Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

[Gus2009]

Sorry about the way I worded the question, guys.

I meant to ask is evolution (or has it ever been) a proven fact of science?

If im guessing correctly about what you mean to ask here then the answer is yes. Evolution is a "proven" fact. However, the best word here would not be proven as nothing in science is ever proven in the exact defintion of the word.

 

[KerrMetric]

A Ring species, which is most normally common among insects, due to their very complex reproductive organs, are a product that the Hypothesis, as proposed, is not true.

Where are you getting your information from???????? What the hell do complexity of reproductive organs have to do with this anyway? Most insect populations are panmictic. Now I wont guarantee there isn't an example of an insect ring species but I have never heard of one and it's kind of hard to imagine there being one.

And as gluadys said:

Can you cite an example of an insect ring species? I have never heard of one before. All the previous examples I have seen have been birds or salamanders.

 

[Key]

How can one be so arrogantly wrong. Pack is used primarily in describing large groups of canines, not just a mother and her pups.

Responding to you with the same level of incivility you have tossed at me, would be below me, so I'll try to explain this to you as simply as I can, so that you can learn something.

A female wolf and her pups, makes a pack. It is not called a family.

Validated again, below.

And here are the Google results for leopard+pack. No hits, except for backpacks and some weird roll playing lycanthrope sites.

and here is a link for "Pack" on Google... the first five pages have nothing to do with "wolves" or even animal (non-human) groups or gatherings, so, did you have a point at bringing this up?

Were you trying to pass that off as some from of evidence?

Because it really was just wasted drama.

Here is a site that will help you with this in the future, (Animal Names) when you need to reference the names applied to different animal groups.

Note: there is no separate name applied to these groups for "Mother an offspring only"

However, you will notice, that a group of ducks can also be called any of these names: badelynge, brace, bunch, flock, paddling, raft, team.

With all those names, did you notice that "family" was not there?

In the future, if you wish to try and correct me, please have done an ounce of research yourself, and leave the insults at the door, there are few things more annoying then someone who is wrong, and crude about it.

How can you agree 100%? You're saying the opposite of reality, not just what I'm saying. You might not say a family of ducks, but apparently people who know what they're talking about do.

Umm let me see if I have this right...

You provide a link, to a series of editorial pages, and photo links, not to mention "brand names" as validity that you are right?

Allow me to counter with people that really know what they are talking about. You seem to need the information, as it seems to be a lesson you have missed.

Names of Groups of Animals. (Google)

But please, spare me the drama, and really inaccurate links.

Thanks.

No irony... what a way to live...
Melanism and abundism are often the result of genetic mutation, but can result from other stimuli, such as exposure to abnormal temperature changes during gestation which transiently alter gene transcription or translation.
And.
Mutants are natural variations which occur due to spontaneous genetic changes or the expression of recessive (hidden) genes. Recessive genes show up when there is too much inbreeding. White tigers and white lions are uncommon in the wild as they lack normal camouflage. Albinism (pure white), chinchilla (white with pale markings) and melanism (black) are the commonest mutations.

First, thank you for the links, but I have to ask.

Did you read those links?

Can you cite an example of an insect ring species? I have never heard of one before. All the previous examples I have seen have been birds or salamanders.

I have been trying to find it again, I found it when I was looking up the "fruit fly to meat fly experiment" which, when I tried to look it up again, I could not find what I had found before, I'll try to see what I can find for you, it was very informative. However, it may have been a fault on my part, not to look deeper into ring species.

I get the sense that you are not using "ring species" to refer to the same phenomenon as Deamiter and I are, so we may not be talking about the same thing. In none of the ring species I am familiar with do the reproductive organs factor significantly into forming the ring.

It is in relation to the mating in a biomass, Just gonna use ants to be cute, I know beetles would be a better choice, but meh, it's late, I don't wanna think to hard, and that the swam of ants span for miles, but, those at one end of the ant line, do not/can not breed with the ants at the other end of the line. However, all the ants in between, at intervals, do breed, but there is a "gray" areas, between each interval, where, the ants can breed in each direction. It was quite informative, and I am sure the same concept applies.

I hope I can find you the site, I have had no luck so far.

Actually, we have a great deal of evidence that validates the claim that genetic codes change from ancestor to descendant. I linked you earlier to the 1979 Multi-factorial Study on Drosophila.

Yes, the Fruit Fly.

