A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Faith writes: 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....

A variation in the genome IS a change in the genome.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Nope

Yup.

Faith writes: …and is in fact impossible

I've shown you observed evidence that it is not impossible - both the selection method and the genetic mutation. See peppered moth.

Dredge writes: I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

As others have mentioned, breeding doesn't involve mutations. Sure, occasionally a breeder gets a mutation, they're random, they can happen at any time. In fact, every reproductive event involves mutations, it's just that most of them have no effect. Mutations that cause a change are very rare in breeding.

But you said "given unlimited time," so Stile suggested an experimental program (it would have to last for billions and billions of years) that could be repeated over and over and over again until a rodent evolved into a whale. But this program would never be successful because of several problems. First, whales didn't evolve from rodents but from a now extinct ungulate (a hoofed animal), i.e., it no longer exists. Second, even if this ungulate did exist, because mutations are random repeating the experiment is unlikely to produce whales, just as Stile suggested, except it's even more unlikely than that. I think the universe would end first. Third, even if this original ungulate did exist, we couldn't keep it unchanged from one run of the experiment to the next because it would evolve too. The only way to actually run the experiment is to begin with an infinite number of ungulates and run an infinite number of these experiments simultaneously. And Fourth, we don't know the details of the changing environments that occurred in sequence, including the now extinct plants and creatures that populated them. Even if we did, they don't exist anymore. That is, we don't know what the selection pressures were, and even if we did we couldn't reproduce them.

Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form.

Since breeding leaves mutation out of the equation you are absolutely right that there are limits to the degree of changes breeding can effect.

For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken. How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?

Through mutation.

--Percy

Dredge writes: I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

All we would need to do is have the genomes from every generation along the way and engineer those mutations into a new population, generation by generation. In other words, we would need to take millions of years to replay the evolutionary history.

Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form.

Thousands of years of breeding is not enough time to produce the needed variation. You have already been told this many, many times. Why do you continue to ignore it?

For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken.

You have never supported this assertion.

How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?

It is overcome by selection over millions of years.

Faith writes: This idea that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a crock, pure fantasy.

Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to genetic differences between the two species?

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?

Yes. The genetic differences between humans and chimps, as an example, is consistent with the time since divergence and the observed mutation rate.

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.

Beneficial mutations are kept, detrimental mutations are removed, and neutral mutations fix at random. Why wouldn't this process be able to add beneficial mutations over time?

So all you geneticists here, prove that even millions of years of mutations could bring about a new species from an old species.

Already done. Again, the genetic divergence between chimps and humans is consistent with the mutation rates in both species.

Clearly the belief in the ability of mutations to bring about such changes is a belief with no substance whatever.

Show us a single genetic difference between chimps and humans that could not be produced by the observed processes of mutation. I bet you can't point to a single one. That's our proof.

Faith writes: 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.

1. I can cite multiple papers that map on going mutations in living species. I would think that you already accept this fact, but if not I can supply those papers. Do you accept that mutations happen?

2. Since mutations happen, they will happen throughout the genome. No part of the genome is protected from mutation. Therefore, the bases that differ between alleles are open to mutations, just as every base in the genome is open to mutation.

3. Therefore, it is complete lunacy to think that mutations can't produce the differences between alleles, or the differences between species.

Taq writes: For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken. You have never supported this assertion.

Just the assertion alone indicates a simple but essential point is not understood, that deleterious mutations happen to individuals who don't get to pass their genes on to any progeny.

--Percy

Faith writes: Mutations occur willynilly here and there, and the ones that occur in the reproductive cells are particularly rare.

Rare on whose scale?

The mutations that occur in the reproductive cells are the only mutations that we are talking about. They are the only ones involved with evolution.

Faith writes: Most mutations are not going to do anything more than add to the usual variations built into the genome of the species.

Yes, they add to the variation that is already in the genome, creating a new allele.

Faith writes: You need mutations that do something entirely different, change the genome in some brand new direction.

