Summations Only

Yes, it's certainly not just an inadvertent assumption, but it does function as an untested assumption when you get into postulating how particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones. You are assuming that genetics can make this change without knowing if it can or not. Again, I don't see gradations in how genetics works, do you? At least not in the most common patterns of inheritance. As I keep saying, you get variation, not gradation, but you need gradation, small differences that accumulate over time, to fit the changes postulated from one creature to another.Yes, if B evolved from A supposedly there would be such intermediates, but you'd have to show that this is genetically possible, which I'm questioning, and besides, it's just as possible that nature has made lots of similar creatures that are nevertheless not related genetically to each other. Yes this is logical and I can see how it's persuasive, but the problem is that you don't have any direct actual evidence, it's all subjective judgments about similarities and differences. You can see that to get to bone arrangement B from bone arrangement A the bones would have to undergo a particular series of changes, but you have no way of showing that those changes ever occurred or are even genetically possible. Again, I don't think genetics works that way; it works by producing variations not gradations. Sure, and again it has its plausibility as a theory, but again there is absolutely NO actual, real, hard evidence that microevolution is anything but the working out of built-in genetic possibilities within the genome of a species.I did think it would be helpful to have the illustrations I mentioned to be able to visualize what is being talked about, but now I've got so many people responding to me and you are providing so many links I'm too tired to deal with them. Maybe I'll get a second wind. The point was to see if I think the similarities warrant the speculations about possible changes between different formations, but it wouldn't change what I've said above anyway.I don't know how you have the energy, RAZD. You put up complex post after post. It wears me out. I'll have to come back later if I can. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nature is likely to have all sorts of anomalies that no particular analogy is going to cover, but make up your minds here: I was responding to the statement that the morphological tree is neatly paralleled by the genetic tree. Perhaps not so neatly then.

You are bringing up a different argument and I'm still involved in the argument on the table. You'd have to make your case for endogenous retroviruses in a lot of detail for me to see the point anyway.

You are going to have to stop talking in riddles and innuendoes and actually say something substantive if you want me to understand you. But perhaps you don't.

I don't know why you would use dogs, RAZD, since I have used them so many times in my argument about how evolution depletes genetic diversity. Sure, the species as a whole has or had lots of genetic diversity to begin with, that's how there could be so many breeds of dogs. Sure there was a great range of change available in the original population, and there may still be a fair amount of change still available in some populations of dogs. But with dog breeds you are not talking about gradation but variation. You aren't getting degrees of change from one type to another, you get new breeds based on new gene frequencies due to the elimination of competing alleles for different forms of the same trait. Also, in the fossils aren't you talking about a change that seems to occur within the same race or breed, rather than a change that is part of a collection of changes like the different dog breeds. That is, the different dogs have differences in every part of their anatomy from each other. I'm not sure why this would be so or even quite what I'm trying to say, but the example of the dogs just doesn't seem to say anything about the fossil differences. I doubt it. I would suppose the therapsids evolved whatever differences there are among them within decades or hundreds of years at most of normal microevolution just as the reptiles would have evolved their breeds and the mammals theirs. The millions of years is ridiculous, and again, no living things would have survived that many years anyway. How many generations would occur over multiple millions of years? If there HAD been that many generations there would have been hundreds or thousands more variations within each species because variation is just what happens genetically. The processes would be much slower than for artificial selection of course, but still not take anywhere near millions of years. And there aren't any precursors to these creatures in lower strata either? They all just bloomed within their own time and we find them fully formed in their sedimentary burial grounds? There's SO much that's wrong with evolution it's remarkable that you all keep going on it. But of course the problem is that it IS all a mental exercise, none of it can be tested in actual reality. The seeming gradations remain seeming gradations, the evolutionary paths between different forms is purely imagined. And they don't look anything like the known paths to different dog breeds. Sorry, got carried away. It's no crazier than what you guys are actually claiming, all based on nothing but your wonderful human imaginations. You think you see gradations in the strata from one kind of animal to another, and it's plausible, it's superficially convincing, but everything about it is so artificial and so unprovable, so purely imagined and not evidenced, even the fact that each layer or time period has so many of one kind of creature that doesn't exist at all in lower levels, and so few or none of others that already supposedly abundantly populated the earth in supposedly earlier times. Yes there's a seeming gradation up the levels, but it's an invention of your minds.Never mind. I don't want to be insulting. I get frustrated with these discussions, the just-so stories. JUST the kind, just the very kind? I can see the seductiveness of the apparent gradations, but I have to suspect that some of it is purely imagined and pasted on what isn't really all that perfect a fit with the theory. Apparently this particular transitional sequence from reptile to mammal is unusually convincing with the apparent gradation of forms, more so than most of the other fossils. And again, microevolution doesn't make gradations, it makes variations. That's a very clever answer. Where are you getting this "half" being reproduced idea and how does this somehow end up in gradations? Sorry you totally lost me. Sigh. Well of course I still have my argument that series of microevolving populations will eventually run out of genetic diversity which is what prevents macroevolution from ever occurring, but I didn't want to go back to that here. Oh well.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

