A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

quote:

---

PaulK argues that there is a "steady stream of mutations" that should supposedly prevent this from happening, but that's really a pipe dream. It doesn't happen in reality.

---

Really ? You have evidence that a mechanism suddenly kicks in and prevents further mutations from happening ? Then why are we able to observe mutations happening ?Or is your “reality” just your fantasy ?

quote:

---

If it did we'd see it in domestic breeding series and we don't.

---

Yes we do. The scotch fold cat is a recent example that we know to be a mutation. And again, it comes down to rates. Domestic breeding has a rapid rate of selection so it is not surprising that it goes faster than mutation - at least as far as obvious phenotypic changes go. That is exactly what we’d expect.

quote:

---

In the wild the development of one species from another isn't going to take much longer either

---

If you consider a good number of centuries to be a short time - given ideal conditions.

quote:

---

That can happen in a matter of years, the same way the Pod Mrcaru lizards were a brand new species after thirty years, that had been built from only five pairs of founders, and thirty years is probably just when they were found, not a measure of how long it took

---

Are they a new species ? The last I heard nobody was claiming that.

quote:

---

And the Jutland cattle formed their four new populations in a matter of years too.

---

But they are not a new species at all.

quote:

---

(The common idea that evolution takes millions of years is clearly nonsensical in light of the actual time it takes to form a new species

---

Aside from the fact that evolution obviously cannot sustain the rate of change we see in domestic breeding. Aside from the fact that species often last hundreds of thousands of years. Aside from the fact that suitable conditions for speciation are not so frequent. Ignorantly jumping to conclusions is hardly the way to get things right.

quote:

---

Mutations prevent a species from forming and destroy one that has already formed.

---

That’s pure crank nonsense.

quote:

---

But nature produces new species so we can assume that mutations don't occur in any numbers or patterns that keep preventing or destroying them

---

In other words the rate of mutations isn’t insanely high. That’s not exactly helping your case.

quote:

---

Yes, theoretically they could add a new trait, but in practice I don't think they even accomplish that much,

---

Because why should you believe real examples ?

quote:

---

...but if they do nevertheless they do prevent a species from forming or destroy one that has formed so all you get, maybe, is a new trait or set of traits in your new species.

---

Only if the rate was insanely high. And it isn’t.

quote:

---

Which is all theoretical since I don't think even this much actually happens.

---

Have you noticed that pretty much all your arguments in this thread are theoretical ? And not even in a good way since you need to rely on dubious assumptions.

quote:

---

This just caught my eye as I was scrolling through all the ignoring and trashing of everything I posted yesterday

---

Your stuff is not being ignored and it deserves to be trashed.

quote:

---

As I think about it, RAZD did not offer any evidence for anything he said either. He gave illustrations, as did I, but no evidence.

---

RAZD is mainly explaining. But it is a fact that our side has produced evidence - and you have produced none of any worth.You would think that after years of repeating the same argument you would have more than opinions at odds with the evidence and reason. But you don’t. And that is why it is a very bad argument.

quote:

---

The evidence of genetic loss through evolution is in domestic breeding where it's obvious that you can't get your chosen breed without losing all the genetic material for anything that would interfere with it.

---

That argument has been shown to be falllacious. Species aren’t just breeds. The shorter timescales reduce the role of mutation. Even then mutations have added new variations which breeders have used.You make it obvious that you have no case.

quote:

---

It's good evidence and it has to apply to the development of species in the wild too...

---

From the real facts - see above - we should expect mutation to play a more important role in the wild. And the evidence supports that too. We do see evidence of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, we do see evidence of new traits appearing, we don’t see any evidence that evolution is running out of variations.

quote:

---

but I realize that since the ToE depends on increase rather than decrease I'll just continue to be trashed for saying it.

---

The real reason why your argument is being “trashed” is because it was shown to be fallacious years ago. If you keep making obviously false claims what other response should you expect ?

quote:

---

I've also of course many times given the example of the cheetah and the elephant seals, and those are rejected too.

---

For the simple fact that neither example offers any support for your position. The loss of genetic variation is not due to the typical processes of evolution. You haven’t even shown that either has changed enough to be considered a different species from their pre-bottleneck ancestors. If there is evidence for your position in either case you haven’t found it,

quote:

---

I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does?

