Summations Only

I've merely skimmed through this thread, and I don't have a comment on the various scientific questions discussed, but it does seem to me that the main thing about the peppered moth has barely been touched on: that is, creationists have NO problem with new varieties brought about by natural selection. It may have been fudged or staged or miscalculated or misinterpreted or anything, but assuming it's 100% legitimate, creationists should have no objection to it. This is completely in keeping with what we expect from the ability of a Kind to vary and adapt.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : improved wording

We don't have a definition yet, that's just the way it is. Eventually we may. Meanwhile there are other angles to argue.This is kuresu's post listing a lot of hybrids, that it seemed to me could be a start toward at least finding the boundaries of a Kind, in MJFloresta's thread, Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution. Most about at the Family level but not all, showing that the taxonomic tree isn't necessarily the way to the Kind.Then I've argued that the natural processes of variation and selection ultimately arrive at a limit where no further speciation is possible, on various threads, including the one going on now, Ben's thread What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?, and my old threadNatural limitation to Evolutionary Processes. MJF argues similarly on his thread.This may not give us a precise definition of a Kind, but if such a limit is recognized to be the inevitable outcome as I think it is, then that's at least demonstrating that macroevolution can't happen. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn't a browser problem. Something in the posts is creating impossibly long lines. I just clicked on this thread to give it a read and found I can't.

I didn't contribute much to this thread but I did contribute so I get to write a summary which of course will simply say that the peppered moth is NOT evidence of the ToE. I see that many have as usual slammed the Creationist understanding of this, called us liars and so on, but it is a major tenet of Creationism that the different Kinds have build in variation, which explains the ability to adapt to different circumstances that threaten survival. This natural variation is co-opted to the Theory of Evolution by the notion that there is nothing to stop it from continuing beyond the genome of the Kind to form new Kinds.GHowever, there is plenty to stop it. Variation is as simple as the Mendelian formula that has led to the recognition two alleles per gene that determine such things as pink versus white flowers or blue versus brown eyes. One gene with two alleles accounts for that. Most traits are governed by many genes so that there are a lot more than those two possibilities for variation of any particular trait than just those. Two alleles per gene is quite enough to code for great variety in any given trait.As for Natural Selection, that may occur with varieties of the same species, no need to assume evolution beyond that.And of course the idea that inability to interbreed between any two forms of the same creature as the definition of speciation or the formation of a new species is just a completely artificial meaningless standard.The idea that mutation is what makes evolution beyond this possible is countered by the fact that all mutation can do is vary whatever the gene governs, it can't produce a new trait only a change in how the given trait is expressed: if flower color or eye color it will produce at best another color.I've also argued at length that there is a built in natural barrier to evolution beyond the genome of the Kind, in that wherever particular traits are selected, part6icular alleles for certain traits that is, or in other words homozygosity is selected for those traits and reproduction is isolated from other individuals of the species, you are going to get new traits, new phenytypic expressions that cause the new population to differ in appearance from the old, that are built upon LESS genetic diversity. As long as reproductive isolation is maintained this will always been the direction of variation, there will always be the formation of new populations with disztinctive traits that are fomed by the loss of genetic diversity from the original population.In any case the peppered moths show normal variation, and in fact it's awfully limited too, between a light colored version and a dark colored version. There is nothing whatever in this normal genetic fact to support the idea of getting anything other than a moth out of this built in genetic system.ABE; Interesting that the next summarizer here accuses me of failing to address evidence given in the thread, which I assume would be evidence that you can get something other than a moth by the same means that gets you different colored moths, so what I find interesting is that he didn't bother to produce any of that evidence although he is very generaous with the insults. Such evidence one would think would be important in a Summary of such a thread. Guess not. Of course there is no such evidence, it's all makebelieve.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.