Highschool Biology course

[Timothy_Horton]

@stcordova

Because I know more than you ever give me credit for.

Then why do you never show any knowledge of evolutionary biology here?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

I see a relentless creationist portrayal that evolution only deals with existing variation, and that random mutations don’t add anything useful to a species.

I don’t see anything of the sort.

Show me some quotes in which creationists acknowledge the existence of existing variation, then, if they only deal with it.

@T_aquaticus

Also, the existing variation you are talking about comes from random mutations.

Obviously. But a population isn’t waiting around for specific new ones to happen so that selection can happen.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mercer

I don’t see anything of the sort.

Show me some quotes in which creationists acknowledge the existence of existing variation, then, if they only deal with it.

Here you go:

I have been saying, perhaps too often, that the weight of evidence points to “variation within the created kinds.” Do I really mean that all the tremendous variety we see today was built right into the created kinds? Could there be enough variation in two created human beings, for example, to produce all the variation among human beings we see today?

Answer: “Yes, indeed; no problem!” I get some help here from an unexpected source, evolutionist Francisco Ayala.1 He says that human beings are “heterozygous” for 6.7 percent of their genes on the average. That means that 6 or 7 times in 100, the pair of genes for a given trait differ, like the genes for free or attached ear lobes, or for rolling or not rolling the tongue. Now this may not seem like much, but Ayala calculates a single human couple with just “6.7 percent variety” could produce 10^2017 children (mathematically, not physically!) before they would run out of variation and have to produce an identical twin. That’s a 1 followed by 2,017 zeroes! The number of atoms in the known universe is a mere 10^80, nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in the genes of just two human beings!
Variation, Yes; Evolution, No | Answers in Genesis

1. Mendelian variation

This is the mechanism responsible for most of the new varieties which we see from breeding experiments and from reasonable inferences in nature. Sexual reproduction allows packets of information to be combined in many different ways, but will not produce any new packets or sentences. For example, when the many varieties of dog were bred from a ‘mongrel’ stock, this was achieved by selecting desired traits in successive generations, such that the genes or sentences for these traits became isolated into certain lines. Although some of these sentences may have been ‘hidden from view’ in the original stock, they were already present in that population. (We are disregarding mutation for the moment, since such new varieties may arise independently of any new mutations in the gene pool. Some dogs undoubtedly have mutant characteristics.)
Variation, information and the created kind

Plants and animals were originally created with large gene pools within distinct created kinds. A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential to produce a variety of types within the kind, allowing the offspring to adapt to varying ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism.

Genetic potential can best be understood by observing the large number of dog breeds. There are many shapes, sizes, and colors of dogs, illustrating the tremendous genetic potential in this kind of animal—but they all remain distinctly recognizable as dogs. Other kinds of plants and animals have similar potential to produce variety within their own created kinds.
Variation Is Limited within Kinds | The Institute for Creation Research

[T_aquaticus]

@stcordova

Because I know more than you ever give me credit for.

I would hope that you understand what pattern gene deletion would produce in a phylogeny. You do understand this concept, don’t you?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

Here you go:

I have been saying, perhaps too often, that the weight of evidence points to “variation within the created kinds.” Do I really mean that all the tremendous variety we see today was built right into the created kinds? Could there be enough variation in two created human beings, for example, to produce all the variation among human beings we see today…

There’s no portrayal of evolution in that one.

@T_aquaticus

(We are disregarding mutation for the moment, since such new varieties may arise independently of any new mutations in the gene pool. Some dogs undoubtedly have mutant characteristics.)

That falsifies your claim:

@T_aquaticus

I see a relentless creationist portrayal that evolution only deals with existing variation, and that random mutations don’t add anything useful to a species.

So why did you just quote one that explicitly refers to mutation, and IMO greatly overstates its importance?

Has anyone found a new mutation in a dog breed? I would be skeptical. The deepest dive AFAIK to date didn’t find anything that looked genetically new WRT body size despite enormous diversity:

A Single IGF1 Allele Is a Major Determinant of Small Size in Dogs

@T_aquaticus

A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential to produce a variety of types within the kind, allowing the offspring to adapt to varying ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism.

That’s a very different sort of deception. Let me fix that so that it is true:
A high level of polymorphism gives a population the genetic potential to adapt to varying ecosystems and ensure the survival of that population.

When polymorphism is lost through inbreeding or decimation, the population is much more likely to become extinct. This is the fate of the vast majority of species that have ever existed. New mutations are far too infrequent to “rescue” an inbred population. This is why we go to great lengths to outbreed endangered species.

“Adapting to varying ecosystems” is in fact Darwinian evolution, no? I thought we were discussing ways to immunize students against straw-man portrayals of evolution. They are simply denying what it can do, not misrepresenting how it works as Behe, @Eddie, and Doug Axe do.

[John_Harshman]

@stcordova

I know more than you ever give me credit for.

I accept that you think so.