---

I think it must be your faith in Satan. I can’t think of any other reason you could hope to deceive us by repeating the same false claims over and over again.

quote:

---

But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes

---

By which you mean you want us to blind ourselves to the truth. Our eyes are open. That is why we aren’t deceived.

quote:

---

So unless I get a second wind there's no point in continuing with this predictable futility.

---

Of course it is futile. It is futile because you are repeating arguments that have already been defeated. If you really cared about the truth you would have abandoned the whole argument - or at least looked for real evidence. But you don’t.

quote:

---

Yeah, well, all the debunkery notwithstanding I'm standing with my views as usual

---

Feel free to be as irrational as you choose. It won’t change the fact that you have no real case.

quote:

---

And I'm more convinced than ever that this nesting hierarchy argument amounts to nothing

---

Because you can’t refute it. The fact remains that the pattern exists on a massive scale. Evolution from a common ancestor explains it. Separate creation does not.

quote:

---

And the debunkery of domestic breeding as a good example can be dismissed too

---

Again you dismiss it because you can’t answer it. Because it proves your argument is wrong.

quote:

---

The same processes occur whether they are intentionally directed or random.

---

Indeed they do. But the rates may differ and the rates matter. More, the fact that mutation can contribute useful variation to breeding programs - despite the differences between breeding programs and natural evolution - is itself evidence against your position.

quote:

---

Also the cheetah and the elephant seals are just fine to represent the end stage of the formation of species even though they were formed by severe bottlenecks.

---

Let us note that that is an admission that neither is evidence for your assumed inevitable decline in variation. In other words you are conceding my point.

quote:

---

And once species are established they don't change rapidly either, the way some here expect to happen with mutations cropping up.

---

The only one who expects rapid change is you. Personally I’ve made the point that the time between speciation events is one reason why evolution is so slow.

quote:

---

...there is no need to invoke mutations for any part of any of this, normally occurring alleles do just fine at making breeds and making new species.

---

Which is why domestic breeding is so successful in producing new species ?

quote:

---

So any time someone wants to get rational and acknowledge any of this I'm listening, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

Sure Faith, agreeing with falsehoods is just so rational. Perhaps you can explain why.

quote:

---

Most of your posts to me are full of nasty interpretations of my motivations. That's pretty foul debating tactics.

---

That’s pretty rich coming from someone who calls opponents blind for seeing that your claims are false and who implies that anyone who disagrees with your claims is irrational.

quote:

---

...if I say I'm not convinced of something it's because I'm not convinced of it, not because I "can't refute" it. Not only did I find out in discussion with RAZD that there are species that don't form nesting hierarchies, but there is absolutely nothing at all meaningful about those that do.

---

No, you didn’t.

quote:

---

And by the way your posts in general are obviously meant just for debunkery without any concern at all for truth.

---

That’s not true. I do in fact take care to get things right - while you are repeating an argument shown to be fallacious, pretending that it is a good argument - and denying known facts.

quote:

---

I'm sure you know that but it needs to be said once in a while...

---

I’m sure you know that it is a hypocritical lie.

quote:

---

...because the powers that be at EvC are very much llke the media who oppose Trump, they have no interest in truth at all, they are only interested in killing whatever they dislike, as are you.

---

Yes, we get it, you are an evil lying hypocrite who hates the truth.That is why I don’t accept you as any sort of real Christian.

quote:

---

And you've missed the whole point that anything that gets added has to get cut down to create a new species.

---

No, he hasn’t. You are missing the point that the evolution is a balance between mutation and selection.If the amount cut down is equal to the amount gained since the last speciation event there is no net loss of diversity. It comes down to the numbers and we can only work out the numbers through evidence. Purely theoretical arguments that ignore the numbers cannot work (an obvious point, one would think but one you have missed again and again through the history of this argument).

quote:

---

But I've made the case so many times to such utter futility I'm too tired, if that's the word, to continue it now. I just wanted to say that much.

---

You have never made the case. You have failed time and time again because you don’t have the evidence.

quote:

---

Once the establishment has its teeth sunk so deeply into its point of view there's no hope. Not at EvC anyway.

---

So you are actually complaining that we don’t change our minds and agree with you when you obviously have no real case, when the evidence is against you and even the purely theoretical arguments don’t work in your favour ?You don’t change your mind that easily, so why should we ? And your dishonest and arrogant and nasty attitude don’t help. Do you think they should ?

quote:

---

Hybridization, or combining species together is a completely different pro0cess than the one I'm talking about. As I often say when discussing my point of view, gene flow interrupts the processes I'm describing, adding anything disrupts it and prevents the species from developing, including mutations that show up at the wrong time in the process. That's why I keep emphasizing reproductive isolation as the necessary condition.

