A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

That's exactly right.That's why the subtitle of the theory of evolution is often taken to be "decent with modification". Modification is essential. That's just your opnionI think the burden is upon you to show that it isn'tonly because you refuse to accept the evidence

Your position seems to hold no water. In one hand you accept that mutations do happen, in real life. You also accept that these mutations sometimes may be benefical. (You had to accept these to points because they have been observed directly). But then you refuse to accept that these benefical mutations might play an important role in the increase of genetic variability (number of alleles) in a population??? how come? and you give us no good reason for not accepting this. Tell me why don't you accept the logical consequence of benefical mutations? namely - new alleles.

How so?

you did not address anywhere in your post my quaestion about why new organs should be seen as difficult to achieve by a sequence of mutations. You simply say that it is a problem but give no reason for it. That's not very convincing

Do you have any reason but your own incredulity to doubt that mutations (an empirically observed fact) over time will add up and create novel lifeforms with (yes) new organs? I ask because all you've given was a argument of incredulity which not very convincing at all.

There you go again declaring the creation of novel organs an obstacle without given any reason for it. This kid of argument is really good for nothing. That's why I called it an argument of incredulity. You are basically saying "I can't believe random mutations could create novel organs"(Not your real words, but that's how they come across). I'm sorry, but that's an argument of incredulity.

But you give us no reasoning behind your declaration. it is bare and is completely pointless for that reason. What observation??? You made a declaration. The burden is on you to back it up. I didn't say anything. I'm just sitting here and waiting for you to back up your declarations with some substance and I'm not getting anything fast.

I suppose that your post 83 was intended for MJ, but was addressed to me by mistake

Would you care to tell us what kind of evidence are you looking for and why is it that you find it lacking? It sounds to me that you simply have unreasonable expectations. I can't tell for sure since you haven't told us what are your expectations. Another unsubstantiated bare declaration. Now you're just being facetious

That's right, and to prove that the sun is 150 million kilometers away we have to walk over there and count all the steps on the way because all we have right now are inferences.Edited by fallacycop, : tyo

Funny how these previously rare alleles just keep being the ones that turn out to be preserved in the populations, no matter how unlikely that might be.What you are telling us is: You haven't proved me wrong, I can still hang on to that thin thread of possibility that every thing might be explainable without mutations since you have not proved that mutations are the real explanation for these phenomena.Then you go ahead and say : Granted that mutations do happen (and I found myself convinced that some of them might even be benefical in the other thread because I couldn't think of anything else and now it's to late to go back), granted that mutations would explain many of these observations, But you have not proven your case beyond unresonable doubt (After all there is the thin possibility that every one of these cases might be the result of selection of previously uncommom alleles(no matter how (un)likely that might be))What you are missing (off course) is the fact that to prove that there is no barrier to macroevolution (whatever that word means) we don't need to prove that all these(or a single one for that matter) are really bonafide cases of benefical muations. All that has to be shown is that it could have been. If mutation could have done the job then there is no real barrier.To top it off, the burden of proof here lies squarely on your shoulders (whether you like it or not) because there is plenty of evidence that different species have commom uncestrals (human and chimps for instance), to the point that it is completely unreasonable to doubt that benefical mutations exist (even if we had no direct evidence whatsoever) unless you could come up with some reasoning to why should we believe that mutations could not do the job (which you have not).

Says who?

You should be telling us what's wrong with the mutation explanation instead of asking what's wrong with your alternate cumbersome explanation since the the title of the thread makes it clear that some kind of barrier to the evolution process was to be expected to be presented in here (none has been presented so far)

You have already accepted that benefical mutations can happen. A logical consequence of mutations is an increase in the number of alleles. To say that mutations happen but won't create new alleles makes absolutly no sense whatsoever and come to show how irracional your reasoning really is.It's also clear that you have given up trying to show that evolution is wrong and have been reduced to trying to show that we have not proven it right. But the title of the thread makes it clear that some sort of barrier to mutations was going to be presented. instead of presenting that barrier you've been telling us that may be it exists since we have not proven that it doesn't.Why should anybody waist time trying to show that an imaginary problem with the theory doesn't exist when there is no reason to believe that it does to begin with?

May be you skiped the word benefical while perusing my post All but benefial mutations