A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another and all the examples of new "species" (that aren't species at all but merely new populations of a species with a new look to it) brought about merely by breeding together a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation. This is how distinctive new "species" are made without any mutations, but although I'm using the word "species" this is nothing but changes within a species from built in genetic variability. We don't need the hundreds of alleles AZ was conjuring up, all we need is a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation. Your moths, and the pocket mice, are not a new species.ALL THIS IS THE USUAL IRRELEVANT DISTRACTION FROM MY ARGUMENT, WHICH ALWAYS GOES BEGGING IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another and all the examples of new "species" that aren't species at all but merely new populations of a species with a new look to it brought about merely by breeding together a new set of gene frequencies in reproductive isolation.

---

You mean that you say that. But can you produce a single example where we know that is all there is to it ? Indeed, given that mutation plays a role even in the case of domestic breeding - with far shorter timescales - shouldn’t we expect mutations to play a part in speciation ?Can you offer an explanation of how reproductive isolation develops that is more than speculation - at least for the case where it is impossible to produce fertile offspring ? Wasting reproductive effort - mating with no chance of success - would be a definite selective disadvantage.Because so far you haven’t addressed either point with any real evidence.

Yes Faith the moth is still a moth. But how many times have you denied that beneficial mutations can change a phenotype? The moth's change of colour was not plasticity it was a mutation.Now you have to explain why many mutations like that one can't build to species change. Macroevolution is microevolution plus time.

Oh but mutations ...That is the answer. I don't think you know what the actual question is.

I think we might agree on the facts but disagree about the way I described them. What you describe does to me seem to be mutation playing a nearly zero role in breeding, which is what I said that you originally disagreed with. If 99.99% of breeders (I'm guestimating, of course) never experience a useful mutation in their breeding stock during their entire breeding career, then that seems pretty close to zero. Useful mutations do occur every once in a long while, but that's what nearly zero is. (I use the word "useful" instead of "beneficial" to distinguish between traits useful to the breeder versus traits beneficial to the organism.)The important point I was making for Dredge is that mutation plays almost no role in breeding. Of course the occasional breeder lucks out into a useful mutation, but that's a very rare occurrence. There's nothing going on in breeding that causes useful mutations to appear any more frequently than beneficial mutations in the wild. Its an uncommon occurrence.Even more rare is for a breeder who is breeding for a particular trait to have his breeding stock experience a mutation relevant to that trait, that is, a mutation that produces a change in the direction of the trait the breeder desires. That's probably never happened in the history of breeding.And probably most of the useful mutations in domestic animal populations didn't even occur in animals that were part of a breeding program. They occurred in farmers' or ranchers' cows or pigs or horses or chickens and spread from there, not from any breeder. And possibly some of the mutations you mention are the kind that pop up with regularity, the way down syndrome mutations pop up in humans with regularity.But another important point for Dredge to take away from this is that breeding stocks do experience mutations, probably at pretty much the same rate as equivalent species in the wild. But most mutations have no apparent effect. They occur in a non-coding region or they result in the same protein or other things like that.--Percy

Only because you refuse to understand the many simple explanations.Let's take eye color as an example. The father has BB, the mother has Bb. The child could have BB or Bb but not bb, because only one parent has one b.No mutations.But if there is a mutation in the b gene the mother has, the child gets BB or B. is a new gene that is probably very similar to b, but is not the same as b. It was created by the mutation. It did not pre-exist. it's very unlikely it exists anywhere else, and if it does it's because it arose independently.There are only two types of genes in the inherited genome; those that are the same as the mother's or the father's, and those that are different. The latter is the definition of mutation; a change that makes something that is not the same as the mother or father but is brand new, created at some point during the process.

So let's hypothesize a breeding program that lasts millions of years whose only goal is to produce a new species. That means any new species, not some specific species like whales. Over millions of years many, many active mutations will arise, and so a new species seems inevitable. Over the course of millions of years just genetic drift alone should produce a new species.The reason is that genetic copying during reproduction is imperfect. Changes from the original DNA (mutations) inevitably creep in, for humans at the rate of about 100 mutations per offspring, the vast majority having no apparent effect. Given the imperfectness of genetic copying during reproduction it is impossible for genomes to remain unchanged across time. Change is unavoidable. Species are inconstant.--Percy

Since the usual predictable (and I dare say mindless) debunkery has been the only response to my posts I figure I'll probably just go watch some Netflix for a while. I'm working my way through "Forensic Files." Taq deserves an answer though. Maybe later.But you said something here I want to answer:First to acknowledge that I know humans are not said to have evolved from chimps but from a shared ancestor. Yes, but for the moment taking the chimp as the ancestor we descended from, the task is getting ALL the keratin differences in the chimp body to become human keratin. Is this going to happen bit by bit, fingernail by fingernail or is there a place in the DNA that governs the whole thing? And since you note that there are recognizable differences between chimp and human organs and bones although we have the same organs and bones, evolution has the task of making all those "small" changes in all those parts of the body. Seems to me that's a case of the usual wishful thinking that fuels all the assumptions of the ToE. The smallness of the differences doesn't really make a difference since the overall changes that have to happen are really enormous. You are of course assuming that the differences you are talking about were brought about by mutations. You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway? This doesn't get spelled out every time someone makes such a statement. The mutations, to matter, have to be in the germ cells, but not saying so leaves the discussion in a suspended state. Anyway, according to my model -- yes I believe in my model -- the chimp genome is simply the chimp genome. It may have variability built into it but not the kind of variability that could eventually make a human being. And as I keep arguing, which keeps getting treated llke trash, you don't need mutations to produce even a dramatically new population of any given species. This may not be possible with the apes because they've already differentiated as far as they are going to, but it seems to happen with lizards and cattle and wildebeests, AND even now if a small human population isolated itself for many generations it would likely acquire a distinctive new look. It would be a new race. This is really what I wanted to answer, but I got into the rest anyway. To my mind the structural differences are enormous despite the similarities. The whole posture of the body has to change, the torso has to shorten and straighten, the legs have to lengthen and straighten, the feet have to become feet, the arms have to shorten, the spine has to straighten, the skull has to make some pretty dramatic changes and get repositioned on the neck, the nose has to change dramatically, the mouth and teeth have to become much smaller and repositioned in the skull, and of course the brain has to undergo some enormous changes, etc etc etc. I don't see how mutations could do any of this no matter how much time you give them. And I'm pretty sure that the differences between the supposed shared ancestor and human beings would be on a similar order. I think this is all a pipe dream.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Since the usual predictable (and I dare say mindless) debunkery has been the only response to my posts

