Replies

People have bred different kinds of dogs different kinds of cats different kinds of horses, etc., Noah was not told to bring everything on the ark, it was two of each KIND of animal. Micro-evolution can take care of the rest.

Why do genetic mutations seem to have a limit? I mean, animals are bred for specific purposes, like thoroughbreds, but there seems to be a limit as to how fast genetics can make a thoroughbred horse. All sorts of mutations seem to have limits within the species and they stop and go no further. Severe mutations usually render a creature not viable. Yet, darwinian evolution expects us to buy that not only can information be added to a species that makes it a completely different kind of animal, but that during this process of mutation the animal will remain viable, find other animals just like it to mate with, and produce viable offspring.

Contrary to your assertions. You may have similar genetics on a lot of levels, but the key genetics that make humans human are not present in apes and it isn't something that a mutation would cause them to suddenly possess. Apes dont' become human, and pies (no matter if they contain flour, sugar, butter, vanilla, etc.,) don't suddenly become cakes.

All sorts of mutations seem to have limits within the species and they stop and go no further.

From post 1779:
3)How evolutionary scientists can continue to claim that species develop into new and completely different types of species (I'm talking the big leaps over large amounts of time from say ape to human), when this kind of mutation of genetic material has never been observed ...

Two posts of yours discuss the same issue ... the presumed limit on the mutation process (a blocking mechanism) which confines all of nature to mirco-evolution while preventing macro-evolution. This is a rebuttal of that notion I posted nearly 2 years ago:

One might argue that the fossil record, starting with simple forms and progressing over time to apparently related yet ever-more mutated variations, powerfully illustrates the non-existence of such a "blocking mechanism." But even though it seems not to exist, we should keep an open mind. If such a blocking mechanism actually does exist, let's not worry too much that it hasn't been found yet, because these things take time. Yet, if we are ever to actually find such a mechanism, it's still necessary to propose an hypothesis as to what it might be, so that we know what to search for.

Think about it. The blocking mechanism has to be something that strictly limits the number of mutations in all of a creature's genes that might otherwise occur over time. The mechanism would need to keep track of how many variations had already occured (from some "standard model" which is memorized somehow) and then guard against any more. What is the nature of this mechanism? Is it a radiation shield to prevent background radiation from altering the DNA? Is it a "perfect copy" mechanism that suddenly prevents DNA from faulty replications? How would it work? How could we test for it? Do we find some "already maximum mutated" creature and zap them with radiation to discover the "DNA shield" that has suddenly manifested itself to make the creature "mutation proof"? Does such a mechanism make any sense, now that I've discussed a very few of its problems?

Yet, darwinian evolution expects us to buy that not only can information be added to a species that makes it a completely different kind of animal

Can you give me an example of this? Humans aren't a very good example; we do not differ very much from chimpanzees, either in a genetic sense or in a morphological sense. It's easy to find ants that are more different from each other than humans are from chimps, and yet I'm sure you have no trouble saying that all ants are of the same "kind".

What does nature use as the boundary between different "kinds"? How can we define it objectively? I am not trying to play "gotcha", here: I really am trying to understand what you mean. Clearly, "primates" are not a "kind", in your estimation, let alone "mammals", "vertebrates", "animals", or "eukaryotes". You said something about "families" before, but surely these are artificial definitions made for human convenience, and not natural boundaries.

Okay, I think I see where some of your misconceptions are originating. It helps to think of a species as a cloud of dots clustered around a central point we'll call "Norm." Those dots closer to the center (and there will be more of them -- the cloud gets denser toward the center) are closer to Norm. Those toward the outer edge are not as close to Norm, and have a bit more genetic differences (mutations) than the folks toward the center. Life in the fringes is pretty rough, but it does exist. Now, shift Norm either right or left. The folks on the fringes in that direction are now closer to Norm than they were. The folks on the opposite end are really far away from Norm now, and will most likely disappear quickly. The folks that were once in the center are now on the fringe. Within a few generations however, the cloud will reform with Norm at its center.

Okay, now take a line and draw it straight through the middle of Norm so that half the cloud is on one side and half the cloud is on the other. You now have two Norms. Move the right hand Norm to the right a hair and move the left hand Norm to the left a hair. Wait for the populations to cluster around them again. Repeat the process. After a bit, there will be no members of either cloud capable of hooking up (overlapping) with any members of the other cloud. Ta Da, you have speciation. Continue farther, splitting up the new clouds every so often and you'll discover the farthest right-hand cloud has very little in common with the farthest left-hand cloud (think dogs and bears).

Speciation doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations.