MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

If you don't like attention being called to your bad behavior then don't behave badly.I have critiqued your ideas in detail, explaining why they lack any evidence, conflict with existing evidence, and often don't make sense. The way to fix that is to find evidence, account for existing evidence, and make sense. When you fail to do that then it is not the responsibility of others to pretend that you have, and you have no one to blame but yourself.At heart what you're doing is religion, and it should come as no surprise that there's no science in it.--Percy

Responses like this just reinforce the criticisms you keep objecting to and work against your own best interests. You need evidence and argument, not expressions of pique.The problem at the core of your views of macroevolution is the way they ignore existing evidence and often fail to make any sense. Until you remedy these lacks you're going to continue to experience the frustrations that cause you to strike out at others. We can't fix this for you. You have to fix it yourself.--Percy

Well this is just more nonsense. So nobody can define kind. But even though nobody can define kind, you can define it. Since "depletes" is uselessly vague, you don't have a definition.You've talked in the past about genetic diversity being reduced to the point when it can't be reduced any further, but that could only be the case when all genes have reached fixation, which can't be true of any species anywhere. And given mutation, fixation isn't a permanent state anyway.That reminds me of something that should be clarified: selection only reduces diversity when the last copy of an allele is eliminated from a population. This of course does happen, but it is a tiny, tiny percentage of all selection events. For example, let's say an individual dies without producing any offspring, i.e., is selected against. Unless this individual possessed the last copy of a particular allele in the population, diversity has not been reduced.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

In my opinion, it is pointless to use the human/chimp relationship as an example when in a discussion with a creationist since they take humans and chimps to be different "kinds" as a given - not up for debate regardless of the similarities. Besides, it is unnecessary as they themselves have given examples of created "kinds" that they accept as valid that would work just as well to use as an example.From Mammalian Ark Kinds "published" by AiG. (I put published in quotation marks because I find it humorous how they try to make their journal articles appear to be scientific publications).Anyway a few of the low hanging fruit from that article:

quote:

---

Canidae (Dog kind)
There are 13 genera and 35 species of canids (Wilson and Reeder 2005). There is considerable hybrid data, including a cross between a coyote and a red fox. This has led to the suggestion that fewer genera should be recognized because these animals are quite closely related (Van Gelder 1977). A number of creationist studies have been done, including a couple which examine diversity within the family (baraminology studies summarized in Lightner 2009; Pendragon 2011; previous baraminology studies summarized in Wood 2006). The strong cognitum and extensive hybrid data suggest the kind is likely at the level of the family.

---

List of members of the Canidae "kind" by chromosome numbers:Dogs and Wolves = 78
Maned wolf = 76
Gray fox = 66
Fennec fox = 64
Bengal fox = 60
Kit fox = 50
Tibetan fox = 36
Red fox = 34Now, perhaps one could propose a model that could account for decreasing chromosome numbers, Faith's nonsense can't do it. Besides, according to a model of reducing chromosome number, Dogs and wolves would be the ancestral group, yet despite all the extensive breeding of dogs and the extreme reduction in genetic diversity in breeds.... no chromosome loss. Weird huh?In fact, the wolf has 2.75 Gbp of DNA in 78 chromosomes and the gray fox has 3.00 Gbp of DNA in 66 chromosomes, so it lost chromosomes but gained 250 Mbp of DNA! Dogs also have 78 chromosomes, but their DNA content ranges from 2.73 Gbp to 3.46 Gbp. So if they were bred from wolves, they also gained DNA. Hmmm.I also found this article. It's behind a paywall, but from the abstract:

quote:

---

Canid species (dogs and foxes) have highly rearranged karyotypes... Our results, together with published data, allow the formulation of a likely Canidae ancestral karyotype (CAK, 2n = 82), and reveal that at least 6—24 chromosomal fission/fusion events are needed to convert the CAK karyotype to that of the modern canids.

---

6-24 fission/fusion events without mutations. Right...Genetic comparisons of this group would undoubtedly show that the rate of change needed to produce the 35 species of canids in just 4,500 years would be untenable and would look nothing like what we observe.There is also:

quote:

---

Felidae (Cat kind)
There are 14 genera and 40 species of cats.

​

Sciuridae (Squirrel kind)
This family contains 51 genera and 278 species. It includes squirrels, chipmunks, marmots and prairie dogs...

​

Muridae (Old world mouse/rat/gerbil/whistling rat kind)
Muridae is comprised of 150 genera and 730 species...

