What would a transitional fossil look like?

Actually we can dismiss everything you have to say because it's all bullshit. So what? Is there some rule that says changes in the genome must meet some "truly new" standard? What specific claims of the ToE are you referring to? Imagine our surprise if you ever presented any actual facts. That would be the perfect way to kill it.

What does that even mean? Outside of identical twins, no two humans has the same genome. Every person is born with 50 to 100 mutations, meaning every human is born with a genome that has never existed before. The best we can do is find similarities between genomes. There are new variations that occur in every generation, and those variations accumulate over time. This is why humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations.

None of those mutations is new in the sense that they violate the basic programming of the genome of the species. And many of them are genetic diseases and even more of them don't change anything anyway. Which if they did would only be a change within the coding of the gene they affect. I suspect huge numbers of them are the cause of all the junk DNA in any given genome. That is, they kill the genetic stuff, they do nothing whatever to further it. You cannot get a new species from such changes even in millions of years. Most likely they'd just kill the organism in a lot less time than that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Or in the words scientists use, they are due to mutations of what was there in the parent/s DNA. Nor necessary for speciation alone. That generally requires an accumulation of mutations that differentiate the result from the ancestral population. Speciation has been observed. We see the process well under way with Two species of crow evolving ...:

quote:

---

Now, genomic analysis has revealed that C. corone and C. cornix are actually almost indistinguishable from a genetic standpoint. The only significant genetic difference between them can be found in the gene responsible for colouration.

​

"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.

​

"That's a very strong indication that there is rigorous selection on the basis of colour."

​

This suggests the crows are choosing mates based on colour. Birds of a feather literally, in this instance, flock together - carrion crows prefer black mates and hooded crows prefer grey ones.

---

Sexual selection causing genetic (reproductive) isolation of the two groups of crows. Isolation is all that is required for the two populations to evolve independently from each other, resulting in speciation. You get variations in every breeding cycle of a population. This too is observed. The "standard" is simple: did it exist before in the breeding population? If *no*, then it is new. Not difficult. Says the person in denial of actual facts of mutations observed and speciation observed: Message 87Rareness has nothing to do with it. Again from Two species of crow evolving ...:

quote:

---

"Defining speciation as the buildup of reproductive isolation, carrion crows and hooded crows are in the process of speciation," said evolutionary biologist Jochen Wolf of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt in Munich.

​

Exactly what was keeping the two populations apart was unclear - so Wolf and his colleagues performed genetic analyses of around 400 birds. These were selected from within the hybrid zone, as well as the zones on either side, where the species' territories don't overlap.

​

"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.

---

In the process of speciation due to sexual selection based on feather coloration resulting in reproductivly isolated daughter populations. That is what the evidence shows, Faith, all you need to do is think about the evidence before your eyes to see that it -- speciation (as defined by science) -- is happening.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : *no* was yes, thanks Tanypteryx,

see Message 94Enjoy

Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't that be "If no, then it is new."?

Absolutely true. resulting in two reproductively isolated populations of crows, which is not speciation. Or would you call a population of human beings isolated on an island for a couple hundred years speciation? I thought not.

quote:

---

resulting in two reproductively isolated populations of crows, which is not speciation

---

When they are morphologically distinct (they already are) and when interbreeding where they overlap becomes virtually non-existent (it’s rare now, and the hybrids have little breeding success) I’d say a definite yes.

quote:

---

Or would you call a population of human beings isolated on an island for a couple hundred years speciation? I thought not.

---

Note the obvious strawman.I will note that morphological differences are not required (cryptic species) and sometimes reproductive isolation is only due to geographical distance. But I am not aware of any case where isolation through geographic distance or barriers is considered adequate in itself.

If it continues long enough, of course it is speciation.The erroneous assertions of an ignorant creationist has absolutely no effect on science or how scientists document their observations. It is ridiculously silly to try to draw conclusions from a comparison of birds and humans, with regard to how long speciation takes.If you don't know that, then maybe you need to do a lot more study. Yeah, I know that's not going to happen, since knowledge is not something you are interested in.

