MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Look it isn't a strategy. It's impatience, it's not expecting any kind of reasonable discussion, and the chart is blinding and as I skimmed through his post it was clear he DIDN'T say anything substantive, so I see no point in answering it carefully.

Oh blah blah blah. I've answered all that a million times.

This example is too ridiculous to think about for half a second. WHERE IS THE SELECTION??? IT'S SELECTION I KEEP SAYING REDUCES GENETIC DIVERSITY AND BRINGS EVOLUTION TO A HALT. ALL YOU'VE GOT IS SOME DEMENTED MADE-UP SERIES OF MUTATIONS.There is no point to this discussion at all until somebody actually deals with what I've actually said instead of giving such ridiculous answers and instead of just accusing me of a million crimes I'm not guilty of, which seems to be the bulk of both Percy and HBDs recent posts.

I finally gave up even reading through all the posts, they're mainly just a list of accusations anyway. So if there's anything substantive in any of them please extract those parts and present them in a new post as actual refutations of my argument. And I do hope somebody will properly characterize what my argument IS so the supposed refutations will at least make sense.
Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You got THAT out of what I said?
Oy
OK, try again: The animals that leave the ark have intact genomes, intact DNA from Creation, intact functioning DNA, except for maybe some small amount of junk DNA since the Fall, but very little. Nothing is "stored in their junk DNA," what is junk DNA NOW was maybe 90% functioning intact DNA then. So if our genomes have 95% junk DNA, theirs would have had less than 10%. So their entire genome minus maybe that much junk DNA was all functioning intact genes. Hardly any junk DNA, so lots of traits we no longer have, my guess being most of them were for much more acute senses than we have now, acute sight, including more colors, acute hearing, maybe better than dogs', functioning appendix and other "vestigial" organs and so on. I can hardly wait to find out. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.I don't know if there ever was a "speciation event," but there would have been many different varieties/races/subspecies of each animal formed within a few hundred years from the ark.At the rate of six to ten kittens say twice a year, for instance, cats could have grown their population enormously in not many years. Single-offspring animals, if there were any then, somewhat longer.Then each parent population breaks up into separate daughter populations which migrate away from each other. Each new population has a different set of gene/allele frequencies, proably each set different from all the others. As they become reproductively isolated from the other populations, each new population continues to grow in numbers, and sexual recombination among its unique set of gene frequencies starts to produce phenotypes that are different from those in all the other populations because of new combinations of alleles.Over some number of generations -- whatever it takes to mix the genotypes of the entire population pretty thoroughly, it should have a distinct appearance of its own. And it too should break up into separately migrating populations, maybe before, maybe after, the parent population is completely mixed; and again each will have its own set of gene frequencies which will bring out a new look to that population eventually too.And meanwhile all these animals are moving away from the ark and away from each other and eventually there should be many different subspecies of this animal spread through the world. Give it a few hundred years from the ark to get a pretty good collection of different species spread over a pretty good-sized area of geography. A hundred years could even do it, but two or three anyway. What YOU said couldn't happen on any planet anyway. But I didn't say that, and what a bizarre idea. What I said was that what is junk DNA NOW was NOT junk then, it was mostly functioning genes (I guessed 90% at the ark, ALL functioning of course at Creation). Junk doesn't become active, but active could become junk, mostly due to mutations... And ALL animals today should have a lot of junk in their genomes so I don't know how you could track it back to stages where there was less. No surprise to me I can tell ya. Yeah, so I've heard. I tend to disagree with other creationists about this, they liking the idea that it has functions, me thinking it's better explained as dead genes. My guess is that some of it still does something, just not much. My only point was that I'd expect mutations to be mentioned if they were a big factor, rather than just give us the usual Punnett square. Not important, we can drop it. I was paraphrasing from a bunch of videos I've been watching, but maybe the one that's clearest on this subject is the one called Biology 312 or something like that. If that's wrong I'll come back and fix it: It's Biology 312, Video 62, and he starts off using the Punnett square at about 2:42.All I meant about it "seeming to affirm" built-in genetic diversity is that a Punnett square is sufficient for built-in genetic diversity but not for including mutations, and they use the square and don't mention any need to count mutations in their introductory lectures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My guess is that when I answer in a particular context I say it differently, that's all. It is true that "I'm not focused on speciation," but if it comes up my view is that it doesn't happen, but I also say I think something exists that is called by that term, I just don't think it's what it's conventionally thought to be. And, again, I'm not focused on speciation. I used to accept it for the sake of argument and figured that if it does happen then it must happen at the end of a series of populations of continually reducing genetic diversity, and I thought perhaps that alone could account for the inability to interbreed. So you can say I changed my mind about that if you want. If it can't it can't, but it remains true that it really doesn't matter because "I'm not focused on speciation" and my opinion as of this current conversation is that what is called speciation isn't speciation anyway. I've never said I have the answers so I don't know how you got that I said that. I haven't studied the math and I don't have the answers but maybe I will some day. Let's straighten out this bit of nonsense too. I would never say breeding IS evolution, but I have said many times that it makes a model for what must happen in evolution in that to get a new phenotypic presentation of a new population requires losing the genetic material for other phenotypes. that has to happen wherever you are getting a population with a new phenotypic character. That indeed is my argument.I also don't say "reduced genetic diversity is evolution," what I say is that SELECTION is what brings evolution about, all forms of addition only interfere with the formation of new varieties or races or subspecies (and I'm using "subspecies" now instead of "species" because although using "species" solves some communication problems, it's causing more in this discussion than it's solving so "subspecies" seems the better choice). Again, all forms of addition interfere with the formation of varieties and subspecies, including mutation and any kind of gene flow, that selection is THE driving force in the formation of such new populations, and in a sense is what evolution IS. And it always entails loss of genetic diversity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The white chart is blinding, the video is actually a lot grayer. However it too is hard on my eyes so I don't watch for any great length of time.
I wear a special pair of glasses made for video gamers. I can't say they help a lot but they help some. My sunglasses are too dark.