---

These "kinds" are utterly ridiculous and to attempt to explain them as having speciated/adapted/evolved from a single breeding pair in 4,500 years is nothing short of absurd... and especially using Faith's cockamamie ideas.So in short, no need to use an example that will be automatically dismissed, my suggestion is to stick with examples that they already accept as legit "kinds."HBDps: I am replying to you rather than Faith because I doubt this has any relevance to her argument, is too technical for her to understand, is a red-herring (since she never mentioned chromosomes before) and is a strawman representation of her position. Edited by herebedragons, : clarity

So, here we are at post 800 and still nobody understands Faith's argument, not even Faith herself. And since we can't understand it, we should just all assume Faith is right because she has thought about this topic very, very hard and, even though she has no formal (or even informal) training in the subject, is undoubtedly right about everything. All this discussion has been is us evil lefties accusing an kind, innocent lady of dishonest debate tactics and not supporting her arguments with evidence. Shame on all of us!So it should be pretty obvious, based on all the evidence provided, that animals at one time had many, many more traits than they do today. I imagine that ALL animals could at one time fly, breath underwater, withstand extreme drought, survive in extreme cold and heat, walk up vertical surfaces, and see in the dark and in the UV spectrum. But alas, due to genetic depletion, we are merely shells of our former selves, barely surviving.We also learned that breeding is a model of evolution. Even though breeders cannot produce new species regardless of how intense selection is, evolution MUST work that way as well, because... well there is no other way it could possibly work.We also learned that mutations cannot be responsible for the differences between two closely related species. If mutations were the cause, then evolution would just eliminate those differences and then there would be no evolution.We also learned that species are not a real thing, but an illusion that evos just made up to discredit Faith's argument. What a disgrace on evos; how can we be so unthinking and not be willing to look at the evidence that is right in front of us. What we call "species" are really just sub-species or varieties. Whether there is genetic incompatibility or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that speciation would confound the model Faith has proposed and so there is just no way that speciation could occur (and besides, it is irrelevant to her model). (oh and a red-herring as well)We also learned that there is no need to know HOW to do the maths, or even what the mathematical formulas are in order to know what the right answer would be. This correct answer can be determined by figuring out what you want the answer to be and then declaring it so. Obviously any maths out there will support a premise that is correct to begin with, so why bother doing the math (math is just a bunch of numbers anyway... no connection to the real world).There are probably many more things we learned in these last several hundred posts, but I don't want to overwhelm everyone with knowledge.I appreciate the discussion, Faith, I much needed a serious diversion for the last couple days, but I must get back to work and studies now, so I probably won't be able to continue this informative analysis of how evolution REALLY works. But rest assured, I will take what I have learned here and apply it to my research and my studies. Hopeful I can get into a remedial reading course this semester to help improve my comprehension skills.Thank You, and Cheers.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

You are right, there's no point in addressing all that to me, but I do appreciate your simple reminder that it's a big waste to talk to a YEC about supposed chimp-human relatedness.I also think it's useless to try to define Kinds, and I wish creationists wouldn't. There is no way to know what the original Created Kinds were and I don't see how it could be reconstructed after the six thousand years of evolution plus genetic deterioration since the Fall.But of course I would argue that there's nothing absurd about all of what we see today having evolved from original pairs. Since you must understand the math involved, that I may or may not ever learn, do it with the assumption that every genome had no junk DNA but it was all functional genes, that there were probably many times the number of genes per trait that we see today, that there were only two alleles per gene and still are, and that the original genome was 100% heterozygous. I trust you to be honest if you are willing to make the effort.Then of course you'll run into the Flood and those calculations should be interesting.I certainly hope you see how your former attempt was a straw man by now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

