Natural selection has never shown to cause any new lineages of any new kinds of organisms.
Natural selection deals with what is in the DNA. If the DNA is not degraded to badly, then the resulting descendant, will be a species of the kind of lifeform in question. That’s it. That is what has been observed. It is undisputable.
And you reject the evidence even though you can find it for yourself. The links to the conversation are present. There is even a copy of the discourse to listen to.
Let’s start with this:
Can you see the evidence for a common ancestor of the great apes and humans in the above peer-reviewed paper?
You assert it is not a fact and provide no evidence in support. The paper above provides really good molecular evidence in support of our shared ancestry with the great apes. Do you understand the evidence?
Since you can’t define kinds it’s meaningless to quibble about whether natural selection has contributed to their evolution. It’s also totally irrelevant to my point, which is that it is a fact that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and that a group of geologists would easily have been able to state as much when asked.
It is not possible to dispute something as vague as a “kind”, a word without a definition.
But regardless, since mutations in DNA accumulate over time, and since the physiology of the organism is almost entirely determined by it’s genome sequence, it logically follows that the population the organism belongs to will change over time as it’s genome changes too. And we can show that this mutational change has occurred and given rise to different species of primates, and that humans share common ancestry with other primates. Remember this post?
For example, transition bias. Since biochemically we observe most mutations to be transitions (A<->G, or C<->T), if common descent is true then species that share common ancestry should have most of their DNA differences correspond to mutations between A and G, or C and T. We find that.
As expected from the biochemical causes of mutations, the majority of differences both between individual humans, and between the human species and other primates, consist of transitions. Fantastic corroboration of the theory of common descent of primates.
A predicted pattern in differences and similarities can in that way be evidence for a historical occurrence.
Cite the research papers you have personally read, then.
Sorry buddy, those just are facts.
Natural selection is a mechanism of evolutionary change. This is a fact. Populations of organisms are subject to natural selection. Bacteria without resistance to antibiotics die when exposed to large amounts of antibiotic, leaving only those bacteria that have resistance to antibiotics. That’s natural selection. The population containing bacteria both with and without resistance will change over generations when exposed to antibiotics, so a higher and higher proportion of the population will consist of individuals that are resistant to antibiotics.
Natural selection at the population level results in transgenerational change.
Fact.
No. And neither can you or anyone else.
It is a speculation.
Science, actual biology tells us a human male and a human female mate and they, the two humans, will reproduce a human offspring.
Science, the science of biology tells us it takes a male and female ape to reproduce an ape baby.
This is not philosophical. It is not based upon wild imagination. What we observe has been observed for thousands of years. And not once has anyone observed differently. To add cement to this empirical evidence, is what we observe occurring by any and all of the different kinds of organisms. Because all of them have always been observed to reproduce others of their own kind.
Always.
Now, if you’d like to follow this reasoning at any time in the past, this would mean that any of the animals the evolutionists claim could have been the ancestors of man, would be contradicted by the fact that every time any animals have ever reproduced, the resulting offspring have always been those of the same kind as those that mated them into existence.
Again this is the fact. Any other claim is purely based upon speculation.
And your PAPER, is one of the other claims. It is not based upon fact, but wild imagination.
I’m noticing a pattern … every time someone presents you with the evidence you request, you blow it off as “wild imagination” or some similar dismissal. You have yet to acknowledge that the science you dismiss so carelessly is working science that produces useful results. You have ignore at least four attempt where I have tried to point this out to you.
It seems as if you refuse to engage in the work actually performed by scientists using evolutionary theory. This makes it difficult to discuss anything with you, because you won’t even acknowledge basic scientific facts. I understand this make be hard to you to accept, but the science really does work, and produces useful results. Maybe try drop defense of your beliefs for a little while, and ask WHY other accept evolution. You don’t have to agree, just try to listen.
You must be able to explain the methods of the paper to support this claim, otherwise you do not understand what the paper is showing. So I would like for you to explain why the authors of the paper use the collection of loci found stated in the results/discussion (also found in Table S2):
Roughly equal amounts of coding (14742 bp) and non-coding (17185 bp) genomic regions were sampled from X chromosome (4870 bp), Y chromosome (2630 bp) and autosomes (27427 bp) (Table 4) using newly developed PCR primers derived from a bioinformatics approach specific to primates in addition to primers from previous large-scale phylogenetic analyses (Materials and Methods, Tables S2, S3, S4).
Explain, in your own words, why they pick this particular collection of data to use in the inference of the phylogenetic tree. What is the reason for using this distribution of both coding and non-coding DNA from multiple different chromosomes?
You claim to have studied evolution a lot, so you should be able to explain what this achieves and why doing it is relevant in phylogenetic inference. 
The same exact thing can be said of ape species. There is no historical eyewitness observation of one ape species, even within your definition of kind, giving birth to another species. So your version of actual biology does not allow for speciation.
It is not evidence. It is what someone submits as having been the answer to the cause in question.
Please demonstrate how what has been EXPLAINED, has any evidence showing the explanation would cause what is being claimed was caused by the explanation.
