MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Objecting to evo theory must be ignorance of course. I'm pretty sure that eventually it will be seen that the evos are the ignorant ones. Not that my particular theories are all correct, who knows, but something in that ballpark is certainly the truth and evolutionism certainly isn't.If I'm going to go blind from macular degeneration I'd rather it not be from reading stuff I abhor as much as I do evolutionary theory. If you don't mind.My theory is SO elegant, so consistent, so fine, and SO unappreciated, alas.But maybe if I continue in the pop gen videos something will come of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's you mangling language. You can't invent your own definitions. You can't say anything meaningful while using terms you can't define. A species is a population of organisms capable of interbreeding. A population that can't interbreed with the rest of its species is a different species. One population that can't interbreed with another population is a different species. How pray tell, does one tell when the reason one population can't interbreed with another is because it's a different species versus it's the same species but has a genetic problem? Do you have any examples from the real world of a species population with genetic problems preventing it from interbreeding with another population of the same species? Does the absurdity of your own ridiculous claims never strike you? Yes, you would need examples, because that's impossible since all life can evolve. The DNA copying that occurs during gamete formation is not without error, mutations are invariably introduced, and so the genes and alleles that are passed down through the generations inevitably change. Have you forgotten that you haven't yet provided a definition of "kind"? Either provide a useful definition of "kind" or stop using the term. One more time, you haven't defined kind. No one can know what you mean when you refer to the inability of a new species to breed with other populations of its "kind". You've never been able to provide any support for this. Instead you ignore mutation. You can't say anything accurate and true about evolution when you ignore half of it. Why are your posts so full of errors? When you make a nonsensical statement, who knows what you really meant? You keep requesting that people make a greater effort to understand what you're really trying to say, but where is the effort on your part to say things that are true and make sense?And once again you haven't looked things up. While grizzly bears and panda bears are very unlikely to be able to mate, grizzly bears and polar bears can most certainly mate. They have exactly the same number of chromosomes, and the polar bear is so closely related to the brown bear (the grizzly bear is a subspecies of brown bear) that it's likely just another subspecies of brown bear.The key point is that there is no evidence supporting your supposition that there are many fewer species in the world than we think, that in many cases what we think are different species are actually the same species genetically, just with different allele frequencies. If that were the case it would have been detected long ago. Uh, you do know what evidence is, right? You know that evidence doesn't emerge from ignoring things and supposing things, right? You know it comes from observation and experimentation, you know, research, right? So let's try again. Where is the evidence for an original created genome? There is no evidence for any of this, and the evidence we do have contradicts it. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. What you're actually referring to is the evidence that has been gained using the best techniques of observation and experimentation. The same techniques behind all scientific research. You have nothing equivalent. As I said earlier, if this were the case then it would have been detected long ago, because modern taxonomic classifications have become increasingly based upon genetic analysis. There isn't even a glimmer of a possibility that your statement is true.--Percy

And so....bigly!Maybe I hoped for too much, too soon. But I really thought that the age of the rational was upon us. Or maybe I'm just seeing its death thoes. We can only hope.Faith, you have absolutely no comprehension of what you would need to do to demonstrate that an idea about our natural world is valid. None. You think that without any education in a subject that has been extensively studied and critiqued for decades and by inventing ad hoc propositions without evidence whilst selectively ignoring evidence and by starting with a supernatural conclusion you, and you alone, Have found the answer?You're the definition of the word 'delusion'. The archetype.

I hope you don't mind if I just say that your entire post is a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense, as most of them have been in the last few days. It's so much more economical than slogging through it all to point it out statement by statement.Don't you think it's time to close down this charade?

Oh I know what it would take and would pounce on it if it came my way, fear not. Meanwhile I have to put up with the snarky nonsense of evos who don't have any evidence either, just snark and pseudoscience.I know it's hard to grasp but it is possible for an entire field to get off to such a wrong start that it just keeps compounding its errors and calling them science. And of course this applies to the evolutionary "sciences" rather than the true sciences, because it's all nprovable in principle. Really, it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We've had no trouble recognizing your "different interpretations." They're wrong, and we've explained why. Your religious beliefs seem to be getting in the way of your reasoning powers and interest in learning anything. Please either define kind or use the word species. But the cheetah *can* evolve further. There's nothing that could possibly prevent it, except extinction. How is having "lots of fixed loci" the same thing as "can't evolve further"? What could possible prevent a species with "lots of fixed loci" fixating one additional loci, which of course constitutes evolving further? What could possibly prevent mutation, which of course also constitutes evolving further? Even a species with all loci fixed can evolve further. There's nothing known that can prevent mutation.So we're left still not knowing what you mean by "depleted," and so you still have no definition of "kind".--Percy

Your continuing to repeat known falsehoods does not make them true.We have the evidence; it is the Christian Cult of Ignorance that simply continues to pervert Christianity, truth, the Bible, honesty and makes Americans look really stupid.We do have evidence; to claim we do not is just a falsehood.We do have genetic samples from humans and many other animals from before your imaginary Fall; from before your imaginary floods and from after your imaginary floods. Those samples show that the genetics of humans and other animals and plants are similar to samples of the same plants and animals living today.Where is even a single example of the genetic diversity you claim existed?There is absolute evidence that there has never been a world wide flood during the time humans existed and repeating the falsehood of some Biblical flood does not make it real.There is absolute evidence that the Earth is old and repeating your fantasy does not make it real.

