To be completely honest, I'm barely familiar with Kent Hovind and don't know what he has to say on the issue. I do find it interesting that his name is so frequently brought up by the openly opinionated anti-creationists.
You have dismissed my evidence without providing evidence of your own. My points stand and I owe you no additional sources. I have found debating in the comments section to be quite unproductive, and frequently uncivilized. If I can find the time later, we should debate properly.
An ironic statement from billbatard. A statement that is not based on logic, science, or fact. Also I am under the impression he is beating me over the head with his world view. Perhaps he would like to indoctrinate me.
The Copout Bias card: Bias is an evidence based conclusion, not an independent reason to discredit. croweupc statement is a two edged sward. If we examine the implications of atheistic evolution we find no accountability to a higher power. Doesn’t that sound nice? I would love to do what I want without any accountability. Do you really think that religious people want to be bound to rules of conduct and general decency? Your bias claim is agenda driven and commits suicide.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that:
• Evolution has no place in a Biblical perspective. The idea that evolution and the Bible fit together was derived from caving to peer pressure rather than it actually making sense. If God created the earth through millions of years of disease and death than how can that be ‘very good? Also, of what significance is man’s sin against God if death was already in play? The Bible states that through Adam’s sin death entered the world. The discrepancies are far two significant and numerous to comprehensively explore here.
• Many other religions do not hold to evolution. A religion would have to be quite deistic in nature to rationally holding to evolution since a ‘god guided’ process is not evolution.
• Since the existence of mass and energy is, quite obviously, required for evolution to take place it is quite relevant to the debate. If Con would like to develop his position further on the origin of mass and energy we may be able to dispense with this argument. However, the claims Con is likely to make to explain the origin of mass and energy will likely negatively affect the defensibility of the assumptions used in discussing the plausibility of abiogenesis and the development of the genome through mutations.
• Abiogenesis has been part of the theory of evolution from its first popularization of the theory through Darwin’s origins of species. After all Darwin did say, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” At the time the single cell was a black box to Darwin. Since then we have opened that black box and found how impossibly complex this irreducible mechanism really is. Indeed, the single cell “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.”
• All that being said, the perpetual decay of the genome is all that is required to discredit the entire theory of evolution. Evolution religiously clings to the idea that beneficial mutations that increase the genome occur and are retained at a high rate. Scientifically nothing could be further from the truth.
We are trying to determine if evolution is scientifically tenable. We are not debating if evolution is popular. Indeed, ridding yourself of all accountability is undeniably quite popular. Let’s question the motives behind the evolutionary model.
Genesis 7:20 tells us that the flood waters covered the highest mountain peak by twenty feet. This would be a miracle in itself if the flood was local.
Genesis 9:15 says, “Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life” (NIV). This clarifies that (a) the flood could not be local since it destroyed all life, and (b) creatures have died in local floods many times since, so, if the flood was local, God broke his promise. Clearly the context does not allow for a local flood.
Furthermore, a local Noah’s flood does not make logical sense. Noah and the animals could have migrated out of the flood zone. God put Noah through a terrible lot of trouble building an ark.
The Biblical context is quite clear. The flood could not have been local.
I think it is fair to point out that most Jews consider themselves Jewish by blood and ritual only. They treat their rituals kind of like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny in that, they are traditional, or an excuse to celebrate. Believe me, I mean no offense to the Jewish communities that do take their rituals seriously.
I would love to bedate you on origins some time. Unfortuanentl a demanding debate challenge has slipped on to my plate. Perhaps you would like to take a rain check, and we can properly hash this out. Regrettably the conversation here has gotten too personal to be very productive.
What are you talking about? God simply created everything six to seven thousand years ago. The numerous problems that riddle evolution have no association with this model.
Evolution is not a ‘simple concept.’ It is only simple to those that have a simple understanding of science. Science is not simple in the least, and the more we learn about science the more impossibly stretched the theory of evolution becomes.
Man to molecules devolution will not result in life to start with under evolution. Man to molecules devolution is driving all living organisms to extinction. This is the very enemy of evolution.
I’m not sure what you are referring to on your fourth point, but this point is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not demonstrate an increase in genetic information over time.
