MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

You'll never be able to prove something that is obviously false. Reduced genetic diversity can never cause genetic speciation. At a minimum different species have different alleles (meaning that each species population possesses alleles the other does not have), and most commonly different species have different genes. Simply reducing genetic diversity can never produce alleles in the daughter population that don't exist in the parent population, and without that the two populations can never become genetically incompatible. Nobody gets it because there's nothing to get. When one person "talks" for years and receives nothing but the equivalent of blank looks from everyone, including those who share her religious views, the fault doesn't lie with everyone else. You cannot transform a daughter population into a new species simply by reducing genetic diversity because the daughter population can only possess genes and alleles already present in the parent population. It's why breeders cannot produce new species. You're again ignoring the fact that it depends upon the *rate* of selection and the *rate* of mutation. If mutation produces new alleles faster than selection removes alleles, then diversity increases. Says the religious fanatic.--Percy

As has been explained many times, mutation and selection are simultaneous processes. Both are taking place in every generation. Selection decides which individuals pass their genes on to the next generation, and mutation provides each offspring with a genome slightly different from its parents. The production of new genetic material to select from never ceases.--Percy

Sure speciation is your focus. That's why you keep talking about species. This claim about species is from your Message 645: This one's from Message 666: This one is from Message 673: So of course your focus is species, which it has to be because this thread is about macroevolution (change above the species level) versus microevolution (change within a species). That's breeding. There's no disagreement about breeding. The disagreement is about speciation. Yes, you do. You believe that after the flood the small set of species from the ark evolved rapidly through loss of genetic diversity to produce the great diversity of species we observe today. But as has been clearly explained many times, loss of genetic diversity in a daughter population cannot produce new species, because the daughter population only possesses genes and alleles already present in the parent population and cannot be genetically incompatible. You're repeating the same question over and over again. The answer hasn't changed. New species are produced as mutations occur and are selected. Over time the selected mutations accumulate until the change is sufficient for there to be the genetic incompatibility that characterizes the division between species. Examples of speciation? Sure. This list is from Examples of Speciation, I only include the ones for which I could find information:

• Hawthorne fly. Sympatric speciation. Split into two populations after introduction of the apple tree to the Americas.
• Three-spined sticklebacks. The 1964 Alaska earthquake created new breeding sites that resulted in rapid divergence and possibly speciation.
• Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago. High numbers of species, seem to have high rate of gene duplication.
• Tennessee cave salamanders. Speciation in the presence of gene flow with parent species.
• Greenish Warbler. You already know about this one.
• Ensatina salamanders. Another ring species. Provides examples of many stages of the speciation process.
• Larus gulls. Another ring species, this one circumpolar.
• Petroica multicolor. Peripatric speciation.
• Drosophila. This one's interesting because it was accomplished in the lab.
• Galpagos finches. Familiar example.
• Grand Canyon squirrels. Separated by the canyon, they evolved into different squirrel species.
• Primula kewensis. Example of polyploid speciation in plants.

Again, depleted genetic diversity cannot produce speciation. The daughter population will always be genetically compatible with the parent population.--Percy

No, we're not missing the point. You're doing what you always do when you realize you don't have an argument, blame everyone else.--Percy

It's like you don't understand the concept of rate. When new alleles are introduced (mutation) faster than existing alleles are removed (selection), then genetic diversity increases. It's simple math.--Percy

Well, yes, it is about outcome, and the outcome is dependent upon the relative rate of new allele introduction (mutation) versus the rate of allele removal (selection).Imagine you have a large cooler that has one of those spigots on the side. Turn the spigot off and fill the cooler with water. The water in the cooler represents all the alleles of a population. Now turn the spigot on. Alleles are draining out of the cooler, analogous to selection, and reducing genetic diversity. Now turn on a hose and begin filling the cooler again. This represents adding new alleles to the population (mutation). If you fill the cooler faster than water is draining out the spigot then that is analogous to increasing genetic diversity. If you fill the cooler slower than water is draining out the spigot then that is analogous to decreasing genetic diversity.So if a population is gaining new alleles (mutation) faster than it is losing existing alleles (selection), then it is gaining genetic diversity.--Percy

