MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

All that's happened is a bunch of utterly ridiculously stupid straw man "refutations" not one argument that even addressed the real issues in my argument.The argument about mutations did at least that much but everything since HBD and Percy got in on the act has been a bunch of weird attacks on straw men.

Yeah the problem IS yours Percy, you fail to comprehend the simplest points, yes that is your fault. But probably not one you can do anything about if you even had a desire to. Time to end this charade.

To get the AB and the BB you had to lose As. In the end it came out even but even with mutations you aren't going to get an increase because mutations simply replace other alleles, and with randomly selected population splits eventually you'll lose low-frequency alleles for a net loss. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Darwin's finches didn't need mutations, just the appearance of different beak types due to changed gene frequencies due to random selection of portions of the finch population. Then they gravitated to whatever food best suited their beak.Nope, a created Kind is a physical reality. Religion is something else.

My claim is that ULTIMATELY, down a PARTICULAR LINE THAT IS EVOLVING (the clearest example of which is ring species), it has to end up at a point of genetic depletion beyond which further evolution is impossible. How often this extreme situation occurs I have no idea but it is inevitable given the processes that bring about new subspecies.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think what YOU need to do is stop accusing me of everything in the book and think fairly about what I'm saying. You won't so go fly a kite, a really really big one that will carry you to the moon, how about that.

Follow the argument. You proved no such thing.

You're wrong.

Nobody can define Kind because there's been too much change since Creation. But I have a functional definition which is more than anybody else has: the point at which selection depletes genetic diversity in an evolving population.

Different genes even? There are probably many genes that govern beak size and type that already existed in the genome, which is all it would have taken to produce any given beak type from simple population splits. The whole variety of beaks needs no mutations at all. If all the known skin colors are available from two genes of two alleles each, as I've shown many times before, there is no reason for any extra genes or alleles above and beyond those originally created to explain all the different beaks in the finch genome.The standard Darwinian explanation is that the food drove the selection. That is immensely costly and unnecessary, especially since all it takes is ordinary genetic recombination to produce every kind of beak for every kind of food. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are right, there's no point in addressing all that to me, but I do appreciate your simple reminder that it's a big waste to talk to a YEC about supposed chimp-human relatedness.I also think it's useless to try to define Kinds, and I wish creationists wouldn't. There is no way to know what the original Created Kinds were and I don't see how it could be reconstructed after the six thousand years of evolution plus genetic deterioration since the Fall.But of course I would argue that there's nothing absurd about all of what we see today having evolved from original pairs. Since you must understand the math involved, that I may or may not ever learn, do it with the assumption that every genome had no junk DNA but it was all functional genes, that there were probably many times the number of genes per trait that we see today, that there were only two alleles per gene and still are, and that the original genome was 100% heterozygous. I trust you to be honest if you are willing to make the effort.Then of course you'll run into the Flood and those calculations should be interesting.I certainly hope you see how your former attempt was a straw man by now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

After reading your first two ridiculous paragraphs I have to take back what I said about trusting you to be honest. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've finally realized that producing a new species is just one of those evo assumptions that is a meaningless distraction, just as I've finally had to recognize that speciation is some kind of delusion. Oh not that it doesn't exist, but that what it is is not speciation, it's just a population of a particular species that for some reason or other can't interbreed with the rest of the species, and I suspect most of such populations are probably rather short on genetic diversity, though I'm no longer sure that's necessary. Could just be the normal destructive work of mutations. See, I do learn from these discussions.So it doesn't have to be the case that a breed must cease to be able to interbreed with others of its Kind to be a model of what happens in the wild. The formation of new populations with new characteristics always has to follow that pattern of selection=loss of genetic diversity no matter what. It's a Principle. The grizzly bear doesn't have the alleles for the salient traits of panda bears and vice versa, and yet who knows if a panda could mate with a grizzly given the right circumstances. So much of the ToE is just assumption based on faith in the Theory. Eh? Since mutations are ASSUMED rather than proved in most cases it is certainly right to doubt the role assigned to them. But what I've actually said is not that they CAN'T be responsible but that there is NO NEED for them because the original created genome has all that is necessary for every variation, race and subspecies that exists now and many many more besides, some of which have presented themselves as fossils for our edification. That being the case, and there being no need for mutations, I go with the more elegant theory, which IS a principle of scientific authenticity. It adds to the argument that mutations are just useless accidents that are only beneficial in certain contexts by fluke and not design. Not what I've said. What I've said is that there is no need for loss of ability to interbreed for species to to be "a real thing," that it's the supposed need for something called "speciation" that's the illusion, not the existence of species. You really might try harder to overcome your habit of building straw men.ABE: Sorry I realize I just fell into the usual semantic trap. Yes I want to use "subspecies" to make it clear that such a "species" created by "speciation" is really still a member of the Kind it evolved from. I'm not up to going back and finding all the terms to change them, sorry. /abe Yes because they are just different varieties of the species they evolved within. There are a great many "species" out there that are not genetically incompatible with others of their Kind, so the cause of the genetic incompatibility, whatever it is, is not definitive of "species." I would like to be better at math and am sorry I'm not. But Darwin admitted he wasn't good at it either. The thing is it should be possible to present a situation involving quantities in plain English in a way that others could do the math if necessary. Still, I may yet learn some basic stuff if I keep at the video courses I've been watching sporadically.You're welcome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know you see contradictions everywhere in what I write, but I don't see saying there's no point in defining Kind as contradicting the idea that there's a functional boundary to the Kind. Surely a boundary that is only discovered through the processes of evolution isn't the same thing as a definition of what constitutes a Kind.Two alleles per gene is plenty, all the extra alleles are superfluous even when they seem to do something.I do doubt that you have DNA ancient enough to prove junk DNA was never functional. Timing isn't very trustworthy in that context.How is supposing there were probably a lot more genes per trait "clearly not true?" With 95% of the genome junk DNA, if it was all once functioning it had to do a lot of things that don't get done now and as I think about the weakness of so many of our capacities, such as our senses, and the "vestigial organs" it just seems logical to me that they would have been much stronger at the beginning. And I'm talking about human capacities, not HBD's absurd parody implying I think we'd have NONhuman capacities like breathing underwater, flying and walking up vertical walls. Makes sense to me that all the animals would have had better versions of what they have now given the greater vigor of life at the Creation.I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry.ABE: Oh and anyone who says the Flood has been disproven certainly deserves no trust. Strata to three miles deep and fossils in the bazillions. (Strata turned into Time Periods is the most absurd thing the human race has ever come up wityh.)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.

Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years. And the article is glaring white. Depends on the size of the population whether the split itself is selection enough to bring out new phenotypes from its new set of gene frequencies. Actually that shouldn't be a problem, but genetic diversity may not show a lot of reduction in the first rounds of population splits, some but not a lot. Population splits ARE selection. The idea of selection pressures is way overrated..The finches probably possess lots of mutations but mutations are not needed for the emergence of different kinds of beaks.What I said about skin color is that all it takes to produce the whole range of colors is two genes of two alleles each, and the fact that there are more genes than that governing skin color does not contradict that simple statement. And the point holds that if all the skin colors can be produced by two genes, there is no problem producing the whole range of beak types and sizes with a very small number of genes too. A fine parroting of the establishment view but I don't accept the establishment view. If the environment was responsible for selection all living things would have gone extinct a long long time ago.