A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Breeding is not evolution by natural selection.

Selection is only half of evolution. The other half is mutation.

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).

If we are going to simulate natural selection with breeding, then we should also simulate mutation with genetic engineering.

Enjoy

This idea evidence that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a ...

.. fact (there, corrected it for you). This has been observed, and you keep ignoring it or dismissing it.

The trouble is creationists don't want just a new species, the want something more impressive - exemplified by the OP:

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).

... to reconnect to the op of this thread (not another faith-olution fantasy thread).

The answer lies in mutation and selection, which in turn requires multiple generations ... for each of the multitude of speciation evolutions required along the way. As noted in Message 3, "If we are going to simulate natural selection with breeding, then we should also simulate mutation with genetic engineering."

Expanding on this the process, the implied simulation of the actual known natural history of evolution of whales on earth would entail:

1. take individuals from all the many rodent like species available (although tapirs and pigs would be more accurate)
   
2. provide an environment similar to, but wetter, than their previous environments
   
3. select the healthiest survivors, make single genetic changes to each individuals reproductive gametes that would make them closer to the whale genomes available, and breed them randomly
   
4. take the offspring and
   
   • if they are whale-like, then you are done
     
   • if they are not whale-like, repeat from step 2
     
   • if they all perish, start over from the beginning

Note that this is a "do-loop" in programing language, repeating simple steps until the desired result is obtained or the world ends.

It should be stunningly obvious that this would be a massive undertaking that would span hundreds if not thousands or even millions of generations of dedicated scientists ...

... simply to prove to thickheaded creationists that evolution really happens, that the evidence available is large and increasing every day, and it shows that evolution has happened in the past, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best known explanation for the diversity of life as we know it, from the genetic evidence, from the fossil evidence, from the changes in life observed in history and pre-history.

So all you geneticists here, prove that even millions of years of mutations could bring about a new species from an old species. I asked a while back if anyone could track the mutations needed to change the genome of a known creature in a direction that could produce a new species, and got nothing. And there's still the question of tracking the evolutionary path to get from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear. More nothing.

What stunning arrogant nonsense, based on wilful ignorance, of course. Of course you have been answered, many times - you just ignore it. Both of you.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

There's no reason to think you'd get anything whalelike at all, depending on mutations for this, even through hundreds of trials. This is an article of faith, this is not science. It can't happen. Mutations can't do anything that organized, in concert with one another. It can't happen. More likely your rodent is just going to get tired of being wet and long since would have emigrated to a more congenial climate.

As I said -- denial and wilful ignorance of the known facts.

No point in continuing with you on this thread and letting you repeat all your refuted nonsense.

Bye.

RAZD writes: Breeding is not evolution by natural selection. Quite right - it's evolution by artificial selection.

Still wrong.

I can't see why an naturally-occurring evolution couldn't theoretically be repeated by a human breeding program - assuming unlimited time is available and the evolutionary mechanisms and direction are known.

Actual evolution does not involve direction, it is a reactive selection system. To mimic/simulate the mutations that had occurred along the path the actual natural history of the evolution of whales took, you would need to add genetic engineering to give that path taken.

Rodents is really not a proper starting selection, as has been noted. Better would be pigs or hippos (Artiodactyla, even-toed ungulates like whales).

I can't see why an naturally-occurring evolution couldn't theoretically be repeated by a human breeding program ...

Because mutations are random.

Because breeding alone cannot simulate the actual random mutations that occurred in the past.

Because mutations are a critical part of "naturally-occurring evolution" and you would need to simulate the actual historical mutations that had occurred.

The bigger question is why do you think it is necessary to attempt to convince close-minded creationists like you and Faith that macroevolution occurred by simulating steps along a massive and extensive evolutionary path that has already occurred.

Why doesn't the actual evidence of observed speciation/macroevolution suffice, and why would multiple repetitious observations of similar actual speciation/macroevolution events convince you any more than the existing evidence.

Enjoy

That was to Faith, not Dredge

RAZD writes: Expandingng on this the process, the implied simulation of the actual known natural history of evolution of whales on earth would entail: ... provide an environment similar to, but wetter, than their previous environments No need to - a breeding program relies on artificial selection, not natural selection.

So you want to breed a whale that lives on dry land. Fascinating show of ignorance.

