A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

But this is just the ToE assumption. In reality microevolution can't lead to macroevolution because the processes of variation require the loss of genetic variability. Domestic breeding always seems to be the best illustration: You can't get a Great Dane without losing most of the genetic material for Dachsunds and Chihuahuas and Golden Retrievers.When Darwin formulated his theory based on Natural Selection he assumed it was open ended and didn't realize it requires genetic loss, and neither does anyone today it seems. You all talk about Natural Selection as if it could add something or at least not subtract, I guess because it does result in new phenotypes, but it HAS to subtract. And then of course when you do recognize it you try to make up the difference with mutations but all mutations could do is add to the pool of alleles, and it's only by reducing that pool with new gene frequencies that you get new phenotypes. Yes I know I say this over and over and you deny it over and over but it's the only way it can happen.Getting a new population with new characteristics either in breeding or in the wild requires loss. That's what selection IS and DOES, it's a process of isolating a new set of individuals for a new set of gene frequencies and that's the ONLY way you can get new phenotypes. You get new gene frequencies with each isolation of a portion of the parent population, and it's the isolation that brings out the new traits, leaving other traits behind. This is a random process in the wild though intentional in breeding.I know you have the usual ToE assumptions about all this but they don't work. In a ring species what REALLY happens is that a population multiplies for some time and then individuals migrate from it to a new location and start a new population. These individuals carry a new set of gene frequencies from the set that formed the first population, so if they are have reproductive isolation, which may not be perfect but for the sake of discussion we can assume it is, then after some generations of breeding within this new population you'll have a completely new "species" that may have some dramatic new characteristics simply because it is combining a new and probably smaller set of alleles. It can probably interbreed with the original population.And then after this second population is well established and its numbers have grown a great deal, individuals migrate away from it and establish a third population and the process repeats: new phenotypes from new gene frequencies and NO mutations necessary at all.And of course all this is microevolution, it's all the product of the same species genome losing alleles from population to population, until finally it should develop fixed loci for most of the salient characteristics of the last population. This is oversimplified but should hold up generally. In reality there will be some gene flow, maybe resumed gene flow, hybrid zones and so on and so forth.So you are going to go on with an entirely different scenario which I'll come back to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but again, adding to the genotype doesn't change the phenotype, which is what you are more or less acknowledging here. You have to subtract to get new phenotypes. When you add mutations you may or may not get a new allele, usually all you get doesn't change the phenotype at all, and if you do get something new it's only going to be a variation on what the gene already does. I'm talking about sexually reproducing creatures here though I know you are going to go on to e coli which to my mind is a wholly different kind of situation.Anyway, ADDING to the pool of alleles, even if mutations did do that, which is highly suspect to my mind, certainly extremely rare in any case, at the very very best it could only supply a slightly different trait to a new set of gene frequencies, which might or might not be incorporated into a new isolated population. But to get a new "species" meaning a new look to a new population, requires subtraction, so the odds of getting a mutation incorporated into it aren't very high anyway. Just to repeat, it takes SUBTRACTION of alleles to get new phenotypes. "Can," but not likely. And that has to be the result of a loss too, the loss of whatever the allele did that was replaced by the mutation. But could we please stik to sexually reproducing creatures? E coli doesn't say much about them. That's still an accident to my mind, as would be the very occasional similar function brought about by a mutation in other creatures. But if you get a whole population of citrus-eating e coli they will have lost whatever function the mutation replaced and maybe that ends up being some kind of harm. But just because a mutation gets something functional in e coli doesn't make it a model for sexually reproducing organisms and again could we please stik to those.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's just a lot of assertive bla-bla. I'm going to try to keep the focus on what RAZD says anyway, but if you are going to interject, at the least you need to give evidence of your claim.

