A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

There you go again declaring the creation of novel organs an obstacle without given any reason for it. This kid of argument is really good for nothing. That's why I called it an argument of incredulity. You are basically saying "I can't believe random mutations could create novel organs"(Not your real words, but that's how they come across). I'm sorry, but that's an argument of incredulity.

No, i'm not saying that I can't believe that random mutations could create novel organs. I'm making a declaration. They Don't.This is a declaration based on observation.Show me I'm wrong.Finally, Mick is the first to introduce any sort of evidence that mutation is the mechanism darwinism needs.Now I can actually look at the evidence he provided and start and actual discourse.Why'd it take so long, I can't imagine. (I know, creationists have no imagination, I've heard it a million times.)

But you give us no reasoning behind your declaration. it is bare and is completely pointless for that reason. What observation??? You made a declaration. The burden is on you to back it up. I didn't say anything. I'm just sitting here and waiting for you to back up your declarations with some substance and I'm not getting anything fast.

The first task is to make sense of your declaration. What do you mean by 'novel organs'?Do you mean fully functioning organs growing where none existed before? Do you mean new functions for existing structures? Both? Something else?Please clarify.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The article that Subbie presented talks about the eye evolving in a series of steps. Furthermore it mentions that each step is exhibited in extant creatures today.All I'm talking about is distinctly different organs that possess the same function. Compound eye versus human eye versus photosensitive light spot. It really the underlying genetics that provide the distinction, not the morphology, but it's more convenient to refer to the morphological distinctions.So no, I'm not talking about new functions arising
Nor am I talking about fully functioning organs arising where none had previously been.I'm talking about the transformation of one organ into another (presumably with the same function, although ToE postulates that the same function need not be conserved)Whether the order is photosensitive light spot becoming simple eye becoming complex eye, or whatever lineage you want, where's the proof that such transformations occur? And that mutations are the mechanism?

Thanks, i'm checking it out now.

Science works by the accumulation of study and knowledge. Just because there are gaps in our understanding doesn't invalidate this hypothesis or the ToE.This is the kind of handwaving that YECs use in response to ToE evidence in order to paper over the fact that they have NO evidence in support of their postion.You asked for evidence, I (and others) have given you just a small taster.Now it's your turn to pony up. Where are the scientific papers that support a barrier to speciation/mutation?

Still awaiting MJ's definition of 'novel' organs.Does the evolution of a new organ count as 'novel' if an organ with that precise function didn't exist before? Or does it not count as 'novel' because the new organ assigns new functions to features that already existed?I look forward to your clarification, MJ, so we may present you with the information you requested.Please note that if nothing satisfies your definition except a fully functioning organ popping out of nowhere at once--then it is we who must ask you for evidence. In that case you are demanding to see an example of special creation, not evolution. You, not others, bear the responsibility of demonstrating your own point..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

When you say that scientists have not “proven” by experiment the evolution of an organ like the eye I don’t think you appreciate the scope of exactly what you are asking. To prove that small changes in each generation can lead all the way back to an eye patch would require recreating every ancestor in the lineage. We could start with a random human, yourself or myself for example and sequence that genome. We would then need to sequence your parents genomes and show that you could arise from a combination of their genes plus mutation. We would then have to do this for your grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents etc. You are asking scientists to recreate millions (billions? Can’t be bothered to do the maths) of generations, show that they are viable and that their genomes are the product of their parents plus mutation. You would have to be able to work out every single base change for these millions of generations prior to creating the genome. How would you work out what the genome of your great, great, great grandparents was let alone a far distant pre-human ancestor. Of course no one has managed to do this. When an evolutionary history of a complex organ is given it is a rough sketch because it simply isn’t possible to extrapolate back this distance and show every single change.This is why the best examples of evolution in action are simple ones, antibiotic resistant bacteria for example. At this level it is possible to trace the exact base pair changes from one generation to another. The more complex and longer the evolutionary pathway the rougher the sketch becomes. This is just another way of saying we don’t know everything about everything.

Also worth mentioning that "proof" is not a term suited to empirical observation.Science accumlates evidence (observation) and uses it to make predictions. As it is impossible to observe everything at all times, the empirical validity of a successful scientific theory is constantly strengthened as supporting evidence is gathered and useful predictions are made.A "proof", on the other hand, establishes logical validity (1+1=2). Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

mjfloresta, The purpose of this thread is to identify a barrier to macroevolution. As such, the burden of proof is on creationists to show the above can't happen, not everyone else to show that it can.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

mark24: That's true. MJ's drop of that gauntlet did take us off topic.Of course, MJ had to try something. The argument was lost. No evidence exists for a barrier.A thread does exist on the subject of evolution of 'novel traits.' It began with a challenge very much like MJ's, using wings as an example.The thread already has some good material on coelurosaur-bird evolution. It's grown quieter lately but it still has plenty of miles left on it. We can take this topic there if you want.What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?
http://EvC Forum: What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise? -->EvC Forum: What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added link.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

alexcj: Good point. And welcome to EvC!

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I see this has already been pointed out, but it bears repeating. You're looking for the barrier that prevents macroevolution and the formation of things like novel organs. The formation of novel organs is not the barrier. The barrier is what prevents their formation. What is this barrier?An analogy: An accident blocks all traffic on a major highway. A few miles ahead at a rest area you're with a group of people who note the complete lack of traffic. Someone asks, "What's keeping all the cars off the highway?" You reply, "Traffic flow isn't happening." That's an observation, not an answer. The correct answer is that the accident is acting as a barrier to traffic flow.In other words, you need to identify the barrier to the evolutionary flow of novel organs.--PercyPS - I haven't addressed your claim that evolution does not produce novel organs, but you haven't offered any valid arguments for this claim. It is not a valid objection to combine incredulity with the fact that we can't directly observe a process that takes many, many generations.

The claim never has to be that something doesn't exist, before that thing has been proven TO exist.What gets lost in the sweeping statement: mutations are the mechanism that accounts for all of life's diversity, is the fact that claim is positing very specific claims (whether you choose to recognize it or not)One of those claims is that mutations can accumulate to create novel organs. That's a bold claim. So far, it hasn't been backed up.Now it's interesting that while no one here is even willing to recognize that such a situtation exists, that is not true of those engaged in practicing science.Mick showed one example, and there are plenty more, of research aimed at proving the generation of novel function, body plan (not my word, the authors'), organs etc...As far as the analogies, I can make them up too. They really don't have any meaningful value. And note that in your analogy, the reply "traffic isn't flowing" might be only an observation, not answer, but I note that it's a correct observation - traffic isn't flowing.So if we're gonna use your analogy then you've agreed with me that novel organs don't form.