Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Justatruthseeker]

OK you just deny there ever is a mutation, and therefore all the variation we see today had to exist from the beginning. But that's impossible given a single man and woman as the beginning . . . the amount of variation is simply more than could exist in just two individual humans. Did Adam or Eve, either one, have the genetic variation to digest milk as an adult? Which one of the several such variations that currently exist? What about genetic variation for getting more oxygen at high altitude, as found in some populations today? What eye color variations did they have? What blood type variations did they have? Go ahead, explain how they could have all the varieties within them that we see today in humans.

You've already been told, you just keep ignoring it.

“... In short, they argue that hybridization may act as a possibly more abundant source of adaptive genetic variation than mutation because mutations are rare and hybridization common. They cite Grant & Grant (1994) who estimated that the amount of new, additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that introduced by mutation in Darwin's finches. We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234156635_The_unpredictable_impact_of_hybridization

But as noted before the grants found the truth, such was neglected in studies, so I understand your beliefs stem from studies that failed to take into account the reality of breeding....

“During this non-equilibrium phase, inter-individual variation in traits affecting dispersal becomes spatially assorted because, at each generation, the best dispersers aggregate at the expanding front, seeding new populations. Notably, inter-individual variation is an inherent property of all natural populations, with profound implications for non-equilibrium processes such as range expansion and hybridization that have long been neglected, most often for the sake of simplicity [19]. As the expansion wave advances, the process of spatial sorting can promote rapid directional evolution of traits favoring dispersal, thus further accelerating the establishment of populations in newly colonized areas.”

Or as found with fish in actual experiments.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation."

And in plants...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation

"...This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate phenotypes, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presentation, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations (Stirton pers. ..."

Now ask yourself, why do I need your once in a blue moon mutation, when experimental studies have shown that both first and second generation exhibit extreme or novel characters, when you say that is exactly what your mutations are needed for and such is two to three times greater at producing these novel traits than mutation? They are not intermediate phenotypes as evolutionary PR likes to portray.

Just in the second generations significant fractions of what constitutes the entire radiation of the lake radiation was generated. Just in the second generation......

No, I need no infrequent mutation to explain what can be observed due to mating in two generations. Some people just understand that the difference between the wild and the lab is simply time. In the wild the populations would require a natural event to bring them together, instead of man doing so. And so what man can produce in the lab in two generations would take thousands of years if left to natural occurrences. It's why evolutionists hate dogs, they show the process you think of as evolution in an accelerated timeframe - and we understand they are all the same species.

Or the quote from another ill informed evolutionary supporter that also couldn't understand.

""""We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."""

I know this is not something you want to accept, but reality is reality and your denying it does science no justice....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And all of your misunderstanding about single-nucleotide polymorphism aside, it is not simply mutation. It is simply a variation that occurs in a single nucleotide. Such variation as we have seen that can also be produced by mating and recombination of genes, at a two to three order of magnitude greater occurrence.

I understand evolutionists like to pretend that any variation to the genome is caused by mutation, but grow up and accept reality.

But as I have already shown, hybridization was ignored as a means of producing variation for decades. But recent studies and advances in technology has shown it is more important than any mutational process in creating those new genetic variations.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They do create new alleles, you just wont accept the truth in that or anything else. But fanatics never do.

Your very quote you chose to introduce for some odd reason.

"""We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one.""

You can make all the claims you want, but they just told you alleles were created by mating.

The rest of your claims are just as erroneous.

Sorry, you have misunderstood what you quoted. An allele introduced by hybridization - already existed in a parent. Therefore it is not "created" by mating, as you assert, but merely inherited. The rest of your claims of error are equally dubious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, you have misunderstood what you quoted. An allele introduced by hybridization - already existed in a parent. Therefore it is not "created" by mating, as you assert, but merely inherited. The rest of your claims of error are equally dubious.

No, it is created. It is your misunderstanding, it's what your evolutionary biologists are trying to explain to you. It is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two. Not from one or the other, but from both. Combining into one what exists in neither, because neither of the parents genomes are in the same sequence as the offspring. On the other hand a mutation does just what you said - merely copies what already exists in a single genome - and does not combine two unique ones into a brand new unique one. Such is why a child is neither like his father nor his mother, but a unique combination of both with new traits found in neither. As was found to be exhibited with fish, flowers and mice in experimental studies. You just haven't updated your beliefs to match revelations in science, but are stuck in 1942 still.

Despite it being explained to you "Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate phenotypes" here you are, treating them as mere intermediate phenotypes.

"and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters"

Extreme or novel characters not found in the parental morphological characters, else it would not be novel. It is you in your cognitive dissonance that needs to pretend that novel characters don't mean what they mean and that a complex mosaic is not what you wish it to mean of just an intermediate phenotype.

A mutation changing an allele is random, while one introduced through the combining of two separate chromosomes has been shaped by natural selection - as the conclusion warrants. Which is why it is more likely to do good for the organism than a mutation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No, it is created. It is your misunderstanding, it's what your evolutionary biologists are trying to explain to you. It is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two. Not from one or the other, but from both. Combining into one what exists in neither, because neither of the parents genomes are in the same sequence as the offspring. On the other hand a mutation does just what you said - merely copies what already exists in a single genome - and does not combine two unique ones into a brand new unique one. Such is why a child is neither like his father nor his mother, but a unique combination of both with new traits found in neither. As was found to be exhibited with fish, flowers and mice in experimental studies. You just haven't updated your beliefs to match revelations in science, but are stuck in 1942 still.

Despite it being explained to you "Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate phenotypes" here you are, treating them as mere intermediate phenotypes.

"and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters"

Extreme or novel characters not found in the parental morphological characters, else it would not be novel. It is you in your cognitive dissonance that needs to pretend that novel characters don't mean what they mean and that a complex mosaic is not what you wish it to mean of just an intermediate phenotype.

A mutation changing an allele is random, while one introduced through the combining of two separate chromosomes has been shaped by natural selection - as the conclusion warrants. Which is why it is more likely to do good for the organism than a mutation.

Where did all those entirely different genomes you speak of come from in the first place, Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Africans? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Asians? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Anglo-Saxons?

Same with Dogs, Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Mastiffs? Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Huskies? Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Poodles? and so on...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did all those entirely different genomes you speak of come from in the first place, Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Africans? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Asians? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Anglo-Saxons?

Same with Dogs, Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Mastiffs? Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Huskies? Which Grey Wolf mated with which Grey Wolf to get Poodles? and so on...

Except that’s exactly what the dna data shows, that you are unable to comprehend what novel traits mean unless the catchphrase mutation is mentioned, sounds like a cognitive dissonance problem.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html

“The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...eology-fossils-evolution-domestication-wolves

So all large dog breeds come from the gray wolf, while smaller dogs descended from a separate breed of wolf.

You see your problem? All dogs are descended from the very situation you claim is impossible.

Now apply that same knowledge to humans and ask yourself how we got 12 to 15 different races from the same Kind, when by the same process we got over 100 distinct breeds of dogs?

Stop treating that uniquely created phenotype from the merging of two as merely an intermediate. This is not what 20th century science has discovered to be true. Come out of the dark ages and into the light.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Except that’s exactly what the dna data shows, that you are unable to comprehend what novel traits mean unless the catchphrase mutation is mentioned, sounds like a cognitive dissonance problem.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html

“The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...eology-fossils-evolution-domestication-wolves

So all large dog breeds come from the gray wolf, while smaller dogs descended from a separate breed of wolf.

You see your problem? All dogs are descended from the very situation you claim is impossible.

Now apply that same knowledge to humans and ask yourself how we got 12 to 15 different races from the same Kind, when by the same process we got over 100 distinct breeds of dogs?

Stop treating that uniquely created phenotype from the merging of two as merely an intermediate. This is not what 20th century science has discovered to be true. Come out of the dark ages and into the light.

Do you even comprehend the point I made??

