What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?

I thought that said that you didn't need data. That you had a logical proof that mutation couldn't produce sufficient new alleles. You certainly claimed that it was a fact that that was the case - so why are you asking for data now, when you claimed to already knwo the answer ?And perhaps you would like to produce evidence that the loss of alleles occurs at a "prodigious" rate. It is the difference between the two rates that you need to know - just knowing the rate at which mutations occur isn't much use on it's own.

Um, explain to me YOUR definition of speciation. I know what I know about it already, but I want to know how you feel about it.Additionally, by my logic, I believe that life came from a few -- by my definition, each species had its origin at the same time, and each species, well...speciated, from that point until now. Natural selection and random mutation produced the variation of species that we have today.And what evidence do you suppose that each group we see present today is derived from only one group (e.g., mammalia, protozoa, etc.)? If all the fossils show the same dates genetically, then wouldn't it be possible that these various species were separate to begin with? Given that these fossils probably weren't in a controlled environment, that is.And I continue to wonder where the initial ideas for dates arose from. I understand how the dating process works, but it also assumes that the earth came into existence 4.5 billion years ago; all dating methods go off of this premise. If the standard was younger (or older), would you guys have to readjust the time frames according? Just a thought.Maybe some of you guys have a good way to answer this question.|the kid

The age of the Earth belongs elsewhere, but the 4.5 billion year age is a conclusion and it's certainly not the basis of any dating method used.

How?|the kid

As I said it's off topic here. Start a new thread - and you can explain there why you thought it was an assumption underlying dating methods.

And no doubt the evidence supporting this will arrive just as soon as 'creation science' starts its research efforts.TTFN,WK

Only 1000 out of 300,000,000 is not a sharply reduced population???That's 0.00033% of the original population.The population after a bottleneck event is nothing less than a sample of the population before the bottleneck event. I'll assume (in the absence of any metric being provided to quantify and measure "information" in any kind of genetic sense) that novel behavior would be evidence of "new" information -- new as in never seen before behavior based on a genetic change ... and we have the nylon eating bacteria, bacteria that have evolved to eat a substance (a) they could NOT consume when it was first introduced and (b) did not EXIST before man created it.I expect you'll quibble on this, but when you do: have a metric that measures the "information" content otherwise it is just opinion.You seem to think that a mutation that just moves DNA from one place to another cannot create new information in the process. Consider these phrases ⁽¹⁾:

Woman, without her man, is nothing.

Woman, without her, man is nothing.

​

I think you'll agree that the second phrase has a whole 'new' meaning that was not contained in the first even though all that was moved was one comma. How was this "new" information introduced eh?

​

Please supply evidence of this. ... Show me these brand new alleles in this completely isolated population that has no gene flow with other populations of the same species.

​

Again, we have the nylon eating bacteria, the alleles that allow them to consume this material did not exist before they evolved this capability.

​

I expect you'll quibble on this, but it doesn't really matter: life will go on evolving regardless of your opinion on the matter.

​

I never said there was, RAZD. Please quote where you think I said that. I remember saying clearly that of COURSE bottlenecks don't ALWAYS cause speciation -- or even always eliminate alleles.

​

You seem to regard this Message 50 issue as only in response to your pet theory, when it has been more concerned with the lack of relation between bottleneck and speciation -- reread the linked post. I was (heh) introducing "new" information ... k?

​

Enjoy.

---

⁽¹⁾ - from old Stone Soup Cartoon, the Mom was teaching the teenage Holly the importance of punctuation.
(Today on Stone Soup - Comics by Jan Eliot - GoComics)

​

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Because that is the answer that is always given to me -- oh but we have the EVIDENCE. We SEE an increase in alleles after speciation.So SHOW it already. That's what I'm asking for. I didn't say the loss occurs at a prodigious rate, I said it occurs over time as a trend of all the population-splitting and changing processes. But mutation has to catch up with it AND exceed it if it is going to be "the engine that drives evolution."Perhaps there is data out there somewhere on allele loss at speciation and allele gain some time thereafter?

