A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

"In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)

"And yet it did." You guys are a laugh riot. You assume what your theory predicts. Ha ha.

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.

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

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Tangle writes: The ToE requires very large amounts of time - often millions of years. We can't therefore show you step by step how evolution has happened.

… and since you also "know" the biological mechanism responsible for this alleged evolution, you shouldn't have any trouble explaining how you would (theoretically) go about breeding a whale from its alleged evolutionary ancestor - a "rodent".

Dredge writes: and since you also "know" the biological mechanism responsible for this alleged evolution, you shouldn't have any trouble explaining how you would (theoretically) go about breeding a whale from its alleged evolutionary ancestor - a "rodent".

Don't be silly.

If you have no idea how to even begin breeding these alleged ancestral "rodents" towards whale-ness, then I must conclude you have no idea how macroevolution occurs and that your claim to this knowledge is bogus and delusionary.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Not silly at all. If such an evolution is possible then it ought to be possible to hypothesize a plausible series of genetic changes that could bring it about over millions of years. A mutation here, a mutation there, etc. Since obviously nobody can do this and won't even try, we know the ToE is a complete krock.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dredge writes: If you have no idea how to even begin breeding these alleged ancestral "rodents" towards whale-ness, then I must conclude you have no idea how macroevolution occurs and that your claim to this knowledge is bogus and delusionary.

Silly questions don't have sensible answers Dredge. Your request comes into the category of 'not even wrong' in that it demonstrates that you don't understand the basics of what evolution is, what it does or how it does it.

If you're not prepared to understand what the ToE is you're not in a position to ask sensible questions of it. It's been explained to you why.

Did you understand the peppered moth work? That's a good demonstration of the mutation of a gene to produce a different colour of moth and a change in environmental circumstances causing natural selection to work to select for the new colour. It's all there. Did you read it?

Faith writes: Not silly at all. If such an evolution is possible then it ought to be possible to hypothesize a plausible series of genetic changes that could bring it about over millions of years. A mutation here, a mutation there, etc. Since obviously nobody can do this and won't even try, we know the ToE is a complete krock.

It's silly not because it's impossible to build such a hypothetical model (not Dredges silly breeding scheme) but because it would require an enormous amount of work that no-one here is going to do just for a couple of people that have religious reasons for rejecting it.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

No need to go into every precise detail. How would you begin to breed these "rodents" to move them along the path to whale-ness? Would you select those that like to swim? Maybe there are some born with webbed-feet? How would you go about moving their nostrils to the top of their heads?

And how would you overcome the problem of decreased genetic diversity every time to select for a desired feature? For example, once you select for those that like to hang out in the ocean, you've immediately reduced the population by a huge percentage - how many of these landlubbing rodents are going to prefer the ocean to land, do you think? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? From this reduced popularion, you then have to select for other desired features. Me thinks you're going to quickly run out of genetic diversity before you can select all the features necessary to progress towards a whale.

Dredge writes: No need to go into every precise detail.

Thank you. However, this is a simple video of how science currently thinks whales evolved from land creatures.

https://ocean.si.edu/...ient-seas/evolution-whales-animation

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

Percy writes: But you said "given unlimited time," so Stile suggested an experimental program (it would have to last for billions and billions of years) that could be repeated over and over and over again until a rodent evolved into a whale. But this program would never be successful because of several problems. First, whales didn't evolve from rodents but from a now extinct ungulate (a hoofed animal), i.e., it no longer exists. Second, even if this ungulate did exist, because mutations are random repeating the experiment is unlikely to produce whales, just as Stile suggested, except it's even more unlikely than that. I think the universe would end first. Third, even if this original ungulate did exist, we couldn't keep it unchanged from one run of the experiment to the next because it would evolve too. The only way to actually run the experiment is to begin with an infinite number of ungulates and run an infinite number of these experiments simultaneously. And Fourth, we don't know the details of the changing environments that occurred in sequence, including the now extinct plants and creatures that populated them. Even if we did, they don't exist anymore. That is, we don't know what the selection pressures were, and even if we did we couldn't reproduce them.

Absolutely.

I just didn't add in all the minor trifles to my explanation

Dredge quotes: quote: "In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)

And yet, if you read the entire article all of the changes in wing morphology reversed back to the original shape in only 15 generations when natural conditions returned. Does that not tell you something?