Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

Yes - I'm a bit confused about where both of you want my input. Faith seemed to say at one point that I should hop in at will - I'm trying to do so when specifically asked, or if I have background information for a specific point that you both seem unsure about. Sorry if I stepped over any bounds.I'm really just trying to be helpful and don't want to derail your thread or take away steam from either side; I think I'll wait until I see my name and a question mark to enter the discussion again...

I know and I appreciate that, but I felt a twinge of discomfort there for reasons that I won't go into.

That's what I understood too, that invitees would respond to questions from us, and you had asked one of PS so I assured him he was invited to answer.

Yes I get what you're saying about stasis not being affected by mutations.Otherwise you're talking about natural selection again.None of this supports {"macro") evolution or challenges creationism however.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 03:17 PM

That wasn't the point. The fact that a mutation does something so predictable as produce a white mouse among black ones is what makes it something other than a random occurrence, and suggests something "built in" -- something in the normal-operating-procedures of inheritance. If not all genes are expressly given, the chemical combinations that create them appear to be. Sounds like in the case of the mice even this is pretty predictable. Mutation is not necessary for producing novel phenotypes. This commonly occurs under strict selection as in domestic breeding, and mutation is not required for this.=================
{AbE: Since what "mutations" are is chemical rearrangements along a stretch of DNA, usually considered to be "mistakes" in replication, what I don't get is why those homozygous loci of the cheetah aren't being constantly subjected to such chemical rearrangements as per the usual evo contention that these happen in every offspring. Or maybe they just occur at all the other loci, there being so many of them? Also it seems to me it would be remarkable if what DID occur at these hardwired loci happened to restore a healthy variation rather than crippling or killing the gene altogether. If such a beneficial thing occurred -- or at least a normal variant -- which is pretty much what you're saying occurs with these mice, I can't regard it as a random event. It must follow some law not yet appreciated. But it doesn't appear to happen with the cheetah. }This message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 03:32 PM

But this process just continues and leads to macroevolution. It doesn't stop. I'm talking about natural selection and mutation because those are the main processes that produce evolution.

That's how we will do it then. They only respond if one of us asks them and only about what we asked.

Prove it. Show me that mutation occurs in such a way and at such a rate that it overcomes the diversity-reducing effects of migration, bottleneck, natural selection, sexual selection etc. {AbE: One example won't answer this. This takes an overview of all the possible scenarios.} Depends on which evos are talking. If you read up on population genetics you will find that speciation is the product of all these diversity-reducing processes I'm talking about.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 03:46 PM

Faith, do you want Pink S. to respond to this post?

Not really. You could research it and respond to it.

OK.Also, I will prove that macroevolution takes place. No problem.

Here are the types of proof that converge together to give us near- certainty, according to my book:1. the Fossil record
2. morphological similarity
3. embryology
4. vestigial structures
5. biogeography
6. molecular evidence

Faith misunderstood my posts to a significant degree, rendering them essentially useless and misleading.If you want me to clarify, I will. Otherwise, they, and reference to them, should be deleted to avoid their continued misuse by Faith (intentional or not).Thanks.(I'm not sure how well this is working with hands tied to the extent that I can't correct misreadings. Perhaps you two should just go at it and skip the invitees...)

My, such heroic exertions in the service of the discussion. I understand we are indulging each other on this thread, or patronizing perhaps, but it does seem you could make a BIT more effort. Please expand on each of the listed to show how it supports the ToE. And it would be a good idea for you to do the same with your earlier list of supposed evolutionary processes before they fade into forgetfulness.Let me spur you on by pointing out that I expect to have little problem showing how each on your list above supports Creationism.Except I don't know what the supposed molecular evidence (#6) for the ToE amounts to. Please explain.Also, biogeopraphy (#5), was Mick's OP on The Phylogeographic Challenge to Creationism which I spent the rest of the thread answering.By the way, hasn't the idea of embryological analogues (#3) to supposed ancestors been answered by the Haeckel fraud? Shall we invite Randman in?

Please clarify as you like.