I'm not sure what "species to species" comparison you are referring to?
Regardless, there are no rhetorical games, red herrings or anything else you are accusing me of here. What I am doing is responding directly to the main premise of the original OP: namely that you are comparing evolutionary scenarios of completely different scope and magnitude and then wondering why we don't see the same level of evolutionary change in those scenarios.
And the answer is simple: because you are comparing evolutionary scenario of completely different scope and magnitude.
I don't know of another way to try to explain this.
If you wanted a more comparable scenario, comparing something like primate evolution over a period of ~10 million years with whale evolution would be more apt. And (surprise!) if you look at something like primate evolution over a such a period you see far more evolutionary change than you would simply looking at human evolution over 300,000 years.
See my other post re: whale evolution.
Okay, there are a few things that need to be addressed here.
Evolution is a process that occurs over time. Consequently, changes in populations build up over time as populations continue to reproduce and variations of genes are passed down over multiple generations.
It is important to understand how this works because it is the compounding of these changes over time that lead to progressively greater changes in these populations. The fixation of alleles is important, because it creates a new baseline in a population on which future changes can be built.
I get the feeling from your posts that you believe evolution works in single steps. If I am incorrect in that assumption, feel free to correct me. But the fact you are ignoring large portions of the process of evolution and seem to not be factoring in time, the change in alleles in populations and changes over multiple generations speaks to that.
Except when speaking of canine evolution, domestication and breeding, we are talking about mutations. This is why I referred you to an article on the subject. Here it is again:
Canine Morphology: Hunting for Genes and Tracking Mutations
Those were my own words. If I copy/paste anything I clearly mark it as a quote and always cite my sources.
Regardless, the essence of your words appears to be an grossly incomplete definition of how evolution works. Yes, mutations are an important component of the evolutionary process as they provide the raw genetic variation on which other evolutionary processes act. But again, evolution happens
at the population level not the individual level. It is the assortment and passing on of that genetic variation that ultimately drives changes in populations over time.
This is again why I feel that you believe that evolution functions in single step increments. You don't appear to be conceptualizing the broader process of genetic changes in populations over time.
No, not all. But I would love to know what material you have been reading. Even citing your favorite book or two would be interesting.
I am very confused by your responses in this thread. You are making arguments about scenarios like whale evolution, bird evolution, and the Cambrian explosion. Any relevant material to understanding evolution in those scenarios is going to be (mostly) historical in nature and involve reconstructing evolutionary pathways that have already occurred.
If you want to understand how things like organs or body plans or whatever evolved, then the key to understanding those things is going to be found in literature covering those subjects.
On the other hand, if you want contemporary observed evolution whether in lab experiments or in nature, that's fine. But you need to understand that such scenarios and observations are going to far more limited in scope than evolutionary scenarios that took place over millions of years.
That said, there is still potential to learn a lot about evolution in such experiments and observations. For example, the long-term E.Coli experiment has provided some such insights:
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia
The origin of those structures is exactly what scientists are trying to understand when they reconstruct evolutionary pathways for said structures. I'm not sure what else you would be expecting? As much as I'm sure scientists would love to time-travel through millions of years to observe everything in real time, there are practical limits to such investigation.
Wow. This really says a lot about your attitude and your apparent disdain for science.
I don't know why you would so readily thumb your nose at the very scientific investigations seeking to answer what you claim evolution should be seeking to answer. Seems contradictory.
