A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Hybridization, or combining species together is a completely different pro0cess than the one I'm talking about. As I often say when discussing my point of view, gene flow interrupts the processes I'm describing, adding anything disrupts it and prevents the species from developing, including mutations that show up at the wrong time in the process. That's why I keep emphasizing reproductive isolation as the necessary condition.In any case you're never going to get anything really new, no matter how hard the believers work to convince themselves of that. You can combine species to create hybrids but that's not a real increase, you're just reshuffling the gene pool. It's a very good method especially for improving plants, and in limited form it's what breeders have started doing too, since it was recognized that the usual method of isolating the desired traits was too severely depleting the genetic variables and causing vulnerability to disease. So they've learned to sacrifice the perfection of purebreds for health.Anyway what you are describing is a completely different thing. I'm describing the normal process of getting a species by isolating a portion of a population, whether that is brought about by natural selection or random migration or any other process that reproductively isolates a small part of a gene pool. In domestic breeding this is brought about by the intentional selection of desired traits to be bred. In all cases, the result is a new set of gene frequencies in the newly isolated population, which, when worked together over some number of generations, brings about a new species. There is always a genetic cost to this process: new phenotypes emerge as a result of eliminating the genetic material for other phenotypes. It's the standard method of domestic breeding, or was until fairly recently when the drawbacks of that method began to be recognized. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it's possible to select all mutations for the new species, but whatever is selected requires the loss of other genetic material that is excluded from the new phenotypes. I question the existence of mutations in any numbers to influence any of this, but that's beside the point in this context, since yes, the new population could be made up completely of mutations, but it would still be only those mutations selected at a loss to all the others. You still end up with an overall loss of genetic variability, even if you manage to get a new population completely made up of brand new mutations. ( You won't, you can't, but I'm trying to entertain the possibility for the sake of discussion)
\Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As usual you keep ignoring all the arguments and examples I've given that prove it is necessary to lose genetic diversity to get new phenotypes. All you are doing is trying to sound authoritative without actually saying anything. No, I've made the case, and made it many many times over many threads and even in this thread, and I have indeed presented the evidence of domestic breeding which is about as clear a description as you can get of what happens to develop new phenotypes, and I've given plenty of illustrations of that same thing happening in the wild. Interesting that you never discuss any of this. Yeah I get tired and cranky, it's a karacter flaw, sorry. Interesting how my opponents usually completely ignore my arguments in favor of interpreting my supposed frame of mind toward their assumed and asserted superior evidence. Seems to me my evidence is way better than yours. You assume mutations that you can't demonstrate and ignore the argument that even if they existed as you claim they wouldn't change the basic facts of ultimate genetic reduction as I keep describing it. Sometimes I think you really don't get what I'm describing at all since you ignore it so completely, although you all love to claim you understand it perfectly.And you continue with more substanceless personal comments so I won't take the time to quote it. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dear dear Razzymatazzy:
You really are not at all aware that you are assuming a lot about mutations that you cannot demonstrate.Breeders cull traits to preserve their breeds, for sure, but traits are not necessarily mutations, in fact most of the time all they are doing is choosing to mate individuals that have the positive traits they desire and don't have to focus on the unwanted traits. You haven't shown, and cannot show, that mutations are ever a problem in breeding, at any stage of the process. You assume that all traits are the result of mutations, and that always has been an assumption and remains an assumption but you take it so for granted it is just about impossible to get you to consider any other way of looking at it. Well, that is of course the standard problem in paradigm conflicts. And getting the Old Guard to rethink their stuff is asking WAY too much, isn't it? And here we have the very center of the paradigm clash. You seem to be unable to think at all about any of this without assuming evolution and assuming mutation as the fuel of that evolution. You think the traits of the chosen breed MUST have evolved by mutation from the parent stock. You can't prove this, you assume it, it's simply an article of the ToE faith that isn't questioned.My contrasting model/theory is that there is no difference whatever in the genetic material between generations, the only difference is the different combinations. All you need is a large population of mutts as it were from which random processes or intentional processes select individuals for an isolated population. The original population need not have a single reproducible mutation in it though I suppose it could have some, all that is required is that it have been reproducing long enough to grow its population. It need not even be mutt-like, or a motley crew of individuals. For instance the wildebeests. Tes I love the wildebeests, gnus I guess in English. Their main population, even in the millions I believe, is very homogenous, that is they all look alike although I'm sure they have plenty of genetic diversity. But if a small number of them wander off and get lost and start their own isolated population they will dvelop a new set of characteristics that distinguishes them from the main population. So we get the "blue" wildebeests" which look appreciably different from the main herd of "black" wildebeests, though I think they look more brown than black but anyway. They didn't need any mutations to get their blue look or it would have shown up in the main population. All they needed was the new set of gene frequencies brought about by the isolation of a limited number of individuals from the main gene pool. All they needed was that isolation of those new gene frequencies and over some number of generations they'll all acquire the bluish tint of the hide and the smaller stature and the different form of antlers that were all the result of the sexual recombination of the genetic factors in that new set of gene frequencies.No mutations needed, dear Razz. Now there may have been a few, but I doubt it and they aren't needed. The Pod Mrcaru lizards that developed from a mere founding population of ten pairs needed nothing more than a set of gene frequencies that combined in such a way as to bring out larger heads and jaws when the population was thoroughly blended, in a matter of years. Like Darwin's large-chested pigeons: he just kept mating the ones with the largest chests until that feature got extremely exaggerated over a few generations. There is no need to assume a mutation in any of that, and certainly you couldn't expect a mutation to show up in each generation to add to that particular chest-expanding tendency. No no no, all it took was whatever genetic processes occurred as that particular trait was selected generation after generation. And that makes a fine model for what must have happened with the Pod Mrcaru lizards: a set of gene frequencies that contained a slightly larger jaw combined and recomgined over some generations to get the much larger head and jaw that was discovered on that island after thirty years.It's a different paradigm from your evolutionary pattern, a different way of explaining how species develop, and I have at least as much evidence as you have for mine. In fact I think I have more. Mostly all you have is the assumption of mutations. At least the lizards and the Jutland cattle should have disabused you of any notion that developing interesting species takes a great length of time.My eyes are hurting. Sorry, I have to come back to this later.