Hitchens's Razor applies to blatant assertions followed up with no support. This logical tool properly applies to your unsupported position that evolution is scientifically supported. However, I did provide evidence for all three of my points. But for argument sake, lets explore these further:
1) The law of biogenesis is so universally accepted. Scientific laws are already established as axioms, meaning that they are universally recognized as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. However, I will provide a source regardless: Biology Online Dictionary defines the law of biogenesis as. “The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material” (https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis).
2) Everything comes from nothing defies basic logic. The evidence provided here is basic logic, and yet you dismiss basic logic using an abuse of logic. Defining nothing is so difficult because nothing in all reality possesses no definition. There is nothing there to poses the definition. That being said, Merriam-Webster seems to do a pretty good job of describing nothing, “not any thing : no thing”(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing). So I reassert that everything cannot come from nothing. Once we give nothing the attributes to be or do anything, it is no longer nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome is heavily supported in the debate you are commenting on. It seems you have lost sight of the purpose of the comments section.
Science does not provide an adequate explanation as to why God might not exist. There is no God of the gaps. Do you believe in Henry Ford or the Model T? The Model T is quite capable of functioning completely independent of Henry Ford. Ruling out the existence of God on the basis of the universes ability to function independently is absurd.
In order for what we know about science to be true, we must assume that our senses are telling us the truth. Do you trust your senses? Under an evolutionary model, natural selection is under no obligation to select that which is true. If a natural sense were to provide an organism with false information in a way that proves beneficial results, that trait would be chosen. The very chaos of the evolutionary model brings into question whether we can trust our senses, and, therefore, whether science can be trusted.
Science contradicts evolution at several lethal points.
1) The law of biogenesis: this scientific law directly contradicts abiogenesis (a non-negotiable requirement for evolution to be true). Without life coming from non-life there is no evolution.
2) Everything comes from nothing: Any working models to explain how everything can come from nothing fall short in that they both (a) do not agree with empirical science and (b) redefine the concept of nothing. The very attempt to define what nothing is automatically identifies what is being described as something other than nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome: Science observes the genome losing information all the time. The statistics surrounding the empirical science of mutations reveals that all organisms are consistently losing genetic information in an inevitable journey to extinction. This is man to molecules devolution, the very opposite of Darwinistic evolution.
If evolution fails at any one of these points the theory completely breaks down. Empirical science shows that evolution fails at all three.
The ‘educated’ tend to think they’ve got it all figured out. They are arrogant and self righteous. This, indeed, is what sets Christianity apart from every other world view including atheism. You are utterly inadequate to save yourself. Don’t look within yourself to solve your problems, for you are the one who is confused. Your point is really quite an irrelevant one considering that there are a great many highly educated creationists. I have cited sources from some of them. Highly intelligent people are on both sides.
I can’t speak to the ‘average church goer,’ since I don’t seem to be particularly average, but I will say I have yet to personally meet an atheist who knows the Bible better than I do. You are not speaking to the ‘average church goer’; therefore stop fabricating this straw man and throwing me into it. If you can’t refute the scientific evidence presented here with real evidence why are you here?
I think you mean Australopithecus. Some of these specimens were fabricated from fragments scattered over 1.55 kilometers (almost a mile). This specimen is most definitely a mash up of multiple creatures perhaps not even of the same species. These specimens poses overwhelming ape like characteristics. I can’t find any creationist source that claims this is human. You will have to provide a source on that.
Peregocetus pacificus was fabricated based on skull fragments only. This is a perfect example of the sort of frauds evolutionists fabricate. This clearly demonstrates their artistic imagination and lack of integrity. As it turns out, a more complete specimen was obtained later and this creature was found to be a fast running land mammal.
Do evolutionists really have to cherry pick data so hard. If evolution is true it should vertualy impossibly to classify anything. Instead evolutionists are fabricating frauds and basing overarching theories on the most minute detail. One supposed transitionallife form does not make evolution. And we're squabbling over the most trivial of characteristics. Find a whale with a partially formed gill or leg and weve got something to talk about.
You seem to think that evolutionists don't have bias. This is a blatantly false premise. Heathenism has popularized the idea of evolution; because, if there is no God then I am not accountable to him. This means I can do whatever I want. The agenda here is clear.
I have examined the evidence and will continue to do so. The pattern that is emerging is not the one you claim.