This study began with a single population with a mapped genetic sequence. It ended with eight separate populations each with different variations from the ancestral sequences. In one case the daughter population showed an overall 3% genetic difference from the ancestral population.

3%. Now, forgive me, this is something I have not studied too much, and see this a lot, with the % different, but what does 3% differential translate into in practical means?

Can you provide me a link that would explain this, or if you feel up to it, you could explain it yourself.

Please clarify the difference between the bolded sections of the upper and lower statements. In the upper statement you refer to "changes in alleles" in the lower to "changes in allele frequencies". Was it simple oversight to omit "frequencies" in the first statement?

Yes, as an Allele is a fixed location with variable information to start with.

I am not certain why you introduced genetic drift in response to Deamiter's question. Genetic drift is in a totally different category to the molecular changes in genes/alleles. Genetic drift is a species level mechanism as opposed to a molecular level one like mutations.

Because, the affects as perceived, or witnessed, would need to be first classified as a non genetic drift effect, to be considered a mutation.

What I would be interested in here is an clarification of the physical differences between Adam and his descendants that would allow him to be less limited in his genetic code. Are you suggesting he had more chromosomes than humans today? Or that he had more than one pair of each type of chromosome?

I am not suggesting anything beyond Adam had a perfect genetic code, and we currently today do not.

Glad to hear that. Like Deamiter, I was getting the impression from your posts that you denied that alleles mutate.

A mutation is a mutation. A copy error has got to affect something.

In a specific case, of course one would look for other causes as well as a mutation and determine what best fit the evidence. But as a general statement Deamiter is right. A blue eyed biological child of a brown eyed couple occurs either when both parents were able to pass on a recessive allele for eye colour or (failing that explanation) when a mutation has occurred in one of the alleles they did have. This is basic Mendelian genetics. Of course, eye colour is not determined by one gene acting alone, so the big picture is more complicated.

Quite a bit more complicated, to tell the truth.

You've got it. The variation was caused in the first place by a mutation to the gene.

Sounds like a fun Hypothesis.

Which type of Mutation would this be classified as?

(so I can look it up.)

This introduced a variant of the gene, placing two forms of the gene into the species gene pool. Those two gene forms are called alleles.

You do realize that Alleles come in pairs, right?

And this would prove... 1 copy, Not 2 towards the subsequent generations. Assuming that this did not cause, some major problems to start with.

"Yup"??? You seemed to object to me identifying an allele with a gene sequence, yet when I confirm that is exactly what I am doing, you seem to approve. Could you clarify either why you initially raised the issue or why you are now apparently agreeing with me?

Taken from: Biology-Online.Org

Allele: (Science: genetics) Any one of a series of two or more different genes that occupy the same position (locus) on a chromosome.

If you are trying to pass off that an allele is a Gene, you are wrong, and I would for you to stop trying to dance around and try to say that it is, if you thought it was, please correct yourself, and lets carry on.

No Genetic drift is not mutation, but since no one claimed it was and it was you who introduced the concept of genetic drift for the first time in your response, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Allow me to say this again, you stated that any change is a mutation, which is not true, changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next, is not. It is Genetic Drift.

A Mutation, is an Error. It is never anything but an error.

The result of the error, is what Theory of Macro rests on.

Mutations don't occur on demand in any case. But two types of mutations are insertion and deletion, which refer respectively to the addition of material to the gene or the subtraction of material from the gene. Such mutations do occur irrespective of need or demand.

This is what we have evidence to back up, so I would say this is supported.

Are you suggesting that the paragraph you cited in response refutes my statement? If so could you please indicate how it does, as I see no difference in it from what I stated. The alleles are the variant forms of the gene i.e. variant DNA sequences. The character traits are the phenotypical expressions of the allele pairing. The character traits are not the alleles.

an Allele is two (or more) genes (blah blah about location and all that stuff), not singular, as such, the pair of Genes that make an allele, would be the trait. An Allele is not singular. Which is what you seem to be implying.

I don't know what demand you envisage. What is it you see that a mutation must be able to produce to make macroevolution possible. As far as I am aware macroevolution is an accumulation of numerous microevolutionary changes + speciation. I don;t see that making any special demand on mutations. So if I am to understand where you are coming from, I need your assistance in explaining some of your assumptions/definitions/models -- not sure what to call them.

The model.

and I hope I am using the same model as you are.

