A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

quote:

---

So I suppose you'd claim that any two species which possess cleary distinct organs (with the same function) belong to separate and divergent lineages thus being non-subjectable to experimentation because they lack viable evolutionary routes between them.

---

If the organs are so clearly distinct then that is highly likely. However I did not base my claims on that, but on knowledge of the proposed phyologeny of drosphilia and of humans. i.e. what the relevant part of evolutionary theory actually says.

quote:

---

And Evolution is falsifiable?

---

The fact that your proposed argument is invalid because it is based on ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually proposes is hardly a good argument that evolution is unfalsifiable.

So, do you have any examples of species that possess clearly distinct organs who could possess a viable evolutionary route between them?If not, your theory is unfalsifiable.If yes, then we can finally test the mutational mechanism.

There is a route, backwards from the compound eye to the potentially no-eyed common ancestory and then back up via the speciation event that split the two group and to the development of the non-compound eye. Being that this would require a time machine your requirement that we watch this path is invalid.There is no HORIZONTAL route between a compond eye and a human eye. That is the point you don't seem to understand and it is very obviously founded in a quite severe cae of ignorance of what the ToE actualy says.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I'm not a biologist, just an interested layman. So far as I am aware there is no requirement in evolutionary theory that "clearly distinct" organs performing the same role must be related so that one directly evolved from the other. In fact the more clearly distinct they are the less closely related we would expect them to be, and since evolution can't be assumed to "stay still" in either lineage divergence is expected.

quote:

---

If not, your theory is unfalsifiable.

---

Unfalsifiability requires that there is no concievable evidence that could cause us to reject evolution. It does not require that results that we would expect if a theory were true should be treated as falsifications !

I'm not wondering anything except why you are telling me the obvious... But thre IS much evidence ("proof" is a term more suited to mathematics) in support our current understanding of mutation. All you are "doing" is wilfully ignoring evidence because you have no viable counter-hypothesis.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Describe this route to me; This is an observed genetic phenomenon? Or a speculative description...Let me give you an example; Scientists have replaced the mouse hox gene controlling eye-development with the drosophilia hox gene controlling eye development. The hox genes controlling eye development between these two species are virtually identical. As a result, eye development in the mouse proceeded normally under the direction of the drosophilia hox gene.That's scientific verification.Proposing historical pathways and developments that can't be tested in any way is worthless.

There's a cliche I haven't heard before. Care to show some of this proof?

Eh?Nope....You've lost me!

The existence of God, for example?

At the risk of turning blue in the face at this point, I'm going to give this one more shot.Your contention implicitly claims that the divergence of morphology observed to accompany speciation (or follow it) is solely a result of genetic drift between the two populations resulting in the manifestation of different sets of existing alleles. However, you have previously conceded that mutations can and do occur. Thus mutations would occur in these populations. The only difference is that, with speciation separating the populations, the 'fate' of any given mutation in terms of its final gene frequency (fixation/loss/something intermediate) is completely independent in the two populations. Some mutations could become fixed in one population but lost in the other - either by chance OR by selection.This is precisely why speciation is such a key event - because it isolates gene pools from sharing any subsequent changes in gene frequencies or genotypic norms - HOWEVER these changes may arise. Species, by the biological definition, have unique evolutionary trajectories and fates, thus they are the major units of macro-evolution. There is no 'barrier to macroevolution' above the level of species, simple because each species is henceforth independent (genetically) from all others (barring the exceptional cases of lateral gene transfer). Macroevolution procedes over geological time with the divergence of multiple higher order taxa (Genus, Family, etc.) simply because no taxa above the level of species have anything linking them together genetically - they *must* diverge simply because there is no longer any mechanism that can keep them the same. Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

You stated that there is much evidence for mutations producing novel organs. What evidence are you talking about?

What that is evidence for is that the development of the HOX gene for eyes was present in the common ancestor for both the drosophilia and a mouse.Let me ask you this MJ, do you know what a HOX gene is?The gene in question describes the placement and location of the eyes. IN the case of a fly and a mouse, both of them have 2 eyes located on the head segment of their body near the top. In their common ancestor, the EYE ITSELF may have been nothing more than a light sensitive patch of skin. The only reason anyone is proposing a developmental pathway between the two is because YOU ASKED for INVALID AND IRRATIONAL evidence that there is a HORIZONTAL pathway between the two.That you cannot see that your request is rediculous AND based on a faulty characture of the ToE only inhibits your ability to support your argument. You are doing nothing but torching an effigy of the ToE based on your requirment of lab verified horizontal pathway.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

What i'm hearing is that horizontal pathways don't exist because the species are separate by lineage. But vertical pathways can only be proposed historically but not tested empirically.
And yet, mutation is unreservedly hailed as the 'proven' mechanism accounting for all of life's variation.Do I know what HOX genes are? no, actually I just put three random letters together hoping to randomly arrive at a meaning (hey, this sounds like a familiar concept!!).

Links have been posted all over the place in all three mutation threads. Almost every time they have been ignored.There are lots of scientific papers at sites like Pubmed (Home - PMC - NCBI), but YECs often choose to ignore them because they don't have the means to refute them.This link has some great layman examples...
Are Mutations Harmful?Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
Bacteria that eat nylon
Sickle cell resistance to malaria
Lactose tolerance
Resistance to atherosclerosis
Immunity to HIVThere's loads more out there...Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

None of these evidence of transition or generation of organs