A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. I have defined the kind. However you think that fits or doesn't with your understanding of "species", so be it. I've said what I said and I can't continue to clarify what I've already clearly stated. I'm sorry. So what? The fact the some populations cease to inter-breed does not deny that genetic relationship that does exist...Two populations of sparrow no longer inter-breed; Does that make them unrelated? Certainly not. There are documented, observed cases of this happening in this country. The standard definition of species says nothing about the relatedness of two populations - merely the fact that they no longer inter-breed (not that they can't or wouldn't produce viable offspring).

It's been straight as an arrow. I've only ever said one thing. Comparing the kind to the family level (which I did as a concession to those who insisted) is merely an observation of apparent appropriateness, not my criteria for defining the kind (whose actual criteria should be amply understood by now).

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.

If you're asking me what kind they belong I'd have to think about it.

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.

And classical science really solves that problem don't they?Just throw them into their own category it's all good? Creationist biology could do the very same thing if it came down to that.

"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.

Since dog breeds are not species, this argument is spurious. Try again. And I couldn't care less your opinion - please provide specifics, as I've asked you before. Oh, and the "supporting evidence" for my position is found in the three journal articles I referenced in the previous thread. Where's yours?

Those so inclined might want to consider posting summations at this point.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Still no evidence of this mysterious "barrier"! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Who cares if dog breeds are not separate species - as I've addressed already, all the term species relates is that specific organisms do not inter-breed. It says nothing about the relatedness of the individuals.The example of dog breeds clearly demonstrates the ability of non-mutational forces to generate a tremendous amount of morphological/phenotypic diversity. The fact that dog breeds still inter-breed and thus aren't classified as separate species in no way negates this observation. That's the point.If you lived more than 300 years ago you would probably deny the amount of variation capable in the dog species as a priori assumption that such variation could only be caused mutationally. However the vast amount of variation seen within the scopes of one species is a significant counter-claim to that assertion.

OK, since Faith has ignored my last two replies to her posts, I’ll summarize what appears to have happened on this thread.Though the thread is about finding and describing a proposed reason why macroevolution can’t occur, no such thing has even been proposed, much less given evidence for.Faith said that there can’t be an increase in genetic diversity after a bottleneck since the forces that eliminate alleles are somehow expected to win out over the creation of new alleles through mutation.Faith has agreed that mutations do occur, and that they do add alleles.For instance, Faith wrote:

quote:

---

Listen, that mutation makes new alleles has been acknowledged all along.

---

Now, since new alleles have been agreed to, and since Faith agreed that the Apo allele is a beneficial mutation, we have all agreed that mutations can and do produce beneficial mutations. In addition to that, we had listed over a dozen beneficial mutations, most of which are NOT in bacteria (such as beautiful buttocks, human tails, whale legs, Apo, etc).OK, so from that point it seems we all agree that beneficial mutations happen and add new alleles.Now, with that in mind, we looked at whether or not these new alleles are enough to increase genetic diversity. Many examples were given, including the salamander one. In the salamander case, Faith claimed that those were all hidden alleles, but as Q and the article itself pointed out, genetic diversity increases were seen, showing that the increase was from new alleles, as in the case of the Apo mutation (since, as we discussed, the idea that this was a hidden dominant allele makes no sense).In addition, the many instances of increases in genetic diversity were supplied, Faith said that not enough of them showed mutation. However, we’ve already all agreed that mutation happens, so I don’t see the point here. Mutation is unavoidable in many of them, like the algae example, where, like Apo, it’s silly to claim that the allele for it’s robustness was “hidden” for thousands of years, since if it were, it would have taken over the Med. Sea long ago.Plus, in the case of island populations, it can’t be hidden alleles, since the repeated and severe bottlenecks would, according to faith, degrade the gene pool until the species died out, but instead we see over and over how they form new species, filling every ecological niche on the island. The majority of the examples I gave in that list were never refuted. The whole topic of the many ways to show that the degradation hypothesis is testable and wrong seems to have been dropped.So now we have agreed on mutation making new alleles, and have shown that bottlenecked species very often flourish and make new species afterwards. We’ve also shown that we have many ways to test the idea that ancient creatures had supergenomes or were healthier, and all of that evidence shows that they didn’t.It seems like this thread, and the many pieces of evidence presented, have clearly shown that not only is it possible for macroevolution to occur, but more so that any proposed barrier has evidence against it wherever one would place this proposed barrier. On top of that, we’ve seen no evidence of a barrier, even though such evidence is easy to imagine (such as groups of animals that have no genetic nor phenotypic relationship with any other group - a separate “kind”).The 300 mark is getting closer, but in this case it looks like we’ve covered most of the discussion points anyway.Also in closing, Talkorigins has just happened to post a nice FAQ about macroevolution. It's here: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and HistoryTake care--EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : added faqEdited by Equinox, : No reason given.

Why do you say this? We have no idea how many mutations are present in different breeds. I sure don't and I'll bet you haven't a clue either.(I do know what at least one modern cat breed is a direct result of a mutation so the chances of there being none between different dog breeds isn't too large).You don't seem to understand that you don't get to make up "facts".

This echos what I was trying to say in Message 281. It might be good fodder for a continuation of this thread.In short, when did it become a given that allelic reduction can cause speciation? This whole thread has been based on that and it has NEVER been established.Edited by Jazzns, : wrong link

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I've argued strenuously that allelic reduction is the overall trend of all the processes that lead up to speciation, not that it directly causes speciation, although when the conditions are ripe that's what happens then too. It hasn't been treated as a "given" it's been argued up one side and down the other through many threads, and I believe well defended.The ONLY thing that could possibly prevent this effect is mutation, and that is why eventually the discussion goes in the direction of arguing what mutation is and whether it happens in anywhere near the numbers or usefulness needed to contradict this process. Mutation is ASSUMED in all the studies and arguments so far given on the evo side, without the slightest evidence that it does what it is claimed to do. Mutation is obviously needed if the ToE is true, and it is not questioned by evos, but it has to be questioned. The argument is always that since mutation exists that proves it powers evolution. I'm sorry, it does not prove it at all. Far from it. You have yet to prove it. I thought the cod allele count study was a good start toward discussing the actual problem instead of assuming it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.