MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

quote:

---

1st: I do not believe you can tell the difference. It is almost like you knew Moses and can read my mind.

---

I've seen how the word is used in the Bible and there is nothing that suggests that it is anything much more specific than the English "kind", which could easily refer to species or even breeds. If you have contrary evidence now would be a good time to produce it.

quote:

---

2nd: If you don't accept the definition of kind within the written word that is a moot point.

---

Which written word ? Am I expected to believe anything written by a creationist ?

quote:

---

Remember nothing some how must produce everything...

---

It must ?

quote:

---

I will trust the translation of strongs lexicon

---

I'm pretty sure that's not the standard Strongs. But then placing men over scripture is at the heart of your religion.

quote:

---

I would ask God not people about scripture. I'm merely posting my point of view

---

Well maybe you would like to take more care to get your facts right.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what other option you have, either everything came into existence from nothing existing at all (even within the multiverse model this is true) or some being that has always existed created everything. I suppose you could be a idealist but you do not seem to communicate like one.

---

I have two. The first is that our universe is all of space-time. In that case there is no need for our universe to come from nothing because there was never a time when it did not exist. The second is that our universe is embedded in a larger space-time and is the consequence of a natural event.

quote:

---

Evolution EVENTUALLY will run out of genetic diversity because selection reduces genetic diversity.

---

We know this is untrue because mutations will keep adding diversity. Even if diversity was completely lost a new mutation would bring in more diversity.This is completely obvious, has been explained to you repeatedly and simply denying it is hardly sensible.

quote:

---

You keep misunderstanding what I'm saying but you can't make your misunderstanding the meaning of what I'm saying

---

I don't think so. Showing that mutations have added variety without destroying species as you have claimed it would (another obvious absurdity) does not show a misunderstanding at all. It directly address an assertion that you made.

quote:

---

The principle I'm talking aobut holds up in all cases.

---

Obviously it only holds up in a case where mutation stops. And the only known example of that is extinction.

quote:

---

Adding diversity does not contribute to the formation of a species. That takes selection

---

You're not getting it. Adding variety means that there is variety for selection to work on.

quote:

---

Adding genetic diversity does not contribute to the formation of a species.

---

Of course it can contribute. If the population has run out of diversity that is where the differing traits in a successor species will come from.

quote:

---

Evolution requires the loss of genetic diversity.

---

Evolution requires both the loss and gain of genetic diversity. Not an overall sustained loss. That is why it will never end, short of the extinction of all life.

quote:

---

Adding variety for selection to work on isn't necessary for starters,

---

Again you fail to see the obvious. Selection needs variety to work on. If there is no variety there it must be added. And it will be.

quote:

---

You've never even seen a "successor species," that is pure hypothetical hoohah made up to try to make the idea of continuing addition of genetic diversity seem plausible

---

More obvious nonsense. Even you agree that new species may be formed by evolution, and that is certainly not invented to support the obvious fact that mutations occur.

quote:

---

...so there always is a point that may or may not be reached in a given case where genetic depletion makes further evolution impossible, and if that situation is NOT reached or potentially reached you don't have evolution, you don't have new species.

---

More obvious nonsense. Obviously new species have formed without any sign of them reaching "genetic depletion". Obviously microevolution is evolution - and the pocket mice and the peppered moth are examples of microevolution based on the appearance of new variation. And equally obviously it is senseless to say that new variation cannot later become a defining trait of a new species (something that I remind you is based on observing that all - or the vast majority - members of a species have the trait - and something that would be dropped if it were no longer true)So, it IS true that we can have evolution and new species even if mutation is continually providing new variation. It is a clear fact that mutations occur and add new variation - which may be selected. Unless you insist that no new species have ever formed then you must accept - at least if you are honest - that mutation has not prevented it. How can it be any clearer that you are wrong ?

quote:

---

Wrong about what?

---

You are wrong to think that the inability of species to interbreed is due to a loss of genetic variation. If you don't understand that then you really aren't in a position to accuse anyone else of failing to understand your argument.

quote:

---

I say mutations cannot overcome the fact that you only get a new phenotypic look to a population by loss of the genetic stuff for the other phenotypes which is a loss of genetic diversity which has to be the case whether we're talking about a new variety, breed, race or species.

