The assumption that humans and chimps share a common ancestor in the more recent past than a human and a mouse leads to all sorts of interpretive breakthroughs when comparing the genome of the three.
The explanation that selective criteria of randomly generated genetic variation can achieve real world results has led to industrial application of a cell free protein evolution approach where increased errors in DNA replication introducing mutation and stringent selective criteria combine to produce novel enzymes for industrial applications.
The idea of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has a ready explanation for why a bacteria would deliberately increase its mutation rate in response to stress.
What explanation do you have for why it would be advantageous for the survival of a bacterial population to increase its mutation rate while under stress?
“What explanation do you have for why it would be advantageous for the survival of a bacterial population to increase its mutation rate while under stress?”
Well, your assertion that a “bacterial population” increases its mutation rate is baseless. There is no known mechanism, biological or otherwise, by which any collections of organisms could choose to “increase” their mutation rate. What, do that take a vote on it?
You are confusing an observation of an event for its cause, and in this case the observation itself is incorrect. There is not in increase in mutations, only in the number of mutations that survive.
But this whole argument is irrelevant to speciation. There is no question about the ability of species to adapt, the whole question has to do with whether one specie can become a new and more complex one by means of mutations. That is the question that evolutionist always evade, usually by presenting examples of adaptation of species, such as you have.
Now explain something for me, because I intend to use your “arguments” as an example of the intentional obfuscation of the science by evolutionists, what this can possibly mean, “evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has a ready explanation for why a bacteria would deliberately increase its mutation rate.” Exacty how do bacteria “deliberately” do anything.
I think I understand where you are coming from, though. Your argument, “I have yet to see any biologist get rich off of grant money,” revealed it to me. Those who produce nothing of value and live on the wealth confiscated from those who do produce may not become rich, but it’s an easy life, and enjoys a kind of pseudo-prestige (”I’m a scientist”) that many cannot resist. Take away the grants and evolutionary “science” will wither and die in a week.
Hank