Trueorigins critique of Macroevolution

I've been reading A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" so I thought I'd take the first critique and see if I can get some interest.

quote:

---

Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits. There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages. Absent specification of a mechanism of descent, which Dr. Theobald purposefully avoids, there is no way to tether the traits of the descendants to those of the common ancestor.

---

The part I put in bold is what caught my attention. What the author seems to be claiming is that there is no reason why the processes of evolution cannot produce offspring completely unlike the parents. While this is supposed to be a refutation of evolution it really betrays a severe misunderstanding of the theory. Can anybody here defend the authors claim?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Without delving into it I can already agree with this. I have no porblem with extra legs, eyes in the worng place, grossly defomed faces occurring. This is how wwe got our dog breeds and cats without fur etc. They are 'genuinely novel' by the usual definition. Would their genome be differnet. Sure - perhaps by only one SNP (a mutaion in one place). Would there be new genes? NO!!! New cellular systems? NO!!!

​

This whole issue is the crux of the matter. The genomes show us the sort of novelty we need to talk about. Any other sort does not distinguish between the two models!

​

The list of DNA in your body is not a list of blobs or fairy floss. It is a list of finely tuned nano-machines that group into factories and structures. So it is dead easy to see how a mutation can grossly change appearences without adding a new part or system.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-28-2002]

---

Are you agreeing with me or with the author? The author seems to be saying that the processes of evolution ought to be able to produce offspring that ARE radically different from the parents. Since we do not see this, then evolution isn't supported. At least, that is how the argument reads to me. I expected you to disagree with that statement based on the debates we've had in the recent past.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The arguement in that critique is a bit too obscure for my quick reading of it. But we do get mutated animlas with extra legs and deformed faces - sometimes nicely defomed (in some people's opinions) - so nice that people make a dog breed out of it. That is utterly expected from moelcular biology whether creaitonist or evoltuionist.

---

So I chalk this critique of macroevolution down as a failure then.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
He is arguing that evolution would instead of predicting biological universals (such as a universal genetic code and similar genomes of organisms), it would predict that they would be different.

---

Right. This is exactly what I find so weird about the article. Why, or how, does evolution predict multiple genetic codes?Its really an issue about starting points, not evolutionary process. I would expect only one genetic code if all animals evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Now if animals evolved from multiple origin-lifeforms, then I would expect multiple genetic codes. It looks like this didn't happen. But either way points to evolution-- different starting points, same evolution.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com