1.
@Thomas - please don't take a haughty tone when asking me something, if you genuinely seek knowledge just ask me, l'm an ordinary person with feelings and l have been factual and intellectually honest (avoiding logical fallacies)
2.
@Thomas - as it happens, nothing in your
post was relevant to the OP - the challenge of the OP is: show an example of evolution by gene mutation happening. So please, do that if you are able.
3. @everyone - the question of the OP has never changed, unlike some are bizarrely claiming. It has always been:
show evolution by gene mutation happening, in the lab or in the wild, via a scientific study (i.e. something actually documented). Pointing to articles describing existing traits as "mutations" or "mutant forms" of a gene is just backstory, it is just common parlance to address different forms of a gene thus. Confusing for a few miliseconds, sure, but as l have pointed out over and over, this is just terminology. Show me the actual mutation happening under observation. With millions of species, and for some species e.g. blades of grass or microorganisms, trillions of individuals, we should be seeing something in the lab or even in the wild under direct observation. So show me please. Please don't insist that no, this is a gene mutation and l am changing goalposts bla bla bla that is just desperation, and it is inevitably rounded off with more personal abuse, when l have said nothing incorrect.
4. When l rebutt an answer, calling the answer "changing the goalposts" is deflection because the fact is, the goalposts have not been changed - see point (3)
5. When l give an answer and support it with a link,
the answer itself suffices, the added link is supplementary, it is therefore not link hurling. Link hurling is what the respondents here have been doing - just posting a link and leaving it without any explanation. Or book stacking, like moderator / admin RJM Corbett, mentioning a book, and stating something about the book as if it somehow explains what is in the book and even answers my OP, when in fact it is incoherent. Organelles and electron channels? What?
6. Please be rational. Currently l see the respondents here hellbent on proving evolution by gene mutation at any cost, not just seeking the truth of the matter
(with moderator Thomas even upvoting a spam post about IT courses, which only got deleted from this thread when l queried if it were spam). Of course they fail to demonstrate it, so they begin insulting.
Even to the extent of ridiculing the concept of logical fallacies a.k.a. intellectual honesty.
7. Finally:
Selective breeding (e.g. dog breeds) is not evolution by gene mutation.
Explanation:
(i) No new genes have appeared. Sure, the phenotype (i.e. the resulting outward appearance) may change, but there are no novel genes involved, they are just recombining along chromosomes via inheritance.
(ii) No new information has appeared.
(iii) (as with point ii) I also think it may be narrowing down of an existing data set, just like natural selection, but in the format of selective breeding, which is why some might say dogs are just a degenerate version of the timber wolf. Well l don't know about that but the principle is that the data is being reduced, no new gene information is appearing.
(iv) A big clue that selective breeding isn't evolution by gene mutation is that the various dog breeds can still breed with each other and probably with wolves if l'm not mistaken.
It is at least original that somebody read my OP and appreciated that l ruled out natural selection. Selective breeding (e.g. of dogs) isn't natural selection as such, so well done for spotting that.
However, what you should be doing is researching how your opponent could be right, and then going on to phrase your response. Otherwise you will just be blurting out whatever first appears in the mind
Worrying that so many upvote these incorrect posts. Maybe upvote a post that actually adds to the for or against stances
Apologies for mentioning some names in this post but those were admin staff and moderators, hence it was healthy to point to these misdirections of the debate.
By the way, as stated earlier, it might cut out a lot of verbiage if the response is phrased concisely thus:
Gene mutation:
ENTER NAME OF MUTANT THAT HAS EMERGED DURING THE TIMEFRAME OF A STUDY, WHICH YOU DEEM TO HAVE PROGRESSED THE EVOLUTION OF A SPECIES - THIS IS THE BEEF, SO TO SPEAK, SHOW ME THE BEEF
Mutated from:
ENTER THE NAME OF THE GENE IT MUTATED FROM, OR OTHER EXPLANATION FOR ITS ORIGIN e.g. POINT INSERTION, CHROMOSOMAL INSERTION
Reference publication:
ENTER THE PUBLICATION REFERENCE, preferably a URL, don't worry, it's not link hurling when you've filled in the preceding fields
Date:
ENTER THE DATE OF THAT PUBLICATION
