Does everyone agree that all the life we see around us can be produced by microevolution, ...
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.
Mutations are not microevolution. Microevolution is changes in the phenotype not the DNA ...
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.
I've argued this many times before on my own threads and others' threads. I try to repeat the argument when necessary but it gets frustrating when nobody remembers my former versions and I have to start all over, and I'm running out of steam. ...
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?
Mutations can increase genetic diversity without increasing information. E.g. If there is a point substitution such that the codon produces the same amino acid there would be a new allele but no change in produced protein or in the phenotype. It could even change the amino acid without changing the function of the protein.
A mutation can also change a function without it increasing information, such as in the sickle cell trait. This produces defective red blood cells but also provides some protection against malaria. A defect in the MC1R gene results in red hair.
The original kinds from the ark could have had up to 4 alleles for each gene, more for the clean kinds. Mutations could have increased alleles and diversity without increasing information.
Therefore "information" is useless as a parameter for studying evolution or for predicting what can and cannot evolve.
Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
... then does any mutation that adds to the genetic diversity mean it is evolution outside the kind?
So clearly RAZD's question can be answered in the negative.
Except you didn't really answer the question. Let's clarify.
Using the analogy of a light switch. A functioning on/off switch is the archetype. Broken always on and broken always off add diversity but not function. An on/off switch that transformed into a dimmer switch would be much more interesting but would still be a lightswitch.
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?"
Dog breeding provides a good example ...
... 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.
"Small population size during domestication and strong artificial selection for breed-defining traits has unintentionally increased the numbers of deleterious genetic variants," the researchers write.'
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.
... Allow dogs to freely breed and there would be regression toward the mean to produce a range of mongrels. ...
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.
Are they members of the wolf kind, coyote kind or canid kind or a new kind? They seem to thrive in urbanized environments.
... but the product is still a dog. ...
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 dogswolves and hence always part of the dogwolf clade.
So clearly RAZD's question can be answered in the negative.
SO, we are working on defining "kind" by what it isn't? ... helpful.