And evolution, the production of a new phenotype, requires the loss of the genetic material for other phenotypes. That means no matter how many mutations you get the production of a new phenotype means losing all but those that contribute to the new phenotype. This is a process of overall loss, not gain. You need gain to keep evolving.
Why would you need "gain" in order to keep evolving, as you define it? It seems that the production of new phenotypes and the loss of old phenotypes is all you need to keep evolving.
The definition of the Kind it seems to me is the point where you run out of genetic diversity.
Since every individual in every generation is born with new genetic diversity it would seem that your definition of Kind can never be used.
Macroevolution implies the open-ended continuation of change until one species becomes a recognizable new species. This can't happen. You run out of genetic diversity after producing lots of different rabbits or whatever the genome defines. You can never get beyond the rabbit.
How can you run out of genetic diversity when new genetic diversity is being produced in every generation?
It seems that, when creationists claim that macroevolution doesn't happen, they are describing something which, on the molecular level, doesn't seem to have been required in this life system.
I completely agree. When asked for a single DNA sequence difference between the human and chimp genome that required macroevolution instead of microevolution, I have yet to see a creationist point to a single difference that required macroevolution.
Everybody here except you argues that mutation is the necessary gain, acknowledging that gain, or increased genetic diversity, is needed for evolution.
The problem is that you haven't shown that "genetic diversity", as you define it, is needed for evolution (or macroevolution).
New phenotypes only come at the cost of genetic diversity, so eventually no further evolution is possible.
You keep forgetting that mutations produce new phenotypes on a continual basis. New phenotypes become old phenotypes as new mutations appear.
Added in edit: Just to make this a bit clearer . . .
Let's say you start with a single gene that has one allele, allele A, that is fixed throughout the population. A mutation occurs in gene A to produce allele B. It turns out that allele B is fitter than allele A, so over time allele A diminishes in number until it is completely replaced by allele B.
A few generations later a mutation occurs in allele B to produce allele C. Turns out that allele C is fitter than allele B. Over time, allele C replaces allele B.
A few generations later a mutation occurs in allele C to produce allele D. Turns out allele D is fitter than allele C. Over time, allele D replaces allele C.
A few generations later a mutation . . . well, you should get the idea by now.
Producing new phenotypes that become characteristic of a new population or species requires the loss of competing phenotypes.
When those new phenotypes become fixed in the population, then they become the old phenotype as new alleles appear.
You can get lots of variation and lots of new species from mere splits in the population, but eventually enough evolution in one direction will lead to the condition of depleted genetic diversity from which further evolution is impossible.
All the increases in genetic diversity by mutation still get reduced when you are getting evolution,
And then genetic diversity increases again when new mutations occur.
Evolution always cuts down the genetic diversity, no matter what.
Mutations add genetic diversity.
Also the mutation is occurring to a gene, which governs a particular trait, so the best you can get is a new version of that trait. It may even be selected and become part of the new species, but it will never get you beyond the one trait of that one species.
Then how is it that different species have different traits?
AND that many beneficial mutations in a sex cell, which is the only way they would get passed on, is not possible anyway.
Based on what evidence?
There are 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, yet they both function just fine.
It doesn't matter how many mutations you have, TO GET EVOLUTION, MEANING A CHANGE IN A POPULATION, THEY HAVE TO BE DECREASED. Add a hundred if you like, you are going to have to get rid of most of them in order to have evolution.
In my example we started with this DNA sequence:
After several steps, we ended up with this DNA sequence:
Are you saying that a 15% (3 out of 19 bases) change in DNA sequence is not evolution?
The differences in DNA sequence are built into the genome of the Kind. They are capable of producing a great deal of variation within the Kind.
In order to evolve a new kind you would need to change the DNA sequence, correct?
The processes that bring about the changes in phenotype entail loss of genetic diversity,
Mutations increase genetic diversity. You are simply wrong.
so that you get new variations or subspecies (or breeds) by losing the alleles for other variations, and ultimately, down a particular line of evolution (or breeding) the new species or breed has only those alleles for that species or breed and has lost the alleles for other species or breeds.
You are once again ignoring the mutations that increase genetic diversity. For example, the mutations that produce black coat color in pocket mice. That phenotype was caused by mutations. It changed a phenotype and increased genetic diversity.
To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.
I would assume that you think chimps and humans are in different kinds. So what difference is there between the chimp and human genome that can't be produced by the types of mutations we see occurring every day?
As I keep saying increasing genetic diversity 1) is not evolution and 2) to get evolution requires reducing whatever genetic diversity is present, no matter what its origin.
And I keep showing how that argument is refuted by the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity.
Evolution as I'm using it means establishing a new population with new traits that differentiate it from the parent population. THAT is what requires reducing genetic diversity.