The inability to interbreed by the last population is most likely the result of its severe genetic depletion after so many losses through the earlier series of populations. Those earlier populations in the ring may also lose that ability but not necessarily for genetic reasons.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Continuing with your Message 431\\ Of course. This is the normal result of sexual recombination from generation to generation. But this does require some degree of isolation from the parent population because if interbreeding is maintained among all the generations although there should be some change it shouldn't be dramatic because the parent's genes are always getting redistributed into the mix. This wouldn't be the case with human populations, though, but it should be the case with most animal populations. When you give processes a formal name it may imply something more than is actually going on. All you are describing seems to be the normal effect of sexual recombination within a large population. It does produce genetic and phenotypic changes from generation to generation. But even this process is the result of some form of selection or isolation, i.e. subtraction of some genetic material allowing other combinations to be expressed. But in a large population where each generation will interbreed among themselves there's going to be a lot of redistribution of the genes from the parent population anyway. I guess this is a form of "evolution" but of course a mild form of microevolution. Naming it implies something more than that: Phyletic speciation, anagenesis, or arbitrary speciation, these terms imply something more is going on than just the normal changes from generation to generation. It contributes to the mystifications that give the ToE a greater impression of scientific standing than it deserves. It implies a lot more than is really happening. The term "speciation" suggests the usual ToE assumption that if we just keep going and going and going we'll get s completely new species rather than just new variations on the same species. I suppose you could. I tend to focus on the split-off daughter populations, usually one at a time but they could branch too, many could form at once for that matter but I usually just describe the effect on one such isolated population, BUT ANYWAY, while it starts out with a new set of gene frequencies those will only form a different look for the new populatoiln after some period of breeding among themselves, which I assume could be tracked from generation to generation as you suggest, showing changes with each generation. Like the blue wildebeests that must have wandered away from the main herd of black wildebeests and after some generations of breeding in isolation produced their bluish hide and smaller body type and different kind of antlers. That's all it takes, RAZD, you don't need mutations, all you need is isolation of a new set of gene frequencies to get interesting new "species" or variations. Mutations not needed to develop new traits, only sexual recombination of whatever alleles were inherited from the parents. Again no mutations are needed. I think it's a mistake to say there would be "fewer ancestral traits" because all that is happening is the recombination from generation to generation of those same ancestral traits. The second generation traits which were already the result of recombination are no less traits from the ancestral generation too, but each new generation recombines them all in new ways.YOU ASSUME MUTATIONS WHERE MUTATIONS ARE NOT NEEDED. That just means some of them would have remained as they were in the first generation unchanged by recombination. Mutations not necessary, you get change just from sexual recombination from generation to generation. Yes but all that means is that they lack the particular combinations that would produce those traits. They have the same genes and the same alleles as all the other generations but in different combinations. Yes, some that were passed on without being changed by recombination and some that were changed. Yes, some that were passed on from the previous generations unchanged and some new ones due to new combinations. Uh, it shows no evidence of the ToE, it's nothing but normal variation within a genome/species/population, otherwise sometimes known as microevolution. This will go on all the time no matter what. It's quite consistent with the creation model and certainly doesn't give any evidence for the ToE. Certainly. "Of that lineage." Nothing to do with the ToE, just normal variation that's built into each species.Although it's not quite as evident where there isn't branching, or an actual isolated population, there is still the process of selection or isolation going on in each generation that "selects" some combinations over others to create the observed changes. And again, no mutations are needed for this to happen and my guess is that they just about never enter into it, I won't say never but it's got to be so rare as to be just about nonexistent.

No need for mutation, there's plenty of variation built into the genome of each species to account for all the phenomena that wrongly get attributed to mutations just because they seem to be needed by the ToE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's a Mendelian square to express the range of skin color that Adam and Eve could have possessed in their genes. It doesn't matter how many genes might be involved, the range is probably fairly well expressed in this square. Adam and Eve themselves would most likely have had a medium shade of skin, somewhere in the center block of squares.The point is simply to illustrate that in only two people a huge range of variations could be contained in their genome. Of course with each subsequent generation as a particular skin tone is selected the others will not be expressed in that indivudal, so you get the lighter and darker races as they migrate and form separate populations. https://wp-media.patheos.com/...omain/sites/8/2015/04/1.jpeg

I can only assume it's a sort of illusion created by the design method but it might be worth taking a closer look at the supposed evidence some time.

That makes no sense, Taq, and I don't know what makes you persist in such an idea. They are separate and different Creations/Kinds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see any "bouncing." You all claim at least that a mutation here and there can be shown to have made a difference so I accept it to that very limited extent on your say-so but there is no need for mutations at all and if an occasional one does something useful I figure well it's just a string of chemicals so it could come up with a useful string by accident from time to time.

