A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

You must be losing the argument, MJ. You've given up trying to prove your assertion. Now you're reduced to asking the other side to prove it for you. No 'grand and sweeping assumptions' are necessary. It's how things work. Steady accumulations of small changes add up over time. Deposit minerals drop by drop onto a cave floor over a long enough period of time and you have a stalagmite. Throw spare change into a jar over a long enough period of time and you get a substantial amount of money.You're trying to make this common observation sound like an unfounded sweeping assumption of the kind you have been making. But the fact remains that the gradual accumulation of small changes can add up to big change. Everyone observes this in the world. It is a common observation.What would stop minerals from building on the cave floor? What would stop coins from accumulating? Until you can show us that something does, we have every reason to expect small changes to accumulate. No one looks for obstacles because there is no reason to think they exist.We know change happens. There is no evidence that anything stands in the way of further change. There is plenty of evidence that changes do in fact build over time, and that this kind of change takes living things a long way. So the burden of proof is on anyone who denies this.If you think obstacles exist, produce the evidence.If you don't have any evidence, admit that you don't.Either way, be a Mensch about it. It's silly to complain that others who have no reason to entertain your hypothesis are not doing your research for you. Wave a white flag, or get off your butt and launch a research effort..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The first task is to make sense of your declaration. What do you mean by 'novel organs'?Do you mean fully functioning organs growing where none existed before? Do you mean new functions for existing structures? Both? Something else?Please clarify.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Still awaiting MJ's definition of 'novel' organs.Does the evolution of a new organ count as 'novel' if an organ with that precise function didn't exist before? Or does it not count as 'novel' because the new organ assigns new functions to features that already existed?I look forward to your clarification, MJ, so we may present you with the information you requested.Please note that if nothing satisfies your definition except a fully functioning organ popping out of nowhere at once--then it is we who must ask you for evidence. In that case you are demanding to see an example of special creation, not evolution. You, not others, bear the responsibility of demonstrating your own point..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

mark24: That's true. MJ's drop of that gauntlet did take us off topic.Of course, MJ had to try something. The argument was lost. No evidence exists for a barrier.A thread does exist on the subject of evolution of 'novel traits.' It began with a challenge very much like MJ's, using wings as an example.The thread already has some good material on coelurosaur-bird evolution. It's grown quieter lately but it still has plenty of miles left on it. We can take this topic there if you want.What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?
http://EvC Forum: What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise? -->EvC Forum: What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added link.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

alexcj: Good point. And welcome to EvC!

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

mjfloresta: This is one way you have defined kinds: at the species level, the level defined by the possibility of interbreeding. But you have also balked at this same placement when you were trying to fit pairs of each kind, including fossil forms, onto Noah's Ark. Then you tried to take your definition much higher in the taxonomic tree, approximating the Family level, while still insisting that this definition met the 'constraints' of your interbreeding criterion.Page 1 of Hypermacroevolution thread:
http://EvC Forum: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution -->EvC Forum: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

mjfloresta: I don't see a real difference on this point. You haven't negated the statement about 'all diversity.' You have just added more detail--'within the kind'--for clarification. On this thread I think you can take the added detail as an acknowledged feature of your point of view.Creationists do have the task of explaining all the diversity that exists among living things in a scientifically testable way. This is true however you subdivide that diversity ('kinds') or rely on those subdivisions in your explanation.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

mjfloresta: You are discussing the distinction between different species here, not the breeding possibilities within a single species. A single species is indeed identified as a group of creatures that can breed and produce fertile offspring. It's very close to the established definition of species. The 'artifical insemination' possibiliity, which you always take care to mention, gets around some practical issues involved in the physical act of mating. It does not fundamentally change the genetic relationship that has to exist. Then let's get it straight for everyone where you say you have always placed it: approximating the Family level, while still insisting that this definition meets the constraint of interbreeding as a criterion.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.