Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[Lion Hearted Man]

Good point Targ. That'll be my final hurrah.

 

[SaraCurious]

Good point Targ. That'll be my final hurrah.

Yeah, leaving with you Lion, no point in banging your head against stone when there's people around actually wanting to learn.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Changing speed settings is the proposed mechanism for fan to race car

Are you under the impression that this changes the fact that ceiling fans do not reproduce with variation?

Reproduction with chance and necessity is the proposed mechanism for microbe to man

I'm sure the actual mechanisms of evolution (reproduction with variation and selection) have been explained to you here before many a time. A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with Greg; a desire to be wrong is not.





Lurker

 

[Greg1234]

Are you under the impression that this changes the fact that ceiling fans do not reproduce with variation?

Are you under the impression that the proposed mechanisms are not experimentally tested in both cases?

I'm sure the actual mechanisms of evolution (reproduction with variation and selection) have been explained to you here before many a time. A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with Greg; a desire to be wrong is not.



Lurker

All that's been presented is the proposed mechanism, which like the fan, is tested

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Are you under the impression that the proposed mechanisms are not experimentally tested in both cases?

What are you even trying to say here? Ceiling fans do not reproduce with random variation which is one of the mechanisms of evolution - therefore ceiling fans cannot be used to illustrate evolution. Should I say this again using larger text or something? How is this not getting through?

All that's been presented is the proposed mechanism, which like the fan, is tested

Yes, the tested and observed mechanism for evolution has been presented; the untested and unobserved mechanism which supposedly limits evolution has not been presented. Note which one of those you support as you seem to be confused.




Lurker

 

[SLP]

What is not honest about asking questions?

So you say you don't personally need the evidence to show every single species in the transition. Yet in you reply to me, you said "this proposed transition from reptile to mammmal is not actually a species to species transition" as if this was a problem for you.

Yet somehow you know enough to say that the reptile to mammal sequence is not an example of species evolving.

On what basis did you come to this conclusion?

It is called the YEC shuffle.

 

[SLP]

"what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution"

First, I think the onus is one the evolutionist to prove that it can, not that others disprove it.

The assumptions:

1. Mutations happen
2. Some mutations are heritible
3. The patterns of inherited mutations are indicative of descent.

Even YECs accept 1 and 2 without question. They will even accept 3, as long as they don't know that agreeing will support evolution.

Assessing the patterns of mutation can indicate ancestor-descendant relationships - tests of the methods:


Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254 no. 5031 pp. 554-558
DOI: 10.1126/science.1948030
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

Abstract

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

An experimentally derived test:

Science 31 January 1992:
Vol. 255 no. 5044 pp. 589-592
DOI: 10.1126/science.1736360
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogegeny

Abstract

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.





An application of these tested methods premised on the true assumptions:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

Abstract
What do functionally important DNA sites, those scrutinized and shaped by natural selection, tell us about the place of humans in evolution? Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. On a time scale, the coding DNA divergencies separate the human–chimpanzee clade from the gorilla clade at between 6 and 7 million years ago and place the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees at between 5 and 6 million years ago. The evolutionary rate of coding DNA in the catarrhine clade (Old World monkey and ape, including human) is much slower than in the lineage to mouse. Among the genes examined, 30 show evidence of positive selection during descent of catarrhines. Nonsynonymous substitutions by themselves, in this subset of positively selected genes, group humans and chimpanzees closest to each other and have chimpanzees diverge about as much from the common human–chimpanzee ancestor as humans do. This functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered taxonomic proposals: family Hominidae should include all extant apes; and genus Homo should include three extant species and two subgenera, Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee).

Secondly, I think the fact of stasis in the fossil record is worthy of mention here. Species in the fossil record, when we have a fossils over a long period of time, do not actually behave as you state. They exhibit little change. They don't evolve, which suggests to me, that the capacity for micro-evolution to make the jump to macro-changes is not there.

What is the basis for your assumption that all evolutionary change must be morphological?
Are you aware of evidence that shows that mutation preferentially affects genes influencing morphological development?

 

[SLP]

He is asking us to believe that evolutionist evidence is cicular, but he isn't doing a good job of pointing out how it actually is.

A common enough occurrance.


Assertions are easy to make, usually not so easy to support.

 

[SLP]

No, this is a typical question posed by evoltionists, of the kind Talkorigins uses, to set up a false dichotomy, and try to state that critics of evolution must porve that micro-evolution cannot create macro-evolution. It is a completely bogus argument, and propoganda technique.

On the contrary - the claim that macroevolution is impossible, that there is some sort of "barrier" to it, is a common enough claim by creationists that it stands to reason that they must have an actual reason for claiming it.

