I've admired the Grants since reading The Beak of the Finch in 1994.
We were assigned that book in my Senior Seminar at university (not long after that 1994 date). I really enjoyed it as well. What was so amazing is that they could follow every individual in an entire breeding population. I remember reading that they could use year to year changes in specific beak features to predict what that years rainfall was like.
Like you said, ICR has no option but to poop on good science, but what do you expect?
This is a process of elijminating genetic potentials and reducing genetic diversity.
All the while ignoring the fact that random mutation produces new genetic potentials and increases genetic diversity.
We've already seen your little song and dance.
Just THINK about this for a while. I've been thinking about it for years so you are at a disadvantage but I'm sure your superior mental abilities can overcome the handicap with a little work.
Just think about how each new offspring is born with mutations that increase genetic diversity. Just think about how a lack of interbreeding between populations will cause different mutations to accumulate in each population, resulting in divergence over time.
If mutations really did produce the fur color variations in the pocket mouse, which I dispute anyway, in order to get a POPULATION of one color of the mouse REQUIRES that the alleles for the other color be ELIMINATED from the population.
False on two counts. If all evolution does is eliminate variation then you wouldn't have the new fur color to begin with. Second, the light allele still exists in the population with black fur since the black fur allele is dominant.
I believe genetic diversity is built in to all Species and that mutation adds nothing useful at all,
That is what you believe, but the evidence contradicts your beliefs. When you are ready to talk about the real world instead of your beliefs, then we can have a discussion on science.
I'm going to ignore all this stuff because it's irrelevant. None of it changes the fact that to GET VARIATION, NEW RACES, BREEDS, SUBSPECIES, requires the reduction of genetic diversity.
I am going to ingore all of that stuff becuase it's irrelevant. None of it changes the fact that mutations occur in every generation and increase the genetic variation in the population. In humans, we each have 50 mutations that are not found in either of our parents. In just a small town of 50,000 people, that is 2.5 million new mutations in a single generation.
It is a simple FACT that ought to be clear to anyone willing to think about it, that you HAVE to get reduced genetic diversity in order to get a new subspecies. This is NOT easy to grasp, it takes some thought but it IS simple and it IS factual.
It is a simple fact that mutations occur in every generation that adds to the mutations that occurred in the previous generation. This increases genetic variation.
It is a simple fact that separate populations will accumulate different mutations, causing those separated populations to diverge over time.
They haven't noticed it because they assume the processes of evolution are open-ended because that's what the ToE requires.
We OBSERVE that offspring are born with mutations not found in their parents. We OBSERVE that populations diverge over time if we restrict gene flow between the populations. We OBSERVE new phenotypes emerging due to mutations, such as the change in fur color in rock pocket mice.
What I said was that the only evidence is for the normal variations within a Species (microevolution), and there is no evidence whatever for any variation beyond that. That's an actual fact.
What genetic event, if observed, would prove you wrong? What would we need to see in a comparison of the human and chimp genome in order to conclude that they share a common ancestor?
The new phenotypes emerge due to the shuffling of the allele frequencies brought about by the reproductive isolation alone working on the BUILT-IN alleles shared within the new populations.
Evidence please. In the case of the rock pocket mice, the dark allele is not found in the rest of the population, and it is not due to a combination of the existing light fur alleles. You are clearly wrong.
BUT EVEN IF MUTATIONS WERE THE SOURCE OF THE NEW PHENOTYPES, you still have to have a reduction, sometimes elimination, of the competing alleles for the traits that emerge in the new population.
If that mutation only happens in one population, and is selected for, what you have is two populations with different alleles, and different alleles than were found in their ancestors. That is an increase in genetic variation by every measure.