I have no problem with the scientific literature you're quoting, it's You that has the problem - The researchers writing these papers all support the various mechanisms of evolution, which includes the crossbreeding you keep pounding on as well as mutation and any number of other mechanisms that you're rallying against. What I am (and pretty much everyone else here that has addressed you on this is) pointing out is that mutation is still a very necessary part of this process, otherwise all humans for example would literally just be copies of Adam and Eve - we are quite obviously not. Same for all the various breeds of dogs, they'd not look any different to their wolven ancestors, because their genetic variability wouldn't change other than a reshuffle of their genes, inevitably leading to the same tawny coloured coat and wolf-like shape.

breeding alone doesn't cut it, mutation plays a necessary role, no matter how much you don't like it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you even comprehend the point I made??

I have no problem with the scientific literature you're quoting, it's You that has the problem - The researchers writing these papers all support the various mechanisms of evolution, which includes the crossbreeding you keep pounding on as well as mutation and any number of other mechanisms that you're rallying against. What I am (and pretty much everyone else here that has addressed you on this is) pointing out is that mutation is still a very necessary part of this process, otherwise all humans for example would literally just be copies of Adam and Eve - we are quite obviously not. Same for all the various breeds of dogs, they'd not look any different to their wolven ancestors, because their genetic variability wouldn't change other than a reshuffle of their genes, inevitably leading to the same tawny coloured coat and wolf-like shape.

breeding alone doesn't cut it, mutation plays a necessary role, no matter how much you don't like it.

Breeding alone does “cut it.”

As has been shown in the Russian Silver Fox experiment in which selectively breeding for traits which led to tameability, changed muzzle size, ear shape, tail shape and length of leg.

Mutation wasn’t needed to explain any of the observed traits that lead to variation and eventually enough variation to start classifying them as different breeds.

Only one thing was considered as a “possible” change due to mutation. A swatch in the coat color. But coat color has nothing to do with changing breeds due to changing of form.

My white haired [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]zu and black hair [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]zu in which the insignificant coat color has nothing to do with affecting their breed.

I have already agreed that your once in a blue moon mutation may bring about small insignificant changes.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Breeding alone does “cut it.”

Blah blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah, blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah blah, blahdy blah blah blahdiddly blah blahdy blah blah

I have already agreed that your once in a blue moon mutation may bring about small insignificant changes.

Hey! There you Go! Wasn't so hard after all... I might just add that those "small insignificant changes" add up over time, then that'd be pretty much on the mark!

Top Job Justa!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, it is created. It is your misunderstanding, it's what your evolutionary biologists are trying to explain to you. It is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two. Not from one or the other, but from both. Combining into one what exists in neither, because neither of the parents genomes are in the same sequence as the offspring. On the other hand a mutation does just what you said - merely copies what already exists in a single genome - and does not combine two unique ones into a brand new unique one. Such is why a child is neither like his father nor his mother, but a unique combination of both with new traits found in neither. As was found to be exhibited with fish, flowers and mice in experimental studies. You just haven't updated your beliefs to match revelations in science, but are stuck in 1942 still.

Despite it being explained to you "Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate phenotypes" here you are, treating them as mere intermediate phenotypes.

"and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters"

Extreme or novel characters not found in the parental morphological characters, else it would not be novel. It is you in your cognitive dissonance that needs to pretend that novel characters don't mean what they mean and that a complex mosaic is not what you wish it to mean of just an intermediate phenotype.

A mutation changing an allele is random, while one introduced through the combining of two separate chromosomes has been shaped by natural selection - as the conclusion warrants. Which is why it is more likely to do good for the organism than a mutation.

Hybrids don't form intermediate variations in their genes, they bring together genes that were never together before in the parent lineages. If the lineages weren't different to begin with, we would not call the offspring "hybrids". But the genes themselves aren't changed by such a process. However, the results of genes are often modified by other genes, and when they are shuffled by hybrid breeding, you can see what can be called a "complex mosaic" and view what seems to be "novel" characteristics. And genes can change, by mutation.

