A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

This is one serious misunderstanding. It doesn't.The filter of selection simply has to leave more useful ones than deleterious.Apparently, about half of human pregnancies end quickly in a spontaneious abortion. Perhaps that is a filter that removes a lot of the most deleterious mutations.Also you've forgotten that "useless" isn't a term you can safely apply to diversity. You arguement has been that genetic diversity HAS to decrease. "Useless" mutations are a counter to that.

Because, like much of life, we see the traces of the history written into development pathways and the controlling genetics. ALl such lines of evidence add up to the same message.

I'd suggest that you offer a translation of that abstract into something like English.

From:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040429/brainsize.shtmland closer to the horse's mouth:
Web Site Not FoundThis study shows the differences in one of the genes controling brain development.The kind of changes involved are exactly what one expects from evolutionary models. They show that changes that we know are possible from mutations can, indeed, add up to significant developments; in thi case the larger, more complex brains of humans (well, of most anyway, ).It seems from this work that, if there is any barrier, it is NOT in the development paths from the brain of a lemur to us.You have refused to say (or don't have a clue) what you are looking for. If this isn't it you'll have to be much more specific.This is a look at the places where your barrier should show up. It didn't (again). Why is that?

You say mutation doesn't have it. But we know that mutations can create all the genetic patterns we see. We know this because we know they can add new base pairs, subtract them and reorder them. That is all that you need to create any patter from any other (in fact all you need is add and subtract).You have a habit of making assertions on topics which you know nothing about and of being unable to back them up.Your statment "mutation doesn't have it" actuall doesn't make any sense. The mutation process can't "have" anything. It can however keep adding to the pile. That we know from what is observed at the chemical level.

I think before you continue to assert you should comment on
How Many Mutations Does Each Human Have?

Unfortunately for your view it has been shown that we all have a number of new mutations. So each generation of humans has about 50 or so BILLION mutations. (not all unique, of course).You're assertions about mutations are simply wrong.

There was a list of much more than this. What is true is that ALL the cases given show NO trace of ancient DNA (from the last few 1,000 years) being any different in a major structural way from todays. There is NO trace of the 'degredation' you talk about.All the evidence points to you being wrong and you've offered nothing but wild speculation.You have yet to risk describing the "super genome" of Adam for example. You have not said where the extra diversity of alleles could have been stored.

That is absolutely untrue. You have been given evidence. You have ignored it.

Yes they have. More than once. Here is one: Message 189You never replied though it was directed to you. Odd behaviour for someone who pretends to want to learn.

It seems this "barrier" thread has bogged down in a bit of detail.The detail has to do with speciation events and the effect they have on the gene pool. In addition, it concerns the relationship between genetic reshuffling and phenotypic traits. I'm not able to remember any more than that.Faith believes she has demonstrated something by doing some arm-waving (without the necessary math) about the reduction in genetic diversity in sub-populations when a larger population is split as a first step toward eventual specation.I think most here agree with her (without doing careful math) that this will happen under some particular and specific scenarios.Obviously if a split-off population is small enough it has a high probability of not containing all the alleles of the original larger population.Obviously if some alleles are rare enough in the original population then a sub-population may well not contain them.We know this happens from real world examples given. (None of them by Faith). We also are told that in the real world this reduction in diversity or population size is enough to result in an extinction of the smaller population -- sometimes.However, it is just as easy to visualize (again without the math which would be required to arrive at any real conclusion) that these cases do not always apply. There will be times when the subpopulations are large enough to be just as diverse as the original.Thus it simply doesn't matter if population split, reform, split with one dying out (or both). It doesn't matter if some subpopulations are drastically reduced in diversity. These things don't always happen. In the seething stew of interacting populations in the wild it all happens all the time.It has been shown that mutation gives rise to increased diversity. Faith is now on the "beneficial" kick. It doesn't matter to diversity if the new genetics is beneficial or not. It only matters that it is un-harmful enough to be maintained in the population. It then adds diversity. That is all that is required.This leaves this whole issue as a red herring. Populations can subdivide and maintain or regain diversity.Now we can look at what happens next.

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".

You have been given evidence. You choose to ignore it.Some of the evidence (all that we've found so far) shows that your idea of some sort of super genome in the past is bunk.Some of the evidence shows that there are mutations in all organisms and they are obviously near enough to neutral (since the organisms are alive). This means that they increase diversity in the gene pool countering some of your assertions.Some of the evidence shows that there are, indeed, some beneficial mutations.Some of the discussion points out the flaws in the 'reasoning' you've used.None of these points have been answered by you.