A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Faith, if this is too big I can break it down into smaller chunks. Indeed, microevolution is one part of macroevolution, and the other part is time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.Let's take anagenesis -- lineal evolution -- for example:If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.This doesn't result in nested hierarchies, because there is no branching. However all breeding populations go through this process, and you can draw a lineage chart of populations one generation at a time. The oldest in the lineage would be the parent population, and each following generation would be their descendants.The first generation of descendants would have ancestral (P1) traits plus some derived (P2) traits due to mutations.The second generation of descendants would have fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, and some new derived (P3) traits due to mutations.The third generation of descendants would have even fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, some second descendant derived (P3) traits due to mutations and some third descendant derived (P4) traits due to mutations.etc.Thus we can look at the traits, either morphologically or genetically, and see this pattern.The parent population would have P1 traits, but no P2, P3 or P4 traitsThe second generation of descendants would have some P1 traits and some P2 traits but no P3 or P4 traitsThe third generation of descendants would have fewer P1 traits, some P2 traits and some P3 traits but no P4 traits.This is the evidence that demonstrates lineal descent from a parent population, and this necessarily holds for all evolved species. Thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution.This can be tracked for every species back in time to the first ancestor of that lineage ... if evolution is true ...But there is another mechanism to macroevolution that causes the nested hierarchies and that is cladogenesis, or divergent speciation: The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species. The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.Note that because each lineage going backwards in time has the same evolutionary constraints on the inheritance of traits parent populations that are seen in anagensis:Population D will have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits.Population E will also have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D.Population F will also have some traits from A and B plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D and E and they will not have any traits from C or its descendants.Population H will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E and F and they will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.Population I will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E, F and H and they too will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.This is the basics of a nested hierarchy:

• C and its descendants D and E form a clade that is nested under B.
• B and its descendants C (with its descendants D and E) and F form a clade that is nested under A.
• G and its descendants H and I form a clade that is nested under A.
• Finally A, B and G (with their descendants) form a clade that includes all the descendant populations in the pattern shown.

Again, this is the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution, and thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution. This pattern should also hold for kinds, each reproducing according to their kind, however they should terminate in the past with original created kinds rather than continue to fit into nested hierarchies until all life is related on one original populations (LUCA) as a prediction of the Theory of Evolution.This creates a distinguishing test between the theory of evolution and the theory of descent from kinds. The only mechanisms of macroevolution are microevolution and time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.It is not assumption to see the evidence of nested hierarchies in the objective empirical evidence from the fossil record and the DNA/genetic record. It is not assumption to see that these records match in their formation of nested hierarchies, and it is not assumption to see that no stopping at created kinds is observed.

• The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is congruent with the theory of evolution.
• The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is NOT congruent with the theory of descent from kinds, because no multiple created kinds have singular starting points (creation) with no older ancestors that have common ancestors with other lineages.

Hardly trivial, IMHO.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added first line

So every species that has more than two alleles per gene NOW has them because they are beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations. That's a lot of beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations.Thanks,Enjoy

But they do change the genotype and they do add to the pool of hereditary DNA for a breeding population.And that also means that they can be included in later mutations (as is true for all mutations that don't kill the bearer).We actually saw this happening with the e-coli citrus experiment, where the bacteria could consume the citrus after two mutations occurred, where one built on the other. Which fails to explain the e-coli citrus experiment beneficial results.Enjoy

In Message 431 I explain why evolution leaves a pattern of descent due to evolution, including nested hierarchies, and Faith is currently muddling through that post. That could be what she means.Enjoy

I can set the brightness on my computer to dim the bright whiteness. This also extends battery life on laptops.It should be somewhere in your settings -- what version operating system do you use?Enjoy

Indeed, that appears to be the case. Nope, there is only one daughter population. The parent population becomes the daughter population.

quote:

---

Anagenesis is the gradual evolution of a species that continues to exist as an interbreeding population.

