I would find that the up and down variation we see in species would be good evidence that such changes cannot accumulate. This can be seen in finch beaks: They go from small to big during half the year, then from big to small the other half. No net accumulation. Also in bacteria, where you can make them adapt to a given environment at the lose of other properties, only to put them back in another environment where they lose their 'novel' adaptation to regain the previous one that was lost. Again, no net accumulation.
This is an assumption, on your part. We've seen mutations accumulate, we've seen bacteria lose an ability, then gain the ability back...but through a different process, showing that two mutations (at least) have happened which have accumulated. The fact that it can do the same thing doesn't mean it does so in the same way. Doing something in a novel way is indeed an accumulation of mutations.
If your argument was to be correct, then it would mean ''no assumptions allowed'' in science. Because if someone would assume something, than he would have to also assume everything that is 'assumable'. Clearly this is fallacious, and in fact is it the same type of fallacy as 'If you believe in God, then you have to believe in pink unicorns''.
No, you can make an assumption as a starting point in an experiment or hypothesis, but you then have to state that as an assumption, or even better, go back and find some basis on which to hold the assumption. Abiogenesis research often relies on assumptions about the early atmosphere of the Earth. These assumptions are stated outright, for example, "In a reducing atmosphere, such and such a reaction will lead to X amino acids." It is understood that if it turns out Earth didn't have a reducing atmosphere, this probably didn't happen...though it could be useful if we find another planet with a reducing atmosphere.
I can readily assume something that I find plausible, and in this case the existence of such a genetic barrier is very much plausible, in order to go out and look if it is a reality.
Very true. You can make an assumption...or hypothesis...and then look for evidence of it. But if I, as another scientist, don't take your idea into account until you provide evidence for it, I'm not making an assumption, I'm refraining from making one. Without evidence, the assumption is the statement of existence, not the statement of exclusion. Excluding a process or agent may turn out to be wrong, but I wouldn't call it an assumption...othewrwise, everything we do is based upon an infinite array of assumptions, making the whole argument pointless.
See previous post. I'll add that evolution does need a lot of time in order to go from original cell to thinking human.
Not necessarily, that's an assumtion. I could imagine a 1-in-a-gajillion shot where a single cell spontaneously mutates with the exact DNA sequence of modern humans and happens to be in an environment so nutrient rich that the fetus can grow and develop...or maybe there is a larger mutation that creates a womb-like environment inside this nutrient rich area...unlikely, but I would never venture to say that it requires a lot of time, it just so happens that the path taken is one that used a lot of time, and since we see there was a lot of time, there's no contradiction here.
™ Version 4.2
