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).
All we would need to do is have the genomes from every generation along the way and engineer those mutations into a new population, generation by generation. In other words, we would need to take millions of years to replay the evolutionary history.
Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form.
Thousands of years of breeding is not enough time to produce the needed variation. You have already been told this many, many times. Why do you continue to ignore it?
For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken.
You have never supported this assertion.
How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?
It is overcome by selection over millions of years.
The usual article of faith that can't be proved and is in fact impossible. All that's ever going to be selected is a variation on the given genome, you are never going to get changes to the genome, let alone selected.
1. I can cite multiple papers that map on going mutations in living species. I would think that you already accept this fact, but if not I can supply those papers. Do you accept that mutations happen?
2. Since mutations happen, they will happen throughout the genome. No part of the genome is protected from mutation. Therefore, the bases that differ between alleles are open to mutations, just as every base in the genome is open to mutation.
3. Therefore, it is complete lunacy to think that mutations can't produce the differences between alleles, or the differences between species.
Re: When undertaking a vast enterprise don't start with half vast models
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.
"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.
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)
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.
Funny Taq, how your chimp-human comparisons are begging the question and you don't seem to know it. You assume a genetic relationship and everything you say reflects that assumption.
I make conclusions based on evidence, not assumptions.
First, orthologous ERV's establish common ancestry. We observe both in the lab and in the wild that ERV's are produced by retroviruses that insert randomly into genomes. Therefore, finding the same ERV at the same base in two genomes is evidence that the insertion happened once in a common ancestor.
Second, the pattern of mutations is consistent with observations of mutations happening in real time. When we look at the mutations that humans are born with we see that transitions are more common than transversions, and CpG mutations happen at the highest rates. The observed pattern of mutations is also consistent with the differences between different humans. More to the point, we see the same exact pattern when comparing the human and chimp genomes.
I would strongly suggest that you read the article that those images came from:
So to refute your claims, I am not making assumptions. I am following the evidence.
What separates the human and chimp genomes is a different design altogether, using a lot of similar genetic information because of the similarities between the designs, llke the similarities between two car designs perhaps.
It isn't a different design altogether. 98% of the bases are the same in both the chimp and human genomes.
What changes in the chimp genome have to happen?
Humans didn't evolve from chimps. We evolved from a common ancestor. The changes that had to happen are among the differences between our genomes, as I have already discussed.
You can't just point out the differences, you have to track how they could occur genetically over time, formed by these random mutations.
Can you point to a single difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced by known mechanisms of mutagenesis? I bet you can't. Naturally occurring mutations include substitutions, deletions, insertions, and recombination. These mechanisms can produce all of the differences between the human and chimp genomes.
From my point of view you are going to get random mutation after random mutation of different traits, all within the chimp genome and never producing anything but those chimp characteristics, where they produce anything beneficial at all but of course mostly they do nothing or once in a while they produce something deleterious.
Your point of view isn't supported by a shred of evidence. It's just a fantasy.
Of course it is, but you assume the one evolved from the other,
False. I have the evidence, so I am making a supported conclusion.
You think mutations could change what's different in the chimp to make a human,
Just to reiterate, I am saying that mutations made both chimp and human from a common ancestor. Humans didn't evolve from chimps. The mutations that separate chimps and humans are mutations that happened in both lineages.
To use an analogy, the Romance Languages (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish) evolved from Latin. The differences between the languages are differences that accumulated in each language lineage. It would be a mistake to say that French evolved from Italian. They both evolved from Latin, their common ancestral tongue.
He MADE them different to begin with.
According to you, this is impossible. God couldn't make a genome that produced anything other than humans because no matter how much you change the human genome it will still be human. This is your argument.
So on my Word copy of the article with the black background I've read down to the point where it is asserted that changes in human beings that show a difference from a common ancestor are mutations. This is an assumption based on the ToE. There is no reason whatever to assume these are mutations.
The x-axis is the rate of each type of mutation according to a comparison of human genomes. The y-axis is the observed rate of these mutations that are observed in new births, the de novo rate. Notice that the two perfectly correlate with each other. The observed rate of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations in humans strongly correlates with the differences seen between humans. That's the evidence. The differences between humans looks exactly like the new random mutations we see happening in live births right now.
Here is another chart, showing the same data in a different format. One set of bars maps human genetic diversity (All SNP's) while the other bars map observed mutation rates in humans (Human de novo):
On my model they are most likely merely built-in variations, normal alleles that vary from generation to generation to make the differences we see in human beings down those generations.
Then your model needs to explain why transitions outnumber transversions, and why differences at CpG's occur at the highest rate. Evolutionary mechanisms explain this perfectly, but I have yet to see your model explain this.
A dark skinned parent and a light skinned parent may have children of a whole variety of skin colors from light to dark without any mutations whatever, just the normal sexual combination of the DNA for the dark and light skin.
Those are combinations of alleles that differ by mutations. You need to brush up on your Mendelian genetics. You claim that you have a model, yet you don't even understand the basics of genetics.