Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : If natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for : : : : : : macroevolution, why don't you explain to me how : : : : : : this occurs? No one here has shown me how natural : : : : : : selection can build up the genome of a single : : : : : : stranded polynucleotide to a multichromosome : : : : : : system. : : : : : : : No one knows. No scientist currently has a good explanation for this. You make the philosophical leap, that in the absence of this knowledge, that evolution must be abandoned. This is ludicrous. When Newton devised his three laws of motion and his law of gravitation, people accepted them as very good theories. However, when astronomers observed Ur, Newton's laws didn't work. Throw out Newtonian mechanics? No, they explain so many things beautifully. No, look for a way to explain the discrepancy. Even before they could "see" it, people predicted that there was another planet (Neptune was found shortly after). : : : : : : So now you admit you do not know how macroevolution : : : : : : occurs, but in the next breath you know it is a : : : : : : fact. Your ignorance is unbelievable. : : : : : This is pure dishonesty. When Rich said "Nobody knows," he was referring to your statement about "the genome of a single stranded polynucleotide to a multichromosome system" and not to your rhetorical question about explaining how macroevolution works. You have received numerous explanations of how macroevolution works; I know it, Rich knows it, and you know it; so what reason would Rich have to say he doesn't know how macroevolution works. : : : : : I restored the statement Rich was answering, and which you deleted, in order to expose your mendacity. : : : : You still havn't told me what the mechanism is, : : : : excpet natural selection which you think is : : : : caused by new variations being created by each : : : : microevolutionary event. Read your bio book and : : : : see what it says about this. He was talking about : : : : macroevolution, which I consider genome building, : : : : which would be required for such changes. : : : New variations arise all the time. Natural selection pes them on and makes them part of evolution. Natural selection is the outcome of the interaction of organisms with their environment in which some survive and others do not, and the survivors tell the story of the future. THERE IS NO OTHER MECHANISM! Stop asking for one and answer my question: why can't millions of small changes add up to a big one? : : : : And I think Rich can talk for himself and doesn't : : : : need you jumping into our discussions. At least : : : : he understands what microevolution is. : : : Nobody invited you to this discussion. The invitation is open to everyone. : : Why don't you ask Rich if he thinks variation and : : natural selection are the mechanism for evolution. : : He has said repeatedly that mutation is the : : source of new genetic material, not variation. : : You seem to think that new variations pop up : : every time someone is born. If you understood : : genetics, you would understand that this is : : a reshuffling of all ready present variations, : : not the creation of new ones. : "New genetic material," as you call it, and variation are not the same things. Mutation and variation are not the same things. A gene may mutate, but not cause any variation at all. : If you understood evolution, that you are so wont to attack, you would understand these distinctions.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[Nantucket Navy Live Chat][The Jolly Roger][Kill Devil Hill][Western Canon University]
[Starbuck.com Literary Pirates Cove][Shakespearean Greetings]
[The Crow's Nest] [The World's Largest Literary Cafe]
[Western Canon University Commons] [Western Canon University Lecture Halls] darwin JP (H. sap.) thinks that mutation and variation are the same thing: Nantucket Campfire

darwin Nantucket Campfire
darwin & Other Nantucket Live Chats
If ye would like to moderate the darwin Nantucket Campfire, please drop nantucket@nantuckets.com a line.