The bias exhibited through the atheistic scientific community is just as prevalent if not more so. You are guilty of the very bias you accuse this website of possessing. If they cheery picked their data then it should be easy to demonstrate this with cold hard facts. Your method of dismissal implies that you can't dismiss their claims scientifically, and therefore debase methods must be employed. As it turns out, this website frequently sites scientific studies performed by evolutionists. The evidence is not bias. Your objection is unscientific by design.
Since you have accepted the debate RationalMadman, I am not going to debate you in the comments. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I am waiting for your developed argument on the debate itself. We can discuss our positions and objections there.
This website bases its evidence upon the weight of science, not bias. You are saying: don't use science because someone who is not an evolutionist is using it. First of all, since this websites scientists base their conclusions on science, the appropriate way to counter such evidence would be with science. Their scientific clams can be verified by science from secular sources. Second, this website is developed and managed by well accredited scientists who are usually speaking within their field of study. To reject this website on such a flimsy argument shows blatant bias. Rather than using a fallacy structure to defame a website, back your case with cold hard evidence. This line of reasoning is akin to me saying 'you’re clearly bios because you are an atheist,' With this statement, I just summarily dismissed all of your evidence without actually possessing any of my own.
I appreciate your assistance on this. I think that my opponent and I would both agree that negative mutations will cause some organisms to struggle and even go extinct. Where we disagree is the extent to which this is true. I would encourage you to read this article. I think you will find it enlightening as to just how deep my position goes:
https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis
I always welcome constructive criticism. And no, any wise guy comments I get to this do not count as constructive.
I understand the premise of your conjecture. Keep in mind that thus far we have only been discussing the definitions not whether they represent something that is tenable or not.
If the net long term affect of mutations results in a build up in genetic code, macro evolution is true.
If a net loss in genetic information over time is true then genetic entropy is true.
Speciation, in and of itself, is simply a selection process (sometimes random sometimes determined by natural selection) by which genetic code is passed on or not passed on. This process, in and of its self, does not encompass mutations (even though mutations do happen). This process, by its self, will result in no net change in genetic information at best and great loss in genetic information at worst.
After applying the genetic change caused by genetic entropy or macroevolutions with speciation we will gain an understanding of whether genetics are building up or in perpetual decline.
1) You are appealing to a common evolutionary argument to confuse the issue through trying to hash everything into one definition. In reality, we do see how speciation uses natural selection to select certain inherited traits at the expense of losing other traits. This selection process simply removes certain genetic traits from a population (information is lost). An extreme example of this is when breeders breed dogs. We can also observe this in indigenous populations.
2) My example used one dog to provide a simple illustration, and I expanded that explanation to show how a short hair gene could be naturally selected within a regional god population.
3) The gene pool for the dog population did change in my example. The gene for short hair was naturally selected and therefore the long hair gene was lost.
4) The boxer when bred with other boxers will not have long hair. The long hair gene has been lost. We do observe loss of genetic information here and this is not due to a mutation.
Microevolution/Speciation: Each organism has two sets of genetic code; one from each parent. Speciation occurs when certain genetic traits are not passed on to the next generation. For example, two dogs possessing one long hair gene and one short hair gene respectively have a child who receives the short hair gene from each parent. That offspring has lost the genetic code for long hair. This is microevolution/speciation. Clearly, no mutations occurred in this example and genetic information was lost. This process will never result in macroevolution since the best possible outcome is that all the original genetic code continues to be passed on through generations. If these dogs lived in a hot climate natural selection would select the short haired dogs and the long hair gene could possibly be completely lost in the local dog population. Mutations and macroevolution have nothing to do with the premise of speciation.
Actually speciation has nothing to do with mutations.
Speciation refers to the narrowing of genetic traits in certain populations resulting in creatures that appear unique. These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however. To put it another way, these organisms simply didn’t get a particular genetic trait passed on thorough the generations; therefore the code for that particular trait has been lost.
Mutations, on the other hand, refer to the net effect of damage and any failed attempts at repair of the genetic code in an organism. Genetic Entropy and the conjectures required for evolution to work are the terms that refer to mutations.
To be completely honest, I'm barely familiar with Kent Hovind and don't know what he has to say on the issue. I do find it interesting that his name is so frequently brought up by the openly opinionated anti-creationists.
Also, if by high-school level you are referring to text books which still use the Hackles Embryos fraud; then clearly you need a better source.
