A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

Funny thing, this huge theory called the ToE is treated as fact though it rests on SO little actual evidence, while those who point out that lack of evidence are told THEY have to produce it. It's sufficient to produce a reasonable argument. And I've shown the barrier many times over. Nothing anyone has said can surmount that barrier. A few pathetic completely circumstantial cases of mutations in OTHER situations than the relevant ones do not answer the challenge.

I am unable to use the link. AOL doesn't recognize the file or something like that, but I won't download anything into my computer these days anyway because it has been freezing up and threatening me via blue screens unless I treat it with extraordinary care.HOW DO YOU KNOW THE ALGAE MUTATED? What is the evidence? Just because it was bottlenecked doesn't prove it mutated. It could have been a previously low-frequency allele that proliferated in the bottlenecked population that does just fine in the wild.

Unfortunately for your view it has been shown that we all have a number of new mutations. So each generation of humans has about 50 or so BILLION mutations. (not all unique, of course).You're assertions about mutations are simply wrong.

There was a list of much more than this. What is true is that ALL the cases given show NO trace of ancient DNA (from the last few 1,000 years) being any different in a major structural way from todays. There is NO trace of the 'degredation' you talk about.All the evidence points to you being wrong and you've offered nothing but wild speculation.You have yet to risk describing the "super genome" of Adam for example. You have not said where the extra diversity of alleles could have been stored.

Funny how these previously rare alleles just keep being the ones that turn out to be preserved in the populations, no matter how unlikely that might be.What you are telling us is: You haven't proved me wrong, I can still hang on to that thin thread of possibility that every thing might be explainable without mutations since you have not proved that mutations are the real explanation for these phenomena.Then you go ahead and say : Granted that mutations do happen (and I found myself convinced that some of them might even be benefical in the other thread because I couldn't think of anything else and now it's to late to go back), granted that mutations would explain many of these observations, But you have not proven your case beyond unresonable doubt (After all there is the thin possibility that every one of these cases might be the result of selection of previously uncommom alleles(no matter how (un)likely that might be))What you are missing (off course) is the fact that to prove that there is no barrier to macroevolution (whatever that word means) we don't need to prove that all these(or a single one for that matter) are really bonafide cases of benefical muations. All that has to be shown is that it could have been. If mutation could have done the job then there is no real barrier.To top it off, the burden of proof here lies squarely on your shoulders (whether you like it or not) because there is plenty of evidence that different species have commom uncestrals (human and chimps for instance), to the point that it is completely unreasonable to doubt that benefical mutations exist (even if we had no direct evidence whatsoever) unless you could come up with some reasoning to why should we believe that mutations could not do the job (which you have not).

quote:

---

Faith's requirement is wholly excessive.

---

It's even more excessive than fallacycop pointed out, since even if a new allele is found (such as in the algae example), Faith can claim that it was hidden as a recessive allele or otherwise hidden in a hypergenome, waiting to come out. This was the way she responded to the salamander evidence. This is another example of making a claim and then shifting the burden of proof the other side, then even when evidenced in support of the other side comes up, just claim it doesn't convince you, and leave it at that.

faith wrote

quote:

---

SO few examples, too, Equinox. Hardly the regular occurrence you'd have to be able to demonstrate if you can't show an increase in a particular case.

---

My list had quite a few examples - easily hundreds in the case of the islands. Plus, I don't need to show a lot of examples, not even 1. I'm still waiting for proof not only that these don't apply, but a reason that there is some barrier to evolution. The burden of proof is still on you. Plust, these examples aren't rare - we find them often, when we bother to look. Over millions of years even rare examples would easily add up. Even a beneficial mutation every 1000 years is 65 thousand beneficial mutations since K-T.

quote:

---

Apparently this bottlenecked algae thrived in a new environment?

---

No, it thrived in it's original environment, so much that it took over from it's parent species from italy to israel.

quote:

---

Also, how do you know what degradation should look like in the genome anyway? I've postulated the length of the DNA in relation to the functional DNA. Is that what you have in mind?

---

sure. Such would be obvious. Or since you've been looking for hypergenomes, maybe more total DNA, most or more of which is functional. Either would be easy to see.

The thing is, the selection (random or targeted), of pre-existing alleles is the NORMAL way new phenotypes are brought about. Mutation is the UNusual way. This is why you need REAL evidence, and all you have is these suppositions.

The mere existence of many mutations does not prove the specifics asked. Their existence does not prove that they function in any specific case to increase usable new alleles, as opposed to the commonest kind which simply do nothing (knocking out others that do something too)*, or increase fitness, or do anything at all to counter the FACT that all the random and targeted selecting processes over time reduce them.As usual, breeders face the facts of what really happens genetically in teh development of new traits/phenotypes/species: http://www.canine-genetics.com/pgbreed.htm*Dog breedingWhere are all those known mutations? We know they occur, but they aren't doing anything we WANT them to do except in those extremely few cases, cases that don't have anything to do with the question on the table too, which is this claim that mutations make up the allele losses in bottlenecks and other situations that reduce alleles.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This hasn't been shown, merely supposed from the fact that mutations occur. You have to show that they DO increase usable alleles after a selection event that has caused loss. The loss is a known fact, the increase is pure speculation.

This is the NORMAL way selection processes work, they select pre-existing alleles. Therefore, you cannot simply assume that it was a mutation as you all do, you have to PROVE it's a mutation. I'm not "claiming" I'm countering this unsupported claim that mutations are doing everything when it's always been the pre-existing stash of alleles that do it. Where is the actual evidence in the salamander case that mutations actually had anything to do with it? There is NONE given at all. Mutations are ASSUMED.

It's been amply shown that the selecting processes reduce alleles, and until you actually have real evidence that mutations undo this effect rather than mere assumption -- specific cases where the "new" alleles are KNOWN to be mutations and actually do something useful -- the fact that speciation involves reduction of genetic diversity IS the barrier. But of course you don't HAVE millions of years. One beneficial mutation every 1000 years in what, an individual, a population, what? In either case, that rate couldn't possibly counter the selecting processes that are constantly acting on and within populations, making changes within years in some cases, certainly in hundreds rather than thousands, and in sudden events. How many generations should it take to get a new species of chipmunk or salamander in a ring species? Ten? Twenty? And this alone is your proof it was a mutation that did it? What's wrong with the possibility that you merely incubated a previously low-frequency allele or more like it, combination of alleles? Maybe not so easy to see in a degraded, fragmented and corrupted genome that has to be reconstructed from the pieces. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Says who?

Faith, But of course this thread isn't about evo's having to support their argument, it's about you supporting your contention that there is a barrier to macroevolution.For the third time of asking, please provide evidence that such a barrier exists. Requiring other people to support a counter argument is shifting the burden of proof. The veracity of your claim is not enhanced by XYZ not showing that mutation increases diversity to a required degree.Either you can show that a barrier to macroevolution exists, or you can't. Given this thread is approaching its 180th post without any attempt to provide, I have to conclude that you have no evidence that such a barrier exists.Why are you even arguing? Why didn't you start a thread titled, "A place for Evo's to provide evidence of genetic diversity being increased sufficiently by mutation so that an extrapolation over longer time periods potentially allows for macroevolution"?Wouldn't that have been more honest than just pissing in the wind with your opinion that mutation can't provide enough change for macroevolution to occur, & simultaneously shifting the burden of proof to your opponents?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

The thing is, the selection (random or targeted), of pre-existing alleles is the NORMAL way new phenotypes are brought about. Mutation is the UNusual way. This is why you need REAL evidence, and all you have is these suppositions.

---

But what about what mick said in message #147?