A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

All we would need to do is have the genomes from every generation along the way and engineer those mutations into a new population, generation by generation. In other words, we would need to take millions of years to replay the evolutionary history.

Thousands of years of breeding is not enough time to produce the needed variation. You have already been told this many, many times. Why do you continue to ignore it?

You have never supported this assertion.

It is overcome by selection over millions of years.

Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to genetic differences between the two species?

Yes. The genetic differences between humans and chimps, as an example, is consistent with the time since divergence and the observed mutation rate.

Beneficial mutations are kept, detrimental mutations are removed, and neutral mutations fix at random. Why wouldn't this process be able to add beneficial mutations over time?

Already done. Again, the genetic divergence between chimps and humans is consistent with the mutation rates in both species.

Show us a single genetic difference between chimps and humans that could not be produced by the observed processes of mutation. I bet you can't point to a single one. That's our proof.

1. I can cite multiple papers that map on going mutations in living species. I would think that you already accept this fact, but if not I can supply those papers. Do you accept that mutations happen?

2. Since mutations happen, they will happen throughout the genome. No part of the genome is protected from mutation. Therefore, the bases that differ between alleles are open to mutations, just as every base in the genome is open to mutation.

3. Therefore, it is complete lunacy to think that mutations can't produce the differences between alleles, or the differences between species.

If unlimited time were available, of course it could be done. However, this would require a near infinite number of organisms and nearly an infinite amount of time.

The reason for this is simple. It is the randomness of mutations. Each human is born with 50 to 100 mutations. In a 6 billion base genome, the chances of getting those exact mutations again is 6 billion to the 50th or 100th power, which is a rather large number. That is just for one individual. You would then need to extend these probabilities to every organism in the population for every generation. This is why evolutionary pathways can't be repeated, because the chances of getting the same mutations is nearly impossible.

What was the amount of genetic divergence between this population and sister populations, and how does that genetic divergence compare to the differences between separate species?

This is the question you never seem to answer. Genetic divergence is the important bit here, and you ignore it.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You would need to breed them over millions of years to build up mutations. You may be able to get something that looked like whales, but their genomes would be very different from modern whales.

We would overcome that by letting them breed in large populations over millions of years.

Why?

Why can't this happen?

You need evidence to back these assertions. Or is it just fantasy? (Cue Queen music)

Then what makes a chimp different from a human? Isn't it the differences between their genomes?

If changing a genome can only ever produce the same species, then how was God able to produce so many different species? According to you, there should only ever be one species because no matter how much you change their genomes they will still be the same species.

I have the evidence. The evidence is the mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes.

I make conclusions based on evidence, not assumptions.

First, orthologous ERV's establish common ancestry. We observe both in the lab and in the wild that ERV's are produced by retroviruses that insert randomly into genomes. Therefore, finding the same ERV at the same base in two genomes is evidence that the insertion happened once in a common ancestor.

Second, the pattern of mutations is consistent with observations of mutations happening in real time. When we look at the mutations that humans are born with we see that transitions are more common than transversions, and CpG mutations happen at the highest rates. The observed pattern of mutations is also consistent with the differences between different humans. More to the point, we see the same exact pattern when comparing the human and chimp genomes.

I would strongly suggest that you read the article that those images came from:

https://biologos.org/...ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations

So to refute your claims, I am not making assumptions. I am following the evidence.

It isn't a different design altogether. 98% of the bases are the same in both the chimp and human genomes.

Humans didn't evolve from chimps. We evolved from a common ancestor. The changes that had to happen are among the differences between our genomes, as I have already discussed.

Can you point to a single difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced by known mechanisms of mutagenesis? I bet you can't. Naturally occurring mutations include substitutions, deletions, insertions, and recombination. These mechanisms can produce all of the differences between the human and chimp genomes.

Your point of view isn't supported by a shred of evidence. It's just a fantasy.

False. I have the evidence, so I am making a supported conclusion.

Just to reiterate, I am saying that mutations made both chimp and human from a common ancestor. Humans didn't evolve from chimps. The mutations that separate chimps and humans are mutations that happened in both lineages.

To use an analogy, the Romance Languages (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish) evolved from Latin. The differences between the languages are differences that accumulated in each language lineage. It would be a mistake to say that French evolved from Italian. They both evolved from Latin, their common ancestral tongue.

According to you, this is impossible. God couldn't make a genome that produced anything other than humans because no matter how much you change the human genome it will still be human. This is your argument.

Then don't ask for evidence if you aren't going to look at it.

You are a flat out liar. You refused to look at the evidence when I presented it. Pull you head out of the sand.

The evidence is right here:

The x-axis is the rate of each type of mutation according to a comparison of human genomes. The y-axis is the observed rate of these mutations that are observed in new births, the de novo rate. Notice that the two perfectly correlate with each other. The observed rate of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations in humans strongly correlates with the differences seen between humans. That's the evidence. The differences between humans looks exactly like the new random mutations we see happening in live births right now.

Here is another chart, showing the same data in a different format. One set of bars maps human genetic diversity (All SNP's) while the other bars map observed mutation rates in humans (Human de novo):

Then your model needs to explain why transitions outnumber transversions, and why differences at CpG's occur at the highest rate. Evolutionary mechanisms explain this perfectly, but I have yet to see your model explain this.

Those are combinations of alleles that differ by mutations. You need to brush up on your Mendelian genetics. You claim that you have a model, yet you don't even understand the basics of genetics.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.