A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

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, : .

No, I dont ignore your falsified argument, I just point out that it is falsified and thus irrelevant to reality.What you need to get new phenotypes is new traits. You don't get this by remixing old traits, you get them from changes -- mutations. Each and every generation's gene pool changes, generation after generation, and this provides changes to phenotypes over time.For example the Pelycodus increase in body size generation after generation until the point is reached that the smallest individual is larger than the largest individual of the original population. We also see that the spread of size from smallest to largest changes with each generation, sometimes increasing in spread, sometimes decreasing.It should be obvious to anyone with open eyes that the increase in body size until the whole population is larger than the original population is not just due to a loss of genetic material for body size, but that the genes for body size are modified for increased size: changes in the overall size that prove beneficial for survival or reproduction. The ToE explains this, your model only explains the loss of smaller sizes, ie only half of what happened. And every time you have been told and demonstrated why domestic breeding does not model natural evolution. You have been shown over and over how mutations add to diversity, and increased opportunity for species, like the pocket mice. These examples invalidate your argument, and when added to your cherry picked examples they serve to show your explanation is incomplete and less accurate than the explanation provided by the ToE which explains all the evidence.If only you would open your eyes and look at all the evidence.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Exactly, they cull out the new mutations to preserve the breed. Natural selection operates on a different paradigm -- traits that are useful for survival or desirable for reproduction, it not could care less about preserving a phenotype, just what ever works. It doesn't matter if it is new or old.This again is why breeding is not a model for evolution. We know mutations modify traits and cause new phenotypes, and have known this for decades. When you have evidence against you and no supporting evidence, yes. Because it is based on evidence. We don't see traits for floppy ears, spotted color fur and waggy tails in wolves. We don't see them in wild foxes either, but a Russian breeding program to make tamer and thus easier to raise for the fur trade ended up with those traits -- due to mutations that decreased the adrenaline and increased serotonin in the foxes.We know there are genetic differences between wolves to dogs and differences between breeds. You don't get Great Danes from wolves by throwing out dachshund dog traits and vice-versa because those traits don't exist in wolf genomes. You get them from mutations. And in this you are wrong. But you cannot ignore that they are there if you want to model reality. It's not that they are needed (which is wrong paradigm thinking) but that they are there, and thus they need to be included in a complete explanation.We know that they are there in every generation, we know that this changes the gene pool for every generation, and we know that they need to be considered in any explanation of observed changes in a species, because anything less would be a half vast explanation. That doesn't cover all the evidence, nor explain all that is observed, and therefore not useful.I just wish you would open your eyes.Enjoy

Are not part of my posts in this thread. Please designate source. Not that they are wrong, just want to be clear on what comes from where. Mutations add to the gene pool, gene flow distributes the gene pool in the breeding population. or the spread of new mutations/genes throughout the breeding population, which can occur with a dominant gene, or because selection pressure is low. Not necessarily. It's an arbitrary (stochastic) loss of genetic (gene pool) material because it doesn't make it through breeding, but it doesn't make the species different from before, just reduced in gene pool material. Stochastic processes involve arbitrary deaths that are not related to survival or reproduction (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, forest fires, floods, etc). It is a process that affects the gene pool. Genetic drift may be one of the prime drivers for new species, as lost genetic material is replaced by new material (mutations) that have less competition in being selected, changing the gene pool. Again, that was not my post and it seems you've left out some things. Providing a source to see context would help. For now it just shows how confused you are. Natural selection is not random, it selects among available traits by what is useful for survival and reproduction.The separation of the population may be due to stochastic events and it may result in a smaller gene pool, but that isn't necessarily the case.You can also have a new mutation/trait that allows the species to expand into a new area. Black fur pocket mice for instance, able to inhabit lava fields that are dangerous for tan furred mice.The larger and more homogeneous the population the more likely the gene pool will be similar. You don't get new phenotypes with the same old gene pool or a subset of it. Here we have another example of how different my model is from yours. Mine works, yours doesn't. Mine explains all the evidence, yours only explains part of it ... at best, and it ignores the fact that every generation has new mutations that change the gene pool. This means that over time (generations) the gene pool changes and new phenotypes from original genes is no longer possible -- the genes have been replaced or modified. You get new phenotypes with new genes. Yep. Once they had the mutation for larger jaw they were able to take advantage of the opportunity of the tougher plant food. Evolution in response to challenges and opportunities. As I said, mutations allowed the new breed type to exist and then all further mutations were culled. This is why breeding is not a model for evolution: it is a specific type of selection -- it doesn't model natural selection and it doesn't include mutations. True. Be prepared for sharp criticism.Enjoy

Lengthy cut and paste warning. You can also read online and see the pictures that go with the text. Thanks. One of my favorite sites for teaching about evolution. The full listing is:

quote:

---

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

​

Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life ” but exactly how does it work?

