A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

quote:

---

All changes in DNA are called mutations by eve-os, that's not evidence

---

A change in DNA is a mutation by definition. So we’re back to your weird ideas about what constitutes “evidence”

quote:

---

But there is no need to discuss the religious basis of the theory, it should be possible to discuss the theory itself without all that

---

The evidence is conclusively against a recent Creation.There is strong evidence of evolutionary relationships between species you assume to be separate creations.Your assumption of original perfect genomes seems to lack any evidence at all. And it needs significant work before it even deserves scientific consideration (your ideas about the variation in the immune system have obvious problems).In fact I think I can safely say that your ”theory” is entirely based on religion, lacks an adequate model and struggles to even account for the evidence (indeed it’s more about ad hoc attempts to explain the evidence away).Since your theory lacks any solid basis in evidence, if we stick to science, we should dismiss it because the evidence overwhelmingly favours the mainstream view over yours. The religious basis is your main case - you haven’t got anything else worth talking about (as we have seen).

Yep, you called it. It's not that funny any more. Pointless.

quote:

---

In biology, a mutation is the alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA.[1]

---

The moth's DNA was changed by a mutation which changed its colour. In this case, it is quite literally black and white.

But you don't seem to get why I have a doubt about that. It's just a bald assertion that "a mutation is an alteration of the nucleotide sequence..." But a built in variant is also a different nucleotide sequence. You have to say more to prove it's a mutation and not just a built in variant or allele. How do you KNOW an "alteration" occurred? It sounds llke it's just assumed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it needs evidence, but it is a coherent model and stating that much is enough for me for now, whatever attempts anyone makes to undermine it.It's possible to describe it without any reference at all to its biblical origin, and therefore it should be possible to discuss it without that too. So here's another attempt to lay it out:

• Separate Kinds/Species are the original Creation. There is no Universal Common Ancestor, only a species-specific common ancestor from which all variations on that species descend.
• Each has its own genome that reproduces that Kind/Species and nothing else, with variations that show up in each generation.
• The cat genome makes only cats, all sorts of interesting cats, big cats, little cats, longhaired cats, shorthaired cats, different colors of cats, but all of them are unmistakably cats. Same with all other sexually reproducing animals.
• ALL the variations of cats are built into the cat genome, nothing further is needed to produce every cat variation that exists or ever existed.
• Mutations are mistakes that may or may not affect the phenotype, but they are not useful at all and sometimes produce disease.
• New "species" of any animal arise when a portion of the gene pool is reproductively isolated from the main population so that a new set of gene frequencies brings out sometimes dramatically new phenotypes through generations of breeding within the smaller population. Sometimes a more drastic form of "natural selection" may be the isolating factor, but simple geographic isolation is all it takes.
• The formation of a separate, usually smaller, population, whether geographically isolated or selected some other way, including genetic drift, involves the reduction of genetic diversity in that new population. Whenever this selecting-isolating situation occurs there will always be genetic reduction. You can see this in domestic breeding most clearly, and yes I think domestic breeding serves well to demonstrate this point. But it must be going on in each subsequent species of a ring species, and in the blue wildebeests that split off from the main herd, and in the Pod Mrcaru lizards, and in the Jutland cattle. Evolution can't happen unless there is such a genetic reduction because the new phenotype is built on a specific set of genetic variants and all other genetic variants have to be eliminated for it to emerge. That's how you get domestic breeds and it must also be how all wild subspecies emerge, how you get a new population of, say, raccoons, with distinctively different markings from a population they emigrated from.
• It should be possible to produce evidence for this latter point in a laboratory with small sexually reproducing animals.

And maybe there's more but that's a start to define my model.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.

I know why you have a doubt. You keep telling us why you can't accept facts that you disagree with. It's not an assertion, it's what science defines it as. They spent 15 years looking for the damn thing. It's what molecular biologists do and you haven't the first clue about. Read the damn paper.

I read the part you quoted. But actually, I was responding to the generalization in that recent post and not to the moth example as such. However, I think I did say earlier that the article wasn't convincing either. There is this tendency to talk as if something is a mutation with a great sense of certainty without giving any real evidence to demonstrate it.

I'm not encouraging you or anyone to give up but do want to note that you're all facing what will probably be an unending "wash, rinse, repeat" style approach where the evidence is ignored or declared indecipherable when presented, followed later by a denial that any evidence was ever presented, forcing you to repeat the presentation of evidence which is again ignored or declared indecipherable, etc.I'm curious about this "other model." For example, which member of the cat family is the original cat from the ark that contains all the built-in DNA that gave rise to all the other cats? Should be easy to identify since it's DNA would be a combination of all the DNA of all other cats.--Percy

As Taq noted in Message 270 both were doing fine in areas where light coloration was beneficial, and the mutation for darker coloration was deleterious in those areas, but beneficial in darker ecologies where the lighter coloration was deleterious. No, both colors were not always available, the darker coloration became available as a result of the mutations.You keep asking about beneficial mutations and these are examples. Remember this? Let me expand on that:

1. ... changes in the composition of hereditary traits, ... → mutations.
2. ... changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation ... → natural selection
3. ... in response to ecological challenges ... → survival in dark areas difficult for light colored individuals
4. ... and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success ... → dark areas provided opportunity for dark colored individuals to grow, develop, survive and reproduce
5. ... in changing or different habitats. → as a result, population expands into different habitat

Classbook evolution, including beneficial mutations, natural selection, and responses to shifting environments/ecologies. It even shows how a mutation can be deleterious in one ecological habitat and beneficial in another, ie - that mutations on their own are not necessarily beneficial or harmful.Enjoy

The evidence is in the peer reviewed research paper. If you can't trust us or the extracts you're going to have to read it.van’t Hof, A. et al. 2016. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element. Nature 534:102-105.AbE: Go to this page and click on the "Download full-text PDF" button to get a copy of the technical paper.Edited by Admin, : Add link to the download button for the technical paper.

Correct, sort of. A mutation is defined as a change in a DNA sequence. Therefore a change in DNA sequence is a mutation by definition.

Your disallowed words list grows with every negative comment you direct at people in any thread. I then add the critical words to your list. Thus does your vocabulary continue to diminish. In this latest post you lost the ability to use the words "hardwired" and "box" because you used them to in essence call Taq close minded, and also all words based on "censor" and "suspend", and also "mad".Your vocabulary is constrained beyond just the words in your list because your attempts to get around the constraints have forced me to use wildcarding for most of the words in your list. That is why, for example, you can't use the word "like", because the wildcarded version of "lie" is "l\S?iS?e\S?", which will also remove "like" and "lice" and "lime" and so forth. Your use of "ha te" for "hate" forced me to add both "ha" and "te" to the list, so now you can no longer say "ha te", but you can also no longer say "ha ha".You're not the only one with a non-empty disallowed word list. You may have noticed that you haven't been called a stupid, crazy blithering idiot of a moron lately, nor a troll.

Changes from each other. We can call them differences if you like. But they are different sequences, right?Do you agree that different sequences can both be beneficial? If differences can be beneficial, then why can't differences caused by mutation also be beneficial?