A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

In the absence of supporting evidence, I have no confidence at all in your OBSERVED claim.A counter example would be the significant morphological/phenotypic diversity seen among the various dog breeds. Vast, morphological/phenotypic changes that are clearly not the result of mutation but rather non-mutational processes.

I get it from your posts. Your argument in Message 262 is that the populations Quetzal refers to MUST be from different kinds. However they are far more likely to be from the same species or closely related species (as in the case off ensatina).Thus it is quite obvious that you are assuming that the "kind" boundaries are wherever would be convenient for you.

Could you try to be more specific? 'Cause so far I really haven't claimed much about specifics. So far I've established criteria for using the kind, I haven't really gotten into the specifics of applying the kind. So where are you getting that I'm "moving the goalposts" as it were?Supply specifics please, since I'm not following your general assertions.

The Ensatina example proved nothing about the source of the new traits, and as you admitted yourself, mutation is merely assumed in that study. And there the degree of divergence in traits is extremely minor, color patterns and the like.As MJF is arguing, dog breeds demonstrate that pre-existing alleles are sufficient to produce an amazing range of new traits, far beyond anything in the Ensatina example.Nope, what you've given is not evidence of what it needs to be evidence OF. You guys are just making wild assertions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yep. But they'll go on accusing us of moving goalposts, handwaving away facts and arguing from incredulity and never see that they are the ones doing all that.Carry on.

I've already been specific. Your Message 262 implicitly claims that the populations referred to by Quetzal must include members of different kinds. What is the basis of this, other than an assumption that your "kind" boundary can be so low on the taxonomic hierarchy that examples used in this thread like the ensatina complex actually include different kinds ?

I had nothing to say about the specific application of the kind. The post you're referring to was written to elucidate the fact that the paradigm determines the outcome. That's it. I said nothing about Quetzal's populations, nor did I intend to. There's nothing more to say on this.Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.

Yes, they are always assuming continuous neverending variation, and thinking of changes such as fish to amphibian or apelike creature to man, and for that they would need mutations, (although so far I haven't seen that mutation could do anything anyway since the main processes in bringing about new traits reduce genetic diversity a lot faster than the slow process of producing a beneficial mutation ever could keep up with. Besides which the deleterious mutations would do in the creature first anyway. But I digress.)Yes, mutation is certainly not needed to explain the variations we actually observe, or microevolution, which is all creationists are explaining, and the dog breeds are a good example of the amazing range of such variations.

quote:

---

I had nothing to say about the specific application of the kind. The post you're referring to was written to elucidate the fact that the paradigm determines the outcome. That's it. I said nothing about Quetzal's populations, nor did I intend to.

---

You specifically stated that Quetzal's claim was "only true if you start with the ToE paradigm". And expanded on that by asserting that creationists were asserting that " all diversity within the kind is the result of non-mutational forces"Thus if the populations were within a single kind, they consitute diversity that is within the creationist paradigm, and Quetzal's statement cannot be dismissed on the grounds you used.So your claim is clearly false. You did directly address Quetzal's statement and you did specifically claim that it referred to diversity that was NOT within a kind.

I don't see a significant phenotypic diversity among dogs. I see a continuous distribution of traits along a fairly small number of attributes.I mean, to even suggest that these constrained gamuts represent "vast morphological change" would seem to undercut the YEC contention that animals vary only narrowly within their "kind."

I think that clarifies.I would like to point out one thing though and I would hope that this might recieve a number of responses from participants in this thread especially Faith.When has it ever been SHOWN that speciation can occur by the mere loss of alleles when populations diverge?Maybe someone did spell this out and I just missed it in the mix. There is a lot of talk going on about how things can speciate by a decrease in diversity. Faith did a good job of trying to establish this as a basis for talking about if mutation can THEN be the cause of increasing diversity. I just don't recall when if ever anyone established if this speciating via loss ONLY can even happen or HAS EVER happened.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

mjfloresta: You are discussing the distinction between different species here, not the breeding possibilities within a single species. A single species is indeed identified as a group of creatures that can breed and produce fertile offspring. It's very close to the established definition of species. The 'artifical insemination' possibiliity, which you always take care to mention, gets around some practical issues involved in the physical act of mating. It does not fundamentally change the genetic relationship that has to exist. Then let's get it straight for everyone where you say you have always placed it: approximating the Family level, while still insisting that this definition meets the constraint of interbreeding as a criterion.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Of course you need a source of variation too. According to your beliefs every species underwent a severe bottleneck about 5000 years ago. In fact you need a source of greater variation than even the scientific view of mutation can account for - let alone your version which downplays the contribution it can make still further. And you've got no evidence that any such source ever existed - it's just an ad hoc assumption.

You don't see significant phenotypic diversity among dogs? Chijuahas (however you spell it) and St.Bernards?You see a "continuous distribution" because breeders have artifically bred for a vast diversity of traits, creating and artificically continuous distribution that you would likely not see in the absence of artificial breeding. I've never contended that nor do I know what you refer to by "narrow" change within the kind.

Let's assume that you are right and that those processes do indeed reduce genetic diversity. What does that mean, "reduce genetic diversity"? It means that things become more and more the same, right? I mean, a reduction in diversity must mean an increase in uniformity, or else we need some new definitions of the words 'diversity' and 'uniformity'.So, here's an interesting question for you: how can a process that reduces genetic diversity, a process that leads to more uniformity, how can such a process bring about new traits? It should be painfully obvious that these two effects, the reduction of diversity and the creation of new traits, are contradictory. Please explain how you come up with such a strange concept.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.