MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Homozygosity at many loci is the inevitable end result if selection persists, but I'm talking about a trend, there always being some loss of genetic diversity with the formation of a new population with its own identifiable characteristics, SOME homozygosity with each new population, the extreme condition of fixed loci for all traits wouldn't occur. New combinations based on a new set of gene frequencies is going to bring out new traits no matter what. In the ideal ring species you probably don't get a lot of fixed loci until after many new populations have formed, but you do get new phenotypes from loss of genetic diversity all along the way. If this much could be established I'd be interested in hearing about what this lookis like genetically, but as long as the basic scenario is being denied there's no way to discus it. For instance I figure the black wildebeest population which is enormous, a million or more, has great genetic diversity and that its characteristics are maintained by free breeding among its members though the percentage of homozygosity in the genome may be fairly low by comparison to a species formed from a small number of individuals. There are at least two other populations of wildebeests, one called the blue wildebeest, which probably formed from some number that migrated away from the majority black herd. Whichever migrated away should show the greater loss of genetic diversity, which usually means some increase in homozygosity, but I wouldn't expect it to be severe unless the founding population was really small.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not in any way that contributes to the formation of new species, races, varieties, breeds, etc., which requires some form of selection which requires losing genetic diversity. And if it did keep doing what you claim, you would never have any identifiable species, races, varieties or breeds. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The original beetle probably had no junk DNA for starters and many genes for every trait. That would very likely be quite enough to account for that many different species without any mutations at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not that I recall. Perhaps you could be more specific?

The logic of the argument has been clear all along.

And when you do you must lose the genetic material for other phenotypes, because that's what selection does. The addition of mutations doesn't do anything in itself but change an allele here and there in the greater population. It has to be selected to form a new species, and selection requires the loss of the phenotype the mutation displaces. Except that you do have a population-wide recognizable group identity, which is called a species or breed etc. The small differences could be selected, say by a small group of individuals being separated from the parent population, reproductively isolated and developing a new species. Sure that could happen. But the way the new species is developed is through selection. If such a selection, even a random selection, doesn't occur, you will continue to have the essential stasis of the parent population, with scattered phenotypic differences, or drift here and there and so on. But wherever you are getting a group identity of new phenotypes you are losing the other phenotypes. This pattern always has to occur, even in drift which is also a form of selection.

Doesn't affect what I said about beetles.And the additional alleles do not improve the immune system at all, they simply scatter its protections among individuals, making it more like Russian Roulette than a functionoing immune system. The genes of the immune system are all co-dominant which would ensure that all individuals had the same protections if it remained intact, but mutations destroy that intactness and scatter its protections.The concession had to do with whether that many different mutations could have occurred since Creation given the current rate of mutations. They couldn't have. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Adding gas doesn't destroy what the engine is doing, but adding mutations would destroy existing species.

So I'm not allowed to give an alternative explanation or hypothesis here, only the establishment view is allowed. Well, that figures.

Oh come on. If you have an established breed you don't want alien genes messing it up, that's the whole point of reproductive isolation. Nature doesn't "care" but the fact is that species in the wild do have established identities that do persist, but that couldn't persist if mutations kept changing their look. So we know it doesn't happen, unless a separate population is formed by selection which eliminates the former phenotypes and then you have yet a new species with the usual loss of genetic diversity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My alternative theory has been very well supported.

What I've said here is just genetic facts, haven't even mentioned the Bible.

Scattered mutations don't change a species, it takes selection to do that. But in the case of breeding, breeders don't want anything to change their breed even a mutation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Selection which must decrease that very genetic diversity.

What I'm saying is that species in nature appear to be pretty stable, not subject to mutations which keep changing their appearance.