Yes, I am sure, and no that is not 50,000 years of isolation. The dates you give are among the earliest suggested for migration to Australia and North America.

Nahh the Earliest for North America is 170,000 years ago. I gave a really mid ground date, to try and being it closer for the mix, make things easier.

Dates more frequently cited for Australia are 40,000 years ago and for North America 15-20,000 years ago.

Still a respectable amount of time.

But while the earliest date is debatable, the most recent date for regular land-based migration is not. That is the end of the Pleistocene about 11,000 years ago when the land bridges were inundated. So these populations only became fairly isolated then.

So, we really have no idea. I would like it more the people that made this stuff up, would just come out and say that.

And even then there is evidence of some continued across the water contact for both areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_history_of_Australia

So, no complete isolation even in remote areas.

These are proposed models (more guesses, to put it bluntly), that may or may not be true, and in some cases do not agree at all with the land migration model, or each other, they are not evidence of non-isolation, but could be evidence that in the end of things, we really have no clue.

Maybe, there was no migration at all.

The very reason they are breeds and not species is that breeds have never been completely isolated. Yes, there can be a high degree of human-imposed isolation, and there is some thinking today that it has produced speciation in dogs, but I have never heard that suggested for cats, not even as venerable a lineage as the Abyssinian.

I wonder of the Cats should feel ignored?

Yes I have heard about the dog thing, however, that would just serve to prove the line of "Species" was a murky as a polluted mud puddle, and only place doubt on the validity of the claim of species devision that is presented as evidence of evolution.

Actually, your source supports me. I just didn't know the correct terminology. They call what I was referring to as out-crossing.

No, go read the link again. Out Crossing is not adding in a different breed to the mix.

Common design cannot be logically equivalent to common descent because it substitutes a mere possibility for a necessity.

Which one is the necessity, and which one is the possibility in your view of things.

God Bless

Key.

 

[USincognito]

As much as I hate to let the frustration get to me, I just have a hard time dealing with arrogant ignorants... it's not the ignorance that gets to me... it's the arrogance.

 

[notto]

Key,

Are you saying that you consider cougars animals that travel in packs?

If you are, I think that zoologists would pretty much laugh at that claim.

Just fess it up. Your simply grasping at straws with your your claims and your attempts to redefine a useful term to the point where it is useless.

By claiming that family = pack you are turning pack into a uselss term. Not really an intellectually honest attempt at dialog.

 

[KerrMetric]

However, it may have been a fault on my part, not to look deeper into ring species.

Ya think !!!!

 

[Deamiter]

I don't much care what you want to call a group of Jaguars so forgive me if I skip those bits.

I have been trying to find it again, I found it when I was looking up the "fruit fly to meat fly experiment" which, when I tried to look it up again, I could not find what I had found before, I'll try to see what I can find for you, it was very informative. However, it may have been a fault on my part, not to look deeper into ring species.

First off, I'm not sure any species of fruit fly has been known as a ring species. I'd suggest simply looking up "Ring Species" in google. Wikipedia explains the issue very clearly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

It is in relation to the mating in a biomass, Just gonna use ants to be cute, I know beetles would be a better choice, but meh, it's late, I don't wanna think to hard, and that the swam of ants span for miles, but, those at one end of the ant line, do not/can not breed with the ants at the other end of the line. However, all the ants in between, at intervals, do breed, but there is a "gray" areas, between each interval, where, the ants can breed in each direction. It was quite informative, and I am sure the same concept applies.

That sounds exactly right. Does this not demonstrate that divergence due to a buildup of mutations can slowly lead to an inability to interbreed? Remember, while you have focused on insects, the mammals and amphibians we've cited never display the extreme colony-based territorial behavior you've brought up.

3%. Now, forgive me, this is something I have not studied too much, and see this a lot, with the % different, but what does 3% differential translate into in practical means?

As I'm sure you're aware, you can't simply translate a percentage into "practical means." A single mutation (say, a duplication of a chromosome) can cause two populations to be incapable of interbreeding. That's not likely (by any stretch of the imagination) but it's possible. Similarly, if the vast majority of the mutations are in non-coding DNA, you could get much more than 3% divergence without causing problems with interbreeding. The point here is showing that the eight populations starting from a single ancestor population ended up with different genomes. You'd previously claimed that their genomes would be identical but in reality, mutations do build up in EVERY population and when populations are isolated, their genetic codes will diverge.

