[_ Old Earth _] How did snoring evolve?

[Asyncritus]

Hi Guys

Just came across this, and could barely restrain my hilarity. Thought you might like it, Vaccine and Barbarian! I've put it on my blog along with a multitude of very serious proofs that evolution is a nonsense. Go have a look.http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

How did snoring evolve?

In a very curious article, It might in fact, be a joke - but I doubt it. It wasn't published on 1st April...
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html#.Un4AfuLflGk

McCarthy goes to town, and produces a magnificent list of the features which humans do NOT HAVE IN COMMON with any other primates, and I reproduce it here. Dr McCarthy, if you ever read this, and wish me to remove it from this blog, I will be more than happy to do so. But here it is for the time being, in my appreciation of its excellence:

The really odd thing is that McCarthy completely fails to recognise that this is a magnificent list in support of creation rather than the usual boring evolutionary nonsense.

He can not, and neither can any palaeoanthropologist, account for the origin of these features, and as a result, evolution is again left high and dry ; or is that deep and wet?

​

 

[Asyncritus]

A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates
DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin (sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
In "hairy skin" region:
- Thick epidermis
- Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
- Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating
Richly vascularized dermis
Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
Dermal melanocytes absent
Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

FACIAL FEATURES
Lightly pigmented eyes common
Protruding, cartilaginous mucous nose
Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
Eyebrows
Heavy eyelashes
Earlobes

FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
- long dorsal spine
- transverse foramens
Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long "tail bone")
Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
Femur:
- Condyles equal in size
- Knock-kneed
- Elliptical condyles
- Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
- Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
- Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis
Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
Narrow pelvic outlet

ORGANS
Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal kidneys
Heart auricles level
Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles urethra
Bulbo-urethral glands present
Os penis (baculum) absent.
Hymen
Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
Ischial callosities absent
Nipples low on chest
Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
Labia majora

CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed system of emissary veins
Enlarged nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing

BEHAVIORAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods

RARE OR ABSENT IN NONHUMAN PRIMATES:
Heart attack
Atherosclerosis
Cancer (melanoma)

That is a pretty extensive list, and it can be added to, if we look hard enough.

 

[Asyncritus]

But I have had difficulty in restraining my laughter and my sense of the comic, when I read his possible 'explanation' of the origin of these features. He is a geneticist , and claims to know about hybridisation.

There is only one other animal which possesses these characteristics, and with which our 'common ancestor' hybridised in order to produce Homo sapiens. Here is the text in full. Now stop laughing!!!!

...as it turns out, many features that distinguish humans from chimpanzees also distinguish them from all other primates. [ Got that, evolution guys?] Features found in human beings, but not in other primates, cannot be accounted for by hybridization of a primate with some other primate. [Oh, really!} If hybridization is to explain such features, the cross will have to be between a chimpanzee and a nonprimate — an unusual, distant cross to create an unusual creature.

So there's his problem. It's also the problem of every evolutionary palaeoanthropologist in sight!

So how does he resolve the problem? Quite comically is the answer.

Let's begin, then, by considering the list in the sidebar at right, which is a condensed list of traits distinguishing humans from chimpanzees — and all other nonhuman primates. Take the time to read this list and to consider what creature — of any kind — it might describe.

That's the list above. Have another look at it to familiarise yourself with the extent of the impossibility. Now here's his solution:

...it's clear that the other parent in this hypothetical cross that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal with a protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits, and a naked skin. ...

Nevertheless, even initially, these two flies in the theoretical ointment fail to obscure the remarkable fact that a single nonprimate has all of the simple, non-synergistic traits distinguishing humans from their primate kin.

Such a finding is strongly consistent with the hypothesis that this particular animal once hybridized with the chimpanzee to produce the first humans. In a very simple manner, this assumption immediately accounts for a large number of facts that otherwise appear to be entirely unrelated.

Which animal is it? Which??? Come on Dr McCarthy! Spill the beans!

What is this other animal that has all these traits?

The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.

Not satisfied with this nonsense, he boldly goes, where none has dared go before: ...