Lost 90% of their genes? What am I saying that you could possibly read that way? I said they had 90% functioning intact DNA or about 10% junk DNA.About the genetic bottleneck I've many times explained that at the time of the ark there should have been so much more genetic diversity than we have today that the bottleneck would only have increased the homozygosity to some relatively small extent, unnoticeable by today's standards.I think it's interesting to consider that mutations in the same pseudogenes could very well have occurred independently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've never heard that and it's absurd. "Built-in" suggests it was part of the original design. But I'll try to make what I mean clearer. I mentioned a couple of times that I expect it to come up eventually in the population genetics discussions AND that I frequently encounter it in those videos and in other general discussions how mutation is the source of variability.Yes I know the party line about junk DNA and I still think what I think.I don't believe "speciation" exists as defined. I am not going to use the term "species" any more because of confusion about that, and as I keep saying it's irrelevant to my argument. I see that I said something in a way that implied population growth had something to do with the formation of new subspecies but it's migration that does that so I hope that clears up that confusion.The formation of a daughter population that migrates away from a parent population is a form of random selection of a portion of the population so that new gene frequencies occur in the new population -- and in the old as well in some cases. It's the new gene frequencies that change the phenotypic presentation of the new population from the old and eventually bring about a new subspecies or variety or race after enough generations of breeding within the population. The original random selection of the founders of the new population is the source of the reduced genetic diversity, just as it is with natural selection or artificial selection.I'm dropping "species" altogether because it implies speciation which I don't think has to occur, but I had been using it where I now use "subspecies." Unfortunately there's so much semantic confusion involved in this discussion it's hard to sort it out. I would think the context would make the terms clear but obviously it doesn't. Seems to me "species" is often used without any concern to find out if it's strictly correct, but I realize I can't get away with that so I'm usuing subspecies from now on to describe the new populations that emerge from the processes I've described -- random or other selection, changed gene frequencies, new phenotypic presentation of daughter population, new race or variety or subspecies.The lack of evidence for something so obvious as the speed of microevolution is the result of evo assumptions, not reality. The rapid formation of the Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle populations are what one should expect from microevolution: the normal effects of the formation of a small daughter population then mixed by the seasonal breeding pattern of any animal. The millions of years of the ToE are a ridiculous assumption, and there is no evidence for THAT either, it's ALL a ridiculous assumption. If you aren't going to accept my entirely different way of looking at these things there is no point in discussing any of it. You are just going to keep imposing your false ToE assumptions on me, accuse me of lack of evidence when I've made the case well without it and so on. This is to be expected in a paradigm clash. Your paradigm forces terms and conditions on me that are false and I've been trying my best to make mine clear in spite of that for years now. I would have thought a fair reading of how I use English words would clarify but I'm finding incredibly absurd straw man renderings of my simple statements instead. So absurd I've suspected intentional obfuscation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your post makes it painfully clear that you haven't the slightest interest in fair discussion. An honest attempt to understand what I'm saying shouldn't be all that hard but if it is the discussion is hopeless. It's only become clear in the last few posts how much of the problem is semantic. Plus a lack of interest in understanding what I'm saying. Seems to me there's no point in continuing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since the discussion is impossible, and anything I say is mangled in the