This idea that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a crock, pure fantasy. Has anyone ever even tracked the random occurrence of mutations over a long enough period of time to lend any credence to this common belief? Wouldn't mutations have to build on one another to bring about the necessary changes to get a coherent new phenotype, but everything I've ever heard about mutations is that they are entirely random. That is, they are a DISorganizing force, the opposite of what is needed.
So all you geneticists here, prove that even millions of years of mutations could bring about a new species from an old species.
I asked a while back if anyone could track the mutations needed to change the genome of a known creature in a direction that could produce a new species, and got nothing. And there's still the question of tracking the evolutionary path to get from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear. More nothing.
Clearly the belief in the ability of mutations to bring about such changes is a belief with no substance whatever. It just sort of sounds plausible but in fact it is impossible.
Of course I didn't really expect an explanation of how random mutations could possibly form an organized genetic anything even over millions of years, so that was predictable, as of course was the snarkl. You asked where I get my ideas, well this one has been forming in my head over the last few months without any other source.
Mutations occur willynilly here and there, and the ones that occur in the reproductive cells are particularly rare.
Most mutations are not going to do anything more than add to the usual variations built into the genome of the species. You need mutations that do something entirely different, change the genome in some brand new direction. How often is that going to happen? And then it has to get selected. This whole scenario is wackily impossible.
Why can't you at least THINK about how any such random event could ever in a million years get selected toward some organized new phenotype? A mutation here, a mutation there, these have to have some kind of coherent pattern and that pattern has to be selected piecemeal over huge amounts of time. The probabilities involved are beyond the organizing powers of billions of years, let alone millions.
But without even the slightest speculation along these llnes all you have is a wild assumption. The scenario is simply impossible.
You get a mutation in fur color, a mutation next in toenail shape, then one in eye shape, then another in fur color, and most of these don't actually change the phenotype at all, most of them get selected out, and most aren't in the germ cells anyway. You get hundreds ofr these random changes that go nowhere but you expect somehow for enough of them to come together over millions of years to create a new functioning coherent whole? Wacko.
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.
Nope Not unless it's a change in the structural part which is supposedly the HOX genes? But I understand they are resistant to mutations and usually produce monsters anyway, llke rearranging the body parts of fruit flies.
Your answers are all speculative, all nothing but evo daydreams. They are not science, they are pretend science.
There's no reason to think you'd get anything whalelike at all, depending on mutations for this, even through hundreds of trials. This is an article of faith, this is not science. It can't happen. Mutations can't do anything that organized, in concert with one another. It can't happen. More likely your rodent is just going to get tired of being wet and long since would have emigrated to a more congenial climate.
Not silly at all. If such an evolution is possible then it ought to be possible to hypothesize a plausible series of genetic changes that could bring it about over millions of years. A mutation here, a mutation there, etc. Since obviously nobody can do this and won't even try, we know the ToE is a complete krock.
Mutations can't create a new species either, they only contribute to the same species, assuming they do contribute at all rather than just being a destructive element, they contribute to the normal microevolution variation, it's sheer phantasy that they could create a new species no matter how much time you give them. I've asked for someone to give a hypothetical pathway for the changes you believe could create a new species. Nobody has done that and I assume it's impossible. All the argument on the evo side is just declarations of belief in what you THINK has to happen, no evidence whatever. You say breeding can't create a new species and you say mutations over lots of time can. It's just you saying this, that's all it ever is, people saying such things and pretending it's evidence.
You're doing the same thing Percy did, SAYING you have evidence, saying that chemistry proves it, lineage proves it, saying mutations prove it, all stuff I can also see, not only you, even genetic drift of all things (which is nothing but an isolated population within a population that undergoes exactly the same processes as a geographically isolated population. The way any population microevolves based on reproductive isolation.
And since I'm arguing from the same materials you are and haven't mentioned my "book" you are being disingenuous to a fraudulent degree in this debate. Bunch of shysters you all are.
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. This seems obvious on the face of it. But if you think it's possible please make the effort to show a plausible pathway, which is what both dredge and I have been asking for in different ways.
Actually it is you who need the evidence since all you have is what all evos have, a belief or phantasy or theory about what you think has to happen, but you cannot show it, you can only declare it. This is why dredge wants you to show how to breed one species into another and I'm asking the same thing in a different way: show us a plausible pathway of mutations that could become the basis of a new species. Take a given genome and describe how mutations can change it over millions of years to form a new pattern of traits coherent enough to be a new 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. But since I don't assume it, what you are saying is nonsense. 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. There is no ACTUAL relation between the two, they just have similar design elements.
But since you think there is such a relationship, it should make a good place to start on the demonstration dredge and I keep asking for. It's not a huge project llke rodent to whale, the changes should be easier to track for that reason. What changes in the chimp genome have to happen? Give us a series of mutations that could change the chimp genome into the human genome. How do you get from the one to the other given the fact that mutations are random and unpredictable. You can't just point out the differences, you have to track how they could occur genetically over time, formed by these random mutations.
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. You have to think through such a thicket of random changes to show how they could possibly construct an entirely new creature over millions of years.
Then what makes a chimp different from a human? Isn't it the differences between their genomes?
Of course it is, but you assume the one evolved from the other, whereas I am saying they are simply different designs hardwired to the creature. You think mutations could change what's different in the chimp to make a human, I'm saying that's impossible, mutations are random events and even a billion years wouldn't be enough since it's in principle impossible. You'll only get variations on the chimp, and really you'll most likely get a lot of dead chimps, but anyway.
If changing a genome can only ever produce the same species, then how was God able to produce so many different species?
He MADE them different to begin with. You keep assuming something llke He made the one from the other? but He didn't. He made a chimp and He made a man, two entirely different things that happen to have some features in common.
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.
You keep saying this but it makes no sense. You think mutations get you from one species to another so you even seem to think God had to do it that way. No, I believe God created separate Kinds/Species at the beginning. It had nothing to do with mutations, just design factors He built into each creature. He took a ball of clay, you could say, and he made a human being. He took another ball of clay and He made a chimp. He took other balls of clay and made horses and insects and elephants and whales and so on and so forth, each out of a separate ball of clay.
yes I know humans and chimps are said to have evolved from a common ancestor but in this context that's just a distraction. So track the changes back from the chimp and the human being to this common ancestor then. Or however you want to do it.
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.
Well, you are suffering from some kind of mental glitch I'm not sure how to undo. But it's the same argument for the chimp genome which God created separately. The chimp genome can't produce anything other than a chimp because no matter how many variations it can produce, or that mutations can bring about in the chimp genome it will still be a chimp. Same with a dragonfly. No matter how many variations occur in its genome, or how many mutations occur in it, it will still be a dragonfly. Or a horse: No matter how many variations occur in its genome or how many mutations, it will still be a horse.