Did you even read the debate? See source 17 and 18 in my opening argument.
You have dismissed my evidence without providing evidence of your own. My points stand and I owe you no additional sources. I have found debating in the comments section to be quite unproductive, and frequently uncivilized. If I can find the time later, we should debate properly.
An ironic statement from billbatard. A statement that is not based on logic, science, or fact. Also I am under the impression he is beating me over the head with his world view. Perhaps he would like to indoctrinate me.
The Copout Bias card: Bias is an evidence based conclusion, not an independent reason to discredit. croweupc statement is a two edged sward. If we examine the implications of atheistic evolution we find no accountability to a higher power. Doesn’t that sound nice? I would love to do what I want without any accountability. Do you really think that religious people want to be bound to rules of conduct and general decency? Your bias claim is agenda driven and commits suicide.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that:
• Evolution has no place in a Biblical perspective. The idea that evolution and the Bible fit together was derived from caving to peer pressure rather than it actually making sense. If God created the earth through millions of years of disease and death than how can that be ‘very good? Also, of what significance is man’s sin against God if death was already in play? The Bible states that through Adam’s sin death entered the world. The discrepancies are far two significant and numerous to comprehensively explore here.
• Many other religions do not hold to evolution. A religion would have to be quite deistic in nature to rationally holding to evolution since a ‘god guided’ process is not evolution.
• Since the existence of mass and energy is, quite obviously, required for evolution to take place it is quite relevant to the debate. If Con would like to develop his position further on the origin of mass and energy we may be able to dispense with this argument. However, the claims Con is likely to make to explain the origin of mass and energy will likely negatively affect the defensibility of the assumptions used in discussing the plausibility of abiogenesis and the development of the genome through mutations.
• Abiogenesis has been part of the theory of evolution from its first popularization of the theory through Darwin’s origins of species. After all Darwin did say, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” At the time the single cell was a black box to Darwin. Since then we have opened that black box and found how impossibly complex this irreducible mechanism really is. Indeed, the single cell “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.”
• All that being said, the perpetual decay of the genome is all that is required to discredit the entire theory of evolution. Evolution religiously clings to the idea that beneficial mutations that increase the genome occur and are retained at a high rate. Scientifically nothing could be further from the truth.
We are trying to determine if evolution is scientifically tenable. We are not debating if evolution is popular. Indeed, ridding yourself of all accountability is undeniably quite popular. Let’s question the motives behind the evolutionary model.
I do have two completed debates. Do I actually have to wait for voting to complete on my second debate to qualify?
I agree. The subject really can't be done justice in a single debate.
I am interested as well.
Genesis 7:20 tells us that the flood waters covered the highest mountain peak by twenty feet. This would be a miracle in itself if the flood was local.
Genesis 9:15 says, “Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life” (NIV). This clarifies that (a) the flood could not be local since it destroyed all life, and (b) creatures have died in local floods many times since, so, if the flood was local, God broke his promise. Clearly the context does not allow for a local flood.
Furthermore, a local Noah’s flood does not make logical sense. Noah and the animals could have migrated out of the flood zone. God put Noah through a terrible lot of trouble building an ark.
The Biblical context is quite clear. The flood could not have been local.
I think it is fair to point out that most Jews consider themselves Jewish by blood and ritual only. They treat their rituals kind of like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny in that, they are traditional, or an excuse to celebrate. Believe me, I mean no offense to the Jewish communities that do take their rituals seriously.
I would love to bedate you on origins some time. Unfortuanentl a demanding debate challenge has slipped on to my plate. Perhaps you would like to take a rain check, and we can properly hash this out. Regrettably the conversation here has gotten too personal to be very productive.
What are you talking about? God simply created everything six to seven thousand years ago. The numerous problems that riddle evolution have no association with this model.
Evolution is not a ‘simple concept.’ It is only simple to those that have a simple understanding of science. Science is not simple in the least, and the more we learn about science the more impossibly stretched the theory of evolution becomes.
Man to molecules devolution will not result in life to start with under evolution. Man to molecules devolution is driving all living organisms to extinction. This is the very enemy of evolution.
I’m not sure what you are referring to on your fourth point, but this point is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not demonstrate an increase in genetic information over time.
