[What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?]
"Any scientific textbook that discusses the factual (and not the hypothesised yet unproven) capabilities of genes-..."
I didn't ask you to make a generic comment, I asked you for specifics. You made a number of claims that were specific about organisms surviving hundreds of millions of years without change. I asked for an example of that which you ignored then I asked where you obtained information that states species must speciate within a given time frame. You made a specific claim that suggests questions requiring specific answers. The onus is on you to provide a link to some science somewhere that stats there is a time limit to morphological stasis.
Where is that specific information?
"time plays no part in moecular biological fact"
If you are saying that there are no time limits then why did you bring up the claim that there are organisms which have not changed since the Precambrian? When you made that statement it appeared to me, and probably others, that you were trying to invalidate evolution by claiming those organisms should have changed had evolution been correct, but since they have not (according to you) evolution must be false.
If that is not your intention in this new claim then you are quite wrong. Even your own words support the idea that genomes change over time so time is very much a factor in molecular biology.
[Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?]
"Where? Online or library- help yourself- “Tried an accumulation of mutations? No- they let the process take it’s ‘natural’ course. The result? Freakish fruitflies- no fruit bats!
You made a specific claim. The onus is on you to provide specific support for that claim.
If the scientists had no intention to create a new species, your comments are irrelevant. My understanding of the research is that it is not an attempt to create new species but a tool to explore how changes to the genome affects the phenotype. If they had wanted to create new species then they would have had to try the 'natural' path which requires an accumulation of changes in different areas of the genome.
Evolution is an accumulation of changes, you cannot get away from that, so for you to claim that no speciation has occurred by giving an example where no speciation was attempted through multiple changes to multiple alleles throughout multiple generations, invalidates your claim. This is simple logic.
[Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?]
"Genetic sequences. The mutated fruitflies retained their unique fruitfly genetic information- the sequence reamined intact and was limitted to fruitfly only caps- centuries of selective breeding have proven that species specific information can’t be altered enough to move a species outside it’s own KIND.
Selective breeding is not an attempt to move something beyond its own 'kind' (whatever that is) it is an attempt to fix a specific allele within a population. No consideration has ever been given to selecting for alleles which do not express a non-morphological change and in fact any divergence from the ideal is removed from the population. Selection is used to cluster the population around a specific trait thus constraining the changes in the population.
We have never, ever, duplicated all the forms of selection active on a population in a single species. We have never ever even tried.
"No amtter how hard we’ve tried- it is simply biologically impossible to do so.
We have never tried.
"Time doesn’t solve the biolgical problem- the evidnece doesn’t show creation of new organs or systems not unique to a species. We’ve been over and over the species specific limitations many times here with many links given- There simp-ly are no evidneces that support the idea that species gain NEW information not unique to the species and not spcific to the species. Each species has limits as to how altered their information can become, and we Dhese limits in nature and the record
Yes we have gone over this and found that you are incapable of defining information let alone quantifying it enough for it to be objectively measured. Your entire argument boils down to a putative ability to somehow guess that one organism has more information than some other. Your explanation of information and its limits is unconvincing without a more scientific approach.
Selective breeding most certainly is an attempt to move something beyond its own kind. darwinists have been trying this for many many years without one iota of success.
[You made a number of claims that were specific about organisms surviving hundreds of millions of years without change.]
I did? I find it odd I would have made that claim as I don’t think the world more than 6,000-12,000 years old.
[The onus is on you to provide a link to some science somewhere that stats there is a time limit to morphological stasis.]
I think there was a misunderstanding- The onus is on Evo science to show that time could produce NEW information
[”time plays no part in moecular biological fact”
If you are saying that there are no time limits then why did you bring up the claim that there are organisms which have not changed since the Precambrian?]
What I meant was that Time can not cure the problem of biological impossibility-
[You made a specific claim. The onus is on you to provide specific support for that claim.]
The uspport for my claim is online- and in the libraries- just as I mentioned- help yourself.
[If the scientists had no intention to create a new species, your comments are irrelevant.]
Oh, but they were- that was the whole point of the fruit fly experiments to see if a replication of millions of years of evolution through massive radiation and gene manipulations could produce new species- The point of using hte fruit flies was that they reproduced very rapidly, prolifically, and many many generations could be examined- however, the results were very dissappointing and only resulted in freakish mutant fruitflies
[Evolution is an accumulation of changes, you cannot get away from that,]
Nor am I trying to ‘get away from that.”. I fully understand how evolutionists claim evo happened- however- We’re starting to play a little game here with wording- As you well know, there is no evidence to back up the fact that microevolutionary changes can move a species to anotehr species- Subspecies? Sure- We have plenty of evidnece that proves this is a reality- New? No- in order to do that you would need to move information from one species to another
[so for you to claim that no speciation has occurred by giving an example where no speciation was attempted through multiple changes to multiple alleles throughout multiple generations, invalidates your claim.]
More game- I never said speciation doesn’t happen- obviously a species can lose enough information that they can no longer breed with the original- however, your sparrow is still a sparrow and so far from being a bat that it is an impossible leap to said bat. Speciation is not macroevolution- it’s simple natural selection that varies species within their own KIND- There isn’t an iota of evidence that speciation EVER led a psecies KIND outside of it’s own KIND. It’s still just a hypothesis with no evidence to back it up.
[Yes we have gone over this and found that you are incapable of defining information let alone quantifying it enough for it to be objectively measured.
No- the answer we’ve coem to is that you know, but won’t admit that speciation doesn’t = a biological NEW KIND- I’ll answer it yet once again because evidnetly you missed it the last time- NEW information is NON species specific information that is introduced to a species. All the information in a species can be altered, manipulated etc, and it will still only result in the same species precisely because of the species specific limitations of gene manipulation. The ONLY way for a cat to get bat radar is to introduce it through lateral gene transference from the bat- the information in the cat simply can’t be manipulated to produce that echo location syatem- the cat isn’t coded for it- the code it does have has very species specific limitations whicbh you full well know. The echo location information and organs used for said system would all be NEW infromation in a cat- a Cat with 12 legs would be nothign but a freak of nature cat that had it’s own specific species gene infromation altered through gene mistakes. See- the problem is, you folks know this full well, but it is so devestating to the hypothesis of evolution, that you al ltry to play these little symantics games to try to counter argue against the term NEW information. Your hypothesis that small accumulations could result in NEW information has no evidence to back it up, and infact is biologically impossible, and the impossibility is made more clear by all our testing and selective breeding programs which show quite clearly that species have limits as to how far they can be altered. You know full well that the idea that small accumulations of mutations could result in moving species to higher species is broken and has impossible hurdles to overcome, and so this little symantics game is played.- I’m sorry, but that’s what it is- a game- rouind and round we go. The only thing evo has to offer as far as supporting evidnece is showing a species with jaw bones in different spots and telling us it clearly lead to inner ear assembly of the ear hearing system- with no evidence showing htose bones accumulating in the ear and assembling themselves. Again- it’s a swell hypothesis, but it’s a weak one and has serious biological impossibilities to overcome. Evo’s assertion that speciation = NEW information odesn’t cut it- not even close. The sparrow is still a Sparrow- you can suggest that the speciated Sparrow later became a bat- but there is no evidnece to back this up, and there is equally no evidence to back up the assertion that biological impossibilties can be overcome with time. Stating that it can is simply WAY too conveinient a cop out. Sorry, but true.
[Selective breeding is not an attempt to move something beyond its own ‘kind’ (whatever that is) it is an attempt to fix a specific allele within a population.]
The experiments, once again, were not a slective breeding program- it was carried out to mimick evolution by producing, en mass, natural mutations through radiation.