A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Breeding is not evolution by natural selection.Selection is only half of evolution. The other half is mutation. If we are going to simulate natural selection with breeding, then we should also simulate mutation with genetic engineering.Enjoy

.. fact (there, corrected it for you). This has been observed, and you keep ignoring it or dismissing it.The trouble is creationists don't want just a new species, the want something more impressive - exemplified by the OP: ... to reconnect to the op of this thread (not another faith-olution fantasy thread).The answer lies in mutation and selection, which in turn requires multiple generations ... for each of the multitude of speciation evolutions required along the way. As noted in Message 3, "If we are going to simulate natural selection with breeding, then we should also simulate mutation with genetic engineering."Expanding on this the process, the implied simulation of the actual known natural history of evolution of whales on earth would entail:

1. take individuals from all the many rodent like species available (although tapirs and pigs would be more accurate)
2. provide an environment similar to, but wetter, than their previous environments
3. select the healthiest survivors, make single genetic changes to each individuals reproductive gametes that would make them closer to the whale genomes available, and breed them randomly
4. take the offspring and
   • if they are whale-like, then you are done
   • if they are not whale-like, repeat from step 2
   • if they all perish, start over from the beginning

Note that this is a "do-loop" in programing language, repeating simple steps until the desired result is obtained or the world ends.It should be stunningly obvious that this would be a massive undertaking that would span hundreds if not thousands or even millions of generations of dedicated scientists ...... simply to prove to thickheaded creationists that evolution really happens, that the evidence available is large and increasing every day, and it shows that evolution has happened in the past, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best known explanation for the diversity of life as we know it, from the genetic evidence, from the fossil evidence, from the changes in life observed in history and pre-history. What stunning arrogant nonsense, based on wilful ignorance, of course. Of course you have been answered, many times - you just ignore it. Both of you.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

As I said -- denial and wilful ignorance of the known facts.No point in continuing with you on this thread and letting you repeat all your refuted nonsense.Bye.

Still wrong. Actual evolution does not involve direction, it is a reactive selection system. To mimic/simulate the mutations that had occurred along the path the actual natural history of the evolution of whales took, you would need to add genetic engineering to give that path taken.Rodents is really not a proper starting selection, as has been noted. Better would be pigs or hippos (Artiodactyla, even-toed ungulates like whales). Because mutations are random.Because breeding alone cannot simulate the actual random mutations that occurred in the past.Because mutations are a critical part of "naturally-occurring evolution" and you would need to simulate the actual historical mutations that had occurred. The bigger question is why do you think it is necessary to attempt to convince close-minded creationists like you and Faith that macroevolution occurred by simulating steps along a massive and extensive evolutionary path that has already occurred.

​

Why doesn't the actual evidence of observed speciation/macroevolution suffice, and why would multiple repetitious observations of similar actual speciation/macroevolution events convince you any more than the existing evidence.Enjoy

That was to Faith, not Dredge

So you want to breed a whale that lives on dry land. Fascinating show of ignorance.To replicate what occurred in the evolution from an even-hoofed ungulate (not a rodent) you need to replicate the ecological changes that occurred as well, or your artificial selection will not be capable of replicating what natural selection did.Whales don't live on dry land, or are you unaware of that as well. Wrong. We do know how macroevolution occurs. Remember this (I've posted it to you before): The process of anagenesis -- lineal evolution -- with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.The process of cladogenesis -- divergent evolution -- with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). Again, if you really want to replicate what occurred you have to replicate the random mutations that occurred (changes in the composition of hereditary traits), as the likeliness of them reoccurring randomly are as close to zero as any IDologist would have an orgasm over. The only reasonable way to replicate that is to genetically engineer mutations that would increase similarity between genomes of your even-hoofed ungulate (not a rodent) and whales.If you're going to simulate natural selection with artificial selection to simulate evolutionary history, then you need to simulate natural mutation with artificial mutation or your simulation is a half-vast model doomed to failure.Again, Fascinating show of ignorance. And wrong again. Evolution occurs by trial and error, so to replicate it you need to involve trial and error. You need trial and error to provide a basis for your artificial selection or all you will accomplish is in-breeding and your simulation would be a half-vast model doomed to failure..So, again, yet another Fascinating show of ignorance.Enjoy