​

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:

​

• Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
• Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
• The importance of genetic variation;
• The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
• How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
• How different species can affect each other's evolution through coevolution.

---

So you left off the part about genetic variation (Mendelian genetics plus mutations) being fundamental to evolution and how the ecology (different species affect each other's evolution) affects selection.May I suggest that you continue on at least to the next two pages?

quote:

---

Descent with modification

​

We've defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation ” which is what really matters in evolution: long term change.

​

Compare these two examples of change in beetle populations. Which one is an example of evolution?

​

1. Beetles on a diet
   ​
   Imagine a year or two of drought in which there are few plants that these beetles can eat.
   ​
   All the beetles have the same chances of survival and reproduction, but because of food restrictions, the beetles in the population are a little smaller than the preceding generation of beetles.
   ​
2. Beetles of a different color
   ​
   Most of the beetles in the population (say 90%) have the genes for bright green coloration and a few of them (10%) have a gene that makes them more brown.
   ​
   Some number of generations later, things have changed: brown beetles are more common than they used to be and make up 70% of the population.

​

Which example illustrates descent with modification ” a change in gene frequency over time?

​

The difference in weight in example 1 came about because of environmental influences ” the low food supply ” not because of a change in the frequency of genes. Therefore, example 1 is not evolution. Because the small body size in this population was not genetically determined, this generation of small-bodied beetles will produce beetles that will grow to normal size if they have a normal food supply.

​

The changing color in example 2 is definitely evolution: these two generations of the same population are genetically different. But how did it happen?

---

quote:

---

Mechanisms of change

​

Each of these four processes is a basic mechanism of evolutionary change.

​

Mutation

​

A mutation could cause parents with genes for bright green coloration to have offspring with a gene for brown coloration. That would make genes for brown coloration more frequent in the population than they were before the mutation.

​

Migration

​

Some individuals from a population of brown beetles might have joined a population of green beetles. That would make genes for brown coloration more frequent in the green beetle population than they were before the brown beetles migrated into it.

​

Genetic drift

​

Imagine that in one generation, two brown beetles happened to have four offspring survive to reproduce. Several green beetles were killed when someone stepped on them and had no offspring. The next generation would have a few more brown beetles than the previous generation ” but just by chance. These chance changes from generation to generation are known as genetic drift.

​

Natural selection

​

Imagine that green beetles are easier for birds to spot (and hence, eat). Brown beetles are a little more likely to survive to produce offspring. They pass their genes for brown coloration on to their offspring. So in the next generation, brown beetles are more common than in the previous generation.

​

All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation ” that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change.

---

Note each cause of changes to the gene pool are discussed in greater detail in following pages. I strongly recommend you take the time read them all. If you have any questions feel free to ask.The better you understand the scientific model the better able you should be to discuss it versus your model.Enjoy

Let's break this down with a simple example: two genes each with two alleles This is all you get with Mendelian mixing of genes. The gene pool frequency includes A, a, B, and b. Cut the population down and still have all these phenotypes OR you have a subset of them. Let's say AB is not included in the population split, so you have Nothing new there. A change in gene frequency, yes, but all these phenotypes were in the original population and there is no new combination. The gene pool frequency still includes A, (2)a, B, and (2)b. When they mate you have So you see the shift in gene frequency but no new phenotypes. You still have AB, but Ab and aB are twice as frequent and ab is 4 times as frequent phenotypes.This is what genetic drift does. Selection is not included, mutations are not included. The gene pool frequency still includes (3)A, (4)a, (3)B, and (4)b. Now we go another generation: This is what happens in the generation after genetic drift. Selection is not included, mutations are not included. The gene pool frequency still includes (21)A, (28)a, (21)B, and (28)b. You still have AB, but Ab and aB are 1.333 times as frequent and ab is 1.778 times as frequent phenotypes.The population is trending back to the original frequencies, a process that will continue as more generations are considered. There are no new phenotypes, there are no phenotypes that cannot breed with the other phenotypes in the breeding population. They all existed before, they all interbred before.FAIL. As we can see from the above example, this just does not happen. A "new homogeneous population" forms but it tends to be more and more like the parent population as generations pass. And when we look at the above example -- with no selection, no mutations, and no ecological change -- you just do not get a loss of any genes or any new phenotype.FAILEnjoy