---

In reality there is no reason to think that it disrupts anything other than your assumed inevitable decline. There is absolutely no problem in the new species having as much genetic variation as the parent species. If it were impossible for a species to have that much genetic variation then obviously the parent species could not have that much variation either.This is another of the quite obvious points that you have left unanswered for years.

quote:

---

Yes it's possible to select all mutations for the new species, but whatever is selected requires the loss of other genetic material that is excluded from the new phenotypes.

---

It is also possible to gain new variations which are not immediately selected in or out, but persist for very long periods of time. It is not the eventual fate of variations which matters, it is the number of variations that are present at whatever time we are considering.

quote:

---

You still end up with an overall loss of genetic variability, even if you manage to get a new population completely made up of brand new mutations.

---

You assume that there will be an overall loss but the evidence doesn’t show any such thing. The evidence trumps your opinion.

quote:

---

( You won't, you can't, but I'm trying to entertain the possibility for the sake of discussion)

---

And that is also just your opinion. The fact that you have great difficulty imagining that this opinion could be wrong is a flaw which interferes with your ability to reason on this matter.

quote:

---

As usual you keep ignoring all the arguments and examples I've given that prove it is necessary to lose genetic diversity to get new phenotypes. All you are doing is trying to sound authoritative without actually saying anything.

---

But you haven’t proved that there needs to be any overall decline.Consider the facts.The evidence supports evolution to a degree which would be impossible if you were correct. You know this because your whole argument is an attempt to refute it. But - so long as you stay in the realm of theory - that only shows that your theory can’t account for that evidence.There is no need for an overall decline in variation. As I point out above there is no problem in a new variation appearing and persisting for a very long time - much more than the lifetime of an individual species. To succeed you must rule out this possibility, yet you have never done so.

quote:

---

No, I've made the case, and made it many many times over many threads and even in this thread, and I have indeed presented the evidence of domestic breeding which is about as clear a description as you can get of what happens to develop new phenotypes, and I've given plenty of illustrations of that same thing happening in the wild. Interesting that you never discuss any of this.

---

And you fail to discuss the objections raised which you have not been able to answer. The fact that domestic breeding has relevant differences in both the application of the processes and in the outcome. You don’t mention that your examples are just assumed examples. You don’t mention that the lifetime of a natural species will include periods where selection is relaxed and new variations may appear and survive.RAZD at least presents reasons why you are wrong. You just assert that you have proven your point when you have not.

quote:

---

Yeah I get tired and cranky, it's a karacter flaw, sorry. Interesting how my opponents usually completely ignore my arguments in favor of interpreting my supposed frame of mind toward their assumed and asserted superior evidence.

---

Your arguments are not ignored, they are addressed and refuted.

quote:

---

Seems to me my evidence is way better than yours.

---

And that is quite obviously not the case. In fact you rely almost entirely on theoretical arguments while denying real evidence.

quote:

---

You assume mutations that you can't demonstrate and ignore the argument that even if they existed as you claim they wouldn't change the basic facts of ultimate genetic reduction as I keep describing it.

---

We can demonstrate some relevant mutations. The fact that you set a very high bar for such demonstrations - one that is not practical to reach in many cases - is a good reason to think that there are many more mutations that cannot be demonstrated. The evidence for long term evolution is further evidence.Your “ultimate fact” on the other hand is purely theoretical and based on arguments which are clearly inadequate. Your agument is not ignored, it is rejected because of it’s weaknesses and because of the evidence.

quote:

---

Sometimes I think you really don't get what I'm describing at all since you ignore it so completely, although you all love to claim you understand it perfectly.

---

Which is strange since the real reason we reject your argument is plain to see. The question is not why we reject your argument - the question is why you would expect us to accept it after we have shown that it is lacking in both the reasoning and in evidence.

quote:

---

Except that you aren't going to get the new population unless you have the decrease

---

Selection is needed and so is mutation. Increases and decreases. That doesn’t mean that we need a long term overall decrease, even if temporary decreases occur. That is the point you fail to grasp, and have failed to grasp for many years.

quote:

---

That's the common mistake made by believers in the ToE: the genetic capacity is assumed to be adequate to creating any number of new species, the fact that it necessarily shrinks simply does not get recognized.