Hitchens's Razor applies to blatant assertions followed up with no support. This logical tool properly applies to your unsupported position that evolution is scientifically supported. However, I did provide evidence for all three of my points. But for argument sake, lets explore these further:
1) The law of biogenesis is so universally accepted. Scientific laws are already established as axioms, meaning that they are universally recognized as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. However, I will provide a source regardless: Biology Online Dictionary defines the law of biogenesis as. “The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material” (https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis).
2) Everything comes from nothing defies basic logic. The evidence provided here is basic logic, and yet you dismiss basic logic using an abuse of logic. Defining nothing is so difficult because nothing in all reality possesses no definition. There is nothing there to poses the definition. That being said, Merriam-Webster seems to do a pretty good job of describing nothing, “not any thing : no thing”(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing). So I reassert that everything cannot come from nothing. Once we give nothing the attributes to be or do anything, it is no longer nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome is heavily supported in the debate you are commenting on. It seems you have lost sight of the purpose of the comments section.
Science does not provide an adequate explanation as to why God might not exist. There is no God of the gaps. Do you believe in Henry Ford or the Model T? The Model T is quite capable of functioning completely independent of Henry Ford. Ruling out the existence of God on the basis of the universes ability to function independently is absurd.
In order for what we know about science to be true, we must assume that our senses are telling us the truth. Do you trust your senses? Under an evolutionary model, natural selection is under no obligation to select that which is true. If a natural sense were to provide an organism with false information in a way that proves beneficial results, that trait would be chosen. The very chaos of the evolutionary model brings into question whether we can trust our senses, and, therefore, whether science can be trusted.
Science contradicts evolution at several lethal points.
1) The law of biogenesis: this scientific law directly contradicts abiogenesis (a non-negotiable requirement for evolution to be true). Without life coming from non-life there is no evolution.
2) Everything comes from nothing: Any working models to explain how everything can come from nothing fall short in that they both (a) do not agree with empirical science and (b) redefine the concept of nothing. The very attempt to define what nothing is automatically identifies what is being described as something other than nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome: Science observes the genome losing information all the time. The statistics surrounding the empirical science of mutations reveals that all organisms are consistently losing genetic information in an inevitable journey to extinction. This is man to molecules devolution, the very opposite of Darwinistic evolution.
If evolution fails at any one of these points the theory completely breaks down. Empirical science shows that evolution fails at all three.
The ‘educated’ tend to think they’ve got it all figured out. They are arrogant and self righteous. This, indeed, is what sets Christianity apart from every other world view including atheism. You are utterly inadequate to save yourself. Don’t look within yourself to solve your problems, for you are the one who is confused. Your point is really quite an irrelevant one considering that there are a great many highly educated creationists. I have cited sources from some of them. Highly intelligent people are on both sides.
I can’t speak to the ‘average church goer,’ since I don’t seem to be particularly average, but I will say I have yet to personally meet an atheist who knows the Bible better than I do. You are not speaking to the ‘average church goer’; therefore stop fabricating this straw man and throwing me into it. If you can’t refute the scientific evidence presented here with real evidence why are you here?
A completely unsupported conjecture. The very sort of argument resorted to when intellectual laziness is prevalent and/or evidence is lacking.
I have Ph.D.'s that backup my 'incomprehensible jargon.' I hope the irony of your statement is not lost on everyone else.
I think you mean Australopithecus. Some of these specimens were fabricated from fragments scattered over 1.55 kilometers (almost a mile). This specimen is most definitely a mash up of multiple creatures perhaps not even of the same species. These specimens poses overwhelming ape like characteristics. I can’t find any creationist source that claims this is human. You will have to provide a source on that.
Peregocetus pacificus was fabricated based on skull fragments only. This is a perfect example of the sort of frauds evolutionists fabricate. This clearly demonstrates their artistic imagination and lack of integrity. As it turns out, a more complete specimen was obtained later and this creature was found to be a fast running land mammal.
Do evolutionists really have to cherry pick data so hard. If evolution is true it should vertualy impossibly to classify anything. Instead evolutionists are fabricating frauds and basing overarching theories on the most minute detail. One supposed transitionallife form does not make evolution. And we're squabbling over the most trivial of characteristics. Find a whale with a partially formed gill or leg and weve got something to talk about.
You seem to think that evolutionists don't have bias. This is a blatantly false premise. Heathenism has popularized the idea of evolution; because, if there is no God then I am not accountable to him. This means I can do whatever I want. The agenda here is clear.