Is it not rational then also, if pigs have all the traits that distinguish humans from other primates, to suppose that humans are also related to pigs?
Of course, of course...

Let us take it as our hypothesis, then, that humans are the product of ancient hybridization between pig and chimpanzee.

 

[Asyncritus]

There.

Aren't you glad to know that you're related to chimpanzees and pigs? Maybe not so distantly!

About 3 million years ago, next November, the unnatural act between a pig and a chimpanzee took place , which resulted in the human race. Homo sapiens..

Wise man, that means.
Sapiens?????? !!!!!

Of course, this might explain how snoring evolved!!!!.... Oink oink!

 

[Barbarian]

Just came across this, and could barely restrain my hilarity. Thought you might like it, Vaccine and Barbarian! I've put it on my blog along with a multitude of very serious proofs that evolution is a nonsense. Go have a look.http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

Feel free to pick one that you think is particularly convincing, and present it here for discussion.

How did snoring evolve?

In a very curious article, It might in fact, be a joke - but I doubt it. It wasn't published on 1st April...
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html#.Un4AfuLflGk

I notice the doofus who wrote that thinks that because monotremes have their sex genes arranged the way birds have theirs arranged in chromosomes, that must mean monotremes have bird genes from interbreeding. So anyone ignorant enough to confuse genes and chromosomes isn't really in the game. In fact, chromosome fissions, fusions and crossovers are quite common and no mystery to science.

McCarthy goes to town, and produces a magnificent list of the features which humans do NOT HAVE IN COMMON with any other primates, and I reproduce it here. Dr McCarthy, if you ever read this, and wish me to remove it from this blog, I will be more than happy to do so. But here it is for the time being, in my appreciation of its excellence:

All mammals have a great number of things in common. But I notice this guy has never considered that a simple in-vitro fertilzation test between swine and chimp gametes would settle the issue. I think I know why he's never considered it.

The really odd thing is that McCarthy completely fails to recognise that this is a magnificent list in support of creation rather than the usual boring evolutionary nonsense.

In the sense that most creationists would be impressed by the specious reasoning therein.

Snoring evolved in pretty much the same way speech and choking on food evolved. Want to learn about it?

 

[Vaccine]

Thanks Asynchronous for pointing out just how different we are from other primates. I didn't know there were so many physical differences.

I laughed when I read about a pig-chimp hybrid too. Then it occurred to me some scientist is actually going to do experiments like that, mixing kinds based on similar chromosomes. The sad thing is the bible warns us not to mess around like that, yet this is what the future Holds. There is no evidence for a tree of life but a Network of life is different. All it will take is one successful hybrid between two unlikely candidates to be touted as "overwhelming evidence" for evolution. Or evidence of design depending on how you look at it. Either way, I don't like where this is headed.
God told us in the bible how he made humans but some don't like that answer. Pseudo-scientists came up with their own answer and want to prove it no matter what the cost.

 

[Claudya]

BEHAVIORAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods

Most of that has been observed in other animals. Even alcoholism. Animals of different species have figured out that they can have much fun eating fermented fruits. A few years ago a story of dead animals falling out of the skies in Vienna made the news here, because many people thought it was funny: the birds died from fatal "accidents" they had because they were drunk like thousand Russians. They kept eating berries that would cause fermentation (and thus alcoholic intoxication) in their stomachs and developed a habit from that.

Orang Utans have about the same menstrual cycle as humans have.

Several female animals of different species have been observed to experience uterine/ vaginal contractions when sexually stimulated, and though we can't conclusively tell whether they feel pleasure, those physical responses are pretty much the same as in human females.

Snuggling (touching each other for the purpose of forming/ maintaining an emotional bond) is quite common among apes.
And many apes live at least part of their everyday live on the ground and only climb trees in particular situations.

And some of that isn't true for all humans. Or it's not part of biological evolution, but of cultural evolution.

As for the other physical "uniquely human" traits, I suppose the list of things we have in common with other apes or mammals would be several times longer. And you could make a "uniqueness" list for any complex species and in many cases they would be equally long as this one.