You have no idea what empirical evidence.
If I steal money from you, and you simply accuse me of having done so, do you really think any police official would simply take your word for it, or would you need to supply evidence that I really stole your money?
Again, simply making the claim man and ape shared a common ancestor is pure speculative.
Even when you submit the similarities in anatomy, is still pure speculation.
Even submitting that the DNA of ape and man are in any percentage similar is STILL PURE SPECULATION.
Why? Because there is no observable evidence that can be used to contradict what has been observed by billions of humans for over 4 thousand years.
And every one of the speculations submitted, can be explained by the fact that there are different kinds of lifeforms.
All of which have been observed to be reproducing descendants according to those of their own kind, without once not being seen differently.
The idea there may have been a fusing of mans chromosomes that could be used as evidence of common ancestry, is still speculative.
The evolutionists can not prove there was a fusing. It really has been said to be something else. But, even with that, they can not show the fusion was what caused man to diverge from being ape like, to being human.
Also, the evolutionists have not demonstrated that any other supposed organisms that share a mythical common ancestor, also have a fusing of their chromosomes.
So, there is really no airtight evidence that raises up to the strength, that usurps the empirically observed evidence that only humans give birth to human babies.
Only apes are known to give birth to ape babies.
And you have not even found the mythical common ancestor, with many that have been so called the missing link being retracted sooner or later.
Again, you have no evidence to support a universal common ancestor.
From that mythical protocell, to anything else that was supposed to have evolved, you have no evidence of such evolutionary events.
You have nothing to support the as science your UCA.
Supply what you think is your best evidence for UCA that supports your views, and I’ll provide the evidence showing you it is not empirically based with evidence.
No @rtmcdge. You have merely copied dishonest, misrepresentative, out-of-context creationist quote-mines from dishonest creationist websites, without ever reading the books and articles where the authors actually express their full and complete opinion.
Reading between the lines, they are saying that @rtmcdge is a dishonest copier-and-paster of quotemines who has never read a single book by any of the authors whose quotemines they copy, so does not have any idea what they really think.
They are not saying that transitional forms don’t exist.
No. It is obvious that you have never read the full piece, so have no idea what they actually meant.
Your “backtracked” claim is merely wishful thinking.
You likewise have no evidence of this pitiful fantasy.
Have you listened to Patterson’s full talk? If not, then your opinion is not based upon the evidence, and so doesn’t matter.
And I’ll let the experts’ full body of work speak for itself, NOT some misrepresentative quote carefully cherry-picked by some dishonest creationist.
Addendum:
But regardless of whether or not your quotes are accurate representations of the opinions of those quoted (they’re not), they are opinion not evidence. The evidence is contained in the peer-reviewed research of these, and thousands of other, scientists – and you have failed to even mention this evidence.
My suspicions were correct. You don’t understand the genetic evidence for evolution. That means I can no longer take you seriously. You need reorientation on how science and evolutionary biology works.
Of course, when two cats mate, they will birth cats. When lions mate, they birth lions. Evolutionary biology is completely fine with this.
However, what you are missing is that as reproduction happens variations begin to accrue in these offspring and these variations are the substrates for evolutionary change.
In addition, it is POPULATIONS that evolve not INDIVIDUALS in evolutionary biology because it seems that simple concept eludes you.
Which is exactly what happened with us and other apes. We (humans, chimps, gorillas, etc) are modern APES who descended from ancestral ape populations, just as modern dogs and wolves descended from ancestral wolf populations.
And if we keep going back in time, we see the same thing happen with other species and that’s why all extant life fits into a nested hierarchy.
Calling the paper I linked to a speculation indicates you are out of your depth here. Despite your years of studying evolution, a strawman version, you have never dealt with the evidence directly. You need to get real education.
Look at the above image of a rat and mouse side by side. If I submit that they share a common ancestor based off SPECIFIC PATTERNS of similarity (not just plain similarity) in morphology and molecular genetics, would that be speculation?
Before answering, note that the same techniques for concluding that rat and mice share a common ancestor are the same with those used to establish the shared ancestry of humans and other great apes.
Have you ever seen a rat produce a mouse? The answer is no, but does this mean rats and mice don’t share a common ancestor?
Another demonstration you are clueless.
Science doesn’t deal with proofs. It deals with evidence.
In addition, the fusion of chromosome two in human is among the variations that would have contributed to the separation of human and other apes lineages.
Cheers to that. We are all apes.
I find the creationist misrepresentation of Gould very obvious. At the best it is based on a failure of understanding - a failure which seems endemic in Creationism.
To put the difference simply, Gould and Eldredge proposed that we should not expect to find clear records of transitions between species - but that does not in any way imply that we should not expect to find fossils of species that are intermediate between larger taxonomic groups. So when Gould asserts that there are many such fossils he is in no way backpedaling - Punctuated Equilibria gives no reason to expect that they should not be found.