---

Your opinion is not accepted because it is not established as a fact. If it were a fact then the evidence should support it. But it does not. Unless and until that changes it is just your opinion.

quote:

---

And of course mutations are always the fuel in those scenarios, as if mutations are always available and always viable without any mention of what is so frequently said about how they are mostly neutral, very rarely beneficial

---

And this is just silly nitpicking. We do make the distinction, it simply isn’t explicit because it is too obvious. Neutral mutations do account for some of the variation, and we only need enough beneficial and viable mutations to keep the process going. And again, the evidence indicates that sufficient are available in enough cases (let us not forget that extinction is a reality).

quote:

---

Yes you can have species with high genetic diversity, but the TREND I'm talkinga about toward MAKING new species always requires some degree of genetic reduction to produce NEW phenotypes and get a new species blending those phenotypes.

---

And once you have a new phenotype, what stops new variations to that phenotype occurring ? You assume it, but you have no valid case against it - even after all these years.

quote:

---

You say you can demonstrate mutations. But you don't, and can't.

---

The pocket mice and the scotch fold cat are demonstrated examples. So we can, and you know that we can.

quote:

---

Anyway, probably the best way to prove my contentions would be in the laboratory experiment I've often suggested. Mice are always a good choice for their size and habits but you want to start with a population that has a pretty high genetic diversity and I wonder how much diversity is **** in the wild populations of mice. Maybe enough.

---

Since we are interested in what happens in natural evolution both timescales and population sizes are very relevant - and impractical to reproduce in a laboratory. Unless you can come up with something that compensates for those factors the experiment would be rigged in your favour - which would make it an obviously bad way of answering the question.

quote:

---

Let the first population grow until you need new habitats to hold it, then split it up into smaller populations each in their own habitat. Check their DNA and tag them so you know which generation they are and can track them. Let these new populations breed until they make a homogeneous new population, probably pretty large. Split it into new groups in their own isolated habitats, analyze DNA, tag and track.

---

Obviously this doesn’t address the issue of timescale at all, and it fails to capture the population dynamics. It won’t address the question we are interested in at all.I suppose it will address your idea that population splits are enough for speciation without selection or mutation but I don’t think that is plausible enough for anyone else to go to the trouble of running the experiment. Domestic breeding hardly supports your idea since that involves selection and still doesn’t produce speciation.

quote:

---

No I don't "fail to grasp" your ridiculously obvious point.

---

The point is that we do not need an overall long term decrease in variation - that variation can recover. You have just admitted that it is “ridiculously obvious” that your theoretical argument doesn’t work.And that is all you have. The evidence does not show any overall decline.You have just admitted that you have no case and that it is “ridiculously obvious” that you have no case,

quote:

---

As I was thinking through this list it hit me that Mutation and gene flow ADD to the genetic variability, and must create a scattered effect of phenotypes. What makes for a homogeneous species, on the other hand, is the subtractive processes of selection.

---

I will point out that species are never entirely homogenous. There are often subspecies - populations distinctive enough to be considered worthy of their own label, but not separate species. But there are also more widely-spread variations. Mutation adds to this variation and gene flow is more about spreading variation around.However, some traits do become fixed in a species and that is usually due to selection. (But drift fixes a lot of neutral variation at the genetic level)But again we come to the fact that we do have all this variation. It only starts to run out when there is very heavy selection or a very severe bottleneck.And in both cases that is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. Drastically speeding up subtractive processes alone will produce a net subtraction. That should be completely obvious.But it is also obvious that subtractive processes alone don’t tend to produce much phenotypic change. The elephant seal bottleneck was in historical times but it hasn’t affected the phenotype much. Breeding relies more on selection than simply reducing the population - and indeed, mutation has provided variation that breeders have selected. Even so, breeding has not produced a new species of animal.You say that there is no evidence but this is really quite devastating evidence. Your own chosen examples do nothing to support your view and tend to favour the opposing viewpoint.How then can you complain that we don’t change our minds ? The evidence is firmly on our side. Even the evidence that you raise.

quote:

---

...have been studying DIVERSITY.. So? ...genomic tools are allowing us to look at DIVERSITY... So? YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT PHENOTYPES. You are looking at the DIVERSITY on a whole genome level.... What ARE you talking about?

---

“Genomic tools” would be looking at the genome - the genes. Diversity on a whole genome level would be looking at the diversity of the genomes - comparing complete genomes, not, as HBD said, individual genes. It is all talking about genetic diversity.Edited by Admin, : Minor punctuation fix.