Nope, this is incorrect. We don't need anything, but what we do get is incremental changes (mutations) in the genome and phenotype that survive in succeeding generations. Some genome/phenotypes in a population will produce fewer or no offspring and will be eliminated by natural selection.

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not because it selects the best reproducers.

Faith writes: How often is that going to happen? And then it has to get selected. This whole scenario is wackily impossible.

Well, that's because you have the scenario wrong.

Faith writes: 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?

Mainly because such a random event is not how it happens.

Faith writes: 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.

This is incorrect. It is not a mutation here and a mutation there. If we use humans as an example, there are on average 100 mutations in every individual in a population. If we take the population of reproducers as 1 billion people, they have a combined 100 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS in just their generation of our population. If you take the whole human population there are 750 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS right now.

In just 1 million years that is a humongous number of mutations in a population. Now I realize that a population size will always fluctuate but to pretend that there are just a few mutations here or there is delusional.

Faith writes: The probabilities involved are beyond the organizing powers of billions of years, let alone millions.

Really? We would love to see you calculate that.

And what are the organizing powers of billions of years. This is a concept I am completely unfamiliar with.

I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

Sure. I'll do that ... if you do something first.

Prove to me your god exists.

If you succeed in doing the easy one I'll do the hard one.

This idea evidence that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a ...

.. fact (there, corrected it for you). This has been observed, and you keep ignoring it or dismissing it.

The trouble is creationists don't want just a new species, the want something more impressive - exemplified by the OP:

I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

... to reconnect to the op of this thread (not another faith-olution fantasy thread).

The answer lies in mutation and selection, which in turn requires multiple generations ... for each of the multitude of speciation evolutions required along the way. As noted in Message 3, "If we are going to simulate natural selection with breeding, then we should also simulate mutation with genetic engineering."

Expanding on this the process, the implied simulation of the actual known natural history of evolution of whales on earth would entail:

1. take individuals from all the many rodent like species available (although tapirs and pigs would be more accurate)
   
2. provide an environment similar to, but wetter, than their previous environments
   
3. select the healthiest survivors, make single genetic changes to each individuals reproductive gametes that would make them closer to the whale genomes available, and breed them randomly
   
4. take the offspring and
   
   • if they are whale-like, then you are done
     
   • if they are not whale-like, repeat from step 2
     
   • if they all perish, start over from the beginning

Note that this is a "do-loop" in programing language, repeating simple steps until the desired result is obtained or the world ends.

It should be stunningly obvious that this would be a massive undertaking that would span hundreds if not thousands or even millions of generations of dedicated scientists ...

... simply to prove to thickheaded creationists that evolution really happens, that the evidence available is large and increasing every day, and it shows that evolution has happened in the past, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best known explanation for the diversity of life as we know it, from the genetic evidence, from the fossil evidence, from the changes in life observed in history and pre-history.

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.

What stunning arrogant nonsense, based on wilful ignorance, of course. Of course you have been answered, many times - you just ignore it. Both of you.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

RAZD writes: Breeding is not evolution by natural selection.

Quite right - it's evolution by artificial selection.

I can't see why an naturally-occurring evolution couldn't theoretically be repeated by a human breeding program - assuming unlimited time is available and the evolutionary mechanisms and direction are known.

There's no reason to think you'd get anything whalelike at all, depending on mutations for this, even through hundreds of trials.

That is kinda what RAZD was saying. You may well run out of universe before repeating what nature already did.

I'm not sure you understand the implications.

If the clock were wound back to do it all again, humans would not be here. There were a mindbogglingly large number of paths history could have taken in the past 4 billion years. Humans were only one possibility that did not have to happen given the number of equally likely alternatives.

But for a lot of luck and the spooky actions of QFT your god would never have been fantasized.

More likely your rodent is just going to get tired of being wet and long since would have emigrated to a more congenial climate.

Most of them sure. But this is nature we're talking about. Not everything is perfect. Some were likely to stick around in that lovely wet in all those oceans with all that food. Presto-changeo. Whales. Well, ok, millions of years of presto-changeo.

It can't happen.

And yet it did. And not just whales but every critter on this planet went through the same thing.

Chemistry is amazing.