Can you provide me a link that would explain this, or if you feel up to it, you could explain it yourself.

I'm not sure quite what you don't understand -- I'm not being condescending, just I'm not exactly sure where to start. Do you acknowledge that every individual has some unique mutations caused by copy errors? Research has shown humans have (on average) over 100 each. These mutations build up over time and lead to the divergence cited. Do you agree with all of this or are there specific points you disagree with or would like sources on etc?

Yes, as an Allele is a fixed location with variable information to start with.

This seems imprecise -- a single allele is a single version of a gene. A single allele does not have variable information because it is a single copy. I'm not sure if this was a mistype since you're quite right that different alleles (a synonym for versions) of a single gene have varied DNA sequences.

Because, the affects as perceived, or witnessed, would need to be first classified as a non genetic drift effect, to be considered a mutation.

I am not suggesting anything beyond Adam had a perfect genetic code, and we currently today do not.

Okay, so Adam had one or at most two alleles (or versions) of each of his genes right? I mean, a single person can't have more than two alleles of each gene right? All we're saying is that every other allele must have been initially produced by mutation. Once the allele is established via mutation, it is then available in a population's genome and can be spread through genetic drift.

Sounds like a fun Hypothesis.

Which type of Mutation would this be classified as?

(so I can look it up.)

Wait, where do YOU think all the variations of our genes came from? Adam couldn't have had more than two right? And as for the type of mutations, any mutation of a gene produces another allele of that gene. Any insertion, deletion, transposition etc... changes the gene and makes a new allele. Where do you think all the alleles came from if Adam couldn't have had more than two?

You do realize that Alleles come in pairs, right?

Well, the pairs aren't connected or anything. Every human has two copies of each gene -- since the chances of us inheriting (or inheriting a slightly mutated form of) two identical alleles is pretty low since they are so varied. Anyway, aside from the XY chromosomes, we receive one copy of each gene (one allele) from our mother and one allele from our father.

And this would prove... 1 copy, Not 2 towards the subsequent generations. Assuming that this did not cause, some major problems to start with.

Right. Sperm each take one allele of each gene from the father's two and eggs take one allele of each gene from the mother's two. This is pretty random which is why children are genetically different (except for identical twins of course).

Taken from: Biology-Online.Org

Allele: (Science: genetics) Any one of a series of two or more different genes that occupy the same position (locus) on a chromosome.

If you are trying to pass off that an allele is a Gene, you are wrong, and I would for you to stop trying to dance around and try to say that it is, if you thought it was, please correct yourself, and lets carry on.

From the same page, same definition:

One of two alternate forms of a gene that can have the same locus on homologous chromosomes and are responsible for alternative traits; some alleles are dominant over others.

As the page says, an allele is an alternate form of a gene. They "come" in pairs because each human has two of each chromosome -- one from the father, one from the mother. In a population, there are many, MANY alleles or "alternate forms" of genes.

Allow me to say this again, you stated that any change is a mutation, which is not true, changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next, is not. It is Genetic Drift.

Very true. Where do the alleles come from in the first place though? Adam could only have had two alleles (one on each chromosome). To get the many alleles that vary in frequency due to genetic drift, you'd need the original alleles (carried by Adam) to mutate. Otherwise, there'd be two and only two versions of a gene in the entire human population. Does that make sense?

an Allele is two (or more) genes (blah blah about location and all that stuff), not singular, as such, the pair of Genes that make an allele, would be the trait. An Allele is not singular. Which is what you seem to be implying.

The wording in that first sentence on biologyonline might be a bit misleading. An allele is NOT two genes, each copy of the gene (each organism gets two) is an allele. Note that your definition said that the allele is "any ONE of a series of two or more genes" not that it IS two genes. Again from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele

An example is the gene for blossom colour in many species of flower—a single gene controls the colour of the petals, but there may be several different versions (or alleles) of the gene. One version might result in red petals, while another might result in white petals. The resulting colour of an individual flower will depend on which two alleles it possesses for the gene and how the two interact.

Nahh the Earliest for North America is 170,000 years ago. I gave a really mid ground date, to try and being it closer for the mix, make things easier.

Still a respectable amount of time.

So, we really have no idea. I would like it more the people that made this stuff up, would just come out and say that.

