A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form. For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken. How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?"In his recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence of Evolution, Richard Dawkins observes airily that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Yet minutely observant plant breeders, "daily and hourly scrutinizing" their productions (to quote Darwin on natural selection), are unable to turn purple roses into blue ones." (Tom Bethell, Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversal to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name, evolutionnews.org)"The available data of biology indicates that in contrast to evolutionary theories, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that biological change has limits." (Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change, 1984, p.149) Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Quite right - it's evolution by artificial selection.I can't see why an naturally-occurring evolution couldn't theoretically be repeated by a human breeding program - assuming unlimited time is available and the evolutionary mechanisms and direction are known.

"In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)

The only difference between breeding and macroevolution is the former is determined by artificial selection and the latter is determined by natural selection.If you "know how macroevolution occurs" you would know how to breed a whale from its alleged evolutionary ancestor - a rodent-like creature.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

. and since you also "know" the biological mechanism responsible for this alleged evolution, you shouldn't have any trouble explaining how you would (theoretically) go about breeding a whale from its alleged evolutionary ancestor - a "rodent".

If you have no idea how to even begin breeding these alleged ancestral "rodents" towards whale-ness, then I must conclude you have no idea how macroevolution occurs and that your claim to this knowledge is bogus and delusionary.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

No need to go into every precise detail. How would you begin to breed these "rodents" to move them along the path to whale-ness? Would you select those that like to swim? Maybe there are some born with webbed-feet? How would you go about moving their nostrils to the top of their heads?And how would you overcome the problem of decreased genetic diversity every time to select for a desired feature? For example, once you select for those that like to hang out in the ocean, you've immediately reduced the population by a huge percentage - how many of these landlubbing rodents are going to prefer the ocean to land, do you think? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? From this reduced popularion, you then have to select for other desired features. Me thinks you're going to quickly run out of genetic diversity before you can select all the features necessary to progress towards a whale.

Sorry, but I don’t understand your question (which is probably due to the facts that I have a fragile eggshell mind and my IQ is only 9).Btw, do you know how to bred ancient “rodents” so that a whale will eventually evolve?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The fact of the matter is, if you don’t know how to breed ancients “rodents” into a whale, you don’t know how whales evolved and you don't know how macroevolution occurs. Point 1 makes some sense - except you have absolutely no idea how large the rodent population must be. So there’s problem No. 1 for any potential breeding program. If you don’t know how large the initial population must be, this means your knowledge of how macroevolution occurs is based on a certain degree of ignorance and guesswork.Points 2-4 are irrelevant - artificial selection means you don’t need to reply on natural selection. If you don’t know how to artificially select the rodents you need to breed them towards whale-ness, this demonstrates that you don’t know how your alleged evolution occurred.Point 5 indicates that you don’t know how an ancient “rodent” evolved to eventually become a whale. You’re just stabbing in the dark and hoping for the best.Point 6 indicates that your so-called knowledge of whale evolution and how macroevolution occurs is childishly simplistic, based on blind faith and pseudo-science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Whatever. You’re splitting hairs - some articles describe the evolutionary ancestors of whales as a “rodent-like creature”. And I realize that this ancestral creature (whatever it is) is extinct. If you don't know how to breed whales from their ancestral “rodents”, you don't know how whales evolved nor how macroevolution occurs.Can you even explain how the first step in such a breeding program? How are you going to bred these landlubber “rodents” such that a large enough population of them live permanently in the ocean? You don’ need to know what the ancient environment was like and you don't need selection pressures - in the proposed breeding program the necessary features are selected artificially, not naturally. If you dont know which "rodent" features to select, then you don't know how whales evolved. I don't understand this. Breeding leaves mutations out of the equation? Aren’t mutations responsible for the natural variations in dogs, for example, which breeders have exploited to produce hundreds of different breeds? Dog breeders also induce unnatural mutations via inbreeding, which are also selected. Oh, do you mean the imaginary species-vaulting mutations of Darwinist folklore that thousands of years of animal breeding has no evidence of?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It's common knowledge:"Health and welfare problems in pedigree dogs can arise as a result of the deliberate selection for exaggerated physical features or as a result of inherited disease. While some of the following problems can occur in any breed, cross breed or mixed breed dogs, purebred pedigree dogs are at greater risk and appear to be over-represented clinically. This is mainly due to traditional breeding practices.
Difficulty breathing
Difficulty giving birth
Difficulty walking
Serious eye problems
Serious skin problems"Page Not Found | RSPCA Australia So the story goes - which contradicts thousand of years of empirical evidence gathered by animal and plant breeders."In his recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence of Evolution, Richard Dawkins observes airily that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Yet minutely observant plant breeders, "daily and hourly scrutinizing" their productions (to quote Darwin on natural selection), are unable to turn purple roses into blue ones." (Tom Bethell, Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversal to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name, evolutionnews.org)"The available data of biology indicates that in contrast to evolutionary theories, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that biological change has limits." (Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change, 1984, p.149) Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Not necessarily."In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)And btw, the OP did say the breeding program is hypothetical. Time is not a problem, as we talking hypothetically. Which "rodent" feature would you select first in order to get the breeding program rolling down the road towards whales-ness? Hind-legs fused together to form a tail, perhaps?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yet humans remain humans . and dogs remain dogs, water rats remain water rats, E. coli remain E. coli ... funny that.

No need to - a breeding program relies on artificial selection, not natural selection. If you have to rely on genetic engineering to evolve your rodents, you are admitting you don’t know how to breed them in order to eventually produce a whale - in which case you don’t know how whale evolution happened nor how macroevolution occurs. In other words, you don’t know how a whale evolved from a “rodent”. You’re relying on trial’n’error and luck, rather than knowledge.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

LOL! But seriously, Faith, haven’t you seen those polar bears that live full-time in the ocean, whose hind-legs have fused together into sort of a tail, whose front-legs look kinda like flippers and whose nostrils have moved to the top of their heads?