As a non-scientist, I am seeking some clarity here, and full accept the premise that I accept evolution as a viable theory based on what science tells me, without my having established that for myself.
My two bits, for all they are worth:
Statement 1:
1. There is no scientific observation of a genetic mutation leading to evolutionary advancement, in the lab or in the wild - yet it is the basis of many people's entire world view
I'm not sure I even understand this statement.
As I current see it, the observation of genetic mutation from generation to generation has been observed in the lab and is well documented, and this evidence supplies support for the thesis of evolution as such.
Observation in the field has gathered data which suggests mutation as a viable evolutionary theory.
The argument, I think, depends on the definition of 'evolutionary advancement' – does that mean the emergence of a new species?
First clarification...does the "Farm" count as the laboratory? In my mind, yes.
With that in mind, after seeing the list Vajra would trot out from time to time in response to something I would say, and say "here is a list of observed speciation." The first time or two I raised eyebrows and looked at a couple examples on the list and came away not really convinced. I think it was the third time I took a few days and went over the entire LONG list. Mind you, the list was pulled from TalkOrigins, whose stock in trade is arguing against creationism. That really should have been my first clue.
So I got to digging into all of the examples on the list, and one by one I was able to cross off *all* but one example as not demonstrating speciation. Adaptation I could easily go along with, but adaptation is not - in and of itself - speciation. The only example I could not refute was a cross between a radish and a cabbage. Probably not particularly remarkable to a non-gardener, but the two are not even in the same family, it would be like a dog mating *successfully!* with a cat. What came of the union according to the specific write up, was unable to reproduce with either of the parent stocks. That, by definition, would clearly be speciation.
That led me to research what *exactly* was meant by the term "speciation." Here the discussion became so convoluted that it was hard to follow without a program, but I was determined. One point routinely held out was that a "species" could not mate with a different "species." OK, so what about all those fruit flies speciating? Could they still mate with other fruit flies? Oh yeah! Of course they can! OK, then they are not species. Oh, but yes they are...see the different wings, the different colors, the different (blah blah blah). OK, but can they mate with other fruit flies? Of course! But you just got done telling me moments ago that a species cannot mate with another species... Oh, but, but, but...just go away and go look at the Galapagos Finches, or the moths in Industrial England (or some other equally fraught and unsatisfying avenue - just to make me go away).
In agriculture and horticulture and animal husbandry...humans have for thousands of years now, at minimum 5000, probably closer to 10,000, been selectively breeding various plants and animals, mostly for food, but sometimes for aesthetics and companionship. People who practice these arts, hands on, have to look at the biology texts and laugh.
Is a dog (pick your favorite breed) a different species than a wolf? They are both canines, but almost to a person scientists will say yes. Yet the two can breed. Is a Bobcat a different species than a domestic shorthair cat? Both are felines, but almost to a person scientists will say yes. I know from personal experience Bobcats can interbreed with domestic cats and have viable offspring.
Usually about this time the "evolutionists" back up a half step, and presuming they don't lay into me with ad hominems in an attempt to cast aspersions, or deliberately twist my words in what appears to me to be effort to dodge the question, mumble something about changing alleles and mutating DNA.
Two things:
First, if we are going to use outward appearance to designate "species," so that bigger nose, skin color, hair color and texture, type of teeth or any other similar outward appearance is used, we run into the little problem highlighted by Eugenics. Are humans "just another animal?"
Second, *most* mutations are in non-coding sections of DNA, and have no determinable effect on an organism. Of those mutations that do create a determinable effect on an organism, diseases are the most common by-product - often crippling and / or life threatening, not something beneficial.
Anybody here remember who Francis Collins, MD is? When I last mentioned him here, he and I were poopooed as if what I quoted of him was meaningless, that he didn't know what he was talking about, concerning genetics. So if you will allow me to reintroduce the current and long standing Director of the National Institute of Health, former Director of National Human Genome Research Institute, and the Director of the Human Genome Mapping Project at the time of the announcement in 2000 that the Human Genome had finally been translated. Doctor Collins is quoted from that period of time as having said, paraphrased by my memory, "there is a difference between humans and mice of only a few hundred genes, but you cannot simply replace those genes in a mouse and expect it to begin listening to Mozart or learn to play golf." The passage quoted went on to explain that human genes "multitask," which to my knowledge (and I haven't heard recently) that position has not changed. Point being so many people not directly involved in the Genome Mapping Project have placed so much emphasis over the past 20 years on gene count, but there is FAR more to the story than simply the number of genes. So what if we share 97% of our genes with Bonobos? That 3% makes all the difference! We share fully 50% of our genes with yeast and bananas.
I spent a few hours reviewing some of the old threads over the past few nights, and can see how much more has come into the light since then, but the basis hasn't changed. *Now* we know that Neandertal genes are evident throughout Europeans, some more than others. *Now* we have conjecture based on one finger bone of a sub-species called Denisovan (after the place - in Croatia? <correction, Siberia> - where the bone was found), that seem to run through most of the Asians <correction - Aboriginal Australians, New Guinea, Pacific Islanders and some SE Asia>. We now have not only Homo Floresiensis (the Flores Island Hobbit) to account for, I'm still waiting to hear the official results of the find in South Africa <Homo Naledi> a few years back, where something like 17 <*15> individuals were purposely buried deep in a cave. This is not the place to go into details, but this is established, not a flooding accident or some other natural occurrence, these primitive people purposely buried their dead deep in a cave. Their skeletal biology showed both primitive and modern development - if you wish to interpret as a "missing link," so be it, but the point is that the conscious mental development required for considerate burial was present far earlier than we could dream of when those threads were written <currently thought to be between 275K and 295K ybp>.
Evolution is a convenient methodology for explaining the process, but Gospel it isn't. There are far too many anomalies and contradictory evidence to the - I'm gonna call it what it is - dogma. Disputing that dogma or highlighting places where it falls short does not make me a kook or a creationist by default worthy of straw man insinuations. All I have ever done from day one on this subject here is ask the questions highlighted by the clear, undeniable, (and on the farm) daily contradictions. I think Evolution is the best explanation we currently have, but I think it is symbolically like Newtonian Physics - it works well enough to get the job done, we're just waiting for Einstein to come along and clarify some of the obvious shortcomings.
