However, the beef with Darwin and evolution is whether new genomes are created.
Only among those who invent their own version of evolution, I think. This is strawman talk.
No one argues with microevolution here.
But they should. For all creationists claim to be comfortable with microevolution, they don't take time to learn how it works. They "believe" in it, but they don't understand it.
If you truly understood microevolution, you would understand the seamlessness of micro- and macro- evolution.
First of all, none of your examples would indicate a change in the number of base pairs that are characteristic of a distinct species.
So what? What makes that, rather than closed gene pools, a criterion of distinct species?
That is probably as good a boundard as there is between Darwinian evolution and the type of "evolution" that creationists are comfortable with.
The type of evolution creationists claim to be comfortable with IS Darwinian evolution. Drawing a distinction requires the creation of a strawman version of evolution.
Yes there are changes in genes that affect mating. Call it a new species if you want.
If the effect on mating is to eliminate genetic exchange between the respective gene pools, what else would you call it?
Again, you are just aiming to redefine "species" in vague enough terms that you can claim no speciation.
But, there is no successful mutation in evidence that is adding base pairs to genetic information.
Never claimed there was. Only that the two groups no longer form a single gene pool since they no longer mate with one another. If that is not the criterion of a species, what is?
As to what genetic differences accompanied the speciation, that is really here nor there. The genetic differences may or may not be the cause of the speciation. The refusal to interbreed is the immediate cause of the speciation irrespective of how much genetic change has occurred. One thing that is certain: whenever different populations no longer interbreed, for whatever reason, genetic differences will accumulate.
Breeding is dependent all types of morphology issues as chemical cues, if not colors for some animals.
Behaviour too, sometimes, such as breeding in different seasons, or even--with short-lived insects, at different times of day.
E.O Wilson describes a set of species that use chemical attractors. What distinguished one species from another (and prevented interbreeding) was not even a difference in the chemicals used, but a difference in the proportions of the chemicals used.
All these things can be changed by the deletion of information by mutation,
...also by the addition or substitution or duplication of information by mutation.
but none of these things prove the possibility that amphibians can become lizards or mammals.
Actually it does, for the process by which lizards and mammals diverged from amphibians is precisely the same process that gave us two separate populations of fruit flies.
Your example does not give any indication of bacteria beoming a multicellular organism
Because bacteria have never become multicellular. Only eukarya have developed multicellular forms. And they may have done so more than once. I expect the process of becoming multicellular does not follow the same procedure as cladisitic speciation though.
or fish becoming an amphibian.
Not my example, no, that just covers fruit flies in one experiment. But there are plenty of indications that amphibians diverged from fish.
Variations within a species that create distinct mating habits in certain populations is not proof that a new kind has been created.
Well, to determine that, you first need criteria to determine what a kind is. All science can point to is the emergence of new species. But that is all science needs.
