Mutations, bad not good (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 19:25 (4854 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Dhw: We agree that adaptation has to be fast enough to ensure survival, which as I said may = "extremely rapid". Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species.-TONY: Errmm.. My original post was directed at just this point. In order to account for 'the emergence of NEW species', you have to have two things: 1) a definitive answer for what exact qualifications are needed to be considered a new species, and 2) a defined transition point between old species and new species.-Errmm...I thought I'd covered that in the first section of my post. You wrote: "If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety." Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem. We know that humans are radically different from bacteria and mice, with which we cannot interbreed. Our problem is to find out how the differences have come about. What mechanisms have enabled earlier forms of life to adapt and innovate to such a degree that we have all these radically different types of creature, which for argument's sake we can call different species? The not so different types might possibly help us to understand the process, but the question of whether, for instance, we should call Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens different species, sub-species or varieties does not seem to me a precondition before "we can even begin to discuss evolution etc." 
 
The more we discover about the physical mechanisms of evolution ... i.e. of heredity, adaptation, innovation ... the more complex they appear to be. Why must we provide clear delineations and discover missing links before we can begin to discuss these mechanisms and their implications ... especially in relation to the conflict between the theories of chance and design? Or could it be that you are still questioning whether the progressive movement actually took place? If so, what are the general patterns of evolutionary theory against which you say you have no real argument?