Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB.

Dog evolution? I have no idea but I am confident no dog will evolve into anything new. Also I see no reason to assume any of the fossil predogs were ancestral to the present dog. They have simply been offshoots from a stem animal all of which became extinct. The vast majority of all species became extinct probably due in large part to sexual reproduction. The good thing theoretically about the first meiotic division is that it produces a high degree of homozygosity which can thereby purge the genome of defective genes by exposing them as homozygotes. A similar explanation can be offered for the beneficial results of inbreeding. Plant and animal breeders have been doing it for centuries. salty

We will never communicate if you keep insisting that evolution took millions of generations. I don't believe that for a millisecond. salty

Hypotheses have to be reasonable - facts don't. salty

But each time a dog is born, it's "new", in the sense that it is a combination of shuffled genes from mom and dad that likely has not been seen before. That we can generally predict what it will be like from the qualities of its parents doesn't mean that the dog's genetic makeup is devoid of novelty.As novelty increases with each generation, could there be a time that you wouldn't call their decendants dogs anymore? Here's a question: why don't you call foxes and wolves "dogs"? There's less difference between a german shepard and a timber wolf than between a great dane and a chihuahua.Species classification is ultimately a human invention. You confuse our efforts to simplify the animal kingdom with natural reality. In nature, there are only populations. Well, that's a great explanation for dogs, but what about the myriad other modern-day animals with fossil histories? Eventually your ad-hoc explanations for EACH and EVERY taxa add up to a "theory" more ungainly and ungeneral than the ToE. The ToE is accepted because it explains the similarity between all animals and their fossil relatives, in one generalized theory. I don't think your "offshoots from a stem animal" could be true, separately, for each and every modern-day taxa with fossilized transitional forms.

Salty: I have no idea but I am confident no dog will evolve into anything new.You are correct that no dog (singular) will ever evolve into anything new. However, I can assure you that over the next few millions of years POPULATIONS of dogs will evolve as genetic differences accumulate over the generations. It is inevitable unless there is some mechanism to stop mutations.Salty: Also I see no reason to assume any of the fossil predogs were ancestral to the present dog.Again I ask how this would work in the world of a saltationist? Am I to presume the some dog ancestor, in a single generation, gave rise to dogs? This would of course entail millions of base pair differences in a single generation. You do know that mammalian measurements are about 100 base pair differences via mutation per generation? What did this new dog breed with? What is the proposed ancestor? Is the ancestor common to any other animals (e.g., cats)? Given that deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations, how is it that new species produced by your mechanism aren’t overwhelmed with harmful side effects? In the evolutionary mechanism, these harmful mutations are slowly purged via natural selection. A single organism could not survive all of the harmful mutations in a single generation. How does your mechanism address this?Salty: We will never communicate if you keep insisting that evolution took millions of generations. I don't believe that for a millisecond.That was in response to your dog evolving into a cat strawman. The evolution of dogs and cats from a common ancestor took millions of generations. The artificial evolution of Chihuahuas and St. Bernards was accomplished in only a few hundred generations. The evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor took 300,000 generations. So it doesn’t always take millions of generations. It just depends on which two organisms you are comparing.As an aside, we can easily make one test of logic here. Humans on average get about 100 new mutations per generation. Chimps are probably very similar. What does this equal over 300,000 generations? 30 million accumulated changes for humans and 30 million for chimps. If you compared a human to a chimp, you would find a difference of 60 million (in the absence of selection). The actual measured difference is around 40 million or so, which is in the range of what would be expected given that selection will eliminate a lot of the harmful mutations. What says Salty? Is this just a remarkable coincidence?FK

FK Micromutations never had anything to do with evolution. Also, there are no populations of dogs. Even if there were it wouldn't make any difference. I mainain that as near as I am able to ascertain that sexually reproducing organisms are incapable of speciation. In other words they, like ourselves, are in a word, immutable. salty

crashfrog. Apparently you equate Darwinism with TOE. I thought I had offered a different hypothesis for evolution. Apparently not. I have tried. salty

This is a baseless assertion that does not address my points. I can just as easily assert that micromutations have everything to do with evolution. See how easy it is to make baseless assertions.I assume you can't answser my questions. Please try again.FK

quote:

---

JA Davison:
Also, there are no populations of dogs.