After reading your first two ridiculous paragraphs I have to take back what I said about trusting you to be honest. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've finally realized that producing a new species is just one of those evo assumptions that is a meaningless distraction, just as I've finally had to recognize that speciation is some kind of delusion. Oh not that it doesn't exist, but that what it is is not speciation, it's just a population of a particular species that for some reason or other can't interbreed with the rest of the species, and I suspect most of such populations are probably rather short on genetic diversity, though I'm no longer sure that's necessary. Could just be the normal destructive work of mutations. See, I do learn from these discussions.So it doesn't have to be the case that a breed must cease to be able to interbreed with others of its Kind to be a model of what happens in the wild. The formation of new populations with new characteristics always has to follow that pattern of selection=loss of genetic diversity no matter what. It's a Principle. The grizzly bear doesn't have the alleles for the salient traits of panda bears and vice versa, and yet who knows if a panda could mate with a grizzly given the right circumstances. So much of the ToE is just assumption based on faith in the Theory. Eh? Since mutations are ASSUMED rather than proved in most cases it is certainly right to doubt the role assigned to them. But what I've actually said is not that they CAN'T be responsible but that there is NO NEED for them because the original created genome has all that is necessary for every variation, race and subspecies that exists now and many many more besides, some of which have presented themselves as fossils for our edification. That being the case, and there being no need for mutations, I go with the more elegant theory, which IS a principle of scientific authenticity. It adds to the argument that mutations are just useless accidents that are only beneficial in certain contexts by fluke and not design. Not what I've said. What I've said is that there is no need for loss of ability to interbreed for species to to be "a real thing," that it's the supposed need for something called "speciation" that's the illusion, not the existence of species. You really might try harder to overcome your habit of building straw men.ABE: Sorry I realize I just fell into the usual semantic trap. Yes I want to use "subspecies" to make it clear that such a "species" created by "speciation" is really still a member of the Kind it evolved from. I'm not up to going back and finding all the terms to change them, sorry. /abe Yes because they are just different varieties of the species they evolved within. There are a great many "species" out there that are not genetically incompatible with others of their Kind, so the cause of the genetic incompatibility, whatever it is, is not definitive of "species." I would like to be better at math and am sorry I'm not. But Darwin admitted he wasn't good at it either. The thing is it should be possible to present a situation involving quantities in plain English in a way that others could do the math if necessary. Still, I may yet learn some basic stuff if I keep at the video courses I've been watching sporadically.You're welcome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, different genes even. See On the Origin of Darwin's Finches. The split with the mainland species, most likely an ancestor of a type of Tiaris (T. obscura is likely the nearest modern relative), is thought to have occurred around 2.3 million years ago from an original population that numbered in excess of 30. Species boundaries are not fixed and the Galapagos species do hybridize. Population splits by themselves do not create new phenotypes. It takes a split accompanied by different selection pressures. And yet the different species of Darwin's Finches possess mutational differences in the alleles of key genes. Shown wrong, you mean. Skin color is determined by a variety of genes. From Genes, Skin Color and Vitamin D:

quote:

---

Human skin color is a polygenic trait, meaning multiple gene loci are involved in its expression. At last count, the International Federation of Pigment Cell Society has determined that there are a total of 378 genetic loci involved in determining skin color in human and mice.

---

What is true is that your wrong ideas about skin color provide no support for your wrong ideas about beaks. This is clearly wrong. Selection drives change. Organisms develop and maintain fitness from the selection pressures exerted by their environment.--Percy

Now Faith, that is once again simply not true as has been explained to you many times; but let's try explaining the reality to you yet again.We do have evidence; to claim we do not is just a falsehood.We do have genetic samples from humans and many other animals from before your imaginary Fall; from before your imaginary floods and from after your imaginary floods. Those samples show that the genetics of humans and other animals and plants are similar to samples of the same plants and animals living today.Where is even a single example of the genetic diversity you claim existed?

See, there you go changing your mind again. Here you declare "it's useless to try to define Kinds" when just a few short hours before you tried to define kinds in Message 794: Moving on: It has been described in detail for you many times how absurd this is. Since you exclude mutation, it is impossible for there to be more than 4 alleles per gene in any non-clean creature, yet many creatures have genes with more than 4 alleles. Your idea is mathematically impossible.Or stated another way, since in your bizarro world evolution includes only selection, which can only remove alleles from a population and can never add them, it is impossible for creatures in the present to have "evolved from original pairs" from the ark. Not only does this make no sense and is impossible, it is contradicted by the evidence of ancient DNA showing it to have roughly equivalent amounts of junk DNA as life at present. Why do you keep repeating things that are clearly not true? I'm struck by the absurdity of your demands for more consideration when you repeat the same ludicrous and already disproved ideas over and over again. Accept the feedback, face the fact that evidence that exists can't be ignored, incorporate it into your ideas, then move on. Repeating the wacky and ridiculous will get you nowhere. Are you stupid? Every population has many examples of genes with more than two alleles. This is as basic as anything can be. The evidence is copious and indisputable. In your dumb scenario of only two alleles per gene, every gene in every population is just one lost allele away from fixation. Honesty requires being truthful and forthright with you. Your ideas are a fantasy, some of them contradicting the most basic and widely available of evidence. The Flood, as you've presented it, is already disproven by existing and widely available evidence.--Percy