ToE paradigm anyway, I'm just going to sketch it all out again knowing that will happen and you can all go fly a kite.All it takes to form a new race or variety or subspecies is to isolate a relatively small number of individuals on an island for a surprisingly short amount of time. A few hundred years should do it and there should be plenty of evidence for that having happened many times in the past. It happens with human populations as well as animals.This observable fact makes the different populations of trilobites and coelacanths in the strata/fossil record best explained as formed within the same short periods of time, and the assumption of evolution between say reptiles and mammals over millions of years just plain ridiculous.Selection reduces genetic diversity. The isolation of a small number of founders of new populations is a form of selection. In such a group there will be a new set of gene frequencies which will bring out the new traits over some number of generations that is far far short of millions of years and certaintly occurs frequently within hundreds.You don't need mutations for any changes whatever. The original created DNA in every species contained enough variability to produce every variety and race that exists, and a lot more than that before so much of it became junk DNA. Since death entered Creation there has been a lot of genetic loss in every species, represented by junk DNA.The bottleneck of the Flood didn't produce the severe genetic depletion a bottleneck today would produce because there was way more genetic diversity on the ark, a lot more heterozygosity in each genome that would simply lose some of it and become homozygous, but not enough to be genetically depleted like the elephant seal or the cheetah.The idea that mutations contribute anything to healthy genetics is mostly an assumption not borne out in reality, but even if they did they don't produce new races or varieties, it takes selection to do that and selection reduces genetic diversity.This has to happen in any evolving line which will eventually reach a point of genetic loss from which further genetic change is impossible, which defines the point where evolution has to end, which is the boundary of the Kind down that particular evolving line.Adding mutations to breeds destroys the breed, and their occurrence in any wild population just makes for a scattering of phenotypes, not evolution. It takes selection to bring about evolution and selection is going to get rid of everything that isn't in the selected gene pool in order to bring about a new subspecies with new characteristics.The only evolution that happens is within a created Kind. It makes for a wonderful array of different creatures over a lot less time than the ToE absurdly requires.And so on and so forth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no genetic relationship between chimps and humans so your questions are meaningless.

OK, yes I think that much genetic material has been lost since the Fall but mostly since the Flood. Yes I think all creatures used to be genetically immensely stronger than they are now, and human beings too.I think all the extra alleles are useless accidents, very very few ever doing anything beneficial, and that the original created genome of each species was designed to produce a huge variety of combinations of traits from two alleles per gene and no more. The great variety would have been enormously enhanced by having so many more functioning genes that are now junk DNA. Perhaps you know how much of the junk DNA is related to the functions of existing genes? My guess would be that a lot of it did once add to existing traits, so that where there are now a number of genes for say visual acuity, there would have been many times that many genes. Visual, hearing, smelling, all the senses should have been much more acute than our limited ranges, also functioning vestigial organs and probably lots of other capacities we have no clue we or any animal ever had.Of course there was no death at the original Creation. It's death and disease that makes the loss of all this problematic.

You have no evidence for your absurd theory so asking me for evidence is out of order. All you have is your accumulation of interpretations, nothing more than that.

I haven't said ANYTHING about macroevolution. Everything I've said is about microevolution, changes built into the genome of the Kind. There is no such thing as macroevolution. Chimps and humans are not genetically related.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.