quote:

---

Hybridization, or combining species together is a completely different pro0cess than the one I'm talking about. As I often say when discussing my point of view, gene flow interrupts the processes I'm describing, adding anything disrupts it and prevents the species from developing, including mutations that show up at the wrong time in the process. That's why I keep emphasizing reproductive isolation as the necessary condition.

---

In reality there is no reason to think that it disrupts anything other than your assumed inevitable decline. There is absolutely no problem in the new species having as much genetic variation as the parent species. If it were impossible for a species to have that much genetic variation then obviously the parent species could not have that much variation either.This is another of the quite obvious points that you have left unanswered for years.

quote:

---

Yes it's possible to select all mutations for the new species, but whatever is selected requires the loss of other genetic material that is excluded from the new phenotypes.

---

It is also possible to gain new variations which are not immediately selected in or out, but persist for very long periods of time. It is not the eventual fate of variations which matters, it is the number of variations that are present at whatever time we are considering.

quote:

---

You still end up with an overall loss of genetic variability, even if you manage to get a new population completely made up of brand new mutations.

---

You assume that there will be an overall loss but the evidence doesn’t show any such thing. The evidence trumps your opinion.

quote:

---

( You won't, you can't, but I'm trying to entertain the possibility for the sake of discussion)

---

And that is also just your opinion. The fact that you have great difficulty imagining that this opinion could be wrong is a flaw which interferes with your ability to reason on this matter.

Except that you aren't going to get the new population unless you have the decrease. Pretty obvious if you think about domestic breeds. You could start with a very homogeneous original/parent population with a distinct appearance and high genetic diversity, a species in itself, but getting a NEW breed requires a portion of that original population to be separated from it and isolated for breeding just within itself. THEN you get a new species or new breed.RAZD diagrams such a situation, and in fact a whole series of populations, without recognizing that each must entail genetic loss. That's the common mistake made by believers in the ToE: the genetic capacity is assumed to be adequate to creating any number of new species, the fact that it necessarily shrinks simply does not get recognized. And of course mutations are always the fuel in those scenarios, as if mutations are always available and always viable without any mention of what is so frequently said about how they are mostly neutral, very rarely beneficial, and I don't think they ever make anything truly new, at best they make something that fits into the particular gene to do whatever that gene does. So RAZD draws those daughter populations as if they have the same amount of genetic fuel as it were as the parent population. Nope.There can be hybrid zones between the two and you can think of them as species in their own right if they are homogeneous enough, but the whole point of what I keep saying is that getting a strikingly new species takes a reduction in genetic diversity just as it does to get a new breed of whatever you want to get a new breed of. A reduction of genetic diversity doesn't mean a total reduction in most cases, it only gets to the point of genetic depletion after many such species-creating events, which I believe are represented well in ring species. Each new population has more genetic reductiohn than the previous, which makes for new sets of gene frequencies for each new migration, which then blend together to make the new species over whatever number of generations it takes.Yes you can have species with high genetic diversity, but the TREND I'm talkinga about toward MAKING new species always requires some degree of genetic reduction to produce NEW phenotypes and get a new species blending those phenotypes. That's what happens in breeding programs. Dogs, cats, cattle, whatnot. You CAN have hybrid species if you want, which just means having less reduction in genetic diversity. You can have resumed gene flow and populations can also merge together after some period of isolation and there will be a difference in the phenotypes then too, and that way you'll get an increase in genetic diversity, but only back to the original level at best. You'll never get an increase. Increase, mutations, more gene flow, just destroy the homogeneous appearance of the species.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.

