Replies

Under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time – has evolution happened?

I don’t have a problem with Mutation plus Natural Selection in microevolution although I believe the Random Mutation is overrated and most if not all microevolutionary adaptation is the result of more or less randomly selected permutations of preexisting phenotypic options - like shuffling a deck and dealing a hand of cards - no new cards are created even though new hands are created.

I point to dogs as the model species for the limitations of Randmom mutation in microevolution. All are the result of 20 thousand years of selective breeding of a few natural ancestors - wolves, coyotes, and jackals. The result is variation in cosmetics and scale and all variations remain able to produce fertile hybrid offspring while no novel new structural elements such as cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans emerged. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that Random Mutation can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans.

Explanation of how these structural elements were created is required of any theory of evolution that attempts to explain descent with modification from bacteria to baboons and everything between and around, living or extinct, while remaining in complete accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record and experimental biology on living tissue.

That is and has always been the issue.

The other meaning of evolution involves the idea that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by descent with modification. This idea is commonly referred to as macroevolution.

I disagree.

According to Campbell and Reece, the authors of an introductory biology textbook, macroevolution is defined as change in allele frequencies at or above the species level.

Origin of life theories are certainly related to macroevolution. They depend on macroevolution, but the opposite is not true. Even if it were shown that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was responsible for creating the first prokaryote, it would not negate macroevolution. Change in allele frequencies at or above the species level has been readily observed. I believe many pages back I provided a novel example about meiosis errors in a plant resulting in offspring with polyploidy. If two organisms cannot produce viable offspring, then these two organisms belong to different species. The offspring with polyploidy cannot reproduce with other members of the parent species. Therefore, it is a different species. Macroevolution has occurred. This is but one example. The textbook I mentioned includes several more.

There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that Random Mutation can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans.

Would you be surprised if I told you that one of the defense expert witnesses on “your side” wrote a paper that actually showed mutation could result in novel cell types?