Continuing with message 431. I use this situation all the time for discussing how reproductive isolation of a daughter population brings about new phenotypes by requiring the reduction of genetic diversity. I usually just suppose one such isolated daughter population but the same thing can be discussed for two or more. Sounds to me llke you've never even seen my many discussions of this very phenomenon although you have expressed annoyance at my frequently repeating it. Perhaps this is because you can only think in terms of your own scenario as you describe it above. So I'll break it down and discuss it in pieces: The loss of gene flow, between the daughter populations as well as between the daughter and parent populations, is what I keep describing as reproductive isolation, which it is, and the whole point is that the new population breeds only within itself, combining its own separate set of gene frequencies, NOT MUTATIONS. the different "evolutionary responses" are the formation of completely different phenotypes within each subpopulation. (There could also be a change in the parent population depending on how large it is, that is, how much it lost to the daughter populations). YOU DO NOT NEED MUTATIONS FOR EVEN VERY DRAMATIC PHENOTYPIC CHANGES TO OCCUR IN A DAUGHTER POPULATION IF ITS GENE FREQUENCIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PARENT POPULATION. BOTH DAUGHTER POULATIONS MAY DEVELOP STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPIC PRESENTATIONS OVER MANY GENERATIONS OF BREEDING ONLY WITHIN THEMSELVES.Again, you ASSUME mutations, they are not necessary, and if any are present you are not demonstrating that they are. In any case the dramatic changes that may occur do not depend on anything but the changed gene frequencies, no mutations are needed for that to happen. If you have a large enough original population you could have many daughter populations that each develop strikingly different phenotypes in reproductive isolation.Such as the case of the Jutland cattle which was a herd that broke into four separate isolated populations and developed into completely different "species" or "breeds" in a matter of years, just enough generations to thoroughly mix the gene frequencies possessed by each separate population. In other words over these generations ORDINARY SEXUAL RECOMBINATION OF THE NEW SET OF GENE FREQUENCIES, quite apart from any supposed ecological pressures, since nothing but the gene frequencies is necessary and nothing extra to bring about the changes you are talking about... the recombination of the different gene frequencies/"different hereditary traits available within each of the daughter poContinuing with message 431. I use this situation all the time for discussing how reproductive isolation of a daughter population brings about new phenotypes by requiring the reduction of genetic diversity. I usually just suppose one such isolated daughter population but the same thing can be discussed for two or more. Sounds to me llke you've never even seen my many discussions of this very phenomenon although you have expressed annoyance at my frequently repeating it. Perhaps this is because you can only think in terms of your own scenario as you describe it above. So I'll break it down and discuss it in pieces: The loss of gene flow, between the daughter populations as well as between the daughter and parent populations, is what I keep describing as reproductive isolation, which it is, and the whole point is that the new population breeds only within itself, combining its own separate set of gene frequencies, NOT MUTATIONS. the different "evolutionary responses" are the formation of completely different phenotypes within each subpopulation. (There could also be a change in the parent population depending on how large it is, that is, how much it lost to the daughter populations). YOU DO NOT NEED MUTATIONS FOR EVEN VERY DRAMATIC PHENOTYPIC CHANGES TO OCCUR IN A DAUGHTER POPULATION IF ITS GENE FREQUENCIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PARENT POPULATION. BOTH DAUGHTER POULATIONS MAY DEVELOP STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPIC PRESENTATIONS OVER MANY GENERATIONS OF BREEDING ONLY WITHIN THEMSELVES.Again, you ASSUME mutations, they are not necessary, and if any are present you are not demonstrating that they are. In any case the dramatic changes that may occur do not depend on anything but the changed gene frequencies, no mutations are needed for that to happen. If you have a large enough original population you could have many daughter populations that each develop strikingly different phenotypes in reproductive isolation.Such as the case of the Jutland cattle which was a herd that broke into four separate isolated populations and developed into completely different "species" or "breeds" in a matter of years, just enough generations to thoroughly mix the gene frequencies possessed by each separate population. In other words over these generations ORDINARY SEXUAL RECOMBINATION OF THE NEW SET OF GENE FREQUENCIES, quite apart from any supposed ecological pressures, since nothing but the gene frequencies is necessary and nothing extra to bring about the changes you are talking about... the recombination of the different gene frequencies -- or in your words, the "different hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations".... brings about a new "species" or a population with shared characteristics that are different from those of the parent population and any other daughter population or populations. ALL BECAUSE OF THE NEW GENE FREQUENCIES. Without mutations, without any ecological or other environmental input. JUST THE GENE FREQUENCIES. . ...I'm suddenly getting very sleepy. Happens to me a lot lately because I don't sleep much at night. Hits me suddenly and hard. So I have to quit for a while even though it's not a good time as far as the content goes. I'll have to come back to it later. [qs] and when these differences ... Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So please present the evidence again. I suspect the "fit" is subjective.