Your woman-man example is just playing with words. When I said "new information" I meant new alleles, REALLY new genetic information. I've many times SAID that merely changing allelic frequencies without eliminating any will produce new phenotypes. It's very frustrating when you don't follow the argument. Right, the very rare occasional mutation, most of it in bacteria, is ALL you have for data. You do NOT have data that shows an increase in NUMBERS of alleles in a population after it speciates, that would make up for the loss of alleles over time. Speciation is linked with loss of alleles, IF speciation is the product of the processes I'm talking about, all of which either shuffle or eliminate alleles. Again, domestic breeding eliminates alleles. That's the model. Often the new traits selected for are previously low-frequency alleles that have been selected for the new breed, while other alleles for that gene/trait are either strongly reduced or ideally eliminated from the new breed altogether. Bottleneck may not ALWAYS eliminate alleles, but if the population is small enough compared to the original population it would be very unusual if it didn't. And natural selection certainly may.Are you actually going to claim that alleles never get eliminated by any of these processes? I don't understand this endless objection to what ought to be obvious, that over many population splits, as in ring species each forming from the previous, or in a drastic bottleneck, or in a drastic natural selection etc. etc. etc., alleles can hardly avoid being lost. Some genes may have MANY alleles in a population. You are going to lose some of them. How could this not be inevitable?And one nylon-eating bacteria colony is no answer to this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, Faith, how many alleles for each locus did the human race have at the time of the flood? When was that?What is the average number of alleles for a locus now? If it is now smaller than it was when did the reduction occur?

I don't understand your reasoning. You have already aknowleged that mutations do happen in real life (or haven't you?). By definition a mutation increases the number of alleles in a population. What is it again you want to see that data for?

I believe you are changing the subject, Nosy. I've argued effectively that all the processes that change allele frequencies toward speciation over time reduce genetic diversity. Mutation is the only one that doesn't. Others have claimed no problem, we actually SEE an increase in alleles after speciation, but that turns out AGAIN to be nothing but these few examples, a couple of them from bacteria, the others disease processes that happen to have a positive effect as well. The ball is in your court. I've argued effectively that except for mutation there is nothing but a gradual decrease in alleles, in most species. Numbers haven't been discussed. There's no way to know the actual numbers, especially since nobody will even acknowledge what is really going on in order to study it. Decrease is decrease.

Well, people keep saying alleles increase after speciation enough to make up for any losses due to selection and population splits. The few examples of mutations that are always referred to do not demonstrate this. Apparently nobody even knows whether or how many losses there might be for starters. I've merely argued from the logic of how the selection and splitting processes work that there has to be loss, but you'd need to do studies to know for sure how much. But evolutionists aren't looking in that direction so they can't answer me.You have to take a species, say all those in a ring species, check the alleles for a number of genes in each population, all the ones that have speciated and the first one. Apparently there is no such data. So when people assure me so definitely that they KNOW that alleles increase after speciation they have nothing whatever to back that up. Count the alleles for a number of genes in all the populations, testing a generous-sized sample of each. Has that been done? Not that I know of or anybody has said here. All that's been said here is that those few examples of mutations are supposed to answer it. Nope.

This was a duplicate.So I'll just rewrite it.The fact that there are known mutations doesn't solve this problem. The only ones given as examples of beneficial ones are very few, and they have a downside to them in most cases. Most mutations don't do anything that anybody knows of, they could be deleterious over time, who knows; and many known mutations are deleterious.How does this known situation in any way supply an increase to make up for the logical decrease overall that I've been talking about? Why isn't this logical overall decrease as a result of all the splitting and selecting processes even a part of anybody's thinking for that matter? It must be because mutation is so taken for granted it's just figured into the mix AS IF it must be the "driving force of evolution" it is assumed to be.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A decrease involves numbers. I'm asking for numbers. You think you know the population of the human race at very set times. Given that what are the numbers involved.