Well to teh evolutionary mindset it is called microevolution.
No. Because "evolution" has a very precise and testable defintion, we can use it in scientific discussions, as can "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
But to YEC, even though the term isused because it is well known- it is simply variation.
Species to species variation is not macroevolution:
The definition you just offered says it is:
mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
Learn to pronounce
noun
BIOLOGY
- major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
And that's what "speciation" means.
Again we get to choose from column a or column b.
And here, you messed up yet again...
al·lele
/əˈlēl/
Learn to pronounce
noun
GENETICS
- one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.
- IOW genetic mutation.
An allele is indeed a mutation that produces an alternative form of a gene. That's what both definitions say.
And given that almost all mutations reduce the viability or reproductive vibrancy of the host and its population
They lied to you about that. Most mutations don't have any effects at all. A few are harmful, and a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out.
evolution that goes from goo to you by way of the zoo is ...
... a YEC attempt to conflate evolution with the origin of life. It's one of the major reasons creationists are considered to be dishonest.
Population geneticists look at such things,and they have noted that mutation rates and favorable mutations are mathematically optimal for different sorts of organisms. T
But most YECs choose to ignore the math because they don't approve the way God produced variation in living things.
Barbarian calls noiidad's "information" bluff:
No. Unknown by whom? And how do you measure how much information is added?
Hey its what you believe in.
No, it's not. "Information" has a precise definition, and is mathematically determined. So let's see your numbers. You really just made that up, didn't you? Admit it, you don't even know how to determine "information" in a population, do you?
And no feathers are not anatomically identical to scutes and scales as you falsely alleged.
This is the second time you lied about what I said. No one here said they were identical. You know this. Do you think people don't notice when you do that kind of thing? They are very similar, and as you learned primitive feathers can be induced in alligators by a single genetic change.
The fossil record lacks any evidence of intermediate forms (hence, of homology) between scales and hairs.
Except for Longisquama insignins. And here's the part you deleted...
In addition, the shared localized dermal signaling during the development of placodes in all amniotes makes the independent evolution of a dermal condensate in avian and mammalian follicles much less surprising than previously anticipated.
The development of dermal osteoderms (44), which are associated with some epidermal scales in crocodiles and in some lizards, might even suggest that the dermal condensation abilities of the dermis constitute a deep homology among all amniotes. This hypothesis could be further tested by investigating, during reptile scale morphogenesis, the potential expression of other signaling molecules known to be dermal condensation markers in mammals and/or birds (
12,
45,
46).
It has been previously hypothesized (47) that reptilian scales are more similar to avian reticulate scales (covering the foot pad) than to both avian scutate scales (covering the anterior metatarsal region) and feathers. Our results argue against that hypothesis as, contrary to avian reticulate scales, squamate scales, avian scutate scales, and avian feathers all form from an anatomical placode and all exhibit dermal signaling. Our results are consistent with the observation that reticulate scales are non-overlapping and composed only of α-keratin, whereas avian scutate and reptilian scales are mostly overlapping and composed of both α-keratins and β-proteins. Note that previous studies in chicken (including the mutant scaleless chicken) have shown that reticulate scales exhibit peculiar morphogenesis with alteration of proliferation patterns and of conserved signaling pathways (
8,
25,
48), further suggesting that they are derived structures with little developmental similarities to reptilian scales.
Hair, feathers, and scales: An evolutionary tale | Science in the Classroom
Here you posted a report that directly states what you were hoping to refute. Because you really don't understand the issue, you've just proven my point for me.
And we have shown how this 25 year old writing by Wise has been debunked by modern evidence and confessions of fraud by evolutionists.
Nope. You've just tossed out accusations with nothing to back them up. And you've declined to do so after repeated requests. Do you think anyone here doesn't notice?
Repeating unsupported accusations over and over will not make it true. And yes, Wise is a YEC creationist. If you look back, you'll find that I told you that when I introduced him to the thread. He's an honest YEC though, and this is what you find objectionable in his work.
But you know that when a YEC scientist uses the term variation- it is not equated to secular evolutionary hypotheses.
Wise's point was that the large number of documented transitional series in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." It is. He expresses hope that there will be,someday, a YEC explanation for them.
Did you memorize Alinsky's rules???
It appears you have. Instead of dodging and making excuses, how about showing us whatever arguments you find persuasive in the video? Be sure to document with checkable sources.
Or fall back on your hero, Alinsky, and do it his way.