The entire argumentation seems to be aimed at ridiculing evolutions rather than debating it.
It's propaganda rather than science.

 

[Barbarian]

Looks more and more like a hoax, doesn't it? Someone did this with an "palentological find" of a dinosaur eating a human, which was supposedly "suppressed." It was actually a hoax by the New Mexico Skeptics, but the fools didn't realize that it might take off among creationists; for a few months, it was being touted as evidence against evolution. Quite similar to an inadvertent example, when the annual April issue of a certain science magazine published findings that Neandertals used bagpipes and tubas to make music. The Institute for Creation Research took it for real, and actually cited it on one of their radio programs.

http://discovermagazine.com/1997/apr/andaoneandauhuh1108#.UoZZEyf9yfs

It was, of course, their annual "April Fool" story. "Professor Todkopf" should have been a dead giveaway; the magazine figured that surely their scientifically-literate readership would know and have a good laugh. They didn't consider the issue of quote-mining creationists.

 

[Sparkey]

Who, other than those called of God, may worship Him in Spirit and in Truth?

Strange that science fails to identify the critical difference. But maybe not that strange after all.

 

[Barbarian]

Who, other than those called of God, may worship Him in Spirit and in Truth?

Strange that science fails to identify the critical difference. But maybe not that strange after all.

Science is unable to do that kind of thing. It's extraordinarily good at understanding the physical universe. But that's all it's good for.

 

[Asyncritus]

This might be a joke - I wouldn't be surprised, it's so stupid.

But it quite unwittingly.raises a number of very serious points, all hostile to evolution.

The first is that all of those points of dissimilarity require some kind of evolutionary explanation. There's none forthcoming.

But second, let us suppose there WAS a hybridisation: some chimp mated with some pig, and produced a human.

What then?

Does the human mate with the pig, or the chimp, or both? And even if it does, what's produced? A chig, or a pimp?

Whatever happens, the new organism is FORCED to breed back into the original populations, and the new 'species' is lost. It is ANOTHER evolutionary dead end, a fatal one at that.

This extremely serious point is blithely ignored by evolutionary scientists: at least, I have never heard any convincing arguments against it.

In fact this chimp-pig hybridisation vaguely resembles Richard Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster idea.

Goldschmidt was, for those who may not know, a very famous geneticist at Columbia University. He was so frustrated by the inability of evolutionary theory to account for the origin of birds, among other things such as those I have been pointing out on this board, that he came up with his Hopeful Monster theory.

Which said that one day a reptilian egg hatched, and a bird came out!

Needless to say, he was slammed by the evolutionary establishment. But he was never proved wrong, and the difficulties he was attempting to face still exist, unexplained.

I have highlighted some of these in my blog: http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

So the serious point McCarthy inadvertently made, still stands.

If the first individual of a new species arises, what does it mate with? And how does it avoid being re-absorbed into the original population?

 

[Barbarian]

This might be a joke - I wouldn't be surprised, it's so stupid.

A hoax. Trolling for creationists. As you see, that's become a sport for a number of jerks on the net, exploiting ignorance to get a laugh. Sometimes funny; more often not.

But it quite unwittingly.raises a number of very serious points, all hostile to evolution.
The first is that all of those points of dissimilarity require some kind of evolutionary explanation. There's none forthcoming.

Well, bring up one, and we'll take a look at it.

But second, let us suppose there WAS a hybridisation: some chimp mated with some pig, and produced a human.
What then?

What if gulls and pigs mated and then pigs could fly. What then?

Does the human mate with the pig, or the chimp, or both?

First point, which your guy correctly assumed most creationists wouldn't know, was that animals with different numbers of chromosomes can't interbreed. There are a tiny number of exceptions, but since humans, swine,and chimpanzees all have different numbers it would be tiny squared to imagine a second round. But as I said, most creationists wouldn't know that.

