"Best" evidence for evolution.

Weird idea. The differences between humans and chimps is at LEAST as great as the differences between sheep and goats or deer etc. Lots of similarities, lots of differences. But all those trilobites have an identical form, shape etc., and identical appendages. Yes I can demonstrate it if I have to.

As I have argued, the only way you can get from one species to another is by trial and error through mutations. That is an entirely different process from microevolution in which all the variations are built into the genome and simply appear through sexual recombination in the case of sexually reproducing creatures. That is what I've been arguing. You don't like it? Oh dear.You have to get a genetic change that allows for the development of a fourth chamber. Since it isn't built into the genome the only way you are going to get it is by many different mutations that are probably not going to get you anywhere near that result . ever, but at least in bazillions of tries. Just think it through and stop complaining.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Weird it may be, but the case can be made. I think I made it somewhere here a while back.

The anatomical differences are accidental. The basic morphology is identical.

No, dear, the basic morphology is very different. Like the differences between horses and cows.

The morphological similarities are of the sort that would be built into the genome, and the accidental features normal variations of the genetic material. The basic morphology of chimps and humans need entirely different genomes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry but your ability to judge the similarities and differences is ...lacking, to put it nicely.

WHAT? I never said such a thing about "sharper claws." PLEASE quote me when you claim I said this or that. Size differences are built into the genome of EVERY creature, that is no problem whatever. We get Clydesdales and we get ponies and we get Eohippus. We get Great Danes and we get chihuahuas. There are no differences in proportions, they are all differences in secondary features or whatever they should be called. The spines can take many forms from the same genome, the eyes also, without violating the basic trilobite shape.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why should mutational anomalies be a problem for anything I've said? Is the extra heart chamber functional? How many more changes would be needed to make it functional? What's to guarantee they'd occur where they need to occur? Why on earth the occasional anomaly is supposed to prove something I don't know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the main point I was making so of course if you call it irrelevant you don't let me make my point. My argument was that trial and error would be impossible because the number of trials even to get a small functioning part would be impossible and the necessary trials to build on that small function would be beyond beyond. If your anomaly is functional then you are already closer to the goal than I was predicting, but again, I don't think the occasional mutation in the right direction proves anything anyway. You'd have to show a LOT of such mutations to begin to counter my argument.I understand you guys don't like my arguments but you are awfully obvious about it which kind of makes my point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As long as you speak in abstract generalizations you can obscure the fact that it won't work.

You all think microevolution just keeps going but that is impossible. That is why I'm saying all you've got to get from species to species is trial and error. It's the only possibility. You can call it crap all you want. Obviously that makes yhou feel better but it doesn't change the fact that you can't get from one species to another any other way, and there's no way to predict that you're going to get any kind of useful mutations.. The genetic stuff is not built into the genome, that's only for the variations within the species. I'll come back to this again, can't get through it all now. "Cumulative selection" is a crock. You guys will believe anything. Selection can't do anything, you have to have the stuff to select and that's where all you've got is trial and error.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evolution beyond intraspecies microevolution has NOT been observed. It doesn't happen, never happened, isn't going to happen. Everything you call evolution is just normal variation within a species, which includes some mutational effects.

The genome of any given creature has only the stuff that makes that creature and no others. Mutations may change some of the particular expressions of some of its particular code, but it cannot do anything beyond the parameters set by the genome. Which you'd know if you weren't under the spell of the ToE and were free to think instead. And of course you don't bother to say how "evolution" is some kind of real alternative, which of course it isn't. Evolution can't happen. You have this strong faith that it can and does but that's all you have. It can't happen. If the genetic stuff isn't built into the genome of the "evolving" creature all you have is trial and error despite your "not by a long shot." How many millions of trials do you think it would take to get from the reptile type of ear to the mammal type of ear? It can't happen. And that's not counting all the other things that have to change by trial and error at the same time which multiplies the problem by bazillions.

Mutations usually change the sequence of a gene and only affect what that gene does. If they affect something structural like a HOX gene they rearrange the parts, they don't add anything new. If a mutation gives you a four chambred heart in a creature with three normal chambers it's going to be a useless addition, not a step to a new creature.No, millions of trials are NOT available. That means millions of neutral changes that do nothing, plus a bunch of weird useless changes, including many lethal, and even if you get one that could lead to a useful new functioning organ you need millions more to add to it. YES I KNOW for pete's sake that evolution doesn't have an AIM, but the task here is to imagine how a mammalian part COULD HAVE evolved from a reptilian part. That's not too hard for your highly evolved homo sapien brain is it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.