quote:

---

As usual you keep ignoring all the arguments and examples I've given that prove it is necessary to lose genetic diversity to get new phenotypes. All you are doing is trying to sound authoritative without actually saying anything.

---

But you haven’t proved that there needs to be any overall decline.Consider the facts.The evidence supports evolution to a degree which would be impossible if you were correct. You know this because your whole argument is an attempt to refute it. But - so long as you stay in the realm of theory - that only shows that your theory can’t account for that evidence.There is no need for an overall decline in variation. As I point out above there is no problem in a new variation appearing and persisting for a very long time - much more than the lifetime of an individual species. To succeed you must rule out this possibility, yet you have never done so.

quote:

---

No, I've made the case, and made it many many times over many threads and even in this thread, and I have indeed presented the evidence of domestic breeding which is about as clear a description as you can get of what happens to develop new phenotypes, and I've given plenty of illustrations of that same thing happening in the wild. Interesting that you never discuss any of this.

---

And you fail to discuss the objections raised which you have not been able to answer. The fact that domestic breeding has relevant differences in both the application of the processes and in the outcome. You don’t mention that your examples are just assumed examples. You don’t mention that the lifetime of a natural species will include periods where selection is relaxed and new variations may appear and survive.RAZD at least presents reasons why you are wrong. You just assert that you have proven your point when you have not.

quote:

---

Yeah I get tired and cranky, it's a karacter flaw, sorry. Interesting how my opponents usually completely ignore my arguments in favor of interpreting my supposed frame of mind toward their assumed and asserted superior evidence.

---

Your arguments are not ignored, they are addressed and refuted.

quote:

---

Seems to me my evidence is way better than yours.

---

And that is quite obviously not the case. In fact you rely almost entirely on theoretical arguments while denying real evidence.

quote:

---

You assume mutations that you can't demonstrate and ignore the argument that even if they existed as you claim they wouldn't change the basic facts of ultimate genetic reduction as I keep describing it.

---

We can demonstrate some relevant mutations. The fact that you set a very high bar for such demonstrations - one that is not practical to reach in many cases - is a good reason to think that there are many more mutations that cannot be demonstrated. The evidence for long term evolution is further evidence.Your “ultimate fact” on the other hand is purely theoretical and based on arguments which are clearly inadequate. Your agument is not ignored, it is rejected because of it’s weaknesses and because of the evidence.

quote:

---

Sometimes I think you really don't get what I'm describing at all since you ignore it so completely, although you all love to claim you understand it perfectly.

---

Which is strange since the real reason we reject your argument is plain to see. The question is not why we reject your argument - the question is why you would expect us to accept it after we have shown that it is lacking in both the reasoning and in evidence.

quote:

---

Except that you aren't going to get the new population unless you have the decrease

---

Selection is needed and so is mutation. Increases and decreases. That doesn’t mean that we need a long term overall decrease, even if temporary decreases occur. That is the point you fail to grasp, and have failed to grasp for many years.

quote:

---

That's the common mistake made by believers in the ToE: the genetic capacity is assumed to be adequate to creating any number of new species, the fact that it necessarily shrinks simply does not get recognized.

