The Origin of Novelty

How would an eagle be considered a transitional between a falcon and another species. What transitional features does an eagle have?We can also find human fossils below modern falcon fossils, but no one is saying that humans are transtional or ancestral to falcons.You have also ignored the fact that the transitional fossils we do have fit into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution, a nested hierarchy that sits above the baramin level and is able to explain the relationships between larger clades. Just look at the similarities between humans and chimps. Are they in the same baramin? We share over 200,000 orthologous ERV's with chimps. This is smoking gun evidence of shared ancestry. Either chimps and humans are in the same baramin, or genetics is no help for determing baramins. Each person is born with between 50 and 100 mutations. That's millions of mutations in just one generation for a population of just 100,000. You only need to keep a tiny percentage of the mutations that do happen in order to produce the genetic divergence seen between humans and chimps over a 6 million year time span. Then show that they were swimming around at the same time.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The very first life form could have been poofed into being by a supernatural deity, and then all life evolved from that point. Guess what, the theory of evolution would be unchanged if this is what actually happened.The only wordplay here is your failed attempts to conflate abiogenesis with evolution and religion with scientific theories. Parsimony has nothing to do with complexity. Nothing. The most parsimonious explanation is the explanation with the fewest unevidenced assumptions. In this case, the production of nested hierarchy by a supernatural deity is the poorer explanation because no one has ever observed a supernatural deity producing life that falls into a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, we do observe the mechanisms of evolution producing life that falls into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, evolution is the more parsimonious explanation. Why don't we find any flight adaptations used in birds being used in bats, or vice versa? Why is a bat more like a mole than like a bird?

Talk about begging the question. So any evidence of shared ancestry dating back millions of years will automatically be rejected, isn't that right?

Sweeping deinals of evidence are not refutations. Exactly conserved? Are you crazy?

quote:

---

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

---

The sequence between human and yeast cytochrome c is only 40% similar. As discussed above, the yeast functions just fine with human cytochrome c instead of its own, so why not use the same sequence when designing both? Why would a designer change cytochrome c genes so that they fall into a nested hierarchy that mimics an evolutionary history that never happened?Quite simply, design can not explain these relationships. Evolution does. We see the exact pattern of divergence that we would expect to see from evolution, time and time again. You will also notice that none of those species violates a nested hierarchy when a designer would be able to easily design a species that would.

What we have is a novel function produced by a new mutation. This is an increase in genetic diversity within the population. Your model is contradicted by the facts and is therefore falsified. Humans and chimps do share a common ancestor as shown by the facts.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The mutations leading to dark fur in pocket mice.

Then why do yeast and human cytochrome c differ by 60% at the sequence level while human cytochrome c can replace yeast cytochrome c and the yeast functions just fine.Why design functionally identical proteins that differ by 60%, and not only that, why do these differences exactly match the predictions made by evolution if they did not evolve?

Then show us a bat that shares more characteristics with a bird than a whale. You have provided no evidence for major and consistent violations of this pattern, and even worse no explanation of why we should see this pattern if design is true. So humans are in the same baramin as other apes? So the hominid transitionals put humans and other apes in the same baramin?

Mammary glands, three middle ear bones, developed neocortex, pelvis, radius and ulna in forearm, femurs, . . . I could go on and on. Whales and humans share way more features than whales and sharks. Why is that? How do you explain this?

Being that we have evidence for random mutations but no evidence for your intelligent teleological framework I say we go with the evidence.

You have just spent the entire length of the thread denying that beneficial mutations exist. Don't you think we need to agree that they exist before determining how they come about?

"Both alleles of the entire Mc1r gene (954 bp) were sequenced in the 69 mice in Fig. 1. Twenty-four single-nucleotide polymorphisms were observed: 15 were synonymous and 9 were nonsynonymous. Four of the nine amino acid polymorphisms were observed only in the dark mice from the Pinacate locality (Arg-18 Cys, Arg-109 Trp, Arg-160 Trp, and Gln-233 His). These four amino acid variants were present at high frequency (82%) among the Pinacate dark mice and were in complete linkage disequilibrium with one another."
Just a moment...Those are the mutations I am talking about. This is from the paper I cited very early on in this thread. If you want to discuss the specific chemistry behind the process of mutation I would be happy to go into that.

I have been speaking about specific mutations. Why do you continue to ignore them? You are claiming that ALL of us are failing to present this evidence. Where did I ever claim that dwarfism is a beneficial mutation. Cite the post. I challenge you.You have once again invented claims and ignored the real facts. Why is that? Why do you continue to ignore the evidence?

The problem is that creationism is unfalsifiable, as this thread demonstrates. Any and all evidence that is ever observed will be claimed to be evidence of creationism, even patterns of shared features and shared DNA that are exactly what we would expect from evolution.

Bolder-dash:I think we need to hear from you what exactly you want to see.1. Examples of beneficial mutations: We have already offered beneficial mutations in the pocket mouse mc1r gene.2. How mutations occur: I can talk about the specific chemical and physical reasons that mutations occur, and how they are random, if you so choose.Which is it?