Message 800 was satire... you know, satire... like when you wrote: But I seriously need to get back to my writing, I need to graduate soon. If I thought this discussion could be a serious discussion about the science of evolution and could possibly go somewhere, I could probably find some time to continue. But it is obvious we are at a dead end. I just don't have the time to put up with the mental gymnastics you use as debate tactics (Percy has been compiling a list in case you're not sure what tactics I am referring to). More time is spent on those disputes than actually discussing the issues. So... gotta bounce.Maybe I can get back to this the next time you bring it up...HBD

I know you see contradictions everywhere in what I write, but I don't see saying there's no point in defining Kind as contradicting the idea that there's a functional boundary to the Kind. Surely a boundary that is only discovered through the processes of evolution isn't the same thing as a definition of what constitutes a Kind.Two alleles per gene is plenty, all the extra alleles are superfluous even when they seem to do something.I do doubt that you have DNA ancient enough to prove junk DNA was never functional. Timing isn't very trustworthy in that context.How is supposing there were probably a lot more genes per trait "clearly not true?" With 95% of the genome junk DNA, if it was all once functioning it had to do a lot of things that don't get done now and as I think about the weakness of so many of our capacities, such as our senses, and the "vestigial organs" it just seems logical to me that they would have been much stronger at the beginning. And I'm talking about human capacities, not HBD's absurd parody implying I think we'd have NONhuman capacities like breathing underwater, flying and walking up vertical walls. Makes sense to me that all the animals would have had better versions of what they have now given the greater vigor of life at the Creation.I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry.ABE: Oh and anyone who says the Flood has been disproven certainly deserves no trust. Strata to three miles deep and fossils in the bazillions. (Strata turned into Time Periods is the most absurd thing the human race has ever come up wityh.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have once again produced a paragraph of complete nonsense. You don't even seem to care anymore about at least giving the appearance of making sense. (sic) "Speciation does exist, but it's not speciation." "Speciation is when a species can't interbreed with itself yet is still the same species." "New species are short on genetic diversity." "New species are the result of deleterious mutations." You even seem to have lost knowledge of simple word definitions. Inability to interbreed is the very definition of the boundary between species. Speciation definitely is not inability of a species to breed with itself. By definition there can be no such thing. And breeding is not a model of speciation. Breeding cannot produce new species because offspring are always genetically compatible with the rest of the species. It's not a principle, it's just something you made up, and selection does not inevitably lead to loss of genetic diversity. So you're thinking maybe they're the same species, we just don't know it? Given that the result of horse/zebra crossings are invariably sterile or nearly so and the chromosome numbers are 64/46, since the chromosome numbers for grizzly/panda are even more divergent at 74/42 it would make the crosses more difficult to produce and the offspring even more likely sterile. In other words, a virile grizzly/panda cross is unlikely in the extreme. The Ursid hybrid article at Wikipedia says:

quote:

---

Bears not included in Ursus, such as the giant panda, are probably unable to produce hybrids.

---

So it must seem to someone so ignorant of so much evidence. There is no evidence for an "original created genome". All the evidence tells us that species are a result of the combined processes of natural selection and descent with modification (mutation and allele mixing). Mere reduction of genetic diversity cannot produce new species. If elegance is what you're looking for then understand that being consistent with instead of contradictory to existing evidence is a major contributor to elegance. You've finally said something with an element of truth. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. Those that are neutral can get passed on, those that are beneficial will be actively selected for. Inability to interbreed is the very definition of species. But you describe a flood scenario that also requires speciation, from the "original created genome" of the few species from the ark to produce all the species we see today. So if pandas and grizzlies are the same kind that had a single pair of representatives on the ark, how did they up with widely different numbers of chromosomes, genes and alleles without a great deal of mutation?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years. And the article is glaring white. Depends on the size of the population whether the split itself is selection enough to bring out new phenotypes from its new set of gene frequencies. Actually that shouldn't be a problem, but genetic diversity may not show a lot of reduction in the first rounds of population splits, some but not a lot. Population splits ARE selection. The idea of selection pressures is way overrated..The finches probably possess lots of mutations but mutations are not needed for the emergence of different kinds of beaks.What I said about skin color is that all it takes to produce the whole range of colors is two genes of two alleles each, and the fact that there are more genes than that governing skin color does not contradict that simple statement. And the point holds that if all the skin colors can be produced by two genes, there is no problem producing the whole range of beak types and sizes with a very small number of genes too. A fine parroting of the establishment view but I don't accept the establishment view. If the environment was responsible for selection all living things would have gone extinct a long long time ago.