---

Your opinion is not accepted because it is not established as a fact. If it were a fact then the evidence should support it. But it does not. Unless and until that changes it is just your opinion.

quote:

---

And of course mutations are always the fuel in those scenarios, as if mutations are always available and always viable without any mention of what is so frequently said about how they are mostly neutral, very rarely beneficial

---

And this is just silly nitpicking. We do make the distinction, it simply isn’t explicit because it is too obvious. Neutral mutations do account for some of the variation, and we only need enough beneficial and viable mutations to keep the process going. And again, the evidence indicates that sufficient are available in enough cases (let us not forget that extinction is a reality).

quote:

---

Yes you can have species with high genetic diversity, but the TREND I'm talkinga about toward MAKING new species always requires some degree of genetic reduction to produce NEW phenotypes and get a new species blending those phenotypes.

---

And once you have a new phenotype, what stops new variations to that phenotype occurring ? You assume it, but you have no valid case against it - even after all these years.

You say you can demonstrate mutations. But you don't, and can't.Anyway, probably the best way to prove my contentions would be in the laboratory experiment I've often suggested. Mice are always a good choice for their size and habits but you want to start with a population that has a pretty high genetic diversity and I wonder how much diversity remains in the wild populations of mice. Maybe enough.The experiment might take up a lot of room in a laboratory, you might need to get a warehouse. Start with fifty to a hundred mice. You'd probably have to do DNA analysis on each of them to do it right and tag them so you know exactly who is who and what it's doing.Let the first population grow until you need new habitats to hold it, then split it up into smaller populations each in their own habitat. Check their DNA and tag them so you know which generation they are and can track them. Let these new populations breed until they make a homogeneous new population, probably pretty large. Split it into new groups in their own isolated habitats, analyze DNA, tag and track.Continue until the latest daughter populations run out of genetic variability. They will. It will only take as much time as each population's breeding blends to homogeneity before you split it, added to the same for all the other populations in a lineage.I'm sure anyone who works in a lab with mice will see all kinds of problems with my view of it but I think the principle should hold even if modifications of the method are needed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I don't "fail to grasp" your ridiculously obvious point. You fail to grasp my point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You say you can demonstrate mutations. But you don't, and can't.

---

The pocket mice and the scotch fold cat are demonstrated examples. So we can, and you know that we can.

quote:

---

Anyway, probably the best way to prove my contentions would be in the laboratory experiment I've often suggested. Mice are always a good choice for their size and habits but you want to start with a population that has a pretty high genetic diversity and I wonder how much diversity is **** in the wild populations of mice. Maybe enough.

---

Since we are interested in what happens in natural evolution both timescales and population sizes are very relevant - and impractical to reproduce in a laboratory. Unless you can come up with something that compensates for those factors the experiment would be rigged in your favour - which would make it an obviously bad way of answering the question.

quote:

---

Let the first population grow until you need new habitats to hold it, then split it up into smaller populations each in their own habitat. Check their DNA and tag them so you know which generation they are and can track them. Let these new populations breed until they make a homogeneous new population, probably pretty large. Split it into new groups in their own isolated habitats, analyze DNA, tag and track.

---

Obviously this doesn’t address the issue of timescale at all, and it fails to capture the population dynamics. It won’t address the question we are interested in at all.I suppose it will address your idea that population splits are enough for speciation without selection or mutation but I don’t think that is plausible enough for anyone else to go to the trouble of running the experiment. Domestic breeding hardly supports your idea since that involves selection and still doesn’t produce speciation.

quote:

---

No I don't "fail to grasp" your ridiculously obvious point.

---

The point is that we do not need an overall long term decrease in variation - that variation can recover. You have just admitted that it is “ridiculously obvious” that your theoretical argument doesn’t work.And that is all you have. The evidence does not show any overall decline.You have just admitted that you have no case and that it is “ridiculously obvious” that you have no case,