---

This daughter population is different from the parent population due to the accumulation of mutations and the selection of more beneficial phenotypes generation after generation ... eg evolution over multiple generations. This single daughter population is reproductively isolated from the parent population by time.It is important to understand that anagenesis can produce a new species - one that is different from the ancestral species (but related to it) -- but that the process is gradual change over many generations, making it difficult to point to a single generation and say that is where the change in species occurs.Genetically, each generation has a different gene pool to draw from -- due to mutations and selection -- and thus the genomes of the individuals are also different from those in the parent population as a result.This is not assumption, it is observed fact in all living species.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : subt

As noted in Message 482 anagenesis has only one daughter population, while cladogenesis has two (or more) daughter populations. This process can also take several generations, starting with separation of the parent breeding population into two or more sub-populations that don't interact due to isolation.These sub-populations may be capable of interbreeding if there is opportunity, even after several generations have past and they have accumulated different mutations in their gene pools.The results can vary from hybrids that are capable of reproduction -- and introduce hybrid vigor to the overall population (even create a new subspecies that is more fit than the original population) -- to offspring that are not capable of interbreeding (mules for example).Eventually, after many generations, the differences between the populations prevents interbreeding and they become different species (by definition). The importance is that it shows how the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy as the pattern for the diversity of life as we know it, and thus when we see evidence of nested hierarchies we can say that the evidence is congruent with the theory of evolution. ... Or gained in order to produce new species, via the production of new genetic diversity through mutations.In any event we have a pattern of lineal descent for anagenesis (where the breeding population changes over time and may become different enough to be classified as a new species), and we have a pattern of branching descent for cladogenesis (where reproductively isolated subpopulations evolve differently and become daughter populations, with new species). The branching pattern forms nested hierarchies, but the path of changes along any one branch is similar to what we see with anagenesis -- the evolution of the breeding populations over many generations.When we see these patterns we can say this evidence is congruent with the theory of evolution.These patterns of descent, with genetic markers added along the way (neutral mutations, retro-viral inserts, etc) would also be expected for descent from original created kinds ... if they are real. The problem with this is that the patterns we see all go back to an original life population of single cell life over 3.5 billion years ago, rather than ending with a set of several original created kinds.When we see these patterns extending all the way to the first life form on earth, we can say this evidence is NOT congruent with the theory of descent from original created kinds ...... especially when we see this pattern extending further into the past than Young Earth fundamentalist believe is the age of the earth.Enjoy

Nope, it is an observed fact. Because this is a falsified idea. Actual observations show mutations add to genetic variation and cause beneficial phenotypes that expand the opportunities for the species. Pocket mice for example: mutation caused dark form which can survive in lava beds where tan form is easy prey, while the dark form are easy prey in the sandy areas inhabited by the tan mice. Nope. There is no evidence that supports your assertion and there is evidence that falsifies it. This idée fixe (an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period : obsession) is one of your biggest stumbling blocks in understanding how evolution actually works. Selection in the pocket mice (with a new character) required an added trait -- dark fur -- for the pocket mice to exist in the lava beds. ... including new genes due to mutations since the time of leaving the first population ... ... and because mutations continue to occur in all populations, generation after generation ... For a while. The longer the isolation lasts the more likely hybridization becomes less viable. ... and they continue to accumulate new mutations that are not found in the original population, increasing the variation in this second population ... Wrong. Mutations happen, and they cause shifts in the variations in each population. Isolated populations variations shift in different ways from each other.This idée fixe (an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period : obsession) is one of your biggest stumbling blocks in understanding how evolution actually works.Consider descent from (undefined) kinds -- it doesn't matter if mutations are involved, you still have every breeding population reproducing according to the gene pool of that population, whether mutations are involved or not. One could even argue that mutations are alterations to the created kinds after (due to) the fall. ALL evolution is microevolution. Over time the accumulation of new traits (each one due to microevolution) is sufficient to say a new species has evolved ... and that is all that macroevolution is.Enjoy