The example has two genes, each with two alleles. Why would this be any different? You still are using genes that exist in the parent gene pool, phenotypes that exist in the breeding population, and as the example in Message 580 shows you don't get a new phenotype that is not already in the breeding population -- when you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces, and you are positing a "homogeneous" parent population (and I think you are misusing that word ... what you mean, I believe, is well mixed, all genes/alleles with virtually the same frequencies).Consider adding a third gene with two alleles to the above example, you would end up with three tables of possible combinations: Now rather obviously each of these tables would go through the same process generation after generation as in the original example. You don't get a phenotype that is not in the parent population. You don't get a phenotype that cannot breed with the parent population or a similar sub-population. OR we can add a third allele to one of the genes: Now, if we consider that an event removes all individuals with the same allele -- say the a' allele -- then you end up with the original example, a breeding population with all phenotypes that exist in the parent population. Yes you have some genetic loss, but you don't have a new phenotype and you don't have a phenotype that cannot breed with the parent population or a similar sub-population -- you just can't get a phenotype that can't breed with the other phenotypes, because you have not created any barrier to breeding within the species/breeding population.It should also be readily apparent that adding a third gene with two or three alleles will not create anything new, just the mild gene frequency shift seen in the original example or variations on it. We can keep expanding the table, but the results will be similar: no new phenotype that never existed before, no new phenotype that is not capable of breeding with the parent population. The genes for variations in striping would exist in the parent population, and you have not shown that it would create a barrier to breeding. But you have not shown that they don't or can't get expressed in the original population, (which you posit is "homogeneous"), so there is no reason for them not being expressed -- when you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces, and you are positing a "homogeneous" parent population (and I still think you mean is well mixed).Throw in selection and ecological forces and you will see more shift the phenotypes, but you still will not get anything that could not exist in the parent population and breed with the parent population. You can achieve a different variety (different populations with different coloration, say) at best, but not a new species.We do see this happening, but not with a result of a new species without a barrier to reproduction.Perhaps the best example for you is the Greenish Warbler, where the original population splits and splits and splits again, with each breeding population being characterized by slightly different coloration and slightly different mating songs -- different varieties. They each have hybrid zones between one population and the next except at the close of the ring, where you have two varieties that do not readily mate (although there are occasional hybrids).

quote:

---

Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations. All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.

---

The different genomes show mutations that added or modified alleles not in the original (or previous) breeding populations.That is where new phenotypes arise, and that is where breeding isolation develops.You really should think about this.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : clrty

(fixed)What is most likely is that it is sexual selection for the more average phenotype traits -- leading to apparent stasis in such populations. In this way large stable populations in static ecological environments would select for stasis.In humans, tests have shown that perceptions of beauty/handsomeness are actually for average phenotypes.This is logical because the more average the trait the more likely they are good for fitness (for survival and reproduction) in a static (or near static) ecological environment.See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution for more.Enjoy

There are no new combinations of alleles that were not possible in the parent population, and if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population.Variations in markings would be due to modified development (see silver foxes) from changes in hormone levels or modified genes for markings. Otherwise they should be in the parent population as well. Again, there is no new characteristics when all you rely on is pure Mendelian reproduction, if you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces (as you have claimed), in what you call a "homogeneous" population, then those combinations should exist in the parent population. At best you get a variety of racoon, not a new species that cannot reproduce with the parent or other similar sub-populations. Typical. Open your eyes, Faith.You are limited in your ability to understand by your ability to understand ...Enjoy

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

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

Is this what you mean by a "homogeneous" population, that they have a "general homogeneous appearance" ... (with some variation presumably in size)?Would "motley traits" mean the various traits (color, legs, horns, etc) that go to make up each individual?Curious. A large herd with "high genetic diversity" would have many variations in phenotypes with "strongly different traits" ... as shown by the analysis with Mendalian inheritance in Message 587. But you ignore selection, mutation and ecological forces, in the formation/development of all phenotypes, and you are positing a "homogeneous" parent population, so you have no mechanism to make traits that don't "necessarily manifest in some obvious way at first, just enough to be selected in breeding, or even in nature, but not enough to show up in a herd unless you go through it individual by individual." Rather they should all be seen in the parent population.And how do you know that the changes in the sub-populations are not due to mutations?Curious again.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The biological test for species is whether or not they interbreed with other populations. That's because of the definition of species used in biology.

