If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

Well, of course there are mutations. I don't see how that changes the idea that microevolution leads logically to macroevolution.

Way wrong. Conventional thinking is that random mutation plus other sources of variation plus natural selection have no known boundaries or hints of boundaries, other than those imposed by physical possibility and the requirement that all changes be variations on existing structures. Although we will never have a detailed map of the origin of today's panoply of life from simple replicators, enough records have been found to establish beyond a shadow of scientific doubt that that's what happened.

JonF, would you agree that if one accepts microevolution you would logically also have to accept macroevolution? That's what I've been arguing just from what seems like a logical standpoint (not from much educated knowledge of TOE).

Gaw, the number of combinations in a deck of cards is not unlimited. There is a finite, though very large, number of combinations in a deck of cards.On genetics, I may have a limited amount of knowledge, but I also know that variation without any mutation is not considered sufficient to account for all of life.

From what I have read in on this issue from various sources is that variation without any mutation is not considered sufficient to account for all of life.Processes are limited. The idea they are not limited by definition is absurd.I would also argue that often we see changes within species or groups of related species that change in the fossil record with the changes found within a range, meaning they change one way and then back the other, over a long period of time, and of course, some go extinct exactly because things like extinction do stop the process, and if the process was so unlimited, extinctions would be less likely.So the real crux of the matter goes to whether observable mutations are sufficient to explain the development of all life in adding the "jumps" necessary to break out of the cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation.

The fact that you are using a deck of cards, and saying that you can't add anymore card into the deck over time, is a strawman argument against genetic mutation. I don't get it. First you argued that mutation alone couldn't account for so-called macroevolution. Now, you are saying that genetic variation can't happen without mutation.Make up your mind. What are you talking about?

Gaw, you need to follow more closely."The fact that you are using a deck of cards, and saying that you can't add anymore card into the deck over time, is a strawman argument against genetic mutation."No, it's an illustration for an argument why genetic mutation is necessary if evolution is true.The argument was that micro-evolution as a process automatically proves macro-evolution, and my point is that micro-evolution can occur without mutations, and yet micro-evolution without mutations is considered insufficient to lead to full-on macro-evolution.Therefore, the argument that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution is false, and imo, sophomoric. The old "what's to stop it?" is just silly. What's to make it happen is the question since clearly micro-evolution can exist without leading to macro-evolution, and heck, extinctions show this all the time, so the argument is a false one.The real argument is whether observable mutations are sufficient in type, frequency, etc,...to explain the "jumps" necessary for variation to lead to macro-evolution.And as far as my thesis on this thread, the argument is that if the theory of common descent were proven 100%, that would not negate special creation. Non-boolean logic and fact, as shown in quantum mechanics, is more valid than Newtonian paradigms of space-time and matter.This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 04:57 PM

Are you talking to yourself? Why not? Huh? You even know what extinction means? I'm very interested to hear more about this "range of change" you are talking about.Question. You really think that observable mutations are all there is about life we find in the fossil record?

How?

Gaw, I cannot help you if you are not intellectually honest. Reread my posts, think about them, and when you are ready to understand them, maybe post something based on what I said, and I will get back to you.By the way, is the process of a human life unlimited?Or does it have an end?What stops it?What stops variation alone without mutation from developing into unlimited life forms is the fact that there is a limited and finite combination that can stem from variation absent any mutations.I seriously don't think any educated evolutionary biologist disagrees with that assessment. Mutations are considered both real and necessary.

Yes. I agree that a large pile of microevolution often becomes macroevolution, using standard biological definitions of the two. But macroevolution can be more than a big pile of microevolution. For example, Larry Moran on talk.origins often argues that macroevolution is not just a big pile of microevolution. He's not a creationist, there's good reason to believe that he knows whereof he speaks, and I can't completely follow his arguments; so I provisionally accept them. E.g see Larry A. Moran, microevolution lead to macroevolution?, and Macroevolution and Microevolution (closed debate).

Again, my question is are you talking to yourself?I can't seem to find anyone (except for you) that initially said that evolution of any kind does not require mutation. So, I can only conclude that you are debating with yourself. Oh my! You've stumbled onto the answer to life itself. It means that the computer lifespan is about 80-100 years. The universe must have a life span of 80-100 years. Oh my goodness! The sun is going to end soon, since it can only live 80 to 100 years. Ok, seriously. I want to know what your current knowledge of genetic variation is like. Please explain how evolution of any kind can occur without mutation. *note to self... must fight temptation to ask question again*

I did not mean that in every single thread of microevolution, it would lead to something we can call a new species. Obviously a strand might die out. But all organisms are evolving always and this inevitably leads to new species if the species thrives. What jumps? There are no jumps.

True. however, your original sttement was "I think conventional thinking on this issue is that breeding and variation alone are not sufficient.". Mutations are variation, so your two statements are not equivalent. Well, one could argue that; physical possibility imposes limits. However, the limit of which we know are far outside the limts that creationists argue for. Let's see your argument that "often we see changes within species or groups of related species that change in the fossil record with the changes found within a range, meaning they change one way and then back the other, over a long period of time". I would be especaillly interested in seeing how you apply this to known hominid fossils, and Pelycodus.And you need some serious population genetics math to show that extinction would be less likely than observed if there are barriers that prevented change beyon d a certain point. There are,of course, barriers on the rate of change which accounts for many if not all extinctions. Well, the first thing you need to establish is the existence of a "cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation". So far all I've seen are unsupported claims and a few examples that do not establish the general principle that you are claiming.

Gaw, from this comment, I assume you are not interested in debate, nor truth, or you are too dumb to follow the argument. Perhaps you should play with yourself?"I can't seem to find anyone (except for you) that initially said that evolution of any kind does not require mutation."I will try one last time, and then that's it. I have learned one thing on boards, and that's when someone is not willing to listen to reason and approach what you say with honesty, they are not worth talking to.The claim was put forth that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution by insisting that the process is unlimited, which is a pretty broad claim.So I broke this down a bit, and showed, as you tacitly admit to in your derogatory post, that mutations are considered necessary for macroevolution.I'd think at this point a light would go on, but I am afraid it probably has to be spelled out for you.Microevolution occurs without mutation all the time. All change is microevolution, by definition.But if just because microevolution occurs, that means macroevolution is automatically proven (if the logic is correct that the one by it's mere existence proves the other), then microevolution occuring without any mutations should also automatically lead to macroevolution without the need for mutations at all, but that's not the case, is it?Mutations, as you tacitly admit to, are necessary.So the real issue is whether there are enough mutations of the type necessary to bulk up variation so to speak to produce, along with natural selection, all of life as we know it.If you cannot follow that, I've got no use for you, man.If you do follow that, then please post responses that acknowledge what I wrote instead of trying to dodge it, and if you cannot do that, once again, I've got no use for you here.