Mutations, bad not good (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 21, 2011, 00:16 (4853 days ago) @ dhw

Perhaps it is only a personal hangup, and I am not above admitting that. However, when you make the statement "Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species" I wonder what you mean by new species, since we have no clear definition. The very phrase "emergence of new species" indicates that there is a demarcation point between old and new. -I think the distinction is important because when we talk of evolution, we are discussing two majorly different threads, adaptation and innovation. The ability for a species to grow legs instead of fins, hair or feathers instead of scales, or hollowed bones instead of heavier ones, these beg the question of not just how, in which we attempt to determine the mechanism, and why, in which we try to determine the environmental pressure which would necessitate it, but also the more fundamental question of breeding. Since, as we have both noted, a new innovation would have, by necessity, had to have come into existence in a complete enough fashion as to be not only useful but non-fatal, we must also simultaneously look at how these new innovations would have been passed on when the newly 'evolved' species tried to mate. That implies that newly evolved innovations would by necessity have to have been dominant in the genes, thus supplanting those of the perhaps non-evolved mate. Which once again brings us back to the breedability point. -If however, we take the new-darwinist view of evolution, that every change was miniscule and new innovations were formed from a series of smaller adaptations, then we must solve two issues. The first is showing that the new adaptations would have been, each and every one, of a beneficial enough nature as to be naturally selected for dominance in the gene pool. The second is proving that these changes would eventually lead to a division between the adapted lineage and the non-adapted lineage. -
Now, I have spent much of my life working around animals, and there have been some interesting things I have seen. I have watched dogs of all varieties breed successfully, both of their own accord and with the interference of humans. I have seen animal lineages inbred so closely together for so many generations that, by all accounts, we should have witnessed genetic abnormalities, and yet they are perfectly healthy if not stronger than their predecessors. I have seen cats bred to have from full tails to no tails within two generations and then two generations later the offspring go from no tails to full tails. All of which is well known to science.-I have seen humans, who though bearing vastly different physical traits of all manner, have bred successfully and produced offspring which are successful breeders in their own right. For anyone that has studied the royal lineages or West Virginia, we have also seen how detrimental inbreeding can be to a bloodline, while the opposite has been witnessed in other creatures at times. -The point of all of this is to answer your question below...-
> 
> 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?-
We must provide a clear delineation because only by such a clear delineation can such observations be objectively studied and discussed without confusion and double talk. Of the two groups of cats that were bred, were they different species, or merely different varieties? If they were different species, then how were they bred? If they were different varieties, then does that imply that if we were to impregnate, say a lynx egg with calico semen, that the egg would indeed breed a successful and sexually viable resultant offspring. If such an experiment was successful. How far could that be taken? Would it be possible to breed say, a ursine with a canine, as they are considered to be closely related? If the answer is no, even though they are supposed to have a relatively recent genetic ancestor, then we have a basis for comparison. What makes the two species incompatible? If we do not have a framework for discussion, than sweeping claims and grandiose word dances to cover gaps take the place of science. For example, how far back was it that they were saying that chimpanzees were close relatives to us because of genetic similarities. Do we say that x% of genetic differences have any meaning whatsoever if we can not isolate a breeding cut off to say whether or not such a branching was even physically possible? -Robert Heinlein, one of my favorite authors, said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Science has taken to using statistics as a matter of proof. Well, statistically, a polar bear is the safest pet. Statistically, we may be very similar to a vast number of 'species' on the planet, according to our current understanding of genetics. However, reality has a funny way of telling statistics to sod off.-Sorry if I seem to be rambling a bit. I have not been awake very long and my coffee pot is slow :P