---

Is this guy from this planet?

quote:

---

Is this guy from this planet?

---

Dogs run in packs, not populations! duh...!!!!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Populations never had (past tense) anything to do with evolution. A population is simply the result of a new and successful life form. Fisher, Haldane, Wright and especially Mayr dreamed up the population concept when they couldn't demonstrate speciation through selection. They definitely had the cart before the horse. The simple fact is that sexual (contemporary) reproduction will not support macroevolution (true speciation). Evolution has run its course folks. Get used to it! salty

Now folks, watch Scott Page go ballistic. salty

Are you actually going to respond to any of the questions raised?In your own earlier post you said We will never communicate if you keep insisting that evolution took millions of generations. I don't believe that for a millisecond.You seem to recognize that simply insisting on an assertion is a barrier to communication. Yet all you are doing yourself is merely insisting on your assertions, providing no supporting discussion whatsoever. Is the conclusion to be drawn that you are not interested in communication?Fedmahn posed two very specific questions, one directly addressing your hypothesis. I would have thought it merely good manners to answer his first question at least.[This message has been edited by AdminPamboli, 04-21-2003]

quote:

---

JA "So what if my most recent citation came out in 1973" Davison:

​

Populations never had (past tense) anything to do with evolution.

---

You keep repeating this mantra. Repitition does not make something true.

quote:

---

A population is simply the result of a new and successful life form.

---

And how does this 'new' life form become 'successful'? A hopeful monster is born. What does it mate with? Oh - it reproduces asexaully. And apparently it keeps doing this until there is a whole, whole bunch of them, then they reproduce sexually. Now, never mind that this has never been observed. Never mind that, in fact, long term experiments show otherwise. No, no. Salty has made an assertion - and besides, guys that died 15, even 50 years ago would agree with him!

quote:

---

Fisher, Haldane, Wright and especially Mayr dreamed up the population concept when they couldn't demonstrate speciation through selection.

---

Yeah, its all made up. Funny then that these made-up stories actually have supporitng evidence, unlike other made up stories that rely upon hero worship and repetition of assertions.

quote:

---

They definitely had the cart before the horse.

---

If you say so. Who am I to argue with an armchair theoretician (hypothetician?)?

quote:

---

The simple fact is that sexual (contemporary) reproduction will not support macroevolution (true speciation).

---

That has not been demonstrated as a fact, and, in fact, actual experiments havce been done showing that sexual reproduction actually hastens the accumulation of beneficial mutations (the Rice and Chippindale paper that has been cited). Oh, how silly of me - that paper is only a couple of years old. In order for the semi-meioticians to accpet a paper as valid, it must: 1. have been written by a non-geneticists and 2. it must be at least 15 years old...

quote:

---

Now folks, watch Scott Page go ballistic. salty

---

If by 'ballisitc' you mean pointing out the fallacious reasoning and vacuousness of your claims, then, sure, sit back and watch.I would LOVE to be in the audience at a conference and hear salty tell a crowd of evoluttionary biologists that populations have nothing to do with evolution.Of course, that would never happen, as fringe types prefer to remain in the fringe and argue that they are discriminated against.That sort of thing gains all sorts of converts from the lay public...
Well, one or two anyway...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-21-2003][This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-21-2003]

quote:

---

If by 'ballisitc' you mean pointing out the fallacious reasoning and vacuousness of your claims, then, sure, sit back and watch.

---

SLPx, congratulations on keeping calm in this situation, and not letting Salty drag you down into objectionable behaviour.Adminnemooseus