A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Dredge writes: I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

This is as stupid as you using electricity so you should easily be able to design a nuclear power plant.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Faith writes: Mutations occur willynilly here and there, and the ones that occur in the reproductive cells are particularly rare.

Rare on whose scale?

The mutations that occur in the reproductive cells are the only mutations that we are talking about. They are the only ones involved with evolution.

Faith writes: Most mutations are not going to do anything more than add to the usual variations built into the genome of the species.

Yes, they add to the variation that is already in the genome, creating a new allele.

Faith writes: You need mutations that do something entirely different, change the genome in some brand new direction.

Nope, this is incorrect. We don't need anything, but what we do get is incremental changes (mutations) in the genome and phenotype that survive in succeeding generations. Some genome/phenotypes in a population will produce fewer or no offspring and will be eliminated by natural selection.

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not because it selects the best reproducers.

Faith writes: How often is that going to happen? And then it has to get selected. This whole scenario is wackily impossible.

Well, that's because you have the scenario wrong.

Faith writes: Why can't you at least THINK about how any such random event could ever in a million years get selected toward some organized new phenotype?

Mainly because such a random event is not how it happens.

Faith writes: A mutation here, a mutation there, these have to have some kind of coherent pattern and that pattern has to be selected piecemeal over huge amounts of time.

This is incorrect. It is not a mutation here and a mutation there. If we use humans as an example, there are on average 100 mutations in every individual in a population. If we take the population of reproducers as 1 billion people, they have a combined 100 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS in just their generation of our population. If you take the whole human population there are 750 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS right now.

In just 1 million years that is a humongous number of mutations in a population. Now I realize that a population size will always fluctuate but to pretend that there are just a few mutations here or there is delusional.

Faith writes: The probabilities involved are beyond the organizing powers of billions of years, let alone millions.

Really? We would love to see you calculate that.

And what are the organizing powers of billions of years. This is a concept I am completely unfamiliar with.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution. The only difference between breeding and macroevolution is the former is determined by artificial selection and the latter is determined by natural selection.

This is your problem right here. This is total bullshit.

Dredge writes: If you "know how macroevolution occurs" you would know how to breed a whale from its alleged evolutionary ancestor - a rodent-like creature.

More bullshit. The evidence shows you are never going to get it.

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: This is incorrect. It is not a mutation here and a mutation there. If we use humans as an example, there are on average 100 mutations in every individual in a population. If we take the population of reproducers as 1 billion people, they have a combined 100 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS in just their generation of our population. If you take the whole human population there are 750 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS right now. Yet humans remain humans … and dogs remain dogs, water rats remain water rats, E. coli remain E. coli ... funny that.

And humans remain mammals and humans remain vertebrates. What's your point?

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

So close...I thought she was going to get it, but then the noise spiked.

AZPaul3 writes: You all keep talking about how we all have many mutations but aren't most of them in the body where they won't be passed on anyway? We’re talking only mutations in germline cells not somatic cells. Germline cells have some of the most wonder ways of leaving the body taking their mutations with them.

I pointed this out to her clear back in Message 25

Tanypteryx writes: Faith writes: Mutations occur willynilly here and there, and the ones that occur in the reproductive cells are particularly rare. Rare on whose scale? The mutations that occur in the reproductive cells are the only mutations that we are talking about. They are the only ones involved with evolution.

Faith writes: Not that it could be something other than a mutation but it doesn't fit the usual idea of a mutation and yet you are all just accepting it anyway.

How would we know what "your usual idea of a mutation" is? Half the time you insist that mutations do not even exist. And why would we pay any attention to what "your usual idea of a mutation" is, when we have data from scientists who study and understand genetics and biology and evolution.

In the papers I have read about it, it fits my idea of mutation perfectly.

Until your fantasy scenario actually describes and explains what is actually seen in the genetics of various organisms no one is going to pay any attention to it.

I honestly admire your equanimity here along with your knowledge base, but I think that most of us have given up on a rational discussion in the face of hard-core denial.

Yep, you called it. It's not that funny any more. Pointless.

No, it isn't. Your model doesn't explain the pattern of differences between the genomes of species where transitions outnumber transversions and differences at CpG sites has the greatest number of differences relative to available bases. Your model also doesn't explain why we see more differences in introns than in exons when comparing genomes from many species. Your model also doesn't explain why we see a nested hierarchy. Your model can't explain the observations we see, so it isn't coherent.

Another big one is she cannot explain the pattern of endogenous retroviral (ERV) insertions seen in genomes of most organisms that also matches the nested hierarchy.

Great answer!

No population is *perfectly* homogeneous but the wildebeests are pretty homogeneous, both the black herd and the blue herd; also buffalo; black bears are pretty homogeneous, also polar bears, grizzly bears etc.; kangaroos are pretty homogeneous, so are the Pod Mrcaru lizards, also most wild species of birds, and fish species etc etc etc.

Pretty homogeneous is hardly precise or scientific. I bet that you cannot find a single biologist specializing in the study of any of the organisms you mention that will agree with you. How many individuals of these creatures have you studied to make this determination?

Even so there may be a great deal of genetic diversity in such populations.

Of course. Most of the variable features in the members of a species are not visible characters, but rather variations in metabolic processes and internal structure.

You, sitting in front of your computer are hardly likely to notice the range of visible variation in the few photos of individual creatures you see on the screen. Polar bears are all white is about as far as you can go.