We all understand what’s going on with you Bill. You don’t understand evolutionary biology even a little and it scares you because it contradicts your religious beliefs. To appease your fears you attack the science, you misrepresent it, you accidentally “forget” all the evidence you’re shown and all the explanations you’re given.
You’ve been doing your ham-fisted denial of reality for years now Bill on sites all over the web. The thing is no one cares if you wish to believe your religious creation story over the actual science. The thing that ticks people off is when you are shown evidence then come back the next day and flat out lie and claim no evidence was presented. It’s the willful dishonesty that irks people Bill, not your beliefs.
You dishonestly quote-mined the 29+ evidences article. Here is the whole section
Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate “microevolutionary” theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale , or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton’s theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth’s biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
Theobold is just stating what the purpose of the article is and that it doesn’t cover macroevolution. NOT that macroevolutionary mechanisms aren’t known.
That’s exactly the kind of willful dishonesty you’re known for Bill.
It means the question is not addressed in that specific article, because that is not the topic of the article. The same reason Theobald says abiogenesis is not addressed in the article either.
You just don’t care how blatant your dishonesty is, do you?
Recombination was studied in peas in 1905. The massive variation provided by recombination is obviously provided by diploidy and sexual reproduction, so Bill’s idea that recombination is somehow a “new idea” is preposterous, and demonstrates an incredible ignorance of basic biology.
He specifically identified evolutionary mechanisms with micro evolution and then stated whether they were adequate to explain macro evolution is left open.
We know there is currently no evidence that these mechanisms can cause a significant evolutionary transition where a new innovative feature can arise such as an eye. So Theobald was simply stating the truth.
Will someone please explain to Bill quote-mining is very dishonest and is usually considered a form of lying? He seems unable to grasp the concept.
Science knows how macroevolution works. That you choose to remain willfully ignorant is your problem. Why does evolutionary biology scare you so badly Bill?
FISHER (1930) and MULLER (1932) stated essentially identical theories of the evolutionary advantage to a population of having recombination. They imagined a population in which new, favorable mutants are occurring at many different loci. If the population has recombination, the fixation of mutants at different loci will be more or less independent. Favorable mutants which arise in different individuals can ultimately be combined into the same genome by recombination.