 

[xianghua]

There's no reason for the slight difference

you already gave one. and how do you know that there are no other things?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey! There you Go! Wasn't so hard after all... I might just add that those "small insignificant changes" add up over time, then that'd be pretty much on the mark!

Top Job Justa!

They do? So in developing an eye the body keeps these useless mutations until the point where it becomes functional? Expends energy keeping alive what until the entire process is complete what is useless on its own?

It’s your failure to admit to the blah, blah, blah part that shows your cognitive dissonance.

You see, unlike you I can recognize that both produce variation, one simply to a greater number of loci at one time. And therefore has a greater impact on variation. You on the other hand need to ignore that to keep your world view alive.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hybrids don't form intermediate variations in their genes, they bring together genes that were never together before in the parent lineages. If the lineages weren't different to begin with, we would not call the offspring "hybrids". But the genes themselves aren't changed by such a process. However, the results of genes are often modified by other genes, and when they are shuffled by hybrid breeding, you can see what can be called a "complex mosaic" and view what seems to be "novel" characteristics. And genes can change, by mutation.

It’s your incorrect belief that they were ever separate species to begin with that leads you to the incorrect conclusion.

The lineage of an Asian is different than the lineage of an African, yet I don’t see you calling the Afro-Asian a separate species.

It’s that mixed heritage in those finches that give the lie to the claim that they ever underwent speciation.

But I’ll give you a chance to prove your point. Under the scientific definition of speciation, which of the seven ways speciation occurs did those finches follow?

 

[tas8831]

It is pure YEC genius to think that if you spew the same garbage in a different thread it will be true...

It’s your incorrect belief that they were ever separate species to begin with that leads you to the incorrect conclusion.

It is your laughably incorrect notion that identical genomes hybridize and produce variation. Not as funny as you citing papers that you claim support your naive notions but in fact refer to new alleles arising via mutation, but funny nevertheless.

The lineage of an Asian is different than the lineage of an African, yet I don’t see you calling the Afro-Asian a separate species.

According to your child-genetics, the lineage of an Asian is the exact same as all lineages to all 'races' - tracing back to a pair of inbreeding middle easterners.
Can't you remember your own silly claims?

It’s that mixed heritage in those finches that give the lie to the claim that they ever underwent speciation.

But weren't you on about how the speciation was due to hybridization alone? Or are you changing y our tune again?

But I’ll give you a chance to prove your point. Under the scientific definition of speciation, which of the seven ways speciation occurs did those finches follow?

I'll give you a chance to regain some of your reputation (assuming you had one in the first place) - explain why you cited a paper and a website claiming support for you claim of 'hybridization all the way down and no mutation' when both indicated that mutation was the ultimate cause?

 

[pitabread]

So in developing an eye the body keeps these useless mutations until the point where it becomes functional?

Who says that the mutations are useless? Who says that the steps leading to a modern eye aren't functional?

I think this is part of the challenge in conceptualizing how complex features evolve. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario; step-wise there can be incremental changes that are functional and useful in their own right.

 

[tas8831]

Breeding alone does “cut it.”

As has been shown in the Russian Silver Fox experiment in which selectively breeding for traits which led to tameability, changed muzzle size, ear shape, tail shape and length of leg.

Mutation wasn’t needed to explain any of the observed traits that lead to variation and eventually enough variation to start classifying them as different breeds.

Where do you think the various alleles for those linked traits came from?

You know, you recently cited a paper that you laughably thought propped up your notions, but you failed to read the paper beyond your keyword search to where it explained that the alleles that produced the hybrids arose via mutation.

You are HILARIOUS in your tunnel vision based on not having any real biological knowledge.

 

[pitabread]

Where do you think the various alleles for those linked traits came from?

Magic genomes front-loaded with all possible alleles, duh.

 

[tas8831]

No, it is created. It is your misunderstanding, it's what your evolutionary biologists are trying to explain to you. It is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two. Not from one or the other, but from both. Combining into one what exists in neither, because neither of the parents genomes are in the same sequence as the offspring.

Wow so cool! So cool that you think chromosomes create genes!

And you actually believe that you are right and we are wrong.... INcredible...