Changing the genotype means then genome changes. Selection occurs on the phenotype ... unless the genetic changes are deleterious. Genetic changes that cause different fur color are due to genes being expressed in the phenotype and, in pocket mice, lead to differential selection of the mice depending on habitat (sand or lava beds). Evolution can go from phenotype B to A just as easily as it can go from phenotype A to B, because A = B + ΔMutations, because ΔMutations can be positive or negative. And yet the evidence shows this happening over and over and over in the lineages of species, where every species changes over generations. Pelycodus is a good example here, where the population increases in size generation after generation. Random mutations are accidental by definition. That doesn't mean they don't occur, and that doesn't mean they are not beneficial. It certainly doesn't mean that new traits are not developed this way.Enjoy

The isolation from the parent population is due to time -- the individuals of the parent population die off leaving descendants to carry on. Each generation has mutations that make their generation's gene pool different from their ancestral gene pool. The each generation's genes are always getting redistributed into the mix based on their gene pool, including the mutations their parents did not have.This means that the species necessarily changes over time in small ways and sometimes, occasionally, in big ways, as mutations accumulate.This is observe in all living species. And addition of some genetic material allowing new combinations to be expressed. The pattern of new genetic material (mutations) can be tracked and the evidence it shows is the evidence of ancestry from a parent population. The parent population cannot have the mutations in the descendant populations because they are isolated by time. The child cannot give birth to the parent, cannot give them their mutations. They can only give their mutations to their descendants. Except that it is observed in humans. The names are used to describe the process of evolution occurring over multiple generations. Microevolutionary changes occurring from generation to generation, each one with different gene pools that include mutations. New species have been observed, so this is congruent with the theory of evolution. Except that (A) the bluish wildebeests is the "common wildebeest" with 5 living subspecies, while the black wildebeest appears to have evolved from the bluish wildebeest to become a distinct species around a million years ago, in the mid- to late Pleistocene. and (B) they also have an ancestral record of mutations that the black wildebeests don't have ... and vice versa because of time spent in reproductive isolation.An ancestral record of mutations that is congruent with the theory of evolution. You're missing the point. I am discussing mutations rather than traits per se.Without mutations you don't have the ancestral record of mutations that identify the generation by generation pattern that we find in all species. The mutations are there, and once again that evidence is congruent with the theory of evolution. Except that they also include mutations that occurred after the parent population. Again I'm not talking about traits per se, but mutations. We observe mutations and not including them means that only part of the evidence is considered. The theory of evolution has to explain all the evidence to be a good theory. It does. Again, I am talking about mutations rather than traits per se. The parents cannot have the same mutations that descendants have at their birth. The pattern of accumulation of mutations generation after generation is congruent with the theory of evolution. Mutations are not needed ... but the evidence shows they exist, that they create a pattern of ancestral descent, in which mutations are added to the gene pool that did not exist in ancestral populations. ERVs for example.Enjoy

Ignoring the duplicated material: And, sadly for you, every time you do this you are criticized for ignoring mutations that increase genetic diversity. Ignoring them does not make them go away nor render them ineffective.Nor is reduction of genetic diversity required for (sub)populations that become isolated from one another. All that is needed to develop new phenotypes are three aspects of evolution that occur in such situations:

1. The ecologies they inhabit are different. They have different plants and animals, the climates are different, the geology is different. These differences can be slight or pronounced.
2. The populations accumulate different random mutations in their respective gene pools because there is little or no gene flow and they are effectively reproductively isolated. This results in different genetic diversity.
3. Selection operates on the different gene pools to fit the different ecologies.