Wait a second, there is evidence that the earliest humans crossed to North America 170,000 years ago. There is further evidence that they CONTINUED to cross until the land-bridge was severed 12,000 or so years ago. You can't say they were genetically isolated when there is evidence that there was continuing back-and-forth migration! And it's far from a wild guess... You seem to want the migration to have happened only once but when the land bridge stayed open for over 150,000 years, you can hardly claim that a group of humans ONLY came over when they first found it. Especially not when there is evidence of repeated migrations of humans to North America.

These are proposed models (more guesses, to put it bluntly), that may or may not be true, and in some cases do not agree at all with the land migration model, or each other, they are not evidence of non-isolation, but could be evidence that in the end of things, we really have no clue.

There are many guesses involved especially going far back to the earliest migrations. However, the nearer to the present one gets, the more evidence is found. In particular, the article makes it clear that there is quite a lot of archaeological evidence for a migration about 12,000 years ago that reached the tip of South America about 11,000 years ago. No matter when the first humans reached North America, they were not genetically isolated until after the Bering Land Bridge melted and became the Bering Strait.

I wonder of the Cats should feel ignored?

Yes I have heard about the dog thing, however, that would just serve to prove the line of "Species" was a murky as a polluted mud puddle, and only place doubt on the validity of the claim of species devision that is presented as evidence of evolution.

Given that genomes accumulate mutations slowly and speciation is a very slow process that takes many generations, evolution predicts that populations that have only recently been isolated will not be completely unable (or even unwilling) to interbreed. I mean, this isn't even particularly controversial -- it has been observed that as populations become more genetically different, they often refuse to interbreed and after long enough, will have difficulty and then be unable to interbreed. This is a simple consequence of mutations (which are present in every single individual) building up in sexually isolated populations.

God Bless

 

[gluadys]

I have been trying to find it again

Yeah, I know the frustration.

It is in relation to the mating in a biomass, Just gonna use ants to be cute, I know beetles would be a better choice, but meh, it's late, I don't wanna think to hard, and that the swam of ants span for miles, but, those at one end of the ant line, do not/can not breed with the ants at the other end of the line. However, all the ants in between, at intervals, do breed, but there is a "gray" areas, between each interval, where, the ants can breed in each direction. It was quite informative, and I am sure the same concept applies.

OK, yes that is the same concept. But I still don't see that reproductive organs have anything to do with it. We see the same sort of phenomenon in circumpolar seagulls and California salamanders, and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with reproductive organs.

Yes, the Fruit Fly.

3%. Now, forgive me, this is something I have not studied too much, and see this a lot, with the % different, but what does 3% differential translate into in practical means?

It can mean quite a lot. The overall genetic differential between human and chimpanzee genomes is less than 2%, so a 3% divergence is significant. In practical terms for the fruit fly populations it involved a wholesale change in the physiology of digestion and behavioral responses to food supply that led to eating meat instead of fruit. And, of course, to speciation.

The degree of divergence is an indication of how much change has occurred in the two genomes being compared since the populations were separated and began accumulating different sets of mutations and adaptations.

Yes, as an Allele is a fixed location with variable information to start with.

Actually, that is better as a definition of a gene. An allele is one of the variations of a gene. An allele does not show variable information in itself. When an allele is modified by mutation, the modification is a new allele.

Because, the affects as perceived, or witnessed, would need to be first classified as a non genetic drift effect, to be considered a mutation.

No, remember a mutation occurs in the DNA sequence. Any change in the DNA sequence is a mutation whether or not it has a phenotypic effect. Some mutations (known as synonymous mutations) have no phenotypic effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_mutation

What you appear to be doing is equivocating two different terms: mutation and variation as if they were synonymous. But mutation in a DNA sequence is not synonymous with variation in a phenotypic character trait. Mutation occurs at the molecular level. Variation occurs at the level of the organism. The interrelationship of mutation and variation is highly complex.

"affects[sic] as perceived" would refer to variations, not to mutations. By confounding the two concepts you reach the erroneous conclusion that only those changes in genes which result in phenotypic effects are properly called mutations.

All changes in DNA are mutations; some of them are expressed as variations in character traits.

I am not suggesting anything beyond Adam had a perfect genetic code, and we currently today do not.

So you are not suggesting Adam's genome was in any way physically different from ours. Is that correct? Just better in a philosophical sense?

A mutation is a mutation. A copy error has got to affect something.

A copy error affects a DNA sequence. A base nucleotide is omitted or repeated or another is substituted or it is moved to a different position. Or a series of base nucleotides are inserted, deleted, duplicated, reversed or transposed.

