A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Why wouldn't it accomplish it? So you don't know what mutations do, but you are sure they don't contribute to variation. Those two statements seem to be in contradiction.Why couldn't mutations contribute to new phenotypic variation?

Because mutations can only do what the gene does, they can't go outside the genome and make a human being out of a chimp.

That's more your problem than one of description by biologists. You are blinded/hampered by your insistence, idée fixe, regarding speciation by biological science definitions.

quote:

---

Raccoon

​

As of 2005, Mammal Species of the World recognizes 22 subspecies of raccoons.[31] Four of these subspecies living only on small Central American and Caribbean islands were often regarded as distinct species after their discovery. These are the Bahamian raccoon and Guadeloupe raccoon, which are very similar to each other; the Tres Marias raccoon, which is larger than average and has an angular skull; and the extinct Barbados raccoon. Studies of their morphological and genetic traits in 1999, 2003 and 2005 led all these island raccoons to be listed as subspecies of the common raccoon in Mammal Species of the World's third edition. A fifth island raccoon population, the Cozumel raccoon, which weighs only 3 to 4 kg (6.6 to 8.8 lb) and has notably small teeth, is still regarded as a separate species.[32][33][34][35]

---

Subspecies can interbreed, but seem to be isolated for now.Note that four subspecies were regarded as different species until genetic data showed otherwise.Note further that your claim of isolation and gene loss leads to new species is not born out. At best you get varieties or subspecies. The morphological (phenotype) variations are not sufficient to prevent breeding.Let's talk skunks -- here are six species of skunks in America: So cute.The upper left and middle pictures show striped skunks. The upper right is a (probably) western spotted skunk, and the bottom picture shows a hooded skunk.There is one species of striped skunk, Mephitis mephitis. Note the large variation in stripe width in the two pictures.There are four species of spotted skunk:

• Spilogale angustifrons - southern spotted skunk
  
• Spilogale gracilis - western spotted skunk
  
• Spilogale putorius - eastern spotted skunk
  
• Spilogale pygmaea - pygmy spotted skunk

There is one species of Hooded skunk, Mephitis macroura, and yes it is in the same genus as the striped skunk, they even look similar. All the skunks are grouped in the taxon family Mephitidae. There is an area of overlap in habitat between the striped and hooded skunks along the border between the US and Mexico.Note that there is significant variation in the width of the side stripe in the two striped skunk pictures, but they are still of the same species. They interbreed. The one with wide side stripes looks more like the hooded skunk.There are 13 Subspecies of striped skunks, with varying widths of the side stripes, some very wide and closer to the hooded skunk in appearance, and some with almost non-existing side stripes.So what's your take on these skunks? Do the changes in widths of the stripes lead to speciation?Enjoy

Hey RAZD,I saw your pretty pictures but I don't recognize any of them. What kind of birds are these?

But since the living organisms on the earth nowadays are different from those on the earth millions of years ago and the only way for mammals to produce more mammals is to give birth to them (similar arguments apply to creatures that hatch, spawn, etc.), some significant changes must have occurred during that lineal descent.Unless you think lots and lots of miraculous creations happened instead of ordinary births...

Well, I don't believe there have been any mllions of years, you know, and all living things today, at least on the land, only go back to the ark, I figure normal built in variation is sufficient to have brought it all about. The Creation was a one time thing, it's been normal reproduction since then.This message is a reply to:

I'm OK with varieties or subspecies but as I said one often hears such populations referred to as species.

You talk about genetics and genomes in many of your posts in this thread. When you say "reducing genetic diversity" you are already into the "genomic stuff". It's the "genomic stuff" whose genetic diversity is getting reduced in your scenario. The is inaccurate about breeds and mostly wrong about species, but if your scenario includes losing genetic material then you're talking about genetics. And yet you brought up Mendelian squares twice in this thread, in Message 368 and Message 463. And the word codon hasn't even appeared in this thread. Actually, what everyone knows is that breeds are created by changing allele frequencies, which might possibly include elimination of some alleles from the new breed. That's the only sentence in your entire paragraph that isn't explicitly about genetics or genomes. If you don't know "what's going on with the alleles" then why do 38 of your messages in this thread mention alleles? If you're not talking about genomes then why does some form of the word genome appear in 40 of your messages (more than that, actually, but Search only lists the first 40 matching messages)?The truth testified to by your own messages is that you talk about genetics and genomes all the time. It is dishonest to refuse to answer posts about genetics by claiming you're not talking about genetics. You should go back to HereBeDragons Message 583 and answer it forthrightly.--Percy

Yeah, Faith, mutations can't go outside the genome. Why do you think they would have to to change a human genome into a chimp genome or vice versa?You don't even know what 'the genome" is.

List six examples.

Then how are mutations able to turn a brown mouse into a black mouse in the case of wild mouse populations? Your statement doesn't even make sense.Also, if what you say is true then there should only be one species in the whole universe, and all members of that species would look identical. Why? According to you, no matter how different a genome is it can never do anything different. Therefore, if you took the chimp genome and changed it so that it is identical to the human genome it would still produce a chimp.

When the gene is for fur color, and the mutation changes the fur color to black from tan in pocket mice, the gene still does what the gene does -- fur color. This is how new alleles arise, and they have an effect on the phenotype and thus on selection. Of course they can't -- the mutation changes the genome to include it.

quote:

---

In the fields of molecular biology and genetics, a genome is the genetic material of an organism. It consists of DNA (or RNA in RNA viruses). The genome includes both the genes (the coding regions) and the noncoding DNA,[1] as well as mitochondrial DNA[2] and chloroplast DNA. The study of the genome is called genomics.

---

So when the DNA changes by mutation, the genome changes.Enjoy

She doesn't understand that "outside the genome" is as meaningless as "red" being outside of "all colors".

But an earth only a few thousand years old has so many logical inconsistencies (How long did it take the Colorado River to carve out the Grand Canyon? How long did it take for coral reefs to form? How can we see galaxies that are millions of light years away? etc.) that it's not a falsifiable concept.And the Flood? How did the koalas get to Australia from Mount Ararat after the Flood?Wait a minute . . . how did the koalas get from Australia to board Noah's Ark in the first place?

The Colorado River DIDN'T carve out the Grand Canyon, that's one of the ToE's most ridiculous notions. The most likely explanation is that it was catastrophically carved out by retreating Flood waters.The coral reefs no doubt survived the Flood, it doesn't have to have been a particularly violent event once the water was at its height. No idea about the galaxies.