How did you determine that? How did you determine that?Humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations. Why couldn't the accumulation of mutations over millions of years accomplish this?

speciation according biological science. Except that such isolation is not necessarily reproductive isolation. Will they breed if given the opportunity? As we have seen with human history the predilection for reproduction between groups that have been separated for many generations (Europeans and Indigenous Americans) shows that such isolation is not reproductive.The crows in Two species of crow evolving ... on the other hand show reproductive isolation by the lack of of mixing outside the small hybrid zone:

quote:

---

"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.

​

"That's a very strong indication that there is rigorous selection on the basis of colour."

---

We do see some of this behavioral isolation between ethnic groups in humans (consider the bias against "half-breeds"), but not the the extent documented in the crows. The crows have the opportunity to interbreed but choose not to. Similar with the Asian Greenish Warblers at the close of the ring - the overlapping varieties tend to not mate.We can also look at horses, donkeys and zebras, which are further along in the process of speciation, in that hybrids are rarely fertile.Personally I think that this behavioral isolation, where different varietals choose to not mate, is the first stage of speciation, rather than some mating incompatibility, which can occur later but is not necessary for independent evolution of the daughter populations.To further complicate the issue we do see instances where physical isolation has occurred and then the daughter populations rejoin, interbreed, and produce hybrid offspring that are as, or more, robust than the parent populations. This results in a mosaic of traits. See Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor for more.Enjoy

Last I saw, the time from a common ancestor ape is ~10 million years, so that's 4 fixed mutations a year on average. Hardly restrictive.Enjoy

Exactly. For neutral drift, the number of fixed mutations per generation is equal to the mutation rate. The human mutation rate is ~100 mutations per individual per generation, and the latest research indicates that the rate is about 50% higher in other apes.Using these numbers, we would expect 20 million fixed mutations in the human lineage in 5 million years and 30 million in the chimp lineage for a total of 50 million. That's right where it should be.

First, here are the points that we should all agree on:1. Humans look like humans because of the DNA sequences in our genomes.2. Chimps look like chimps because of the DNA sequences in their genomes.3. The physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA sequence differences in our genomes.Faith claims there is no way that adding mutations to the human genome can produce anything different than humans. So here is the challenge: If we changed the human genome so that it exactly matched the genome of a chimp, would the result look like a human or a chimp?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Of course if you were able to change the human genome into an exact copy of a chimp genome of course you would get a chimp.The thing is you seem to think that a mere accumulation of random mutations could change one species into another. I see no reason why you would get anything but a variation on the species, simply some new characteristics of what is clearly a chimp for instance. There is no reason to think you'd get anything different from a chimp if it is a chimp genome that is acquiring the mutations. They will only change the appearance of the chump, they won't produce anything but a chimp.It also seems to me that each species' genome must have some sequences that define the most fundamental characteristics of the creature and that for some reason those don't change. For instance I look at the chart of all the known dog species and it's pretty clear that they all have exactly the same kind of body structure while it's the more superficial characteristics that change -- and not by mutation either -- and account for all the dramatic differences between the breeds. Dogs all have a rigid body build, a tail that wags, a head that is raised above the choulders etc etc etc. All the dog breeds retain all the characteristics that make them recognizably dogs no matter how big or small they are, no matter how much hair they have, they retain all the behavioral characteristics as well as the basic dog build. As compared, say, to cats, with their flexible bodies and their heads which are on a level with their bodies etc etc etc. I just don't see those characteristics changing. And yes, just as I always argue, when you get a breed of a certain new set of characteristics it should have less ability to further vary than a mutt would. Less ability to vary means that although it may be a striking new "species" or breed it isn't going to evolve further. That' means the end of evolution for that line of variation, which is of coruse the opposite of what the ToE requires.I also like the example of the trilobites. According to the usual idea they span many hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record and yet they all have basically the same body structure. All the changes are superficial, not much of a record for the ToE which should produce far more dramatic changes if species-to-species evolution were actually true.And then there are the Jutland cattle which produced four separate distinct populations in a matter of a few years, and of course the Pod Mcaru lizards which produced a dramatically new "species" within thirty years. Evolution doesn't take anywhere near as long as you all think, and always a mere variation on the recognizable creature is all that is produced.