On the other hand a mutation does just what you said - merely copies what already exists in a single genome - and does not combine two unique ones into a brand new unique one. Such is why a child is neither like his father nor his mother, but a unique combination of both with new traits found in neither.

LOL!

Stop, this is too much...

You have GOT to be a Poe!

Despite it being explained to you "Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate phenotypes" here you are, treating them as mere intermediate phenotypes.

"and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters"

Extreme or novel characters not found in the parental morphological characters, else it would not be novel. It is you in your cognitive dissonance that needs to pretend that novel characters don't mean what they mean and that a complex mosaic is not what you wish it to mean of just an intermediate phenotype.

A mutation changing an allele is random, while one introduced through the combining of two separate chromosomes has been shaped by natural selection - as the conclusion warrants. Which is why it is more likely to do good for the organism than a mutation.

So we can add "character" to the sciencey things you are clueless about.

This is amazing - I thought you had peaked on your Dunning-Kruger stiff, but now and then, you pull out even more...


And since you didn't really address these and then abandoned the thread that these was originally posted in:

Ignorance really is bliss for these prideful creationists...

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Years of debating... Zero learned...

Agreed you learned nothing from the last time you were shown to be incorrect.

https://isogg.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

“A single-nucleotide polymorphism(SNP, pronounced snip) is a DNA sequence variation occurring when a single nucleotide adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G]) in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a species or paired chromosomes in an individual.”

Do you know what creates sequence variation, Mr.Science?

Of course you don't. Please try - really try - to process what you pasted. Because you seem to think that you are somehow vindicated, thinking that this is caused by interbreeding or during development. Funny that your quote mentions neither.

SNPs are MUTATIONS. Now Google "mutation".

For once.

What's this? Oh my goodness - why, just a ways down from your quote, we see:

"Single nucleotides may be changed (substitution), removed (deletions) or added (insertion) to a polynucleotide sequence. Single nucleotide polymorphisms may fall within coding sequences of genes, non-coding regions of genes, or in the intergenic regions between genes. SNPs within a coding sequence will not necessarily change the amino acid sequence of the protein that is produced, due to degeneracy of the genetic code.

A SNP in which both forms lead to the same polypeptide sequence is termed synonymous (sometimes called a silent mutation) — if a different polypeptide sequence is produced they are nonsynonymous. A nonsynonymous change may either be missense or nonsense, where a missense change results in a different amino acid, while a nonsense change results in a premature stop codon. SNPs that are not in protein-coding regions may still have consequences for gene splicing, transcription factor binding, or the sequence of non-coding ribonucleic acid (RNA)."​

I highlighted some words that you were likely to ignore if left to your own devices.

And from that same site:

"A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence. Mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes made during cell division, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses. Germ line mutations occur in the eggs and sperm and can be passed on to offspring, while somatic mutations occur in body cells and are not passed on."

What's this? No mention of "And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding..."


I am laughing - at you - for not knowing enough about this stuff to see how frequently you make a fool of yourself, pretending to know more than you do.

But I appreciate your simply reaffirming that it is exactly what I said it was.....

and:

Here highlight the facts that support your contention.

Huh?

“Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches on the small Galapagos island of Daphne Major in the inclusive years 1976 to 1992. Geospiza fortis bred with G. scandens and G. fuliginosa. Although interbreeding was always rare (< 5%), sufficient samples of measurements of hybrids and backcrosses were accumulated for analysis. Five beak and body dimensions and mass were measured, and from these two synthetic (principal-component) traits were constructed. All traits were heritable in two of the interbreeding species (G. fuliginosa were too rare to be analyzed) and in the combined samples of F-1 hybrids and backcrosses to G. fortis. In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction.”

Go ahead, show us where mutation was greater in the long term? Show us all.....

You mean you still think that Adam and Eve gave birth to Asians and Africans and Nordic folk and Inuuit, etc., because a paper documents the importance of hybridization in one case? Where do the alleles come from that allow hybridization again? Oh, right - you can't deal with that stuff. But seeing as how I call your bluff and find that you, um, ignored/omitted stuff to prop up your fantasies below, you might want to dial back the hubris...


Oh wait - more hybridization quotes are coming (it is as if you think I reject hybridization - how dishonest and desperate of you!)!

Even the ones that were weaker due to different allometries led the variation in a new direction.

You got squat except putting your own words in. Nada, zilch, nothing....

Double-talk will get you nowhere.

Project much?

“... In short, they argue that hybridization may act as a possibly more abundant source of adaptive genetic variation than mutation because mutations are rare and hybridization common. They cite Grant & Grant (1994) who estimated that the amount of new, additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that introduced by mutation in Darwin's finches. We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234156635_The_unpredictable_impact_of_hybridization

But as noted before the grants found the truth, such was neglected in studies, so I understand your beliefs stem from studies that failed to take into account the reality of breeding....

“During this non-equilibrium phase, inter-individual variation in traits affecting dispersal becomes spatially assorted because, at each generation, the best dispersers aggregate at the expanding front, seeding new populations. Notably, inter-individual variation is an inherent property of all natural populations, with profound implications for non-equilibrium processes such as range expansion and hybridization that have long been neglected, most often for the sake of simplicity [19]. As the expansion wave advances, the process of spatial sorting can promote rapid directional evolution of traits favoring dispersal, thus further accelerating the establishment of populations in newly colonized areas.”

Don’t even pretend with me that you have even a grasp of the subject, you’ve ignored it for decades and now the truth is showing your mutations for the useless once in a blue moon garbage that it is....

You are very adept - as most YECs are - at creating strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.
Still don't get what additive genetic variance is, do you?


Look, Superstar - you still cannot/will not answer a very simple question - WHERE DO ALLELES COME FROM???

Funny - at what point did you stop reading that new paper you quoted? I'm guessing it was right where you stopped quoting, right (which, I suspect, you left on that last sentence do to cut and paste problems)?


Because - oh my goodness - just a ways down - the next sentence, in fact - that paper explains where alleles come from - something that you have refused to even try to answer:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."


Wow...

Totally looks like these 'new alleles' - the ones introduced during hybridization - arise VIA MUTATION!


Just like one of us has been saying all along (and that one of us was NOT you...).

Again, reality shows how false your beliefs are because they neglected the truth.... and some like you still do....

Your lack of introspection causes you to be a poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Keep writing. Though it can be time consuming, it is intellectually fantastically easy to embarrass you on your cherry-picking, out of context quoting, sheer ignorance, etc.

Pity your hubris outpaces your humility.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is pure YEC genius to think that if you spew the same garbage in a different thread it will be true...

It is your laughably incorrect notion that identical genomes hybridize and produce variation. Not as funny as you citing papers that you claim support your naive notions but in fact refer to new alleles arising via mutation, but funny nevertheless.

According to your child-genetics, the lineage of an Asian is the exact same as all lineages to all 'races' - tracing back to a pair of inbreeding middle easterners.
Can't you remember your own silly claims?

But weren't you on about how the speciation was due to hybridization alone? Or are you changing y our tune again?
I'll give you a chance to regain some of your reputation (assuming you had one in the first place) - explain why you cited a paper and a website claiming support for you claim of 'hybridization all the way down and no mutation' when both indicated that mutation was the ultimate cause?

Your avoidance tactics are useless. Show us in the definition of speciation what made those finches separate species. All you have to do is show your argument by your own definitions. That you are failing to do so just shows you have no reasons for doing so other that Darwin incorrectly classified them as such in the belief they were reproductively isolated. DNA data falsified his belief.

So here’s your chance to conclusively show you are correct. Simply tell us which of the defining events of speciation led to their speciation.

Don’t think your attempting to change the subject will get you out of this.

 

[tas8831]

Your avoidance tactics are useless.

LOL!

Yes, I avoid your silly claims by refuting them over and over.... Whatever you need to think to rescue your ego...

As an aside - how does all this jive with the notion of separate special creations ala Genesis? I guess 'after their Kind' means that anything goes, no barriers at all!