More from message 431.By the way I found a solution to the problem of the glaring charts: I copied them into Word, increased their size and printed them out.========================== I answered the first part in the previous post by giving my view that the differences that accumulate between the different daughter populations don't require ecological pressures, or mutations, but only their respective set of gene frequencies. Nothing else is needed for each to produce its own completely different appearance after enough generations of breeding within the population.Now you are saying that there is some "critical level" that gets reached when interbreeding stops? Why would there be any "critical level" anyway, and what is that critical level? Why would that happen? Even after the gene frequencies of the new population are thoroughly blended so that its a very homogeneous population (is this the critical level?) distinct from the other daughter populations and the parent population, interbreeding certainly continues, why not? OK, then you do mean the critical level is the point at which the population is now genetically blended to the point of having a homogenous appearance. You don't seem to be aware that I've discussed this whole process many many times by the way. Why "after this?" It's BEEN microevolving all along, since the split and isolation event that started the differentiation between the various populations. Right, except it's only the working through of a set of gene frequencies to develop a particular variation of a particular species, so that to call it "speciation" rather blurs the reality of what is happening. In a way it makes sense to call it that because you do now have a distinctive new population, like a dog breed or a cattle breed though formed in the wild, but since such terms falsely feed the assumptions of the ToE it's a deception. Yes but you think those processes involve mutations and ecological pressures and so on and so forth, while I'm at pains to point out that none of that is necessary, that normal sexual recombination of existing alleles in a new set of gene frequencies within each new population, is all that is required to bring out the new phenotypes, and some number of generations of interbreeding is all that is required to work them through the population until it has the homogeneous appearance of a new "species." Like the blue wildebeests that went through this process after breaking off from the main herd. But now this really does come across as trivial, since I've been describing these very events in the formation of new "species" or subpopulations for years now, and the mere fact that if you group them in relation to the parent population they form this nesting phenomenon doesn't say much about any of this. What I'm always focused on is the fact that the very processes of evolution that form such new daughter populations ALWAYS REQUIRE REDUCED GENETIC VARIABILITY, and that this fact HAS TO LEAD EVENTUALLY to a point where further evolution becomes impossible. And again, if you add mutations you do nothing but contribute to the pool from which the subtraction or selection process has to occur in order for the evolution to happen at all, so mutations accomplish absolutely nothing toward saving the day for the ToE.So even if you could have a long series of daughter populations branching off a parent population, eventually they have to run out of the genetic stuff which makes evolution possible at all, and again, mutation can't prevent this from happening. At best it could put it off for a short period, but I don't even think that happens. Again consider domestic breeding. You get your breed, you get a purebred maybe, what happens if you get a mutation at that point? Well, you'll either want to incorporate it into your breed or you'll want to get rid of it. You have that choice by how you select breeding partners at that point. In the wild that mutation will probably get selected out, but if by chance it multiplies and survives maybe it will become a trait in the new population. A TRAIT, one single trait. And I doubt even that much happens. To hold onto the curled ear mutation that shows up occasionally in cats required a lot of careful breeding, and in the wild it's just going to throw away that kind of mutation. It may still show up here and there down the generations, but the odds are it isn't going to become part of the characteristic phenotype. (And by the way I still doubt that's a mutation, I suspect it's the result of something that happens in the normal processes of breeding when a particular trait gets multiplied, in this case a weakness in the cartilage, and shows up once in a great while for that reason. Yes, I know I'm a pain.)Now you're going to go on to talk about one of the diagrams I think so I'll stop here for now.ABE: Oh goody: Dr. Adequate just showed up, the EvC expert on the curled ear "mutation" so I'm probably in for some very clever insults.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

More on 431.I'm losing momentum and I think it's partly because I may have misunderstood something about your first example, the anagenesis example. I don't think I really get why you make a distinction between it and the cladogenesis example. I mean, I see the differences, I just don't get why you think they are important. Except for the fact that the second example makes for a nested hierarchy, but then I don't see the importance of THAT yet either.ANYWAY. In the anagenesis example you have two separate daughter populations, while in the cladogenesis example you have two daughter populations that go on to form new daughter populations. That could happen just as well in the first example, couldn't it? Anyway I don't really see the importance of this distinction. if the daughter populations are all reproductively isolated, which I realize may not be perfectly realized in reality but even partial isolation will bring about phenotypic changes... Anyway these daughter populations are what I'm always talking about in discussing how genetic diversity has to be lost in order to produce a new "species."But this is just an interim post because I'm not up to more at the moment. So I'll be back later.

Doesn't matter how many mutations there are, anything that adds to the genetic diversity has to be reduced/selected/subtracted/depleted or whatnot in order to get new phenotypes or a new "species." But I'm not going to spend time on your posts in this thread, at least not yet. I've got enough to do dealing with RAZD's Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.