The rest of Message 524:Before I arrived at this view I familiarized myself with the supposed "processes of evolution" which areF As I was thinking through this list it hit me that Mutation and gene flow ADD to the genetic variability, and must create a scattered effect of phenotypes. What makes for a homogeneous species, on the other hand, is the subtractive processes of selection. It took me a while to figure out "genetic drift" and now I see it as just one form of species creation by isolating a portion of the population. It isn't a process or a mechanism at all and it's hard to figure out why it's even on the list.I note that the definition now includes "the effects of a reduction in genetic variation" which seems like it could be an attempt to take into account what I keep arguing. This is new to the definition; it wasn't there when I was coming to my view of reduced genetic variability. AND it's not my view anyway: Calling it "genetic variation"is the clue that it's not the same thing as "genetic variability." "variation is a result; variability is a potential. But this is probably not the place to try to get into this discussion. This strikes me as gobbledygook beyond my ability to sort out on short notice, but maybe I can come back to it. "...RESULT in evolution by natural selection" makes no sense whatever. At least it explains that it is the randomness of genetic drift that gets it on the list. The problem with that is, as I was thinking through how species develop from population splits, ALL such ways species get created are random in the wild. It's only in domestic breeding that they aren't random.Now I'm regretting getting off into all this but I'm going to leave it as a record of how confused the definitions can get, and get back to your post if I can. I certainly agree that "evolution in the wild doesn't have to eliminate everything that doesn't fit [some] chosen set of traits" but I never ever suggested that kind of similarity with breeding anyway. I've always said it's a random process. What happens is that a set of traits is randomly selected by the separation of a portion of the parent population to become a daughter population. That random separation of a certain group of individuals forms a new gene pool with new gene frequencies that when blended together over some number of generations of breeding brings out a distinctively new species from a new group of phenotypes created by the new gene frequencies in sexual recombination for those generations. It's the same process as what happens in domestic breeding except that a set of traits is randomly selected out of the population to form the new species. Here we have another example of how different my model is from yours. The ToE says that evolution is powered by benefit to survival and reproduction, but in my model no such selective pressures need apply and usually don't. ALL IT TAKES TO GET A NEW SPECIES IS THE NEW GENE FREQUENCIES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE SEPARATION AND ISOLATION OF A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL POPULATION. That's ALL it takes. No selective pressure at all, no ecological pressure, nothing environmental at all. The genetic rearrangements are the whole thing. There COULD be some input from natural selection but there's no need for it and I don't think it happens much.Although the ToE was invoked to explain the evolution of the larger head and jaw of the Pod Mrcaru lizards after thirty years in isolation, meaning they were actively adapting to the tougher kind of plant they came to prefer, but there is no hint that there was any absnese of the kind of food they had when they were still part of the parent population, they just came to prefer the tougher food. MY EXPLANTION OF THIS IS THAT their new gene frequencies contained the emphasis on larger head and jaw and that alone brought out that characteristic. Then BECAUSE THEY HAD THAT CHARACTERISTIC, THEN they wree drawn to the tougher kind of food that they could now eat. It's the opposite of the usual way of explaining this. In the usual way the food comes first, it is a factor of natural selection that causes the creature to develop the traits necessarily to eat it. There are a number of reasons this doesn't work. For one thing there is no hint that their normal food was missing from their new habitat, so there was no pressure to eat anything else. There would have to be some pressure to eat the tougher stuff and there is no reason to think there was, besides which there is no way in thirty years time the creature would have "evolved" an entirely new set of traits to deal with it even if there was. Even you must agree that mutations don't just come along in such short time periods to adapt to an environmental pressure.Then there is the case of the Jutland sheep that developed four entirely new species out of one herd in a matter of a few years. There wre no differences in the enironments, all that happened was that the splitting of the population into isolated groups brought out new gene frequencies that eventually changed the whole population into a distinctly different herd from the original and from the others.You do not need mutations, you do not need natural selection, you do not need environmental pressures to get new species. At that point you don't WANT change, you WANT preservation. All the changes occurred on the way to establishing the breed. It's true that I don't try enough to answer these basic tenets of evolution which is probably the cause of a lot of miscommunication. I content myself with trying to describe my different model but I see that it has to try to answer all these other objections more than I take into account. I'm thinking now it probably more about what I say above, not dealing enough with the evolutionist assumptions about things llke natural selection, environmental pressure, survival and reproductive benefit and so on. Since they aren't part of my model I don't address them enough. Well, no it doesn't. Evidence is hardly ever in evidence here, it's all assertions. No I don't expect other creationists to be any more welcoming of my views than you all are at EvC. But that's all you are doing RAZD. It's ALL assertion after assertion, just spelling out the ToE in its various elements and claiming it explains this or that, not actually giving evidence that it does.I think what I need to do is try to put together a lengthy article trying to cover the whole shebang since I now think I'm leaving too much out of these discussions. Not something to do at EvC of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because it doesn't. What it does entail is change.Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each and every generation: Mutations add variation, selection tends to remove the least useful (for survival) and desirable (for reproduction). Thus when a mutation provides a trait that is more useful or desirable for the population than an existing trait it tends to replace it. They could overlap for a while, with increased genetic variation.Each generation entails mutation (gain) and selection (loss), and the net result can be more or less than the previous generation -- there is no set restriction on the amount of variation for any breeding population.If only you would open your eyes you would see this fact.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .