Summations Only

Thank you for finally posting that after I don't know how many hints and veiled threats about something I supposedly wrote that to you means I should never say a word about any of this. Yes, I've never claimed more than a rudimentary understanding, but of course I claim to understand enough to make the arguments I make.And this is awfully, you know, Ad Hominem of you. What is needed isn't an attack on me personally but some evidence that my claims are wrong. For instance so far nobody has shown how any known genetics operation could get us from a certain arrangement of bones in a reptile to a very different arrangement in a mammal, through such and so many generations of just-so changes in that direction, through an apparently intermediate arrangement of bones in that "transitional" therapsid creature. RAZD claimed dog breeds demonstrate the process but they don't: no changing arrangements of bones from one to another dog breed that I know of. Do you? He also keeps saying that the steps beyond a species are microevolution just like the steps that form breeds within a species, which is quite impossible, except of course by word magic which renames whatever is needed to fit the theory.I wonder if you might be persuaded to give up your endless ad hominems and endless denials of everything I say to offer some kind of explanation of how these things can occur, preferably with examples. You know, actual evidence instead of the endless refrain Evidence, Evidence Evidence, if I say it often enough it will become true.,

If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?

I've answered the only offering of evidence from the other side on this thread with reasoned argument. There has been only that evidence: RAZD's claim that dog breeds illustrate the genetic situation with transitional fossils. They don't, as I've made clear. No other evidence has been offered besides the apparent transitional sequence itself.Dr. A has said nothing substantive at all.When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.But as I said back upthread, if you rule against my objection to the term "new species" perhaps all I can do is leave the thread whether I want to or not. Not a threat and not something I could change my mind about if it's really the only option.

This should have been part of my previous post:I did answer the claim that dog breeds illustrate the same transitional situation as the fossils, saying that there is no case I know of where bones have been rearranged to get from one breed to the next. Nobody has answered this. It's been stated many times that it is genetically possible to get such a rearrangement of bones but nobody has given any evidence of this. I don't think it is, I'm sure it isn't. And here's where I point out that the sequence of changes in the fossil bones that would have to evolve between the reptile and the mammal is purely imagined. This is a substantive argument against the ToE, that it really is mostly mental, with very little actual evidence.So to my mind the next task on this thread is for someone to give evidence that the necessary rearrangement of bones to show an evolutionary connection between those fossils is really genetically possible and not just assumed and imagined.But I'm prepared to be ruled out of order.I'll be away for a few hours now I think. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know if that holds up, but the main thing I'd want to keep in mind is whether the gradation that is seen is anything at all like the gradation imagined between the bones being discussed that have to undergo changes from the reptilian to the mammal as the evolutionary pathway. That would take many generations at least, but my objection is I don't think it's genetically possible, and the dog breeds example isn't relevant.I think this is the only part of that post I missed earlier.

You strike out my argument claiming it has been refuted. Then show me the refutation. All refutations I've myself refuted in turn. This is another reason for me to abort this discussion.Relative sizes in dog bones is not the same thing as the repositioning and other changes needed for evolution between reptiles and mammals. Size is regulated throughout the dog body type for all its parts. The differences between reptile bones and mammal bones have to be in their respective genomes. There is no way genetically for changes to occur that could change the bones from one to the other and so far nobody has shown an example that is relevant. The fossils are not the evidence. We are looking for evidence that the different bones did evolve from one type to the other, or even that they could evolve genetically, and so far no evidence has been produced. Which means what? There is no evidence to be found in their location as far as I know although nobody has produced information about exactly where they were found in relation to each other. Nearby or at great distance from each other? I don't know, but I do know that you can't assume genetic relatedness from mere physical location or morphology, and again, I don't know of any genetic processes that could make such changes as imagined between the different structures over time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Show me that ANY structural changes occur in normal genetics.

First I assume I'd know if it could still breed with the parent organisms.Second I would look at the percentage of fixed loci or homozygosity in the genome for the distinctive traits. See above. But there are two ways to go about checking reduction in genetic diversity from population to population:
1) is to collect specimens from ring species in the wild to see what differences there are in the genome from one population to the next. Fewer alleles for the dominant traits, or an increase in fixed loci from one population to the next for the dominant traits.2) The other would be to control populations in a lab environment, starting from a few pairs and letting them breed for a few generations, then taking a few pairs from that new population and doing the same thing until you get to a point that no further variations are being produced. Check the DNA for each population.First generation would be like the Pod Mrcaru lizards; isolating another set of pairs would be the next step etc. I expect the changes to occur and spread through the population in a much shorter period than the thirty years it took for those lizards to develop their large heads.

Not true, I did offer reasons, but they follow from my argument: evolution reduces genetic diversity. Evolution happens a lot faster than is allowed for by the ToE. Millions of years is fictional. Nothing would be left alive after even a million years.

So you didn't want debate when you set up this thread, even though "we win" certainly is going to provoke debate. Then when you get debate you attack the person and treat the argument like trash.I like my argument, I think it's viable, I think it kills evolution.

Thank you.

In the dog skulls I see variations on the basic structure, I don't see actual structural changes such as an arrangement of bones that change position relative to each other, which is what the reptile-mammal evolution requires.

You are not looking at genetics here. You are as usual just imagining how a series of changes COULD get you from a monkey to a man without the slightest evidence that these sort of changes have ever happened or are genetically possible. Being intermediate seems to occur at many places in the tree of life; there is no reason to assume genetic relatedness, it's just a variation. You are ASSUMING that "it happens," you cannot show that it happens genetically. The fossils represent variations, not incremental evolution.

Yes, you got my point, thank you.But there is nothing to prove genetic relatedness in similar structures either.

All of this is nothing but an exercise in imputing relatedness to a series of interestingly similar but different morphologies. Comparative anatomy can make the same mistake as paleontology, imagining relatedness without evidence, thereby "confirming" the claims of paleontology. I'm sure there are more complex mistakes involved in the other disciplines that confirm the paleontological mistake. They all really need to stick to their own arena where they know what they are doing. But fossils can't prove any such thing. You are just making imaginative leaps from morphological forms to genetic relatedness that is turning out on this thread to be impossible to demonstrate. Yes, the imagination is so powerful it even pronounces its fantasies as facts. In reality all this is sheer speculative interpretation. The actual facts are that the fossil record shows many different species and breeds of species, the "transition" is purely imagined. It's a matter of noticing similarities and assuming relatedness, which is not warranted because no actual evidence has ever been given for it. The "origin of new physical features" is also purely imagined: the different features are all products of different genomes for different species, there is no reason to think otherwise except the dogged determination of the evolution camp to make connections where none are evidenced.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.