Therefore the gene pools of the subpopulations diverge over time. This produces different phenotypes. The black wildebeests and the blue wildebeests as examples. I'm well aware of your falsified assertions. Mutations are a fact. They are found in every generation of every species. Facts are not assumed.Ignoring mutations do not mean they don't cause differences in population traits. They are part of the genomes of the individuals and part of the gene pool of each isolated population, and they necessarily cause differences in those gene pools. Reproduction in each isolated gene pool is based on the genes in the pool, old (from the parent population) and new (from mutations). Curiously I can find nothing about this. Including the mutations in the gene pool that were not in the parent population. Ignoring them does not make them go away or become ineffective. It is the ecological challenges and opportunities that do the selection. When those challenges and opportunities are different the results of selection will be different.When the gene pools are different the selection process will have different hereditary trait combinations to operate on. This is especially valid for traits that were not in the original population that are beneficial for the current ecological challenges and opportunities for each subpopulation.Enjoy

This is refuted, falsified, rendered inadequate of explaining what is actually observed. Interbreeding between daughter populations becomes less and less viable over time due the occurrence and selection of different mutations in the different populations. Mules an example where interbreeding is almost blocked by the differences in genes/chromosomes. Greenish Warblers an example of reduced gene flow between adjacent subpopulations and reproductive isolation at the ends of the ring with no interbreeding.

quote:

---

Evolutionary genetics: A ring of species

​

... It had been known for some time that north of the Tibetan plateau, a huge treeless desert uninhabitable to a forest-dwelling warbler, there are two forms of greenish warbler that differ in plumage and song, but do not interbreed (viridanus in the west, plumbeitarsus in the east). These populations coexist as distinct biological species in the Siberian lowlands, but are connected through an until recently contiguous breeding range all around the Central Asian mountains. Using amplified fragment length polymorphism markers to survey a large number of anonymous nuclear gene loci, Irwin and co-workers show that there is a genetic continuum throughout this ring-shaped range, except in the zone of overlap in Siberia, where genetic divergence reaches its maximum. The physical distance around the ring is about 9000”km, orders of magnitude larger than the distance an average young greenish warbler will travel from its birth place to its later breeding territory. Genetic distance is strongly correlated with geographic distance throughout the ring of intergrading populations, ...

---

quote:

---

Genomic divergence in a ring species complex

​

Ring species provide particularly clear demonstrations of how one species can gradually evolve into two, but are rare in nature1,2,3. In the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) species complex, a ring of populations wraps around Tibet. Two reproductively isolated forms co-exist in central Siberia, with a gradient of genetic and phenotypic characteristics through the southern chain of populations connecting them4,5,6. ... Levels of reproductive isolation and genetic introgression are consistent with levels of phenotypic divergence around the ring, with phenotypic similarity and extensive interbreeding across the southwestern contact zone and strong phenotypic divergence and nearly complete reproductive isolation across the northern contact zone. These results cast doubt on the hypothesis that the greenish warbler should be viewed as a rare example of speciation by distance6, but demonstrate that the greenish warbler displays a continuum from slightly divergent neighbouring populations to almost fully reproductively isolated species.

---

The genomes are different for the different subspecies and the further apart they are the more different are the genomes ... except at the overlap where the differences from one side are so different from the ones from the other side that interbreeding rarely occurs.The genomes show losses and gains from one subpopulation to the next.Once again your model fails to explain the reality that occurs. Indeed, but now they have become incompatible for interbreeding, and thus they will remain different species. Including mutations is not deception, it is including observed objective empirical evidence that mutations exist, that they become part of the gene pool for each new generation that add their own mutations to the pool.Selection operates on the gene pool of each generation, and as the gene pool changes the selection options change. Curiously it is not a matter of what is necessary, rather it is a matter of what actually happens. Mutations exist and they do get selected. This results in changes that cannot occur with just "normal sexual recombination of existing alleles" -- when we see new alleles we know mutations are involved. The nested hierarchy pattern involves the total gene pool, including mutations, and the gene pool changes from generation to generation due to new mutations added with each generation.The evidence shows that mutations add genetic variability, increasing over time in any population. This renders your remaining argument false or misleading, inadequate in explaining what occurs in the real world.Enjoy