If that's all you're saying we have no argument. The problem comes in when you assume that microevolution continues beyond the species into different species. And "assumes" is the right word, since with living dogs we see what happens genetically within the species, but the claim that you can get beyond dogs to anything else is pure assumption based on the theory. And I do still hold on to my argument that evolution loses genetic diversity which brings evolution to a halt within the species. There's nothing surprising in that except the fact that some breeds are identifiable by their genotype, which is interesting. On the introduction to genetics thread a few years ago I think they said you can't identify a breed or race by genotype, but perhaps things have changed since then.Of course I would expect purebreds to have many fixed loci in their genotype but nothing was said about that. All breeds would have reduced genetic diversity, however, from the original population, and from whatever breed they descended from, and breeds that were formed through a series of selection processes should show lots of fixed loci/ homozygosity for their traits. This fact means that there is very limited and in some breeds absolutely no genetic diversity for further evolution, which kills the claim that dogs could be a model for the evolution of a new arrangement of bones in the reptiles that supposedly turned them into therapsids, and the therapsids further moved those bones around through genetic evolution to get to mammals. It's genetically impossible. Too much has to change in the whole genome and I understand that there are some sections of the genome that don't vary at all, but are fixed, probably the parts that define the basic structure of the animal. If that doesn't change then evolution is impossible, all you can get is the variations of microevolution within the basic structure. Yes, no problem with the dog tree. That is true, and I thought I acknowledged that somewhere. Under intense selection pressure you will get such gradations in the development of a breed. But the intermediates with dogs and cats involve general changes of the whole anatomy toward the final breed, and there are no gradations of the sort imagined in that fossil sequence, that move bones around from reptile to therapsid to mammal. I don't think you could point to any similar sequence in the gradations of dogs. They get progressively, say, bigger or smaller, with longer or shorter snouts and ears and legs and tails, etc., but the basic anatomy must stay the same. Rearranged bones? Well, exceptions happen but you'd have to show me one. No problem. But all this is sheer unproved and unprovable assumption. Granted, again, that the apparently progressive sequence is very seductive, still it's all a merely imagined sequence. AND, the reduction of genetic diversity that has to occur for new phenotypes to develop from new gene frequencies due to reproductive isolation of a limited number of individuals must occur no matter what arguments are invented against it, and that prevents evolution beyond the limits of the genome. This HAS to occur, and it's well known to conservationists who have the job of rescuing creatures from such a condition where possible. (If a few salmon on their way to spawn get lost in a tributary they develop a completely new phenotype that is usually undesirable, and sometimes can't be reintroduced to the original population because they've lost the ability to interbreed with them. This is what happened with the lizards of Pod Mrcaru too. You don't get new phenotypes without reduced genetic diversity. I see no reason to consider any of this anything other than the variants possible within the genome of a species being worked out as usual into new phenotypes, only in these cases they change the entire population instead of forming different daughter populations. Calling it macroevolution is just word magic. The whole new population, however, should be genetically less variable than the original population, meaning it should have a higher percentage of homozygosity, or at least fewer alleles per locus for the new traits that distinguish the new population from the original, but I don't suppose there's any data on that? Well, I've just questioned your claims about the same processes with living species, and the DNA evidence. Basically, it's all theory, no substance, all imagination, no reality. Well, I've never claimed anything about "artibrary creation of new species" so I don't know where that idea is coming from. The magic appears to be on your side, calling microevolutionary processes macroevolution when they aren't anything but the usual working out of the genetic possibilities within the genome of a species. You have no way of getting past the species and no evidence that it has ever occurred, just the renaming that supports the illusion. No, it is a subjective judgment, plausible yes, but purely imaginative. But this does not happen at all. You are imagining it. All that occurs with dogs is new dog breeds, with their concomitant reduction in genetic diversity which limits or completely prevents further evolution. You haven't proved this at all. Golly, tit for tat. No, RAZD, I SAID what frustrates me and rewording it to suit yourself isn't quite kosher. I get frustrated, as I said, that the obvious foolishness of evolution is not recognized but buried under so much pseudoscientific rationalization. The" just-so" stories are the claims that species evolve into other species, following purely imaginary pathways about how bones must have rearranged themselves from the reptile to the therapsid to the mammalian type, which can't happen genetically and certainly has not been proved to happen. It's all mental gymnastics. THAT's the "just-so" story I'm talking about, which is what this topic is about. Tit for tat and You're Another are not respectable debate tactics. No, what are found in the fossils are the pair of small dentary bones in the reptile jaw, and the single large dentary bonew in the mammal jaw and the fused larger bone in the therapsid. They aren't changes, they are variations. There is no evidence whatever that one evolved into the other, and there is no evidence in living things that change on that order of magnitude has ever occurred. It's not genetically possible. The changes in dog breeds do not rearrange bones. Whatever bone differences there are were already there in the genome. Then both are variations within the genome of those fossils. One did not evolve into the other. There was no "shrinking" or "detaching" there were simply two different kinds of arrangements in the genome. You have no evidence, just assumption, and it's genetically impossible for one type to evolve into another. This doesn't happen in nature. Genetics produces variations, either one type or the other or the third. Different types, different variations, not evolution from one to the other and there is no evidence whatever in living things for this. It's pure imagination. The point being it's rare, it's a very rare sequence that allows evolutionists to get carried away with their wonderful find, but it's nothing but an anomaly. I answered Pelycodus. I repeat it because it's true and it's relevant.I'm too tired to continue, but there isn't much left so maybe I can come back to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I didn't know how they were classified. I thought it was an intermediate form unto itself. But the one being discussed is regarded as a "primitive" mammal, and in any case it is of course a creature unto itself however it's classified. It has its own bone formation that just happens to look to evolutionists like it's transitional between reptiles and more mammal-like mammals, which inspired all that imaginative moving around of bones to get from one to the other formation as if it had actually happened, all without any evidence whatever, just the fact that they subjectively seem to form a sequence.. Whatever the taxonomic classification, I'm objecting to the idea that the bones could evolve in that fashion, because genetics doesn't do that sort of thing.

