MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Please show us how the mutation rate is not sufficient to replenish genetic diversity over thousands of years. You do need mutations to get chimps and humans from a common ancestor.

You are once again ignoring your own argument. You have been saying that evolution will stop because genetic diversity will run out. This is contradicted by the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity, even if that new diversity is reduced in the future.The analogy of a car's gas tank is valid. Cars don't stop running after 400 miles, the distance they can drive on one tank of gas. More fuel is constantly added to the tank so that the car never stops. All you want to do is point to the engine reducing the gas in the tank. You ignore all of the gas going into the tank. Evolution never stops because new variation is constantly added to the population through mutations. New gas is added to the tank of evolution.Here is a simple example:

Generation 1     Generation 500         Generation 1,000
Alleles:         AA               AB                     BB

We start with a population which is homozygous for allele A. A mutation occurs which produces allele B. After 500 generations the population is heterozygous for alleles A and B, which is an increase in genetic diversity. After another 500 generations, allele B replaces allele A. You start and finish with the same amount of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity stays the same, and evolution moves on.In the future, you can have a mutation that produces allele C which goes through the same process. Evolution never stops.

No, you haven't.In my example, you start and finish with the same amount of genetic diversity. You claim that this can't happen. If you can't address my post, then your argument has been refuted.

Selection is what changes the population from homozygous AA to heterozygous AB, and finally to homozygous BB.At the beginning you start out with homozygous AA. You finish with homozygous BB. That is the same amount of genetic diversity at the beginning and at the end.

First, I don't see how organisms could survive after losing 90% of their genes.Second, how in the world would different species just happen to lose nearly all of the same genes and keep nearly all of the same genes? That doesn't make any sense. Diversification through losing different genes just doesn't work since they have nearly all the same genes.Third, that still doesn't explain the genetic diversity at a single locus which is completely inconsistent with a genetic bottleneck just 4,000 years ago. Genes are found at the same location on the same chromosome in all individuals. A specific gene isn't spread around the genome among many many copies. Therefore, claiming that junk DNA was functional in the past doesn't get around the problem of the observed genetic diversity at each position in the genome.Fourth, species from different kinds, as you would define them, share the same mutations in the same pseudogenes. This isn't consistent with independent events. This is consistent with shared ancestry where the shared ancestor already had the mutation in the pseudogene.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Right now, about 5% of the human genome is functional DNA, much of which is made up of genes. By my math, you are going from the genome being made up of 90% genes to 5% genes. That's a loss of 85%. Your explanations are wrong. At most, you can only have a handful of alleles for each gene. In real species, there are thousands and thousands of alleles for some genes. It isn't interesting. It is wrong.

Then please tell us how long it should take to get the 40 million mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes with known mutation rates, known generation times, and reasonable population sizes. We are all ears.Should it only take 1,000 years to get humans and chimps from a common ancestor? 500 years?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We are saying that it takes millions of years to get divergence equal to 40 million mutations in species like humans and apes. If you think that is wrong, then please tell us how long it takes. 1,000 years? 500 years? 5 years?

You think? Have any evidence to back it up? Otherwise, you are just inventing fantasies to avoid reality. How? Species largely have the same functional genes and the same junk DNA. How do you get variety from that? Most studies conclude that 5-10% of the genome has sequence specific function. Why did species all lose the very same traits? Why wouldn't they lose different traits?

Please show how you can have one species put on an island, and then have chimps and humans evolve from that species in a short amount of time.

We are defining macroevolution as the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor. You are saying that macroevolution does not take millions of years, only a short amount of time through genetic diversity that already exists. So why would it only take a short amount of time for humans and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor without any mutations?Also, we have tons of evidence:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

Would you agree that in order to get 40 million differences between two lineages that share a common ancestor, it would take millions of years? Yes or no? How so?

Let's see if you can comprehend the simplest of points.

Start -Mutation---Selection-----Middle-----Selection------End
allele:       AA                               AB                       BB

You start with a homozygous AA population. A mutation occurs producing allele B. Due to selection that B allele becomes more common, resulting in a heterozygous AB population. Selection continues until you have a homozygous population of BB.The genetic diversity at the end is the same as the genetic diversity at the start. Evolution does not run out of genetic diversity.

You have been claiming that evolution will run out of genetic diversity, yet we can see with this simple example that this isn't the case. Do you agree?

I just showed you that this is false. Want to see it again?