quote:

---

Defining speciation

​

Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species. Imagine that you are looking at a tip of the tree of life that constitutes a species of fruit fly. Move down the phylogeny to where your fruit fly twig is connected to the rest of the tree. That branching point, and every other branching point on the tree, is a speciation event. At that point genetic changes resulted in two separate fruit fly lineages, where previously there had just been one lineage. But why and how did it happen?

​

​

The branching points on this partial Drosophila phylogeny represent long past speciation events.

---

Look familiar?There are some difficulties, however:

quote:

---

Defining a species

​

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

​

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.

​

​

That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not ” in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

​

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups ” but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?

​

​

If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist ” after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!

---

Classification is for our use in discussions, and they are subject to change when information provides new insights.

quote:

---

Carrion Crow: Distribution and genetic relationship to hooded crows

​

The carrion crow (Corvus corone) and hooded crow (Corvus cornix, including its slightly larger allied form or race C. c. orientalis) are two very closely related species[7] whose geographic distributions across Europe are illustrated in the accompanying diagram. It is believed that this distribution might have resulted from the glaciation cycles during the Pleistocene, which caused the parent population to split into isolates which subsequently re-expanded their ranges when the climate warmed causing secondary contact.[8][9]

​

A map of Europe indicating the distribution of the carrion and hooded crows on either side of a contact zone (white line) separating the two species

​

Poelstra and coworkers sequenced almost the entire genomes of both species in populations at varying distances from the contact zone to find that the two species were genetically identical, both in their DNA and in its expression (in the form of mRNA), except for the lack of expression of a small portion (<0.28%) of the genome (situated on avian chromosome 18) in the hooded crow, which imparts the lighter plumage colouration on its torso.[8] Thus the two species can viably hybridize, and occasionally do so at the contact zone, but the all-black carrion crows on the one side of the contact zone mate almost exclusively with other all-black carrion crows, while the same occurs among the hooded crows on the other side of the contact zone.

​

It is therefore clear that it is only the outward appearance of the two species that inhibits hybridization.[8][9] The authors attribute this to assortative mating (rather than to ecological selection), the advantage of which is not clear, and it would lead to the rapid appearance of streams of new lineages, and possibly even species, through mutual attraction between mutants. Unnikrishnan and Akhila propose, instead, that koinophilia is a more parsimonious explanation for the resistance to hybridization across the contact zone, despite the absence of physiological, anatomical or genetic barriers to such hybridization.[8]

---

Also see Two species of crow evolving ... on this possible crow speciation in process, apparently due to coloration:

quote:

---

"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.

---

Breeding populations apparently separated by sexual/mate selection.

quote:

---

Koinophilia is an evolutionary hypothesis proposing that during sexual selection, animals preferentially seek mates with a minimum of unusual or mutant features, including functionality, appearance and behavior.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Koinophilia intends to explain the clustering of sexual organisms into species and other issues described by Darwin's Dilemma.[3][4][5] The term derives from the Greek, koinos, "common", "that which is shared", and philia, "fondness".

​

Natural selection causes beneficial inherited features to become more common at the expense of their disadvantageous counterparts. The koinophilia hypothesis proposes that a sexually-reproducing animal would therefore be expected to avoid individuals with rare or unusual features, and to prefer to mate with individuals displaying a predominance of common or average features. ...

---

This Koinophilia is similar to what I proposed for sexual selection in Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution and my discussion on the causes of stasis in breeding populations living in stable ecological habitats.This Crow mate selection is similar to the overlap of the end of ring species like the Greenish Warbler, another place where the definition of species is problematic.For the record, the crows are listed in List of Corvus species as different species, likely because they were classified before genetic information was available, based on appearance and behavior.Note that you should be delighted that the hooded crow seems to be a product of isolation and gene loss promoting a phenotype that was not apparent in the parent population. The loss is a mutation, of course.Enjoy

see Did the Flood really happen? Message 6

That doesn't mean you can't be better.Enjoy