A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

My analogy had nothing to do with the limit or barrier imposed on my jumping and everything to do with the nature of my jumping. By nature, I am incapable of jumping to the moon. Thus it is irelevant whether or not a barrier exists were I actually able to jump to the moon. I can't. That's the point. Not because I have the strength to but I'm blocked by some barrier. I can't.The barrier's never a consideration because I never get there. Now the onus is on the claimant as you say. Contrary to claim, I am not proposing a mechanism that disallows mutations from serving as the mechanism; rather I am denying the claim that mutation is a mechanism capable of accounting for life's diversity.ToE is making the claim, whether you want to recognize it or not.The claim is: There is a mechanism which allows successive changes to accumulate and account for life's diversity. Mutation is that mechanism.That is the crucial claim of modern Darwinianism. It has never been supported empirically.

mjfloresta, No it isn't. You are saying something can't happen. You have to show it. Start a new thread to discuss this claim if you wish. But this thread is about you showing that there is a barrier to evolution. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. The claim here in this thread is not as (quoted) above, but that there is a barrier to macroevolution. It is a positive claim awaiting evidence.Now, please can you present something other than incredulity? 100+ posts is an awfully long time to wait.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I think it's fair to call your own limitations a "barrier" to jumping to the moon. When I call inevitable reduction in genetic diversity the "barrier" to macroevolution it's a similar thing -- it's something built into the system, it just exhausts itself.If the processes of evolution deplete genetic diversity then the theory that change should just keep on happening step by step is countered by the processes of change themselves. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I detect a shifting of goalposts....Denying on what evidence?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This thread is not just about defining the barrier but about the various objections to such definitions of a barrier, and those objections are just as open to refutation as anything else.

This is no shifting of anything. This is what MJ has been arguing, that mutation has not been demonstrated to do what it's claimed to do, that there is nothing but inference and assumption in support of that major doctrine of the ToE that mutation is the engine that drives it all. There is plenty of evidence that mutations occur, but none whatever that they can accomplish what the theory claims they can. The actual evidence tends in the other direction, to deleterious mutations and mutations that kill functions or have no known function, and very few that can even be shown to have a beneficial effect let alone the ability to produce what the ToE claims for them. It's ALL hypotheticals, NO actual proof. On the evidence that the evidence for them is nothing but assumption and inference. On the evidence of the lack of evidence for what is claimed for mutations as capable of bringing about all life.

People have made a claim that there is a barrier. Others have said, what barrier? If I put money aside everyday, what limits how much money gets set aside?Until you and the others can point to such a limiting barrier it is simply a WAG on your part and not anything to be taken seriously.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your objection is word games. The barrier has been shown.

How much you have limits it. This is the barrier.

I have just read an interesting story on evolution ..
I think evolutionists will find this quite fascinating too:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/...toryofEvolution/chap8.htmlSomewhere in the middle they mention mutations as in Mendelism (or Mutationism). Is the modern school of Darwinism an offshoot of this line of thinking?Clearly, they did not know then what scientists know now, but they still talk about mutations.
So my question is: when were the first mutations successfully observed and did scientists ever acknowledge a barrier or was it always assumed that none existed and that this process can carry on indefinitely on changing populations.

Very good.Now how does that limit it?Suppose I continue adding to the pile for the rest of my life?Suppose all of my descendants keep adding to the pile for the rest of their lives?Suppose all of their descendants keep adding to the pile for the rest of their lives?What is the limit on how much money can be in the pile?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This isn't evidence! It's a REJECTION of evidence. A rejection of evidence does not establish your position by default. The common term for this kind of assumption is "God in the Gaps".Do you or do you not have a counter-hypothesis to mutation that attempts to explain the diversity of life on the the planet and tallies with evidence from other scientific fields?Or do you you just have the Bible?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

From:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040429/brainsize.shtmland closer to the horse's mouth:
Web Site Not FoundThis study shows the differences in one of the genes controling brain development.The kind of changes involved are exactly what one expects from evolutionary models. They show that changes that we know are possible from mutations can, indeed, add up to significant developments; in thi case the larger, more complex brains of humans (well, of most anyway, ).It seems from this work that, if there is any barrier, it is NOT in the development paths from the brain of a lemur to us.You have refused to say (or don't have a clue) what you are looking for. If this isn't it you'll have to be much more specific.This is a look at the places where your barrier should show up. It didn't (again). Why is that?

How about the evolution of headlegs, which is the result of a single homeotic mutation? That does raise questions about your view that: It seems rather that the origin of new structures arise from changes in the coordinated development of the body plan, and that peturbations don't necessarily result in lethality. The coordination of the developmental process still exists, only its timing or location of action has changed. The coordination of growth and development is not a property of the DNA sequence but a property of the developmental process.I would be interested to know if you consider headlegs to be a novel organ or not. Presumably you accept that a process of microevolution (which creos here generally don't have a problem with) could hone the new structure into a novel function?MickEdited by mick, : Corrected bb codeEdited by mick, : No reason given.

This may be what I am looking for; I'll let you know after I've read the articles.