kind" to suit your preconceived notion.Why are lions and tigers the same "kind" but not lions and ocelots?Exactly where is this "kind" break? You've been insinuating it is where gamete conjugation fails, but you have yet to explain how ring species fit into this scheme. Each adjacent pair of species is gamete compatible and thus there is no "kind" shift. But the species on the ends of the ring are gamete incompatible and thus are different "kinds" by your vague definition.That's precisely how reproductive isolation happens, Peg: Small changes such that while you're in the thick of it, you don't notice it. But when you bother to look up to see how far you've come, you see that you've completely changed.How does the genome know that it isn't supposed to mutate anymore because that next one will create a new "kind"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.