[hopespringseternal]

The reason you survive despite the countless mutations that constantly happen in every one of your cells, is that you have extensive and redundant DNA repair mechanisms.

Yes, but in that case the mutation goes nowhere and does nothing. Pointing it out isn't making a point. Everyone knows DNA can be damaged and repaired, and the repair job is not always perfect. You really should stop assuming people are stupid or ignorant because they disagree with you.

Populations only gain and lose traits because of DNA mutations. Genetic drift--the major component of evolution--happens because of the cumulative effect of gain and loss of traits over time.

Traits can be lost or suppressed if the population faces a pressure that deselects it. It isn't a mutation that makes it go away, it is the environment.

Similarly, a trait that is suppressed in the general population can become dominant if a portion of the population is cutoff and the pressure against a trait is removed. There is no need to even cite mutations unless they are positively identified by showing the trait did not exist in the population previously.

The whole problem with "transitional forms" is that, short of tracing a family tree all the way back to the first common ancestor of all life, it is impossible to identify every transitional form.

So you are in effect asking us to ignore your lack of evidence. Not that this is the only piece of evidence you are lacking. The truth of the matter is that everything you label "transitional" is just another species that resembles two other species.

One of the most powerful tools we have for working out evolutionary paths is through phylogenetic analysis.

That doesn't tell you that one species evolved from another. That they are morphologically and genetically similar does not mean one evolved from or to another. If you have ever watched an engineer work you will see them reuse solutions over and over again. You could line their work up and claim it auto-evolved with the same kinds of evidence.

Your defense of him seems emotion-based; it certainly isn't based on his C.V.

You might as well tell me that his feather crest is the wrong hue. Irelevent. The most ignorant, toothless, backwoods hick could point out that we don't understand the mechanism of gravity and he would be right. We understand a tremendous amount about how it is manifested, and we have many was for describing how it affects the universe, but on a fundamental level we don't understand it.

...when you to try to deny that DNA mutation even happens...

False. You really can't resist assuming I am a drooling idiot, can you?

Beyond my understanding? Are you referring to my calling most DNA "junk"? Well--considering that most DNA exists to fill space, and that the sequence of space-filling DNA is pretty much irrelevant--the scientific term "junk DNA" is apt, and I see no reason to avoid its use.

In one hundred years, biologists will snort in derision at this comment. Many are already starting to realize that this is an assumption made in ignorance.

I do not, as you assert, claim to be part of a "priesthood"--no scientist does.

You would never claim it, but you certainly act it. When you dismiss questions, such as Behe's without addressing it because you do not recognize that he has the standing to ask it, you are acting like a tribal shaman. I really don't care if Behe is a biologist or a sheep herder. You do. I care about the question. You don't.

There is no reason to believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive

I never said that. I said that your theory is bad science (in fact, it resembles a religion). Why do you keep trying to turn this into a Judeo-Christian religious discussion?

BTW, if scientists like me--who spend years studying chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology, and doing hundreds of experiments while earning our PhDs--don't do "real science", then who does?

Two words: Global Warming. Entire industries based on a "scientific" proposition that is laughable on its face.

[exDemMom]

Yes, but in that case the mutation goes nowhere and does nothing. Pointing it out isn't making a point. Everyone knows DNA can be damaged and repaired, and the repair job is not always perfect. You really should stop assuming people are stupid or ignorant because they disagree with you.

The problem is not that you're "disagreeing" with me. The problem is that you're loudly denying the nature of reality. I have not expressed a single debatable opinion about the nature of DNA, how it works, how evolution proceeds, etc. Everything I have said is based on solid evidence painstakingly assembled by thousands of scientists for well over 100 years.

Populations only gain and lose traits because of DNA mutations. Genetic drift--the major component of evolution--happens because of the cumulative effect of gain and loss of traits over time.

Traits can be lost or suppressed if the population faces a pressure that deselects it. It isn't a mutation that makes it go away, it is the environment.

Similarly, a trait that is suppressed in the general population can become dominant if a portion of the population is cutoff and the pressure against a trait is removed. There is no need to even cite mutations unless they are positively identified by showing the trait did not exist in the population previously.

I repeated the statement about mutations, because it is an important point that you still don't seem to grasp.

Let's go to very basic Introductory Genetics.

Traits are encoded in genes in the DNA.

• The expression of traits has nothing to do with selection. It has everything to do with whether the individual has the genes for those traits or not.
• A trait that is not encoded in the DNA will never be expressed, because it is not there. No amount of selection will cause it to be there.
• If a new trait appears, it is because the DNA was altered somehow to make it appear. The most common alteration is a point mutation, but other, more drastic alterations can and do happen.
• DNA undergoes constant mutation. In evolution, that matters when the mutation(s) occur in germ cells--the sperms and eggs. According to the biochemistry professor who wrote this blog, a human zygote has ~130 mutations. Most mutations, of course, are DNA errors that missed being repaired.
• Selection only becomes a factor when survival is concerned. About half of all human zygotes die before they can ever implant in the uterine wall, because one or more of their ~130 mutations was incompatible with survival. Of the ones who implant, about another third will die within a few weeks. Out of the remaining 1/3 who survive (if their mothers don't kill them), not all will end up reproducing. The minority of zygotes who live long enough and reproduce will pass ~half of their mutations to their offspring--along with the ~130 new germ cell mutations they pass along.
• It is the accumulation of mutations from generation to generation that causes genetic drift. Humans now are not the same genetically as humans 10,000 years ago. Humans 10,000 years from now won't be genetically the same as us.
• Speciation occurs when a population is split into two separate groups for a sufficient period of time. Each population continues the genetic drift, but in a different direction (because mutations are random). Eventually, the number of accumulated mutations causes the populations to no longer be able to reproduce with each other, at which point they are considered different species.

I have not expressed a single opinion here. Everything I have said is supported by mountains of evidence, painstakingly gathered and documented for well over 100 years. One cannot "agree" or "disagree"; the only possibility here is to accept or reject the evidence. Rejecting it, of course, does not make it disappear.

Anyway, I can't specifically address the rest of your post, I have to go to work. Where, no doubt, I'll be reading about the challenges presented by the ongoing evolution of pathogenic microbes.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The truth of the matter is that everything you label "transitional" is just another species that resembles two other species.

Uh, yeah. And just what should a transitional species look like, if not the two species it's transitional between? This is one of the funniest objections yet.

I remember one person who used to participate in these threads had a chart of skulls along with their classification by various creationists. There was very little agreement on whether a particular skull was ape or human--some would say one, some the other. But they all agreed that no way could any of them be transitional between ape and human--oh no, that was impossible!

If you have ever watched an engineer work you will see them reuse solutions over and over again. You could line their work up and claim it auto-evolved with the same kinds of evidence.

And when the things engineers make start reproducing on their own, that argument might start to make sense.

It's clear that God could have designed every animal we have fossils of individually, reusing parts He liked for whatever reason. And He could have designed little horses and then changed His mind and replaced them all with big horses. Or He could have never made little horses at all, but rather just made little horse skeletons and buried them just to tease us. Pick your story. But the idea that that's "science," while the careful matching of rock ages with the fossils they contain and the alignment of morphological trees with phylogenetic analysis isn't, is "laughable on its face."