A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

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. What we can do is show you the evidence of it at work in the fossil record and show you how genetic mutation works.

We can also show you specific modern examples of micro-evolution and show the mutations that occurred to make the change and the environmental pressures that caused it.

The recent work on the peppered moth is the best example of that that I know of. But we've discussed others here with bacteria and mice.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19177

The difficulty though Faith, is that unless Jesus Christ himself tells you, you won't accept it. And if he did, you'd accuse him of being the devil.

Faith writes: …and is in fact impossible

I've shown you observed evidence that it is not impossible - both the selection method and the genetic mutation. See peppered moth.

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.

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.

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

Faith writes: I think the idea that mutations create healthy alleles is also nutz.

You may well think that but it doesn't prevent it being true does it?

The example of the mutation in the peppered moth changing its colour is a perfect example of a beneficial mutation - but only when the environment that they lived in changed. The mutation got the moth killed by predators in the wrong environment.

Faith writes: Despite all your proliferating hundreds of alleles you haven't shown that a species genome ever changes to the extent of producing something outside its built-in variations.

For the umpteenth time - it took 15 years of work but the mutation that caused the white peppered moth to turn black in the early 19th century has been found. This is an example of a beneficial mutation that ensured its survival. The exact thing that you say can't happen.

quote:

---

After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one [DNA differences between black and white moths] which then had to be the causal mutation. To our surprise, it also turned out to be a rather unusual type of mutation."
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.
These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. But for one embryonic moth in the early 19th Century, when these extra 9,000 bases landed in its cortex gene, they were in fact the secret to success.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768

Faith writes: So what. That is not what this argument is about.

It's EXACTLY what the argument is about. You say that beneficial changes to the genome can't be made by mutation. This is proven to be wrong.

Faith writes: No, the argument is about what it takes to get from one species to another

Yes Faith the moth is still a moth. But how many times have you denied that beneficial mutations can change a phenotype? The moth's change of colour was not plasticity it was a mutation.

Now you have to explain why many mutations like that one can't build to species change. Macroevolution is microevolution plus time.

Faith writes: Assertion. So show your evidence of mutations in the case of the Pod Mrcaru lizards Or the Jutland cattle or sheep or whatever they were Or the black versus blue wildebeests Or any case of "speciation" of your choice. Or dog breeds Or cattle breeds Or the Amish or the Hutterites

It took scientists 15 years of dedicated study to track down the mutation that caused a single change in the peppered moth phenotype. Eventually I'm sure many more causal mutations will be found, meanwhile the facts of evolution where proved long before modern day molecular genetics existed.

You can't legitimately ignore facts while inventing your own beliefs without evidence. I think even you know that declaring yourself the winner is the act of the loser.

Faith writes: Even though it seems unlikely that a random mutation would just show up to turn a moth or a mouse a different color under the pressure of need

But we know it happened. Moreover it was predicted by the ToE that it happened and then has been proven to have happened. That's a prophecy fulfilled. So you can no longer claim that it doesn't. Never-the-less I fully expect you to forget that and claim again in a month's time that such a thing can't happen. That's another prophecy.

I don't have as much of a problem with that single event as I do with situations where multiple mutations would have to have occurred in a short period of time as would have to have been the case in the examples I gave.

So now the game has been changed from 'can't happen at all' to 'can't happen more than once in a short period of time'.

Why not?

What will you say when we eventually show empirically that they did? Here's another prophecy; you'll decide it's all too complicated for you and you'll put it to one side claiming that it'll all be debunked in due course like you do with radiodating.

Faith writes: Since it really makes no sense to me at all, and contradicts what I've always thought defined a mutation: random mistake in replication, beneficial mutation very rare etc., I may very well forget this as I do forget stuff that makes no sense.

Well I see you've already started the process of forgetting it as you're still actually denying it. Despite the absolute proof provided.

I rather doubt that you understand it yourself.

I certainly don't understand the molecular genetics underlying the discovery but the discovery itself is very easy to understand. Genes mutate and make a change to the organism. If that change creates a benefit for the organism it will be carried on to future generations. This is what happened with the moth and has been proven. It's very easy to understand isn't it?

Well, if a mutation is a random mistake in replication, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare, yet somehow or other the moth situation has been explained as a mutation although it makes no sense to me how it could have been a mutation, nevertheless since they insist they can prove it I have to accept it as a single event, at least for now, somehow or other.

Do you recognise in all that the process of denial and forgetting at work?

But a complex event involving many random mistakes in replication over a short period of time, and of course all beneficial ones, which are supposed to be very rare, is either impossible or mutations are no longer being defined in the way I'm familiar with.

A couple of points.

Something that can happen once can happen often. There's nothing preventing it and, as you've been told, for example, that there are about 100 mutations in every human individual and there are 8bn of us it is actually a certainty that it will continue to happen. Umpteen trillions of insects and billions of microbes in a handful of dirt etc etc

It's not a 'short' period of time, it's millions of years. Your denial of this for religious reasons does not change the facts.

They're not all beneficial mutations - we only see the ones that survive and make a change.

Mutations are defined as science defines them. You've been taken through this many times. But you 'forget' and apply whatever you prefer it to mean.

They are now being described in terms that suggest they aren't so random, could even be predictable, aren't mistakes but have a purpose, and beneficial ones are far from rare any more. So which is it?

No one is defining mutations as non-random, predictable, non-mistakes or purposeful. NO ONE. That would be unscientific and plain wrong. This is your own interpretation and imposition of an erroneous belief onto an unguided process. You really, really should know this by now - even if don't agree with it, there's absolutely no excuse for not understanding the position you're arguing against.

Faith writes: The subject is the peppered moth, and Tangle is giving the current claim that it's been proved that the change was due to a mutation. I find this hard to believe but what he's saying has been said by others and supposedly proved. So you are disagreeing with this or what?

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.

Faith writes: 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" and that's too great a coincidence for me.

The first thing to say is that it happened and there is an evidenced explanation for how.

Secondly, for all we know the mutation is common but had it occurred when the trees where white the black moths would have died from predation. The predators would remove the mutation from the population. It was only when the trees turned black that the mutation could survive.

This is shown beautifully when the pollution was cleared up and the black moths became visible to predators and the white moths took over.

The problem you're having is that you ascribe purpose to everything so the coincidence is shocking to you because you only see the successful event not the failed ones. You do this all the time, the most notable was seeing everything as a potent of the rapture.

But your alternative is what? God did it?