This extremely serious point is blithely ignored by evolutionary scientists:

It's usually discussed in Genetics 101. No biologist is unaware of that. But lots of creationists are.

at least, I have never heard any convincing arguments against it.

Q.E.D.

In fact this chimp-pig hybridisation vaguely resembles Richard Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster idea.

No. His is about sudden macromutational events leading to a new species. That seems to be vanishingly rare for mammals, although there is one example, a rodent in S. America that evolved by polyploidy, thus fulfilling both scenarios. Sort of like getting hit by a meteorite, as far as likelihoods. But a few of those are known, too.

So the serious point McCarthy inadvertently made, still stands.

Only for those who don't understand genetics. For biologists, no.

If the first individual of a new species arises, what does it mate with?

Usually other members of the old population.

And how does it avoid being re-absorbed into the original population?

Until Mendel, that was a serious issue. Then we learned that inheritance was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint. Again, a problem for those who don't understand biology, but not for someone with a high-school level understanding of genetics.

 

[Vaccine]

It's not really a hoax or troll.
" Eventually, after the book had been under contract for nearly a year, he requested that we terminate our contract, and I agreed, since I felt I was being pressured to make changes in response to comments I considered invalid. So, rather than submit the manuscript for yet another round of lengthy, and perhaps fruitless, review, I decided to simply publish it here on the Macroevolution.net website with a slightly altered title, On the Origins of New Forms of Life: A New Theory. To access it, click here. I truly believe that stabilization theory provides a much improved explanation of available data."
http://www.macroevolution.net/about-me.html

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, no publisher would accept it, so he's self-publishing. Morgan's corollary to Poe's law strikes again.

Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.

Considering that Immanuel Velikovsky, Whitley Strieber, And Erich von Daniken all found publishers, that's a pretty good index as to how weird this guy is.

Let him do the in-vitro experiment with chimp and swine gametes, and then we'll talk.

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, bring up one, and we'll take a look at it.;

In 1976, the biologist Robert E. Gill Jr. came to the southern coast of Alaska to survey the birds preparing for their migrations for the winter. One species in particular, wading birds called bar-tailed godwits, puzzled him deeply. They were too fat.

Robert E. Gill Jr.
TRACKERS On Alaska’s Yukon River delta, scientists implant a transmitter in a bristle-thighed curlew. The birds fly as far as 6,000 miles without a stop.

“They looked like flying softballs,” said Mr. Gill.

At the time, scientists knew that bar-tailed godwits spend their winters in places like New Zealand and Australia. To get there, most researchers assumed, the birds took a series of flights down through Asia, stopping along the way to rest and eat. After all, they were land birds, not sea birds that could dive for food in the ocean. But in Alaska, Mr. Gill observed, the bar-tailed godwits were feasting on clams and worms as if they were not going to be able to eat for a very long time.

“I wondered, why is that bird putting on that much fat?” he said.

Mr. Gill wondered if the bar-tailed godwit actually stayed in the air for a much longer time than scientists believed. It was a difficult idea to test, because he could not actually follow the birds in flight. For 30 years he managed as best he could, building a network of bird-watchers who looked for migrating godwits over the Pacific Ocean. Finally, in 2006, technology caught up with Mr. Gill’s ideas. He and his colleagues were able to implant satellite transmitters in bar-tailed godwits and track their flight.

The transmitters sent their location to Mr. Gill’s computer, and he sometimes stayed up until 2 in the morning to see the latest signal appear on the Google Earth program running on his laptop. Just as he had suspected, the bar-tailed godwits headed out over the open ocean and flew south through the Pacific. They did not stop at islands along the way. Instead, they traveled up to 7,100 miles in nine days — the longest nonstop flight ever recorded. “I was speechless,” Mr. Gill said.

"... The birds then fly for thousands of miles. How they get to their final destinations remains a mystery. One thing is clear: they somehow know where they are, even when they are flying over vast expanses of featureless ocean. “It’s as if they have a GPS on board,” Dr. Piersma said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25migrate.html?pagewanted=all

Evolutionary explanations, please....