OK, at this point the discussion should probably be aborted because this is sheer fantasy, but Percy won't let me have this opinion, I have to accept that these ARE "new species." I absolutely do not. Genetic incompatibility, inability to breed, with the parent population, happen WITHIN the species, they are NOT a new species in the sense of macroevolution. They are most often the result of overbreeding which drastically reduces genetic diversity, and that drastic a reduction reduces or prevents further evolution, so to call it a "new species" is just the usual word magic. In reality these situations are genetically the end of the line for evolutionary purposes.Am I leaving the thread? I don't know. Seems the point to do it. But at the moment I expect to be back to try to deal with the rest of your post later unless my stubborn refusal to accept an evolutionist definition is ruled out.

But of course the point is that it DOESN'T mean what it's supposed to mean, that's why I object to it. Those instances are not new species, they are just new varieties or breeds that are genetically depleted. It happens a lot with overbreeding, it can also happen in nature.

You say a great deal that amounts to nothing, Dr. A. Sure, fine, but genetics DOESN'T make transitionals by rearranging bones increment by increment, that's all Evo Fantasy. Genetics makes dogs that are all structurally and behaviorally dogs even if they differ enormously in size and overall appearance. None of the breeds has structural differences from the others. The bones all fit together the same way. And you've said nothing to prove that rearranging bones as required by the theory of transitional fossils being talked about here is genetically possible. Nada. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the definition is wrong, misleading, a fraud, word magic. If in fact the new breed is genetically depleted the idea is absolutely ridiculous that it's a "new species" with the implied ability to evolve further. In other words if it's really a dog but you want to say it's not a dog I can't object because biological scientists named it according to what the theory tells them and not according to whether it makes any sense to call a breed a species that hasn't the genetic wherewithal to produce further variations. It has not been refuted, I've answered every claim. Mutations couldn't make the sort of changes required even if they did produce beneficial changes to any meaningful extent. Can't happen and I've shown it can't happen. The reality is that the whole idea of speciation and increased genetic diversity due to mutation is a mental construction without real evidence, a deception based on belief in the false ToE.

This is a message board and it's your job to make your case, not refer your opponent to the literature instead. I admit I lose track of former arguments, so I have to ask your indulgence in repeating arguments you think I'm supposed to know. In any case it IS your job to make the case and not mutter hints and innuendoes.The intermediate forms are an illusion. In reality what you have is fossils of different creatures that have their own unique genetic makeup, and it's sheer imaginative cobweb-spinning to invent the paths the changes would have to take to get from one to the other, all just mental juggling, no reality.

No.

That's the usual statement, the party line, no evidence there, just the usual assertion.In fact population genetics operates in a much shorter time frame (though Pod Mrcaru lizards and Jutland cattle may illustrate the shortest possible), and in millions of years no living thing would still be living. Mutation couldn't possibly keep up with the loss of genetic diversity through normal evolutionary processes, being so rarely beneficial, besides which, as I've shown many times, whatever the source of new genetic material it has to succumb to genetic reduction if new phenotypes are to result, a formula that absolutely defeats the continuation of microevolution beyond the species.Since so much of evolution is just imagined, along the lines of this transitional fossil discussion, nothing has ever been established as a fact, it's just been assumed to be a fact because the theory is believed: I really don't think this is true: "Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology" except for paleontology of course, but if it is true then they'd be better off without evolutionary theory because it is false.It's a terrible waste of manpower and human intelligence to keep on under the spell of this false theory.ABE: I'm so convinced of this I actually feel bad and sometimes wish it weren't true just because so many nice smart people ARE involved in it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.