MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

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

Increasing genetic diversity misses the point. Increase it all you want, you still aren't going to get evolution without selection, which reduces genetic diversity. It isn't about rate, it's about outcome.

Uhmmm.... The development of breeds, varieties and species by loss of genetic diversity is EXACTLY what you are arguing.If all you are trying to do is convince us of how a breeding program works, then you are wasting your time. But you're not... you are trying to extrapolate how you think a breeding program works to natural systems - and you're wrong to do that. You have obviously NOT proven that. That is the claim. Evolution has NOT come to a halt... how can you even claim that when you are supposedly not even arguing that speciation requires a loss of genetic diversity? If you allow that speciation can occur without loss of genetic diversity, then you have no claim as to the "end of evolution."If you are not claiming that loss of genetic diversity is required for speciation, then that leaves it open that it might require a GAIN in genetic diversity to cause speciation. Would you agree that a gain is required? No, you have vehemently opposed that idea. In fact, you claim that genetic diversity CANNOT possibly increase.With my example of RIL populations, I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that loss of genetic diversity does not cause speciation. So if loss does not cause speciation and gain cannot be the culprit, what could? Staying the same?It is obvious that your claim is that speciation requires a loss of genetic diversity, but that is demonstrably false. Are you willing to concede that genetic loss does not and cannot lead to speciation? But you cannot demonstrate this... mathematically or otherwise. All you have is what you THINK happens. But you should be convinced by now that there is more to the story of genetic diversity, selection, and speciation than you originally thought.HBD

This is just ridiculous. So long as there is diversity we can have selection. If new variations are continually arriving diversity will always be available. Even if all diversity were removed new variations would bring it back.How can you not see that ?The fuel analogy illustrated it perfectly.

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 not considering divergence. The parent and daughter populations diverge and develop along separate evolutionary paths. Think about it.HBD

You think I haven't thought about that? I've mentioned it many times. Both populations evolve their own characteristics depending on their initial size and gene frequencies.You aren't getting it HBD. I'll prove it yet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sigh. At this point all I'm going to say is that this doesn't happen. It's like with the cheetah, after the genome has reached the point of extreme homozygosity due to selection you aren't getting new genetic diversity.And second, this is not the way the beloved ToE is supposed to work, an endless chain of adding and subtracting, and the picture is really quite ludicrous. You really think you're going to get macroevolution out of this bizarre scenario?But again you are NOT getting the increases in genetic diversity you think you are anyway.Hey I'll prove it eventually. All you've got on your side is the blindness brought about by faith in the ToE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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

How are you going to do that? Oh, and 100's (even 1,000's) of research papers on the subject along with accompanying data. Interested in reading some?HBD

That's not exactly what I mean by divergence. Besides, I have already shown you that initial size and gene frequency is not enough to differentiate two populations to the point of speciation (OK, you may get new breeds, but that's not enough to explain the diversity of species). You're missing something. You're making everything up based on an uniformed and faulty understanding of how population genetics work. Maths. Show the maths. The bulk of population genetics relies on math. Basic formulas are not that complicated but are more representational of the processes. Popgen equations is a review of some basic pop gen equations. Review them to get an idea of how they work then apply the principles to your own ideas. That's the only way you will go about proving your premises.HBD

Breeds is sufficient to make the point.

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

All this focus on species as opposed to other homogeneous populations is really a red herring. To get any homogeneous population requires selection which is a loss of genetic diversity. I'm always talking about a smooth ideal that I know doesn't happen frequently in reality, so I know there are going to be lots of detours and deviations from it; the processes I'm talking about could take ten times as long as the ideal because of all the interferences, but there is still no getting around the basic fact that to get a new homogeneous population requires the loss of genetic diversity, and that any form of addition only interrupts the process.Also you assume a lot about numbers and time that is probably not true.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.