Exactly. So the question of whether or not the evidence of older parent ancestor species continues back to first life (single cell organisms over 3.5 billion years ago), or stops at several points identifying original created kinds, and this becomes a test of the creation model versus the EoT model.So far the evidence points to a single first life (single cell organisms over 3.5 billion years ago), invalidating the creation model but congruent with the ToE model. And this too has been falsified. We can see genetic evidence of certain traits being changed by mutatons. They aren't lost but replaced. But, as noted by others, we do. Except in the wild selection can be much slower. What we do see is increased genetic variation over time as mutations accumulate in each generation. They are in the gene pool for each generation, thus the time "to blend the new gene frequencies from any founding group also includes blending in the mutations that have occurred since the founding group. Indeed. As I keep saying "macroevolution" is the result of microevolution over multiple generations. The accumulation of random mutations and the continued selection for survival and reproduction in a changing ecology result in "macro" changes that are more than what occurs in a single generation. For the PHENOTYPIC diversity to increase, the GENOMIC diversity has to increase in order to be expressed as new phenotypes. Except that random mutations are added to the gene pool in every generation. Again, it is not a matter of what minimal combinations that have to occur to produce new phenotypes, it is a matter of what does occur, and that includes mutations that are added to the gene pool generation by generation with measurable results.These random mutations can be tracked to show what are added by each generation. Some alleles may be lost (or modified by mutation), but loss alone is not sufficient to explain the observed genetic combinations with mutations that do not exist in the founding population. The evidence shows that all life is related to the first life formed over 3.5 billion years ago, and not divided into different created kinds with no previous ancestors (other than LUCA). Curiously that does not change the fact that the evidence falsifies creation of Kinds. Ignoring the evidence does not change this fact. If your interpretation does not match reality then it is flawed. Except that the real world includes mutations added to the gene pool generation after generation, which results in changes in the breeding population that at some point is outside the variations seen in the founding population. That is macroevolution according to the scientific definitions: the accumulation of mutations over time, changing the gene pool, changing the phenotypes derived from the changing gene pool.Your exclusion of random mutations from your model renders it inadequate and terminally flawed in explaining what occurs, because mutations are part of evolution, of all life as we know it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Sorry, but your opinion is incapable of altering reality. There is no reason for this blind assertion to be valid. You have made the assertion many times, but you have not made the case for it ... because (a) you have not presented any evidence to support it, and (b) the evidence of speciation events that have been observed invalidate it.Possibly you are tired because it is a symptom of reaction to the cognitive dissonance. It is one way to cope with the continuing presentation of contrary evidence, the mountain of evidence that you are wrong. You don't want to confront it, so you become tired. and cranky. Once the evidence of reality has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.There fixed it for youEnjoy

... mutations are intentionally culled to preserve the breeds ... once they have evolved by mutation from a parent stock. Curiously, you can't have a "chosen breed" until it has evolved by added mutations that didn't exist in the parent stock. Which is precisely why it is NOT a model of natural evolution. It is a model of selection, as noted by Darwin, and nothing more. Selection is only part of evolution, and the other part is mutations: Except that evolution in the wild doesn't have to eliminate "everything that doesn't fit the chosen set of traits" because in the wild there are many different "set of traits" that can benefit survival and reproduction.If you would but open your eyes you would see that there is a much wider range of traits that can benefit survival and reproduction than occur in selective breeding, where the purpose is to preserve the breed. The purpose of breeding is to prevent evolution from changing the breed/s.You can't get change when the purpose is preservation of the breed. Evolution depends on whatever is good for survival and reproduction.What you get trashed for, is repeating points that are falsified. By Evidence. Because evidence from the real world invalidates your opinions/assertions. Yes, there are mutual admiration groups of want to believers, but they don't confront reality. You want to chane the minds of people who accept evidence, then you need to present evidence, not assertion upon assertion.Enjoy