It's directly observed. Can't do much better than that.
I think you're talking about something different to me. I am referring to the formation of new genera and higher taxons. You're scratching about with the odd molecular genetic piece of useless junk and claiming that as evolution.
You can claim all you like, but as Broom said, there hasn't been a new higher taxon for the last 2 million years. Evolution is dead in the water, and that's why it isn't doing anything of any significance at all.
Thos papers you quote below are useless pieces of claptrap in this context. Go find me a new genus that isn't the figment of some idiotic taxonomist's desire to amke a name for him/herself.
Barbarian observes:
As you know, YE creationism denies what God says about creation.[/quote]
I don't know that it does. Proof?
If you were more interested in what He had to say to you, it would be better.
I meant that I was not interested in what YE says.
I think it's important to listen to Him.
So why do you believe in evolution then?
As you learned, that's not how God did it. He uses nature for most things in this world. Why do you think He made it in the first place?
New genomes are not appearing anywhere. As I sad before, evolution is dead in the water from the POV of producing new significant features and thence taxa.
In the beginning, obviously new genomes were created all over the place. Since then, zilch.
But evolution theory demands that there be new genomes coming onstream. Where are they? Nowhere to be seen is the answer.
Barbarian asked about first genes:
Turns out, some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing. So it's not a problem.
(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)
Cells are a lot easier. It's no coincidence that the one structure that is absolutely essential to a cell is also the simplest and self-organizing. The cell membrane is a simple phospholipid bilayer that spontaneously forms vesicles in water.
I hear ignorance rampaging unchecked in this parade! You really don't know much about this, do you? Let me enlighten your darkness.
...the cell membrane has been found to be
increasingly sophisticated. Not only is the protein-punctuated sandwich structure
incredibly complicated, but organisms actively fine-tune its design as conditions change. For instance, the number and location of carbon-carbon double bonds, in the phospholipid tails in the lipid bilayer, are astonishingly modified in real-time to deal with temperature changes. A
recent paper agreed that
“the membrane is a biological device of a staggering complexity”:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/heres-that-paper-on-cell-membranes-that.html
If you doubt that statement, go look at the linked paper if you want to feel sick.
That you can call the cell membrane simple and try to hand-wave it away is pretty pathetic in view of the above quote (and there are others, if you do a search).
Barbarian, regarding favorable mutations:
Yep. We still observe it happening.
Genetics. 2005 Jan;169(1):475-83. Epub 2004 Oct 16.
Variation after a selective sweep in a subdivided population.
And…
[...]
Honestly Barbarian, can't you see that these are jokes in the context of the production of new species, genera and any other taxa?
How 'beneficial' they really are remains to be seen, and any shouting that they are beneficial may turn out to be a trifle premature.
Until then, your case remains highly dubious to say the least, in the context we are discussing.
Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about that. Most mutations don't do much of anything.
That's exactly what I said. Did you read it, I wonder?
A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.
And right there is your biggest problem. If a VERY FEW are beneficial, then that VERY FEW cannot possibly have produced the Cambrian explosion (never mind the others) from the known pre-Cambrian critters. Not in the time available, anyway.
I asked you for some estimate of the rates of speciation. Any luck with finding that yet?
We can directly observe it.
No you can't. I'm not referring to those piffling cases you've dredged up from somewhere. I'm talking about serious observations of serious 'transformations'. Where are they?
You were fooled there, too. Kettlewell's data confirm natural selection in cases of industrial melanism. If you want to post what you think he faked, I'll show you how they fooled you.
Kettlewell's evidence, as I said, was the best example of NS known. Hooper criticised it, but quite a few have sprung to his defence. I wonder who's right.
If he was right, then you're back in the old, old hole. No production of new species took place, and BOTH forms of moth existed (and still exist today) when the experiment started.
The experiment merely showed the alteration in relative numbers of the two varieties of moth as a result of environmental changes (which changes, incidentally, have now been reversed with the Clean Air Act of 1968).
No evolution there, I'm afraid.
Barbarian observes:
Good question. First, you have to remember that natural selection does not necessarily cause evolution.
Wrong again. Natural Selection CANNOT CAUSE evolution. It selects from existing populations as shown above, and can be reversed.
No new taxa are produced.
Surprise. In one case, it was directly observed to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system.
For heaven's sake, Barbarian, can we talk about something significant, without all this scratching round for trifles? Are you referring to Lenski, whose 35,000 generations of E.coli have successfully produced nothing new?
Mind, there's an excellent question there arising from his complete failure.
If 35,000 generations have produced 0 new species or anything else, then how long do you think it would take to produce the millions of new species etc in the Cambrian?