---

I suppose getting serious answers gets in the way of your pretence.
But if you don’t like getting debunked don’t write bunk.

quote:

---

Yes, but for the moment taking the chimp as the ancestor we descended from, the task is getting ALL the keratin differences in the chimp body to become human keratin.

---

That isn’t really a problem though. If we are just talking about minor variations in the structure of a protein then it’s pretty much expected. There will be minor variations, and unless there is something very special about them then they’re just the ones that happened to turn up.

quote:

---

Is this going to happen bit by bit, fingernail by fingernail or is there a place in the DNA that governs the whole thing?

---

It’s complicated by the fact that there is more than one keratin in the body. But a keratin is just a protein, and changes to the gene which codes that protein will change every instance that gene is responsible for. So the finger and toenails would all change together (as well as anywhere else that got keratin from that particular gene)

quote:

---

And since you note that there are recognizable differences between chimp and human organs and bones although we have the same organs and bones, evolution has the task of making all those "small" changes in all those parts of the body. Seems to me that's a case of the usual wishful thinking that fuels all the assumptions of the ToE. The smallness of the differences doesn't really make a difference since the overall changes that have to happen are really enormous.

---

We’re talking about small changes to a few genes and you think it is a big problem ?

quote:

---

You are of course assuming that the differences you are talking about were brought about by mutations. You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway? This doesn't get spelled out every time someone makes such a statement. The mutations, to matter, have to be in the germ cells, but not saying so leaves the discussion in a suspended state.

---

Of course it’s the mutations in the germ cells we are talking about because those are the only ones that can accumulate from generation to generation. This is another mistaken objection.

quote:

---

This is really what I wanted to answer, but I got into the rest anyway. To my mind the differences are enormous despite the similarities. And I see enormous structural changes too. The whole posture of the body has to change, the legs have to lengthen and straighten out, the feet have to become feet, the arms have to shorten, the spine has to straighten, the skull has to make some pretty dramatic changes and get repositioned on the neck, the nose has to change dramatically, the mouth and teeth have to become much smaller and repositioned in the skull, and of course the brain has to undergo some enormous changes, etc etc etc

---

But are any of those really massive changes from the perspective of developmental biology. Similar - or larger - differences seemed pretty small to you when you were talking about trilobites. You should probably consider the variations shown in earlier hominids, too.Anyway when this came up before I advised you to look into neoteny
- which is a big part of the picture.

quote:

---

I don't see how mutations could do any of this no matter how much time you give them

---

Yet you can see similar differences as just normal within-species variation. When it is convenient for your position.

I hope you and caffeine won't mind but I was in the area and stopped in for a visit. Yes to the DNA. No, it was not a “task” to be performed. Evolution couldn’t care less about task. It was what happened. For the longest time we didn’t know why/how but with centuries of concentrated study we now have the chemistry pretty much nailed down. We know how it happened. The rocks and the chemistry are quite clear in what happened.We can’t say with certainty each granular step that took place, there is missing data, but, in detail finer than mere broad line, we know the connections. We’re talking only mutations in germline cells not somatic cells. Germline cells have some of the most wonder ways of leaving the body taking their mutations with them. It shouldn’t. The rest of us in this discussion seem to understand the references. We know we’re talking germline. May I ask how you didn’t? Really doesn’t matter whether mutations were necessary or not. Fact is, and we know the facts M’Lady, that mutations did the trick quite well. We’ve seen them in the lab. We can create them. We know how they work. We can see their effect on populations in the far past sitting there in our own genome.We really are good at chemistry. Well, that is what happened, more or less, and we have just boatloads of evidence. You can disagree all you want but that isn’t going to change

Well, that was a bust. Thanks at least for affirming that you are always talking about germline mutations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I pointed this out to her clear back in Message 25

It's come up before that the location isn't clear so I asked.

You all cannot change my mind by asserting your own beliefs and your expertise to determine their truth. You are so sure of yourselves you aren't interested in entertaining anything I say or how I arrived at it, I'm just wrong and that's the end of it. I don't find that at all convincing, you're just being arrogant know-it-alls, and yes, of course, I'm going to continue with my own beliefs, you've affected nothing, you're just being offensive and arrogant. So the conversation is over, you think you won and that's where it always goes.

"Don't bother me with facts, I've made up my mind."