As such copy errors are one source of mutations (since a mutation is a change in DNA sequence). There are also other sources of mutations, such as radiation, retroviral transcriptions, mutagenic chemicals, etc.

Copy errors together with these other sources of change in DNA are called mutagens, and the changes they induce are called mutations.

So, yes, a copy error has to affect something. It affects DNA and this effect is called a mutation.

Which type of Mutation would this be classified as?

(so I can look it up.)

I have listed a number of types of mutations: insertion, deletion, substitution, etc. Any of these changes in a gene could produce a new allele.

More on different types of mutations
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

You do realize that Alleles come in pairs, right?

In a diploid cell, yes. In haploid cells, of course, they occur singly. Some species ordinarily have haploid, not diploid cells. And in species like ours that normally have diploid cells, the gametes are haploid.

And this would prove... 1 copy, Not 2 towards the subsequent generations.

Yes, the one copy would be transmitted via the gamete and would be paired in the zygote with the allele inherited from the other parent. Necessarily, the first individual to receive a new allele would have a heterozygous pair of alleles.

Taken from: Biology-Online.Org

Allele: (Science: genetics) Any one of a series of two or more different genes that occupy the same position (locus) on a chromosome.

A little further down the same source offers this definition as well.

One of two alternate forms of a gene that can have the same locus on homologous chromosomes and are responsible for alternative traits; ​

The first definition is appropriate when one is looking at all the alleles that can exist in a population; the second focuses on the maximum of two alleles that can exist in one individual.

If you are trying to pass off that an allele is a Gene,

Yes, every allele is a gene, since an allele is a form of a gene. The effective DNA sequence at a particular locus on the chromosome which affects one or more character traits is the gene. But this sequence can vary from one genome to another giving the gene a variety of forms. Each different form of the gene is called an allele.

How can something that is a form of a gene not be a gene?

When I inherit an allele for blue eye colour from one of my parents, am I not inheriting a gene for the production of pigment? It happens that the particular form of the gene I inherit specifies blue pigment while another form of the gene specifies brown pigment. But whether I inherit the allele which specifies blue pigment or the one that specifies brown pigment I am still inheriting a gene for eye colour.

I inherit two genes for eye colour pigment, one from each parent. Both may be of the same form (i.e. the same allele) or they may be of different forms (i.e. a different allele from each parent). In the population at large, there can be still other forms of the gene. Each of these is also an allele which can be inherited by other people.

In any population in which a gene exists in more than one form, whenever you inherit the gene, you must inherit it in one of the available forms i.e. you must inherit an allele of the gene. In a diploid species the maximum number of gene forms (alleles) which one individual can inherit is two. That is why alleles come in pairs.

But there can be more than two forms of a gene in the population as a whole. Two individuals could inherit between them four different forms of a gene i.e. four alleles.

continued next post.

 

[gluadys]

continued from previous post

Allow me to say this again, you stated that any change is a mutation,

More precisely, any change in a DNA sequence is a mutation.

changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next, is not.

Correct. This is a species level phenomenon, not a molecular phenomenon. Changing the frequency of alleles in a population does not require changing any particular allele.

It is Genetic Drift.

It may be. Or the change in frequency may be due to a different mechanism. Genetic drift is one of several mechanisms affecting the frequency at which various alleles occur in a population.

The result of the error, is what Theory of Macro rests on.

I am going to need a lot more clarification on this. I really don't see what you are getting at. Largely because I don't yet know what you mean by "Macro" or why you think it poses some special problem.

an Allele is two (or more) genes (blah blah about location and all that stuff),

Incorrectly stated. The correct statement is noted above. An allele is "One of two alternate forms of a gene...."

not singular,

Since an allele is one of two alternate forms of a gene, it is necessarily singular. But since we inherit one allele from each parent, they always come in pairs.

as such, the pair of Genes that make an allele, would be the trait.

Again, incorrectly stated. The pair of genes is the pair of alleles (not an allele) since each gene necessarily takes one form, and each form of the gene is an allele. The pair of genes/alleles determines the trait.

The model.

and I hope I am using the same model as you are.

This is the model I am familiar with. But it doesn't clear up for me the statements you are making. Let me cite the part of our previous conversation on this point.

]

Not my definitions, it is the requirements of what the Theory of Macro has placed upon it, for it to have any merit to the Evolution Concept.