Barbarian continues:
If a population is highly fitted to an essentially unchanging environment, it can actually prevent evolution. (scientists call it "stabilizing selection") So we see a sudden increase in taxa when the environment changes, or some kind of breakthrough evolution makes it possible for organisms to take advantage of new ways of life. The sudden increase in the number of taxa during the Cambrian explosion is an extreme example, but there are many others, such as the explosion of mammal species after the K-T event that killed off most large land animals.
That's not good enough, I'm afraid - merely another example of special pleading.
If a new genus arises somewhere, colonising a new environment, possessing entirely new features, such as an exoskeleton, how does the new organism know how to handle it? Where does the instinct pre-requirement come from?
Remember, there are no parents to copy! Like the first bat, bird, sea-urchin, swallow, shearwater etc etc.
And yet, we find soft-bodied or partially scleritized organisms in the Precambrian. When full-body exoskeletons evolved, there was a burst of speciation. That’s the “Cambrian Explosion.” Exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.
Complete junk.
Just look at the question-begging you are forced to do. 'When full-body exoskeletons evolved'.
What is the subject we're arguing here? Yes, whether evolution occurred or not. You may not assume the case is proven. You need to prove it.
It’s already done. An extensive and varied Ediacaran fauna existed in the Precambrian. Surprise.
You seem to spend your life in a continual state ot astonishment.
The various elements of the Ediacara fauna are united by one common character, none have any hard parts. There is no evidence of mineralisation in any fossil so far found
No hard parts? Then what's this guff about partial scleritisation?
(claim that disorder does not increase information)
Barbarian observes:
Picture a perfectly round ceramic plate, of uniform thickness, flatness, material, and color. Think of the amount of information necessary to completely describe it.
For the form itself, just the radius, thickness, material, and color. Four things.
Barbarian asks:
Then picture it dropped on a hard surface, where it shatters. How much information would it take to completely describe it then?
Much, much more. Now you have to describe every fragment as to shape, in detail. As you see, disorder requires more information than order.
Wrong again. First, you don’t have to regard it so.
Yes you do.
The information about the plate is complete without that. But even then, if you wanted to account for every molecule, you’d still have to describe the location of every molecule in every particular fragment, which would take much more information than describing it in the unbroken plate.
Surprise.
Further nonsense. If I have described every molecule, then there is nothing left to describe, wouldn't you agree?
Barbarian chuckles:
But I think it's rather pointless to call a favorable mutation "damage", don't you think?
But as we have seen, there are no significant 'favourable mutations'. Every one that has been touted as the saviour of evolution is a minor, trifling piece of insignificant value to the greater scheme of things!
How you can presume to say that 'favourable mutations' can produce 4 separate wing types, the limbs of tetrapods and all the mighty differences between the phyla and kingdoms, I don't really know.
With the evidence we have before us, which you have presented, evolution is going, and has gone nowhere since the very Cambrian and pre-Cambrian times.
So take it away. It's no use whatsoever.
See some above. How many do you want to see?
I'd like to see ONE, SINGLE, materially significant mutation which has genuinely produced something new: a new organ would do nicely thanks.
Show us that. In the sense that it is God making nature serve His purposes, it would be true, but I'm not aware of anyone being able to demonstrate it scientifically. Show us.
You have been shown. It's your turn to show that non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Let's have a mighty
P_A_P_E_RRRRR!
So because man can’t yet make a computer more intelligent than a man, you think God can’t make a world where intelligence arises from His creation? Sounds like you’re putting way too much faith in man, and not nearly enough in God. And what happens if someday we figure out how to make a computer smarter than we are? You've set man above God. Even if we use a computer we made to make the smarter computer, we still have greater intelligence produced by lesser intelligence.
This is nonsense, don't you think?
Turns out, God is a lot smarter than you thought.
True. But M and NS are unintelligent, blind, random, forces, which are going nowhere. Or do you believe in teleology?
So you think hurricanes are impossible? How so? Non-random processes can easily arise from random processes. Would you like an example?
What are you talking about? Try and make some sense, willya?
Hypotheses are undependable. That’s why we go out and test them against the real world to see if they fit. If not, they are discarded and modified until they do fit.
Like hell they are. Why is evolution still here, then?
Natural selection gave us brains that are capable of sorting out things and understanding the world.
You gotta be kidding, man. How can you possibly talk such nonsense?
As God intended. He used nature instead of magic, for reasons we don’t entirely understand. But He did a terrific job of it.
I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken there. The instinctive phenomena alone finish this off. They appear magical, but that is because they were divinely implanted in His creatures. We can define that as magic if you like, but that's up to you.
I wouldn't do so myself, but...