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAEnjoy

One approach that comes to mind is using the definitions instead of the words, that should add some clarity.Enjoy

Not how it works.As Tangle said in Message 210To expand on this, mutations occur, randomly. When they are non-deleterious they can be preserved (you get a mixed population of individuals 'with' and 'without' mutation). If they are beneficial the individuals with the mutation propagate more favorably than individuals without the mutation, because they survive/reproduce better with the mutation.This "just show up" concept is a typical mistake for people that do not know evolution processes.Enjoy

It didn't. The light colored moths were not in danger of extinction, as there were areas they inhabited that were not darkened by coal soot.The mutation happened, then it proved beneficial and spread, allowing the dark moths to exist in the sooty areas. So the dark moths flourished in the sooty areas while the light moths stayed in the non-sooty areas. Turning it into a coincidence is your way to ignore what happened. You need to really think about it -- as you keep telling us to think about your comments. The same way the light colored moths existed during the sooty times, by inhabiting darker shadier environments (like deep woods).We saw this same change in habitat behavior with the pocket mice when they evolved a dark version. Of course you are, it is your favorite dodge to avoid what really happened.You need to think about this some more. At some point "the usual built in variant" evolved ...Enjoy.

Welcome to the fray, 4petdinos, Faith will (likely) tell you they emerge when evolution depletes the genome and loses the more dominant variations. Or something like that IIRC.Enjoy

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

It should.According to you and your interpretation of biblical verse and your claim of supporting gospel documentation, all creatures, plants, etc reproduce according to their original created kind.Cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, etc, and further, what ever is produced from cats reproduction will always be a cat, what ever is produce from dogs reproduction will always be a dog, etc etc and so forth.According to your model (as I understand it), devolution occurs through loss of genetic variations, with different losses in different branches of devolution until you see the varieties of cats (including lions and tigers and domestic cats) we see today, and until you see hte varieties of dogs (including wolves and foxes and domestic dogs).All mutations will not produce an offspring from cats that is not a cat, and all mutations will not produce an offspring of dogs that is not a dog. They will always reproduce according to their kind.The cat kind should form a nested hierarchy from the original created kind to the variations/varieties of cats living in the world today. Including lions and tigers and domestic cats.The dog kind should form a nested hierarchy from the original created kind to the variations/varieties of dogs living in the world today. Including wolves and foxes and domestic dogs.There should be evidence supporting these descents from original created kinds, and they should form nested hierarchies -- because they all reproduce according to their own kind.These nested hierarchies exist.They should be part of your model, and your model should explain them, and it does explain them by saying that they, and all other life forms on earth reproduce according to their kind. It shouldBecause otherwise, how do you explain these observed and documented nested hierarchies for cat kinds and dog kinds that comply with your interpretation of biblical verse and your claim of supporting gospel documentation, that all creatures, plants, etc reproduce according to their original created kind? and what pattern of historical and other data should result from your model if not nested hierarchies?Enjoy

Then "kinds" is all subjective anyway. Of course that is how it appears when creationists try to use it. It doesn't "prove" it -- it is a prediction fulfilled that validates the theory of evolution. Descent that doesn't fit in a nested hierarchy (say a cross between donkey and a house cat) would invalidate the theory.This is because The traits of the offspring are a combination of {edit}some of{/edit} the traits from each parent plus some mutations. The mutations cause small changes in traits in each generation, which can be passed on to the next generation, and this leaves a trail of accumulated mutations. The traits don't come from other sources, so those traits can be used to see if there is a nested hierarchy, either morphological or genetic traits can be used with similar results.Basic microevolution.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : edit noted

and there I thought it was the quarterback for the NE Patriots ...