I have examined the evidence and will continue to do so. The pattern that is emerging is not the one you claim.
The bias exhibited through the atheistic scientific community is just as prevalent if not more so. You are guilty of the very bias you accuse this website of possessing. If they cheery picked their data then it should be easy to demonstrate this with cold hard facts. Your method of dismissal implies that you can't dismiss their claims scientifically, and therefore debase methods must be employed. As it turns out, this website frequently sites scientific studies performed by evolutionists. The evidence is not bias. Your objection is unscientific by design.
Since you have accepted the debate RationalMadman, I am not going to debate you in the comments. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I am waiting for your developed argument on the debate itself. We can discuss our positions and objections there.
This website bases its evidence upon the weight of science, not bias. You are saying: don't use science because someone who is not an evolutionist is using it. First of all, since this websites scientists base their conclusions on science, the appropriate way to counter such evidence would be with science. Their scientific clams can be verified by science from secular sources. Second, this website is developed and managed by well accredited scientists who are usually speaking within their field of study. To reject this website on such a flimsy argument shows blatant bias. Rather than using a fallacy structure to defame a website, back your case with cold hard evidence. This line of reasoning is akin to me saying 'you’re clearly bios because you are an atheist,' With this statement, I just summarily dismissed all of your evidence without actually possessing any of my own.
I appreciate your assistance on this. I think that my opponent and I would both agree that negative mutations will cause some organisms to struggle and even go extinct. Where we disagree is the extent to which this is true. I would encourage you to read this article. I think you will find it enlightening as to just how deep my position goes:
https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis
I always welcome constructive criticism. And no, any wise guy comments I get to this do not count as constructive.
I understand the premise of your conjecture. Keep in mind that thus far we have only been discussing the definitions not whether they represent something that is tenable or not.
If the net long term affect of mutations results in a build up in genetic code, macro evolution is true.
If a net loss in genetic information over time is true then genetic entropy is true.
Speciation, in and of itself, is simply a selection process (sometimes random sometimes determined by natural selection) by which genetic code is passed on or not passed on. This process, in and of its self, does not encompass mutations (even though mutations do happen). This process, by its self, will result in no net change in genetic information at best and great loss in genetic information at worst.
After applying the genetic change caused by genetic entropy or macroevolutions with speciation we will gain an understanding of whether genetics are building up or in perpetual decline.
1) You are appealing to a common evolutionary argument to confuse the issue through trying to hash everything into one definition. In reality, we do see how speciation uses natural selection to select certain inherited traits at the expense of losing other traits. This selection process simply removes certain genetic traits from a population (information is lost). An extreme example of this is when breeders breed dogs. We can also observe this in indigenous populations.
2) My example used one dog to provide a simple illustration, and I expanded that explanation to show how a short hair gene could be naturally selected within a regional god population.
3) The gene pool for the dog population did change in my example. The gene for short hair was naturally selected and therefore the long hair gene was lost.
4) The boxer when bred with other boxers will not have long hair. The long hair gene has been lost. We do observe loss of genetic information here and this is not due to a mutation.
dustryer & That1User
Microevolution/Speciation: Each organism has two sets of genetic code; one from each parent. Speciation occurs when certain genetic traits are not passed on to the next generation. For example, two dogs possessing one long hair gene and one short hair gene respectively have a child who receives the short hair gene from each parent. That offspring has lost the genetic code for long hair. This is microevolution/speciation. Clearly, no mutations occurred in this example and genetic information was lost. This process will never result in macroevolution since the best possible outcome is that all the original genetic code continues to be passed on through generations. If these dogs lived in a hot climate natural selection would select the short haired dogs and the long hair gene could possibly be completely lost in the local dog population. Mutations and macroevolution have nothing to do with the premise of speciation.
Actually speciation has nothing to do with mutations.
Speciation refers to the narrowing of genetic traits in certain populations resulting in creatures that appear unique. These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however. To put it another way, these organisms simply didn’t get a particular genetic trait passed on thorough the generations; therefore the code for that particular trait has been lost.
Mutations, on the other hand, refer to the net effect of damage and any failed attempts at repair of the genetic code in an organism. Genetic Entropy and the conjectures required for evolution to work are the terms that refer to mutations.