To replicate what occurred in the evolution from an even-hoofed ungulate (not a rodent) you need to replicate the ecological changes that occurred as well, or your artificial selection will not be capable of replicating what natural selection did.

Whales don't live on dry land, or are you unaware of that as well.

select the healthiest survivors, make single genetic changes to each individuals reproductive gametes that would make them closer to the whale genomes available If you have to rely on genetic engineering to evolve your rodents, you are admitting you don’t know how to breed them in order to eventually produce a whale - in which case you don’t know how whale evolution happened nor how macroevolution occurs.

Wrong. We do know how macroevolution occurs. Remember this (I've posted it to you before):

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

The process of anagenesis -- lineal evolution -- with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The process of cladogenesis -- divergent evolution -- with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Again, if you really want to replicate what occurred you have to replicate the random mutations that occurred (changes in the composition of hereditary traits), as the likeliness of them reoccurring randomly are as close to zero as any IDologist would have an orgasm over. The only reasonable way to replicate that is to genetically engineer mutations that would increase similarity between genomes of your even-hoofed ungulate (not a rodent) and whales.

If you're going to simulate natural selection with artificial selection to simulate evolutionary history, then you need to simulate natural mutation with artificial mutation or your simulation is a half-vast model doomed to failure.

Again, Fascinating show of ignorance.

and breed them randomly if they are whale-like, then you are done if they are not whale-like, repeat from step 2 if they all perish, start over from the beginning In other words, you don’t know how a whale evolved from a “rodent”. You’re relying on trial’n’error and luck, rather than knowledge.

And wrong again. Evolution occurs by trial and error, so to replicate it you need to involve trial and error. You need trial and error to provide a basis for your artificial selection or all you will accomplish is in-breeding and your simulation would be a half-vast model doomed to failure..

So, again, yet another Fascinating show of ignorance.

Enjoy

Dog breeders use inbreeding to induce unnatural mutations, ....

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

Enjoy

... but if we approach every disagreement with Faith as if she understands all the words we're using in the same way as we do but pretending not to, we're never going to get anywhere. And after reading the last couple pages of posts, how is any other approach likely to work out?

One approach that comes to mind is using the definitions instead of the words, that should add some clarity.

Enjoy

... it seems unlikely that a random mutation would just show up ...

Not how it works.

As Tangle said in Message 210

The moth did not change colour under 'pressure of need'. It changed colour because of a random mutation. The random mutation coincided with change in the environment that favoured it. It was all random, not purposeful. A coincidence. Forget purpose. Purpose has no part in the evolutionary process.

To expand on this, mutations occur, randomly. When they are non-deleterious they can be preserved (you get a mixed population of individuals 'with' and 'without' mutation). If they are beneficial the individuals with the mutation propagate more favorably than individuals without the mutation, because they survive/reproduce better with the mutation.

This "just show up" concept is a typical mistake for people that do not know evolution processes.

Enjoy

Seems to me if the mutation came along in time to save the population from extinction and start a new population to replace it, that's "showing up when needed" ...

It didn't. The light colored moths were not in danger of extinction, as there were areas they inhabited that were not darkened by coal soot.

The mutation happened, then it proved beneficial and spread, allowing the dark moths to exist in the sooty areas. So the dark moths flourished in the sooty areas while the light moths stayed in the non-sooty areas.

... and that's too great a coincidence for me.

Turning it into a coincidence is your way to ignore what happened. You need to really think about it -- as you keep telling us to think about your comments.

Message 240: I was kind of wondering if that was going to come up. A mutation that occurred so much earlier than it was needed raises the question how it could have survived the years when the other color characterized the entire population.

The same way the light colored moths existed during the sooty times, by inhabiting darker shadier environments (like deep woods).

We saw this same change in habitat behavior with the pocket mice when they evolved a dark version.

But then I'm back to thinking no mutation was needed at all, just the usual built in variant.

Of course you are, it is your favorite dodge to avoid what really happened.

You need to think about this some more. At some point "the usual built in variant" evolved ...

Enjoy.

Welcome to the fray, 4petdinos,

By what mechanism does a genome vary with each generation? Like what do you think is physically occurring in the DNA to give rise to different versions of the same genes, i.e. variation?