You are again merely declaring your position with no meaningful evidence or argument. Wrong again. You're always gaining new genetic diversity. The introduction of new mutations in every offspring is inevitable, unstoppable. The actual genetic problem for the cheetah is that reduced genetic diversity reduces fitness (for example, fewer cubs survive to maturity), and small and shrinking population size reduces the rate of introduction of new helpful mutations. It is still a rate problem of introduction of new alleles versus removal of existing alleles. What you're foolishly calling ludicrous is an undeniable fact. DNA copying is an imperfect process and mutations are inevitably introduced into every offspring. That fact cannot be ignored. What you're crazily calling a bizarre scenario is what is observed. Change in species genomes through mutation and selection is precisely what we see, and given the facts of reality both are inevitable. DNA copying is imperfect and introduces new genes and alleles, and alleles are removed from a population through selection. You're unlikely to prove anything that's already been demonstrably shown false. Apparently all you've got on your side is blatantly false, erroneous and empty claims, and name calling. Start getting something right, start showing comprehension of simple concepts, then maybe someday you'll prove something.--Percy

The point that breeding makes is that reducing genetic diversity cannot by itself produce new species. And in the case of breeding mammals, it takes place across too small a population and too few a number of generations to create new species, which requires new genes and alleles.--Percy

What defines a species is not homogeneity, it's being capable of interbreeding. Homogeneity (or its opposite, diversity) varies from one species to the next, and even from one population of a species to the next. This is true, but what does that have to do with macroevolution versus microevolution? Everyone agrees that homogeneity requires loss of genetic diversity. That's all that breeding is, and we all agree about breeding. If the discussion were just about breeding then the discussion would be over, but that's not what this is really about for you. Though I guess it makes no difference now if you're truly abandoning your claim that reduced genetic diversity causes speciation.Homogeneity is not an "ideal". It's unhealthy for a species to be homogeneous. Diversity contributes to fitness. What on earth persuaded you to walk out on yet another ledge? If you really think you've identified errors, be specific.The truth is that what we've been saying about numbers and time are not assumptions but facts, in many cases very obvious and even self-evident facts. The mutation rate for many species is known. For example, it's been noted several times in this thread that human offspring average around 100 mutations. And we know it takes time for mutations to spread throughout a population because they can't spread any faster than the generation rate. That's why it's possible to experimentally breed new species of bacteria (extremely short generation times) but not mammals (comparatively long generation times). And we know larger populations produce more mutations and diversity than small populations.These facts are why the idea of "rapid speciation" post ark in order to get from the number of species that would fit on the ark to the number of species observed in the world today is such nonsense. Generating meaningful numbers of mutations would require large populations, which couldn't be the case since each species was represented by either 2 or 14 individuals when they walked off the ark. And anyway, it takes long time periods for mutations to propagate through large populations.--Percy

Evolution includes both mutation and selection, and evolution is definitely not synonymous with reduced genetic diversity.--Percy

There is no such thing as "built-in genetic diversity". No such thing has ever been observed. And again, evolution includes both mutation and selection. Or paraphrasing Darwin, evolution is descent with change and natural selection. You can't ignore mutation without being wrong.Your insistence on contributing by mere repetition of erroneous declarations that are absent any evidence or argument is making discussion rather one-sided. You seemed to understand earlier today that you couldn't prove your points, only saying that one day you thought you could. Obviously nothing has changed in the few hours that have passed and you still can't prove your points, but you're continuing to post anyway. That day that you think will one day come isn't today, and if you can't make your case today then you shouldn't be posting today.--Percy

