A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

quote:

---

You obviously have no idea what I'm arguing but whatever.

---

It seems obvious that Percy has more of an idea than you do.If closely related species differ in chromosomal arrangements and in which genes they have (i.e. one or both species have genes that the other does not) then it is clear that something more than differing allele frequencies is involved.For instance even though horses and donkeys are close enough to produce (infertile) offspring, horses have one more chromosome pair than donkeys.

quote:

---

Percy has a pretty standard ToE in mind, not my model which he not only disputes, he doesn't understand.

---

He is raising obviously relevant points. And you are not addressing them

quote:

---

Nor do you apparently. Different genes isn't what I'm talking about at all.

---

Which shows that you are the one who doesn’t understand. The fact that you are not talking about the different genes is the problem.

quote:

---

I’m talking about different proportions of various genes so that they bring out different traits in recombination

---

And you claim that species are produced by that means alone. The fact that we see other, significant, differences is closely-related species - as well as the other points Percy made - are problems for that idea.

quote:

---

Nope

---

Those differences are obviously not just differences in allele frequency. And if they appear in species you’d consider to belong to the same kind - as they do - they certainly show that something more than differences in allele frequencies is going on.And of course the fact that animal breeding doesn’t produce new species is a major problem for your ideas.The fact that you try to brush these off as Percy not understanding is laughable. Either you can’t see the problems - which would show that you don’t understand - or you are being less than honest.

quote:

---

I don't define species as you do, and breeds do fine as the domestic version of species

---

So you changed the definition of species to include domestic breeds and that “proves” that actual species are the same thing. I’m sure you think that’s a clever semantic game, but it’s pretty obvious that that is all it is.

quote:

---

No it's actually the way the word is frequently used, but when it is defined it's something else

---

Apart from you, who else refers to domestic breeds as species ? If it is such a frequent use you should have examples.

quote:

---

So I guess I can't call these "species" can I?

---

No. Because they aren’t. I’d call them “freaks of artificial selection”, personally.

quote:

---

The idea then is that it starts out fairly subtle, perhaps just noticeable, but if selected and bred from generation to generation it gets more and more exaggerated.

---

I suspect that it only works like that if multiple genes are involved. Though I am sure you’d agree on that,

quote:

---

That is what I think must have happened with the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Five pairs of very ordinary lizards were released onto an isolated island where they reproduced for thirty years in that isolation and the result was that after those thirty years the whole population had developed very large heads and jaws, and a different digestive system to cope with the tougher foods it was now eating

---

That is what you think but there is no hard evidence. Especially as nobody was breeding them for these traits, which weren’t visible in the original ten pairs. Recessive traits are not generally subject to strong selection because the heterozygotes have no advantage (this is also the reason why genetic diseases tend to hang around - heterozygotes have no disadvantage).

quote:

---

It wasn't that their usual food before they were isolated wasn't present on the island, it was that genetically their new gene frequencies had a slight emphasis on larger head and jaw and that over generations of reproduction those traits got exaggerated, very much llke Darwin's pigeons.

---

That only adds to the problem. The new phenotype is only an advantage with the changed diet. So the lizards would have to change their diet before there was any selection. And you say that they could just have gone on eating their familiar diet.

quote:

---

Anyway this is a phenomenon that I think needs some explanation. Mutations don't seem to be involved, or ecological pressure etc., just the genetics intensely selected.

---

Domestic breeding does involve intense selection. The Pod Mrcau lizards don’t seem likely to have experienced that - and it would only be possible after the lizards changed their diet. And why would they do that if their usual food was freely available ?Edited by Admin, : Correct typo in last para: "see," => "seem"

quote:

---

I don't think in terms of "advantage." That's a ToE concept that I don't think carries much weight.

---

I don’t think that rejecting natural selection is really going to help your case. It destroys any analogy to your pigeons which were the result of strong selection. And if you want to insist that it was just drift then you make your story even more implausible.

quote:

---

I think the lizards developed their larger heads and jaws AND the changed digestive tract without any regard whatever to the food available on the island.

---

How did it spread through the population when it offered no advantage, and when it is based on recessive traits as well ?

quote:

---

They didn't NEED to change at all PK, to cope with the environment that is, they changed because of the gene frequencies possessed by the original ten founder lizards which brought out the new characteristics over generations

---

It’s all an amazing coincidence ? I’m not ready to buy that when the information isn’t in.

quote:

---

Yes this is *MY* krazy wakko model, it is definitely NOT the ToE which I think simply does not explain reality.

---

As I have said before I don’t think it is either.

quote:

---

Some evidence of an indirect sort is that if natural selection by environmental pressure was the cause there simply wouldn't be time for them to develop the new characteristics.

---

If there wasn’t time for the characteristics to spread through selection, then there certainly wasn’t time for them to spread by drift. Drift is slower than selection (as should be obvious).But then, I don’t think that selection is the answer - it’s just a better answer than drift.

quote:

---

Mutations aren't going to arrive on schedule for that purpose...

---

I don’t see anyone arguing that they did. I don’t believe it.

quote:

---

Certainly a whole new digestic tract isn't going to show up on demand.