That is, this IS a creationist claim, and one that I have never seen them ever try to support with anything other than burden shifting (like you've been doing).

The propaganda comes in when the YEC claims macroevolution impossible, and when asked for their evidence, demand that it is up to the evolutionist to prove otherwise.

 

[SLP]

Thus far, mutations have not been shown to add to the limited potential already there. I won't say can't add information because for instance, they can add back information that was lost in earlier mutations.

However, they have not been shown to add to the potential in a way that creates macro-evolution, and this is the point.

And how, exactly, does macroevolution require what you imply, and how do you know this?

 

[SLP]

I am certainly not an expert on genetics, but have waded through some articles on both sides of the issue, some of a technical nature, but I do understand that in a argument, one side has to prove a positive, or try to, before they can egitimately demand the other disprove it.

Then perhaps the other side should stop declaring the negative.

The issue is existing potential. Evolutionists must show that mutations can add to that potential in a meaningful way that can add up to macro-evolutionary changes. That hasn't been shown from my reading, though it is a hot topic.

What is a 'meaningful way'? Is the acquisition of insecticide resistence a meaningful thing for mutation to produce in insects?

The limits then, the mechanism you ask for, is the same mechanism for change, the existing genetic material. The question is if evolutionists have shown how that genetic material can add genes in a manner to produce macro-evolutionary changes.

What is the basis for the position that evolution must "add genes"? A recent Drosophila study did, in fact, show that some 11% of the fly's genes were cobbled together from noncoding DNA. Does that count?

Evolutionists haven't demonstrated that mutations are sufficinetly unlimited in potential to create all of life.

Why woul dthey have to be "unlimited"?

I suggest you've not been reading the correct material.

 

[SaraCurious]

Randman, Yeah, you are obviously right.

You know, I heard that some people believe that an old man, was once a child. Can you believe it? There is no evidence for this of course, they never show a photo of a Baby/Old-Man Hybrid, NEVER, where is this missing-link?

I'm 100% behind you Randman, of course, it would be nice if you where a bit more open to, you know, the evidence instead of just denying it, that makes debate rather futile, don't you think?

 

[Jro]

I'd like to know what people consider a macroevolutionary change if not speciation. Are we talking about the origin of a new organ or metabolic pathway of some sort, or are we talking about the development of a new taxonomic level?

 

[Greg1234]

Randman, Yeah, you are obviously right.

You know, I heard that some people believe that an old man, was once a child. Can you believe it?

Shown through experimentation. Limited. Man remains man. You accept experimentation results for this but not adaptation.

 

[SaraCurious]

Shown through experimentation. Limited. Man remains man. You accept experimentation results for this but not adaptation.

Yeah, the same people that claim they "proven" evolution, how can we trust these people? Just because they say they got evidence, and then gives us thousands upon thousands of thesis's that we have to read? I don't think so, i'm not reading all does things just to learn about it, gives me a headache, they have to prove it some other way that I find acceptable.

Don't you agree Greg?

 

[Greg1234]

Yeah, the same people that claim they "proven" evolution,

The experimentation speaks for itself. The results are shown, no need to speak. Like that on adaptation.

 

[JakeA]

Yeah, the same people that claim they "proven" evolution, how can we trust these people? Just because they say they got evidence, and then gives us thousands upon thousands of thesis's that we have to read? I don't think so, i'm not reading all does things just to learn about it, gives me a headache, they have to prove it some other way that I find acceptable.

Don't you agree Greg?

Well, obviously us biochemists can show you that what we say is true, or will you be fine while bacteria is eating your flesh or with a method to combat the first known strain since it cannot possibly have evolved?

If anyone manages to finish high scool and not get this, they should just keep them in high scool until they are fit to graduate.

It's like making up your own language and calling it English... oh wait...

 

[JakeA]

The experimentation speaks for itself. The results are shown, no need to speak. Like that on adaptation.

Not only are they shown, they are left for others to test them and so we have, for several decades over 420 THOUSAND studies have studied evolution and when it comes to peer review each and every one have been found to observe what they observe.

By all over the world i mean even outside of Kansas.

 

[Targ]

I'd like to know what people consider a macroevolutionary change if not speciation. Are we talking about the origin of a new organ or metabolic pathway of some sort, or are we talking about the development of a new taxonomic level?

Bump to the above question. If macroevolution = speciation, then examples can be provided in abundance.

 

[Greg1234]

Not only are they shown, they are left for others to test them and so we have, for several decades over 420 THOUSAND studies have studied evolution and when it comes to peer review each and every one have been found to observe what they observe.

Indeed. But it's not the observation of experimentation results that's the problem.

By all over the world i mean even outside of Kansas.

So another creationist joke.