 

[Asyncritus]

First point, which your guy correctly assumed most creationists wouldn't know, was that animals with different numbers of chromosomes can't interbreed. There are a tiny number of exceptions, but since humans, swine,and chimpanzees all have different numbers it would be tiny squared to imagine a second round. But as I said, most creationists wouldn't know that.

Irrelevant.

No. His is about sudden macromutational events leading to a new species. That seems to be vanishingly rare for mammals, although there is one example, a rodent in S. America that evolved by polyploidy, thus fulfilling both scenarios. Sort of like getting hit by a meteorite, as far as likelihoods. But a few of those are known, too.

You really should read wiki more carefully, you know. Here:

Goldschmidt was the first scientist to use the term "hopeful monster". Goldschmidt thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution. In his book The Material Basis of Evolution (1940) he wrote "the change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation."

Goldschmidt believed the large changes in evolution were caused by macromutations (large mutations). His ideas about macromutations became known as the hopeful monster hypothesis which is considered a type of saltational evolution.[7]

[A better name would be 'creation'!]

According to Goldschmidt "biologists seem inclined to think that because they have not themselves seen a 'large' mutation, such a thing cannot be possible.

[ And they're right! Aren't they! Just goes to prove that it is an entirely faith-based theory, not a scientific one! We haven't seen it, but we believe it!]

But such a mutation need only be an event of the most extraordinary rarity to provide the world with the important material for evolution".[8]

[In other words, it doesn't happen sufficiently often to produce the Cambrian Explosion or any other of the explosions known to have occurred].

Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accuumulation of small mutations was important but could only account for variation within species (microevolution) and wasn't a powerful enough source for the origin of evolutionary novelty to explain new species.

Instead he believed that large genetic differences between species required profound "macro-mutations" a source for large genetic changes (macroevolution) which once and a while could occur as a "hopeful monster".[9][10]

Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a "non-Darwinian" however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in 1940s and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists.

Only for those who don't understand genetics. For biologists, no.

Do you?

Usually other members of the old population.

If you know anything about genetics, you will know that backbreeding into the original population will destroy any advantages gained by selective breeding procedures. Mendel's work shows that quite clearly, as you ought to know.

Hence any advantage gained by the hybridisation McCarthy is talking about would soon be lost, and the new species destroyed or lost. So no evolution!

Line breeding is an effort to maintain certain characteristics by in-breeding the line with the acquired/ improved characteristics, but is subject to serious defects, not least of which is the increasing uniformity of the gene pools, which means that a disease which seriously damages one set of animals in the line, is liable to wipe out the whole population.

But I didn't grasp your solution to the problem of what would become of the back breeding of the new species/ whatever into the old population. No surprise there, really.

 

[Asyncritus]

Ah, no publisher would accept it, so he's self-publishing. Morgan's corollary to Poe's law strikes again.

Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.

Considering that Immanuel Velikovsky, Whitley Strieber, And Erich von Daniken all found publishers, that's a pretty good index as to how weird this guy is.

Let him do the in-vitro experiment with chimp and swine gametes, and then we'll talk.

I agree with you.

But publishing house rejections are meaningless yardsticks of the value of anything. Remember JK Rowling? 14 rejections. James Herriott (It Shouldn't Happen To A Vet series) another 14 rejections.

So I wouldn't lay too much store on that.

He is, after all, perfectly right in saying that Darwinism is fundamentally flawed - a concept you have the utmost difficulty in accepting.

 

[Barbarian]

No. His is about sudden macromutational events leading to a new species. That seems to be vanishingly rare for mammals, although there is one example, a rodent in S. America that evolved by polyploidy, thus fulfilling both scenarios. Sort of like getting hit by a meteorite, as far as likelihoods. But a few of those are known, too.

You really should read wiki more carefully, you know. Here:

Goldschmidt was the first scientist to use the term "hopeful monster". Goldschmidt thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution. In his book The Material Basis of Evolution (1940) he wrote "the change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation."

