Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?

It has been. And for simplicity sake it is evolution.

Micro and macro are just focal lenses for looking at evolution.

The micro lens looks at the changes in traits within a breeding population generation, and (in scientific usage anyway) the macro lens looks at the accumulation of changes over many generations ... but all the changes are due to "micro" evolution -- all evolution occurs within the living generations by microevolution.

Creationists often have a misconception of "macroevolution" as some sudden appearance of new species that are not of the same "kind" -- a preposterous interpretation -- and that is why I prefer to not use those terms.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Fixed it for you.

Mutations happen, the evidence is undeniable to people that look at evidence.

Mutations can cause new phenotypes, the evidence is undeniable to people that look at evidence.

When you only look at half the picture you only see half the picture.

You can blind yourself, but you can't blind others, and that is why your silly arguments are never accepted as rational explanations of the real world.

Enjoy

WRONG. The phenotype is based on the expressed genes in the genotype, and there are several ways new mutations can be expressed.

Mutations can affect fetal development (thalidomide caused mutation) or be expressed in the phenotype (black pocket mice, dark peppered moths etc), or they can be neutral and later utilized with a following mutation to confer a benefit (several examples).

You talk about hidden alleles, but ignore mutations. That is you avoiding the evidence.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Mutations are not necessary for some evolution, but they are involved in some evolution, evolution that results in new phenotypes (like black mice).

When you only talk about half of the vast expanse of evolution, then your explanation is only half vast.

Mutations happen, regularly.

Some mutations affect phenotypes directly, and thus are open to selection - ie are part of evolution.

Some mutations affect phenotypes indirectly (when coupled with another mutation for instance), and thus are then open to selection - ie are part of evolution.

We have evidence of this, so your denial is useless.

Enjoy

That's what happens with make up stuff. You have to remember the lies you already told.

In the real world the real scientists don't need to remember what is true, and that includes real evolution.

Every thread you have been told you were wrong.

Did anyone with a science degree in biology agree completely with you ever?

No.

Therefore "information" is useless as a parameter for studying evolution or for predicting what can and cannot evolve.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Enjoy

So the "created kind" evolves by losing genetic diversity ...

... then does any mutation that adds to the genetic diversity mean it is evolution outside the kind?

inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

I didn't ask you.

Enjoy

Except you didn't really answer the question. Let's clarify.

So the issue is adding function, not just adding diversity?

Not all mutations are "switches" and some are change of function -- does that meet the criteria of "outside the kind?"

Also copying a gene switch, so that one version can be always maintain the original on/off function and the other be utilized to switch a new function on/off would add diversity and function -- does that meet the criteria of "outside the kind?"

... of artificial selection that ignores the functional role of natural selection in non-domestic species to improve the fitness of the species by removing the unfit.

You can also do the link with dB coding: [url=http://... ]the researchers write.[/url]

The deleterious effects of in-breeding are well known. Using an example with a priori known in-breeding genetic deleterious effects as an example for all evolution is disingenuous at best and intentionally misleading at worst. It's like a straw man argument that only addresses a portion of the story.

While still maintained as a source of pets, the dogs would still be selected based on personal choice for desired traits, and as such would still not be totally free of artificial selection ... (ever been to a dog-pound? They often kill the "undesirable" ones, regardless of ability to survive and breed).

Are these hybrid mongrels healthier than the pure-breeds? Do they benefit from mixing traits of other dogs to become desirable pets?

Feral dogs would be free to interbreed with coyotes and wolves and their ability to survive and reproduce would depend on their fitness to their environment.

Are these feral hybrids healthier than the pure-breeds? Do they benefit from mixing traits of other dogs and canids to become fit to survive and breed in their environment?

Is a coywolf a new breed/variety/species? Do they benefit from mixing traits of other dogs and canids to become fit to survive and breed in their environment?

quote:

---

Coywolf (sometimes called woyote) is an informal term for a canid hybrid descended from coyotes and gray wolves. Hybridization between the two species is facilitated by the fact that they diverged relatively recently (around 6,000–117,000 years ago). Genomic studies indicate that nearly all North American gray wolf populations possess some degree of admixture with coyotes following a geographic cline, with the lowest levels occurring in Alaska, but the highest in Ontario and Quebec as well as Atlantic Canada.[1]

---

Are they members of the wolf kind, coyote kind or canid kind or a new kind? They seem to thrive in urbanized environments.

Which is precisely what evolution predicts. Amazing.

Take a small founding population and restrict the gene flow into the population and you will have different frequencies of alleles in that population than in the general population. Allow it to reproduce unrestrained and new mutations will occur, many that normal artificial breeding control will eliminate from the breeding population because they will be outside the breed ...

But they will always be descendants of dogs wolves and hence always part of the dog wolf clade.

SO, we are working on defining "kind" by what it isn't? ... helpful.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : wolf clade includes all dogs