You seem to be referring to macro-evolution as something other than speciation. I am not aware of macro-evolution in any form other than speciation. Could you clarify what you consider requirements of macro-evolution. i.e. how would you identify macro-evolution if not through speciation?

You can split hairs with me all day on this, regarding definitions, but when it all settles, the demand, of what a mutation must be able to produce for Macro and Origin, does not change.

I don't know what demand you envisage. What is it you see that a mutation must be able to produce to make macroevolution possible.

I have bolded the key phrases in both our statements.

On reading the wikipedia link, I find it says this about macroevolution:

In the longer-term, evolution produces new species through splitting ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that are unable to breed with one another.​

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population. In general, macroevolution is the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[72] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the difference is simply the time involved.[73]​

Bolding added.

By contrast you seem to be suggesting that there is a fundamental distinction -- that Macro makes a demand, requires something, that is problematical for mutation.

Can you clarify what this requirement or demand is and what sort of problem it poses?

So, we really have no idea. I would like it more the people that made this stuff up, would just come out and say that.

Why would you come to that sort of all or nothing conclusion? Some things we don't know, some things we do. We don't know exactly when migration began or how many times it occurred. But we do know there was migration and that it probably continued for quite a while by land bridge and continued to some extent even without a land bridge. So we know there was never total isolation.

Yes I have heard about the dog thing, however, that would just serve to prove the line of "Species" was a murky as a polluted mud puddle, and only place doubt on the validity of the claim of species devision that is presented as evidence of evolution.

Not really. It is pretty clear that no living species of bear is a species of dog. It is not clear if the group of domestic dogs is still one species or has speciated. This murkiness is something we expect if species emerge as modelled under the theory of evolution. For sometime prior to and consequent to any point at which we could say "a new species has appeared" the lines between the two populations will be very fuzzy. Even in hindsight there really is no one moment in which we could say "the speciation took place in this generation".

And, as we trace both dogs and bears back through their respective lineages, we come to a point where the distinction between bears and dogs gets murky too.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/ap_050224_california_fossils.html

No, go read the link again. Out Crossing is not adding in a different breed to the mix.

OK, my error, but that is what I was thinking of.

Which one is the necessity, and which one is the possibility in your view of things.

This is a question of logic.

One staple of propostional logic comes in the form of the statement: If X, then Y

This means that if X is true, Y must also necessarily be true.

Now the question is whether X is true or false.

Since a relationship of necessity exists between X and Y such that X cannot be true unless Y is also true, we can get information as to the truth or falsity of X by determining the truth or falsity of Y.

If Y is false, X is also necessarily false.
If Y is true, X has not been ruled out.

Note we do not say if Y is true, X is true. That is not a necessary relationship.

Here is an example of why.

Let X be "Pat is a sister." Let Y be "Pat is a female person".

If X, then Y. If Pat is a sister, she is necessarily a female person since only a female person can be a sister, by definition.

So if Pat turns out to be "Patrick", not "Patricia", Y is false and Pat is not a sister but could be a brother.

However, even if we show that Pat is "Patricia", a female person, we have not also established that she is a sister as a person may be female without being a sister. The fact that she is a female means we have not ruled out the possibility that she is a sister, so we have a line of evidence in support of X, but there could be other reasons why she is not a sister. Those would also have to be examined.

In this case there is a necessary relationship between sister and female person such that any sister must be a female person. But there is not a reciprocal relationship of necessity between female person and sister. Between female person and sister, the relationship is only one of possibility. A female person may be a sister.

The significant difference between common descent and common design lies in the different relationship of each to the nested hierarchy.

With common descent, the relationship to the nested hierarchy is one of necessity. If species are related to each other by common descent (X) the pattern of relationship must fall into a nested hierarchy (Y)

But with common design, the nested hierarchy is only one of several possible patterns, not a necessary one.

You could falsify common descent by finding a violation of the nested hierarchy, but the same discovery would not falsify common design.

In fact, there is no pattern of similarities and differences that would falsify common design. You speak of a designer using a template, for example. That is a possibility. But nothing makes it necessary for a designer to use a template. So even when something is completely unique, it does not falsify common design.

But something completely unique, something that does not fit into the nested hierarchy pattern of similarities and differences would falsify common descent. Common descent cannot produce anything totally and completely unique without ancestral ties to the original design. Only modifications of the original design.