A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

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.

But there IS NO MUTATION in Dredge's scenario. Animal breeders do not induce mutations.

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: 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.

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.

Dredge writes: "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)

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.

Dredge writes: 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?

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.

And how would you overcome the problem of decreased genetic diversity every time to select for a desired feature?

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

Faith writes: There's no reason to think you'd get anything whalelike at all, depending on mutations for this, even through hundreds of trials.

Why?

Mutations can't do anything that organized, in concert with one another. It can't happen.

Why can't this happen?

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

No. We don't assume. We have the evidence. We know the lineage. We even know the kinds of chemistry involved which we can replicate in the lab. We can see mutations happen. We can see genetic drift at work and we can watch macroevolution unfold.

On your side, you have an old book of fables. Nothing substantial. Nothing demonstrable. Nothing but your own wishful thinking.

We can show the efficacy of macroevolution (which is really easy since we can show the reality of microevolution and we know the reality of time). While you can show nothing of your god.

Dredge writes: The only difference between breeding and macroevolution is the former is determined by artificial selection and the latter is determined by natural selection.

As people keep telling you (so one more time probably won't do any good), breeding is artificial selection, while macroevolution is natural selection plus mutation over the course of enough generations to make successful interbreeding with the original population (if it still exists) an uncommon event.

That is, breeding cannot create a new species because any new breeds would still be the same species. The underlying genetics haven't changed. Even if physical changes make natural intercourse impossible (e.g., a chihuahua and a Great Dane), sperm and egg would still be compatible. The sperm could still fertilize the egg in a test tube.

But evolution *can* create new species because mutations can change the underlying genetics to the point of little to no interfertility, meaning that even test tube babies would be unlikely or impossible.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Mutations can't create a new species either, they only contribute to the same species, assuming they do contribute at all rather than just being a destructive element, they contribute to the normal microevolution variation, it's sheer phantasy that they could create a new species no matter how much time you give them. I've asked for someone to give a hypothetical pathway for the changes you believe could create a new species. Nobody has done that and I assume it's impossible. All the argument on the evo side is just declarations of belief in what you THINK has to happen, no evidence whatever. You say breeding can't create a new species and you say mutations over lots of time can. It's just you saying this, that's all it ever is, people saying such things and pretending it's evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're doing the same thing Percy did, SAYING you have evidence, saying that chemistry proves it, lineage proves it, saying mutations prove it, all stuff I can also see, not only you, even genetic drift of all things (which is nothing but an isolated population within a population that undergoes exactly the same processes as a geographically isolated population. The way any population microevolves based on reproductive isolation.

And since I'm arguing from the same materials you are and haven't mentioned my "book" you are being disingenuous to a fraudulent degree in this debate. Bunch of shysters you all are.

Why? Because mutations are random events that occur in every part of the genome. Even if you give it millions of years they aren't going to occur in any kind of coherent pattern that could create a new species. This seems obvious on the face of it. But if you think it's possible please make the effort to show a plausible pathway, which is what both dredge and I have been asking for in different ways.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Why? Because mutations are random events that occur in every part of the genome. Even if you give it millions of years they aren't going to occur in any kind of coherent pattern that could create a new species.

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

Actually it is you who need the evidence since all you have is what all evos have, a belief or phantasy or theory about what you think has to happen, but you cannot show it, you can only declare it. This is why dredge wants you to show how to breed one species into another and I'm asking the same thing in a different way: show us a plausible pathway of mutations that could become the basis of a new species. Take a given genome and describe how mutations can change it over millions of years to form a new pattern of traits coherent enough to be a new species.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Mutations can't create a new species either, they only contribute to the same species,

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.

Faith writes: Actually it is you who need the evidence since all you have is what all evos have, a belief or phantasy or theory about what you think has to happen, but you cannot show it, you can only declare it.

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