---

Funny how you focus only on the points where there is agreement and completely ignore the disagreements. It's as if you have no confidence at all in the points where we disagree.

quote:

---

You do not get new species by addition, by gene flow, by mutations, only by selection, substraction, reduction, loss.

---

Surely - as I have pointed out before - the arrival of additional variations contributes to speciation. Variation is the resource that selection requires, so if it were to run out selection would cease. The fact that it is continually replenished is what allows evolution to continue.

As usual you ignore the point. And you are wrong in a very significant way. Because variety is added evolution can produce more new species - with a far greater array of differences than it could without.Yes, you need selection to get from variation to a distinct new phenotype - but you can't have selection without variation - which you can hardly deny.

quote:

---

Right, so how are those genetic differences accumulated? What brings that about?

---

By the obvious means, mutation of course. While in principle it is possible for the same mutation to occur in both populations it isn't likely, still less for all of them to occur in both populations.

quote:

---

My argument accounts for a great deal of genetic difference accumulating between separated populations, but the differences I keep saying accumulate don't do it for you. So please explain how you think they are accumulated.

---

By only counting loss of alleles, not gain, you are missing the most likely source of genetic incompatibility. Not to mention the effects of chromosomal rearrangements.It should be obvious that genetic incompatibility within a population is a disadvantage, while genetic incompatibility with a population that is never encountered is not. Thus a gradual accumulation of new variations that maintain compatibility with the local population is the most likely explanation. This is confirmed by the evidence HBD has introduced, showing that simply removing alleles does not produce loss of interfertility as we would expect anyway.

quote:

---

I don't care what produces loss of interfertility, speciation is not my focus

---

But you are arguing about it, asking questions and insisting on your own idea of how it happens. And getting angry when people disagree and produce evidence for a contrary view.

quote:

---

All I'm talking about is the NECESSITY OF SELECTION to the evolution of new populations with new characteristics

---

If that was the case you wouldn't have spent years arguing about it. No, you are arguing about more than that - and that is where the trouble lies.

quote:

---

It HAS to have depleted or reduced genetic diversity from whatever population it evolved from.

---

Maybe it does, but reduced genetic diversity is not even a likely cause of the loss of interfertility.

Evidence of what ? That reduced genetic diversity is NOT a likely cause of the loss of interfertility ? I provided some in my previous message Message 675

quote:

---

All I'm proving and have proved is that selection brings evolution to a halt

---

You haven't proven that. In fact it's been disproven. Really, why do you come out with these obviously false claims ?

quote:

---

The idea that the RATE of mutation makes a difference is an illusion.

---

Hardly. The rate would need to be zero for you to be right.

This is just ridiculous. So long as there is diversity we can have selection. If new variations are continually arriving diversity will always be available. Even if all diversity were removed new variations would bring it back.How can you not see that ?The fuel analogy illustrated it perfectly.

quote:

---

All this focus on species as opposed to other homogeneous populations is really a red herring.

---

Hardly. You may not like the way the evidence points but it needs to be considered if any real understanding is to be had.

quote:

---

To get any homogeneous population requires selection which is a loss of genetic diversity.

---

You could get a more homogenous population from a mixed group of dogs by relaxing selection and letting them breed freely.Homogeneity is not the point. Fixation of particular traits is - in speciation. But you say you aren't interested in that.

quote:

---

but there is still no getting around the basic fact that to get a new homogeneous population requires the loss of genetic diversity, and that any form of addition only interrupts the process.

---

And you still just don't get it. Instead of relying on your own "infallible" opinions at least think about the objections. You are so obviously wrong it isn't funny.

quote:

---

I agree you could get a homogeneous population by leaving dogs to their own devices, but it still takes selection to get evolution and that means reducing genetic diversity.

---

It takes mutation and selection to get evolution. That's basic to the subject, and if you haven't realised that by now that's just too bad.

quote:

---

Mutation is not at all necessary;

---

Oh but it is. Your argument proves that.

quote:

---

all it takes is the built-in genetic diversity.

---

That there was sufficient "built in diversity" - to,explain even the evolution you accept - is an assumption on your part. Whereas we know that mutation is real.

quote:

---

But it's the selection that brings about evolution.

---

Selection - using the term correctly - is necessary for adaptive change. But without mutations providing variation for it to work with it runs out quite quickly - as YOU argue. That's why there are limits to how far you can change a breed.Really, when you say mutation isn't needed you say that your argument is even more wrong than everyone else already says. You can't have it both ways.