A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Oh pardon me, of course they are "facts" though the bald assertion of expertise is just that, and annoying. But the facts are irrelevant facts because I already know all that and it's only a distraction from the discussion to assert the evo position without the slightest regard to the other point of view. It's depressing to be treated this way. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Assertion.So show your evidence of mutations in the case of the Pod Mrcaru lizardsOr the Jutland cattle or sheep or whatever they wereOr the black versus blue wildebeestsOr any case of "speciation" of your choice.Or dog breedsOr cattle breedsOr the Amish or the Hutterites

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, 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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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. I rather doubt that you understand it yourself. 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. 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. 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?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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?

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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm always being told I've "been told" this or that in the past, and here's another case where I'm "being told" something, but why should I take it seriously? Why should I believe you about anything? Why should you have the definitive word?

Why do people allow themselves to impute motives to others that can't possibly be known? It creates noise in a conversation having to deal with all that error and the error may persist for pages and pages and in fact never be corrected and it comes to be taken for truth no matter how many times it may be corrected.Oh well.No, the "problem" I'm having is that I've LEARNED from YOU EV-OS that mutations are RANDOM and beneficial ones VERY RARE. So when I hear that one has conveniently turned up "just in time" to save the day as it were, I have a "problem" thinking of this as a mutation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now there's another perfect example of nothing but "noise." You put out a lot of it.
"

The problem is that the explanations aren't convincing. Why aren't YOU skeptical of the timing? Not that it could be something other than a mutation but it doesn't fit the usual idea of a mutation and yet you are all just accepting it anyway.

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.I guess it survived in the two or five percent?But then I'm back to thinking no mutation was needed at all, just the usual built in variant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where have I said mutations "don't exist?" I'm certainly aware that they exist but as mistakes and neutral or useless changes. What I doubt is that they make useful alleles.

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.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 controversy after all, nothing interesting really.

Oh yes, I've accepted this from all the reports of it.But remind me again: how do they recognize it as a mutation? I mean what about the DNA sequence makes it a mutation?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.