But you don't think that based on evidence or reasoning, you think that because of your religious beliefs. Forensics? You mean analysis of evidence to reconstruct events from the past without directly observing them, that kind of forensics? Boy, you're like a broken record. Again, there's nothing preventing the cheetah from further evolution. There's nothing preventing any species from further evolution, except extinction. How interesting! When did the Pod Mrcaru lizards get promoted to species status? And how could this happen since they're genetically identical to their ancestors on Pod Kopiste? I don't know what you're referring to by the other three breeds, but I presume one of them is the Jutland breed of cattle, which took a few centuries beginning in the 1600s, not a few years. Producing different breeds that are genetically indistinguishable does not support your claptrap. So now you're changing your story again, and new species *were* produced after the flood? Or did you just misspeak. And one more time, this time with gusto! We have lots of DNA evidence of ancient animals, and ancient DNA is much the same as modern DNA. There is no evidence whatsoever for your claim, and much contrary evidence.--Percy

I've seperated those two phrases with '......' because it demonstrates your total lack of understanding of how the accumulation of knowledge works.The opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of your ideas are there right now. Right now, today, you could let the world know about your break-though in evolutionary science by simply submitting your thesis plus evidence supporting it to Nature.They would review it, have a few recognised experts in relevant field poke it around a bit and then, inevitably, publish it. You'd collect your Nobel prize within 3 years. No problem.So what's stopping you? Is it perhaps that you're still working on your paper that disproves modern geology? Or maybe you feel that your ideas on molecular biology are just a little too ahead of their time? God knows it's hard to pick which parts of modern science are the most mistaken.Maybe you just don't have the funding to carry out all this original research in you laboratory - I know you must be pretty pushed for space amonst all those autoclaves and thermal cyclers to come up with new hardware to show that radio carbon dating is just fuck-off wrong.But what the hell, you just have to pick one, prove the entirety of science in that area wrong and move onto the next one. Piece if cake really, it's just about focus.

Oh, my, what insightful rebuttal. About the same in quality as most of your stuff. The charade, involving baseless assertions, refusal to consider evidence, refusal to read sources, refusal even to read carefully crafted messages posted to you, is all coming from your side. If you're growing weary of making stuff up then I suggest you find some evidence that supports your views. Obviously at some level you must sense the need for evidence, else you wouldn't keep mentioning the Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle, but that evidence is useless to you because it's already consistent with what is known about evolution. Plus breeders have no trouble producing greater differences than those examples in shorter time periods - there's nothing exceptional about them.If you decide to continue that's up to you, but if you do then I suggest you: a) find supporting evidence; b) stop ignoring existing evidence. When your arguments acquire a more solid foundation then you'll likely find discussion much easier and more enjoyable.--Percy

You don't have what you need to demonstrate that your ideas are valid but you insist your ideas are valid and people who don't accept them as valid misunderstand or are brainwashed.Of course you see no problem there.

Not really. I used to wonder about evolution's strange lack of evidence way back when I believed in it. When I came to understand Creation it's like that gave me a sort of permission to consider it wrong, that's really the main difference. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The basic idea of loss of genetic diversity by selection leading to ultimate inability to evolve further is really unimpeachable logically.

---

If you have this great logical argument, why are you keeping it secret ?Feel free to produce it if you really have one.

A line of thought got derailed back there somewhere thanks to Percy's hairsplitting semantic distractions. Well, more than one line of thought met that fate for that reason, but at the moment I'm thinking of my attempt to answer the complaint that domestic breeding can't be a model for evolution because speciation doesn't occur in breeding, meaning that the point is never reached where interbreeding with other members of the species becomes genetically impossible.My answer is that I don't think speciation according to that definition occurs in nature either so breeding is a good model even by that standard. Take dogs. All the dog breeds are supposedly genetically capable of breeding with all others. So take cats: some can't breed wsith others, such as cheetahs. But they are all cats, yet the cheetah is regarded as a species unto itself. Was there a "speciation" event that brought this about? What about bears? I compared the grizzly with the panda which brought some kind of uproar because they are supposedly different species. But both are true bears of the family Ursidae so what is this ridiculous uproar about anyway? I'm makig a simple point: inability to breed doesn't distinguish some different "species" in the wild same as it doesn't distinguish between domestic breeds. Whatever brings about that inability doesn't remove the animal from its basic Species or Kind: a panda is a bear, a grizzly is a bear, a polar bear is a bear. A lion is a cat and a tiger is a cat, certainly at least as genetically different from each other as a golden retriever is from a cocker spaniel, and there is no problem with interbreeding between either group.So stop with the hairsplitting semantics. My point holds: breeding is a good model of evolution on many counts.There was another big uproar about my opinion on speciation. Simple English escapes some people who get themselves so steeped in technical terminology they can't think.All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying. Whatever the reason yes THEY are making the discussion impossible and accusing me of being the problem. When there is one lone YEC against half a dozen rabid evos you'd think a little more effort would be made to understand the creationist. You'd think but you'd be wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.