Replies

genus and species named Archicebus Achilles. Name makes me suspect they only found and all their conclusions are based on an ankle bone.

I understand natural selection and remain open to the possibility of trans species evolution, although nobody has observed nor can they, to my limited knowledge, logically explain how such mutation could happen and still result in viable offspring. But wild extrapolation from meager evidence is endemic to paleontology and human anthropology. So over the years I've become a knee jerk skeptic reading these kinds of articles.

although nobody has observed nor can they, to my limited knowledge, logically explain how such mutation could happen and still result in viable offspring.

Blond hair is a mutation. Blue eyes are a mutation. Lack of melatonin is a mutation. If you have children, they undoubtedly look a bit like you, a bit like his or her other parent, but they look like themselves. Some of this difference is due to mutations.

We can and have observed "viable offspring" with distinct mutations in all sorts of species, although it's easiest in short generation species of course.

There are lots of examples of observed speciation, mostly in biogeographical island populations - Here are a few for your perusal.

A common misunderstanding is the "crocoduck" canard - that is, mom and dad of one species produce some new species. That's not how it works, as I gather you understand. The changes from generation to generation is not really discernable. Over, say, 30 generations they may be. Over 300, they definitely are. Over 3,000, you may be hard pressed to say they are even related.

Even most creationists accept "descent with modification" and what they call "microevolution." To which I always ask, Ok, please explain the biochemical process that shuts off those "micro" changes over time from continuing on over generations to add up to a "macro" change. If one accepts those tiny changes through generations, I can't understand why they can't accept them adding up to a macro change.

katana: "I understand natural selection and remain open to the possibility of trans species evolution, although nobody has observed nor can they, to my limited knowledge, logically explain how such mutation could happen and still result in viable offspring."

Sorry FRiend, but your use of the term "trans species evolution" identifies you as brainwashed with anti-science propaganda, and lacking in any serious scientific understanding.

These are not problems anyone can correct in a few FR posts, but perhaps some basics would help?

First of all, there is no "trans species evolution" in the sense you imagine it -- no population suddenly begins giving birth to a brand new species.

What happens instead is that a breeding population often becomes isolated from other populations of the same species -- typically by oceans, deserts or mountains.
Separate populations then become more & more adapted to their particular environments, and over many generations -- hundreds of thousands -- their DNA becomes so distinct interbreeding can no longer produce viable offspring.

So, at the point where we see obvious differences in populations, but they still eagerly interbreed, we call them different "breeds" -- i.e., breeds of dogs.

When they reach the point of no longer normally interbreeding in nature, we call them different "species" -- i.e., species of, say, zebras.

When they become so distinct in DNA they physically cannot interbreed, we call them different "genera" -- i.e., African versus Indian Elephants.

A good example is Polar Bears versus Brown Bears (grizzlies).
Once considered to be distinct genera, Polar/Brown hybrids have been found in nature, and so now they are re-classified as just separate "species" in the genus Ursus.

All of this happens at the rate of a few DNA mutations per generation, which responding to natural selection can cause significant changes in appearance in relatively short order (i.e., breeds of dogs), but take much longer for degrees of separation needed to be considered a new "species".

That's evolution theory.