Goldschmidt believed the large changes in evolution were caused by macromutations (large mutations). His ideas about macromutations became known as the hopeful monster hypothesis which is considered a type of saltational evolution.[7]

Goldschmidt's ideas turned out to be contrary to observed speciations, so of course, they aren't considered to be of anything more than historical importance.

[A better name would be 'creation'!]

Early Christians like St. Augustine would agree with you. So would modern Christians like Kenneth Miller, or Francis Collins. Evolution is indeed creation.

Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accuumulation of small mutations was important but could only account for variation within species (microevolution) and wasn't a powerful enough source for the origin of evolutionary novelty to explain new species.

Yep. But observed speciations show that he was wrong. He was also wrong about the supposed "strict gradualism" of Darwinism. Huxley, for example, was an enthusiastic backer of Darwin's theory, and a saltationist. Surprise.

(Async finds it hard to understand why genetics rules out a swine/ape hybrid)

Barbarian chuckles:
Only for those who don't understand genetics. For biologists, no.

Do you?

I just explained to you why it won't work. Would you like me to show you again?

If you know anything about genetics, you will know that backbreeding into the original population will destroy any advantages gained by selective breeding procedures. Mendel's work shows that quite clearly, as you ought to know.

You've been misled about that. Let's suppose a useful new mutation evolves. Suppose it's dominant (I'll show you the other case in a moment). Suppose it's also useful. The mutant happens to ride the odds and reproduces by backbreeding with the unmutated individuals. So all of those offspring have the mutation, and the phenotype. Since the mutation is favorable, the number of individuals with the mutation will increase each generation, possibly to fixation.

Now, suppose that the mutation is recessive. The first mutant is phenotypically just like his fellows. But each of his offspring will have a 50% chance of having the mutation. Over time, a few of the descendants will breed, and a few homozygous individuals will be produced, and they will have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce, and so the mutant allele will increase in the population also.

Surprise. BTW, this was Mendel's great discovery, and it solved a very knotty problem in Darwinism:
"If heredity is like mixing paint, how could a new character survive backbreeding?"

The answer, of course, is that it isn't like mixing paint. More like sorting beads. And with the rediscovery of Mendel's work, the mystery was solved.

But I didn't grasp your solution to the problem of what would become of the back breeding of the new species/ whatever into the old population.

No surprise there, really.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests that Async's guy should do an in-vitro experiment with ape/swine gametes to test his idea)

I agree with you.

But publishing house rejections are meaningless yardsticks of the value of anything. Remember JK Rowling?

Interestingly, she wrote about stuff that was impossible in the real world, too. But she wasn't pretending that it was anything but a story.

He is, after all, perfectly right in saying that Darwinism is fundamentally flawed

People with weird and clearly wrong theories, often claim that science is fundamentally flawed:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

- a concept you have the utmost difficulty in accepting.

For the same reason I have difficulty in accepting your guy's notion that humans are hybrids of apes and swine. It's that "E" word, again. Sorry.

 

[Barbarian]

The birds then fly for thousands of miles. How they get to their final destinations remains a mystery. One thing is clear: they somehow know where they are, even when they are flying over vast expanses of featureless ocean. “It’s as if they have a GPS on board,” Dr. Piersma said."

Aug. 11, 2006 — Songbirds use multiple sources of directional cues to guide their seasonal migrations, including the Sun, star patterns, the earth's magnetic field, and sky polarized light patterns. To avoid navigational errors as cue availability changes with time of day and weather conditions, these "compass" systems must be calibrated to a common reference. Experiments over the last 30 years have failed to resolve the fundamental question of how migratory birds integrate multiple sources of directional information into a coherent navigational system.

Last autumn, Rachel Muheim, a postdoctoral associate in biology professor John Phillips' lab at Virginia Tech, captured Savannah sparrows in the Yukon before they headed south. She was able to demonstrate that the birds calibrate their magnetic compass based on polarized light patterns at sunset and sunrise.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060810213154.htm

Surprise. It's always dangerous to try to hide God in ignorance. Ignorance tends to go away eventually.