Faith will (likely) tell you they emerge when evolution depletes the genome and loses the more dominant variations. Or something like that IIRC.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Seems to me both the peppered moths and the pocket mice used to be described in more drastic terms: it threatens their very existence if they don't get the other color to save them. But if I suggested that other color had to be a normally occurring "built in" genetic variant then I was told it couldn't be because it would just get picked off by the predator. So it had to be a mutation, which prevented that scenario though I can't understand why now that I think of it.

As Taq noted in Message 270 both were doing fine in areas where light coloration was beneficial, and the mutation for darker coloration was deleterious in those areas, but beneficial in darker ecologies where the lighter coloration was deleterious.

Anyway, the way both situations are being described now there never was really any controversy. So I guess I got it wrong. Both colors were always available and the protective color proliferated when the background made it necessary since the predators would pick off the contrasting color. ...

No, both colors were not always available, the darker coloration became available as a result of the mutations.

You keep asking about beneficial mutations and these are examples.

... No controversy after all, nothing interesting really.

Remember this?

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Let me expand on that:

1. ... changes in the composition of hereditary traits, ... → mutations.
   
2. ... changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation ... → natural selection
   
3. ... in response to ecological challenges ... → survival in dark areas difficult for light colored individuals
   
4. ... and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success ... → dark areas provided opportunity for dark colored individuals to grow, develop, survive and reproduce
   
5. ... in changing or different habitats. → as a result, population expands into different habitat

Classbook evolution, including beneficial mutations, natural selection, and responses to shifting environments/ecologies. It even shows how a mutation can be deleterious in one ecological habitat and beneficial in another, ie - that mutations on their own are not necessarily beneficial or harmful.

Enjoy

... though it may apply to evolution, though in the case of the nested hierarchy that doesn't even make much sense.

It should.

According to you and your interpretation of biblical verse and your claim of supporting gospel documentation, all creatures, plants, etc reproduce according to their original created kind.

Cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, etc, and further, what ever is produced from cats reproduction will always be a cat, what ever is produce from dogs reproduction will always be a dog, etc etc and so forth.

According to your model (as I understand it), devolution occurs through loss of genetic variations, with different losses in different branches of devolution until you see the varieties of cats (including lions and tigers and domestic cats) we see today, and until you see hte varieties of dogs (including wolves and foxes and domestic dogs).

All mutations will not produce an offspring from cats that is not a cat, and all mutations will not produce an offspring of dogs that is not a dog. They will always reproduce according to their kind.

The cat kind should form a nested hierarchy from the original created kind to the variations/varieties of cats living in the world today. Including lions and tigers and domestic cats.

The dog kind should form a nested hierarchy from the original created kind to the variations/varieties of dogs living in the world today. Including wolves and foxes and domestic dogs.

There should be evidence supporting these descents from original created kinds, and they should form nested hierarchies -- because they all reproduce according to their own kind.

These nested hierarchies exist.

They should be part of your model, and your model should explain them, and it does explain them by saying that they, and all other life forms on earth reproduce according to their kind.

... None of it applies to my model ...

It should

Because otherwise, how do you explain these observed and documented nested hierarchies for cat kinds and dog kinds that comply with your interpretation of biblical verse and your claim of supporting gospel documentation, that all creatures, plants, etc reproduce according to their original created kind? and what pattern of historical and other data should result from your model if not nested hierarchies?

Enjoy

Though the varieties of the Kinds may form nested hierarchies, it's all subjective anyway. ...

Then "kinds" is all subjective anyway. Of course that is how it appears when creationists try to use it.

... But what I object to is your idea that nested hierarchies prove evolution.

It doesn't "prove" it -- it is a prediction fulfilled that validates the theory of evolution. Descent that doesn't fit in a nested hierarchy (say a cross between donkey and a house cat) would invalidate the theory.

This is because

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

The traits of the offspring are a combination of {edit}some of{/edit} the traits from each parent plus some mutations. The mutations cause small changes in traits in each generation, which can be passed on to the next generation, and this leaves a trail of accumulated mutations. The traits don't come from other sources, so those traits can be used to see if there is a nested hierarchy, either morphological or genetic traits can be used with similar results.

Basic microevolution.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : edit noted

and there I thought it was the quarterback for the NE Patriots ...