A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

Apart from the fact that this is a bare assertion that you need to back up with evidence, I would also point out that "most novel traits" does not mean all novel traits.So, by your own admission, there must be novel traits that are not the result of a remixing of existing alleles, but of the much dreaded new alleles. If the barrier this thread is about really exists, then this should not be the case.Edited by Parasomnium, : subtitle

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

In that case, would you be so (ahem) kind to classify the following organisms: an amoeba, a tree-fern and a dandelion, all of which reproduce asexually? There are thousands more I could ask you about, but these three suffice for now.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Let's assume that you are right and that those processes do indeed reduce genetic diversity. What does that mean, "reduce genetic diversity"? It means that things become more and more the same, right? I mean, a reduction in diversity must mean an increase in uniformity, or else we need some new definitions of the words 'diversity' and 'uniformity'.So, here's an interesting question for you: how can a process that reduces genetic diversity, a process that leads to more uniformity, how can such a process bring about new traits? It should be painfully obvious that these two effects, the reduction of diversity and the creation of new traits, are contradictory. Please explain how you come up with such a strange concept.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hello!? Am I talking to a wall???MJ, please classify the amoeba, the tree-fern, and the dandelion.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Let me help you.According to your definition of 'kind' they do not belong anywhere, because they reproduce asexually, and therefore fall outside any kind, which you defined as "interbreeding organisms". This means that all bacteria and most plants, to name just a few categories, cannot be classified in kinds.Huge problems, it seems, for creationist biology.

"Classical science", as you call it, isn't without its problems with regard to 'species', but it isn't religious about it either. If new facts come up, a biologist may have to reconsider the boundaries between species, and this frequently happens.All I did was point to a problem with your definition of 'kind'. Some "new" facts came up: there are organisms that reproduce asexually. Now it's up to you to reconsider the boundaries between kinds. Good luck.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.