You're battling facts with fantasy again. Well, this is accurate now that you've left out the claim that evolution *is* selection. As has been said many times now, there's no argument about breeding. What you call "the party line" is knowledge based upon facts. Well, I'm sure you're going to keep asserting, but you don't seem to know very much that is true. By "built-in genetic diversity" you mean diversity that existed in organisms before the flood and then was spread among the descendants after the flood to form all the species we observe in the world today? I'd like to see these "mathematical formulas of Population Genetics" that "seem to affirm it." I've got to comment on how amazing it is that yesterday you were struggling to understand an oversimplified 2:45 video on population genetics, and today you've mastered the "mathematical formulas." Good for you! I can't wait to see the math. How so? Why quotes around "observed," and where has this "built-in genetic diversity" been observed? The conclusions of the ToE are based upon facts and observations going back a couple hundred years. We can provide knowledge and facts limited only by the amount you can absorb. No genome has ever been discovered with all the genes and alleles necessary for a new species neatly packed away just waiting to somehow be distributed into offspring to create a new species. Since copying mistakes, mutations, are impossible to stop, are inevitable, there is no way that DNA cannot evolve. The genetic interrelatedness of species shows that they evolved. When mutations accumulate in a population so that it is genetically incompatible with other populations of the same species and can no longer interbreed with them, then that is a new species. It's evolution beyond the species level and is called macroevolution. And yet though mutations are present in all offspring of every species, and though this has been true since the beginning of life, it does not "mess things up." Selection removes the unfit from a population, and mutation provides new variation.--Percy

Wow, what a bundle of inconsistencies! Point me again to the research demonstrating the character of evolution after the flood? Okay, speciation is "a crock," but then you say: So you think speciation is "a crock", but you also think "population growth followed by migration" caused speciation. And since it happened in years rather than millennia, how is that not rapid? And how, exactly, does "population growth followed by migration" cause speciation? Where does this supposed "built-in genetic diversity" come into play? Since ability to interbreed is what defines a species, at least for the sexual species we've been talking about, then how can interbreeding be irrelevant? So there's no such thing as macroevolution, but your scenario includes macroevolution (speciation brought on by "population growth followed by migration"), so that's a kind of significant contradiction.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Your pattern seems to be, "If an argument disproves my point, I'll first claim its wrong, then I'll claim I don't understand it, then I'll claim I'm being unfairly overwhelmed technically, then I'll claim there's no facts just assertions, then when the facts can't be denied I'll claim it's just an interpretation, then I'll change my argument, then I'll claim no one understands my argument, and then I'll wrap around to the beginning again." Wait a minute. A bit ago you were claiming that you could prove your claims about built-in genetic diversity with the mathematics of population genetics. But if the actual truth is that you have "a very limited area of knowledge" (an understatement obvious to everyone) then you were not being truthful about having that population genetics math.You can't have it both ways. You can't be both ignorant and knowledgable about something like population genetics at the same time. The claims you've been making require more than enough knowledge and intelligence to understand HBD's arguments. Either you've been making claims out of ignorance, or you're not being truthful about not being able to understand HBD's arguments. You're being very obtuse and unclear. You've repeatedly backed off your argument that breeding proves evolution can't produce speciation, and then you've repeatedly reinstated it again. Each time you back off this argument HBD says that if all you're arguing is that at some point a process of reducing genetic diversity (i.e., breeding) reaches its limits, then there is agreement. But then he goes on to say that he doesn't believe that's all you're arguing, that you're also arguing that breeding is a model for how evolution works, and that since breeding doesn't produce new species then evolution can't either. And then you prove him right by repeatedly going back to that argument. How about a little consistency? So if that's your argument then stop saying that speciation isn't your focus, because proving that speciation isn't possible is precisely your focus. Wow - get confused much? HBD wasn't dismissing your argument at all.What really happens is that each time you again start claiming that you're only arguing that breeding produces reduced genetic diversity and homogeneity, HBD says that's something that is trivially true and on which there is agreement (e.g., "I have agreed and pointed out several times now that this is trivially true." From Message 719). He also says he doesn't believe you, that he thinks you actually still believe breeding's inability to produce new species is a model for evolution and proves evolution can't produce new species. And then you make precisely that argument yet again and prove him right, and then you repeat the cycle and deny-the claim/repeat-the claim a few posts later. I think HBD, like the rest of us, have just been responding to your changing arguments. First you claim you know, then you claim you don't know but will one day. Then you claim you know again. Then you're not arguing anything other than breeding reducing genetic diversity. Then you're arguing that it also disproves speciation. Then you're not. Then you are. It goes on and on. You change your arguments multiple times daily.--Percy

Ooh, good one, I'll add this to the list of your prevarications. And I'll add this one too from a later message: Great stuff for bringing discussion to a screeching halt.--Percy