---

A caecal valve seems to be a pretty minor modification, not a ”whole new digestive tract”. You would do better to argue that the changes to the head and the digestive system are independent. Two mutations arriving at just the right time is a lot less likely than one. Except that also undermines your idea that it was drift, and not selection.

quote:

---

It's the same processes, the same mechanisms, the same genetics that produce both breeds and species.

---

Then why is breeding so bad at producing new species of animal ?

quote:

---

Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line.

---

The inability to interbreed seems to be an obviously natural dividing line. Especially when it is an inability to produce fertile offspring even when mating occurs.

quote:

---

I had a reason for posting the pigeons. I am interested in the question of how the same trait is increased by being selected over generations. I assume it is the same gene or genes that underlie the trait. The exaggerated size of the lizards' head and jaw on Pod Mrcaru suggests the same kind of genetic situation.

---

Not really. In fact the speed of the change suggests to me that it isn’t based on unobserved alleles becoming fixed in the population. The more so if we believe your claim that there was no selective pressure.

quote:

---

I was interested in THAT question for a similar reason: what is it genetically that allows for the overall appearance of homogeneity when there is high genetic diversity in the population?

---

In part it’s just you not noticing the differences - which is normal. The rest can be worked out by considering the differences between dogs and wolves - or the pigeons. Selective breeding concentrates variations which would otherwise be spread through the population. There is a lot of variation but but each individual has less variation from the norm than a dachshund is different from an Old English Sheepdog

quote:

---

I expect my opponents to describe their own completely different scenario with the mutations and the ecological selection pressure and so on, but I strongly object to telling me I'm wrong because I don't share that scenario. No, if that's going to be the attitude, sorry, YOU are wrong.

---

Funny how we’d be wrong if we did the same as you. Why couldn’t it be that you are wrong. But we don’t do the same - we point to evidence, while you just dismiss it. So I guess if anyone is wrong it pretty much has to be you.

quote:

---

You persist in your weird illusion that you argue from evidence and I don't.

---

It’s not an illusion. It’s a fact.

quote:

---

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet.

---

That is obviously not true. The definition of species is problematic but that is because we don’t use clear criteria like the inability to produce fertile offspring as the sole criterion. Obviously it doesn’t apply to species that only reproduce asexually, and it can’t be applied to extinct species, but that doesn’t make it any less natural a dividing line.

quote:

---

...but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion

---

And therein lies one of your problems with the evidence. Breeds will likely (in some cases certainly) be more “genetically depleted” than natural species. Yet they do not show this inability to interbreed.

quote:

---

In any case it can't be a springboard for further variation/evolution as the ToE assumes it is

---

Would you like to back that up with evidence? Since there are no obvious problems with what the ToE actually says.

quote:

---

So I regard this situation as an illusion foisted on us by the ToE without the slightest actual evidentiary support.

---

And yet you have no evidence for this opinion.

quote:

---

The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation" -- They are the scientists after all.

---

The evidence should come from you, since it is your claim.And we have adequate evidence against your ideas. Even though you try to pretend otherwise.It is a fact that domestic breeding, despite working faster than natural selection (and thus doing more to reduce genetic diversity) does not seem to produce new animal species.It is a fact that we do not see the extreme genetic depletion your ideas would predict in natural species.It is a fact that you have no examples of bottlenecks producing new species either. Despite your claims that the cheetah bottleneck made significant phenotypic changes you produced not the slightest evidence, nor did you with regard to the elephant seal.

quote:

---

You do nothing but assert you have evidence, you don't show it, so as far as I can see it doesn't exist.

---

Odd how you keep failing to see the evidence in my post. Here it is again:

quote:

---

The Colorado River DIDN'T carve out the Grand Canyon, that's one of the ToE's most ridiculous notions.

---

It is not at all ridiculous. Indeed the meanders of the canyon are clear evidence that it was carved by a river.

quote:

---

The most likely explanation is that it was catastrophically carved out by retreating Flood waters.

---

That IS ridiculous. Catastrophic carving would not produce the meanders. And the Flood is just a myth anyway.You have a weird idea of what is “most likely”

quote:

---

The coral reefs no doubt survived the Flood, it doesn't have to have been a particularly violent event once the water was at its height.

---

Really ? How do they survive being buried by tons of sediment - which is your idea of what the Flood did - and work their way up to the top of the stack ? (Fossil coral reefs only add to your problems)

quote:

---

No idea about the galaxies.

---

That’s the only sensible thing you said. There is no good answer.

quote:

---

Outside the genome means that you'll never get a human being from an ape because the genetic stuff is simply not there in the ape genome.

---

A lot of it is.

quote:

---

And yeah I know you think mutations will put it there but you are way underestimating how different human beings are from apes

---

You do know that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees has been measured ? Perhaps you would like to explain why the measurements are badly wrong? Or at least stop making ignorant objections.

quote:

---

The meanders developed on the flat surface that remained after the scouring of the retreating Flood waters, as did the Colorado River.

---

So now the Grand Canyon formed after the assumed “scouring”.Pleas explain how it could form in the relatively few millennia you allow.