Gould and Eldredge proposed Punctuated Equilibria in opposition to a view they called Phyletic Gradualism. A scan of the original paper may be found here
Gould and Eldredge characterised Phyletic Gradualism by the following propositions:
(1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
(2) The transformation is even and slow
(3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population
(4) The transformation occurs over all, or a large part of, the ancestral species’ geographic range
In contrast Punctuated Equilibria proposes:
(1) New species arise by the splitting of lineages
(2) New species develop rapidly
(3) A small sub-population of the ancestral form gives rise to the new species
(4) The new species originates in a very small part of the ancestral species’ geographic extent - in an isolated area at the periphery of the range
If Phyletic Gradualism is true the. - given a good fossil record of a species - we should expect to find the “finely grained intermediates” - there were many, existing over a long period of time over an extensive range. In Punctuated Equilibria the intermediates only exist for a short period of time over a narrow range - while the main population of the ancestral species continues, unchanged. If we have no fossils for the time and the region where the transition occurred, we won’t see it at all.
So, given Punctuated Equilibria, we would expect larger scale transitions to result from repetitions of the process. If each species-level transition involves a small sub-population in a small part of the range then if follows that the parent population must have a much larger population and a much larger range, and we should expect it to exist for a considerably longer time. The odds then of finding a fossil of an intermediate species is much greater than the odds of finding a fossil intermediate between a species and its immediate descendant. So, in fact Punctuated Equilibria says that we should find such fossils, not that we should not - and any claim to the contrary is based on a clear misunderstanding.
Or an oak tree give birth to a dolphin. I’ve asked @rtmcdge this at least twice myself, and he refuses to answer. One can only imagine why.
So let’s try be clear: Your UNDERSTANDING of evolutionary theory is that, according to the theory, a species land mammal went thru many millions of years and generations with only minor herditary changes and then, in a single generation, one of them gave birth to a whale.
Is that your UNDERSTANDING?
Seeing as how all you have provided are denials and “this is what someone thinks”, you don’t understand what you are talking about.
Rat, and mice being species of the same kind, of course would be related. This is easily accepted through science. Morphology backs up this conclusion
But, you then state this.
“Before answering, note that the same techniques for concluding that rat and mice share a common ancestor are the same with those used to establish the shared ancestry of humans and other great apes.”
And it is a speculation.
It does not have science to back it up. Simply because It is obvious apes are animals are humans are not.
Apes give birth to apes, and humans to humans.
We are as much different from apes as we are from plants.
And you are using two foundations to come to your conclusion. One is genetics, and the other UCA.
We can see how mice and rats, through natural selection could cause either to ancestor the other. This is a good example of common descent, but not one of evolution but simple genetics.
The other foundation you are using UCA, is not scientifically supported. And you are trying to use the an unobserved phenomenon, one that misappropriates what causes one thing and make it seem it is what could cause the other.
You are assuming there is a common ancestor, when there is no reason to. As much as you try to make it seem as though humans are just another ape, the evidence declares you in error. Logic, screams error.
On the other hand, to assume that all of the other apes are related there is perfect sense to this. But, then that wouldn’t be caused by UCA, but just common ancestry. Because they could be considered species of the same kind.
There is no evidence that UCA over time could have caused some unknown mythical organism to become the common of ape and man.
There is no evidence that there has ever been a common ancestor shared between any two kinds of organisms.
“As noted in the previous post, Chapter 15 does not argue that because the Y-chromosome of humans and chimps is highly dissimilar, therefore common descent is wrong. Rather, the argument is that overall human/chimp genetic differences are greater than what is commonly stated (indeed, the differences are is greater than Swamidass states), and if even one beneficial trait that’s different requires a few coordinated mutations to occur, then the standard evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection won’t work.”
Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/response-to-swamidass-rats-mice-and-discrepant-molecular-
clocks/
“First, the fossil record shows a distinct break between the apelike australopithecines, which are supposedly directly ancestral to our genus Homo, and the first humanlike members of the genus Homo (Luskin 2022). Such evidence has led to observations from mainstream evolutionists conceding that there is a “large, unbridged gap” between humanlike members of Homo and the australopithecines (Mayr 2004, p. 198), which required a “genetic revolution” since “no australopithecine species is obviously transitional” (Hawks et al. 2000, p. 4), and implies a “big bang” model of human origins (University of Michigan News Service 2000). While evolutionary paleoanthropologists generally believe that “the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences,” they admit that “many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records” (Lieberman et al. 2009, p. 1). This lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of the humanlike body plan in the fossil record weakens the necessity of adopting standard evolutionary explanations of human origins.”
Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/does-the-scientific-evidence-support-evolutionary-models-of-
human-origins/
i’m asking that you supply the evidence that time, mutations, genetic drift and chance could cause the different kinds of lifeforms.
All you are basing your conclusions on is simply not supported scientifically.
At least provide transitional fossils showing the descendants of the crock, are slowly hatching looking less like the male and female clock, and had begun hatching looking as though someone was playing a joke on ma and pa crock.
There just is no evidence that the species of any of the different kinds of lifeforms are looking less like being the descendants of any one kind of organism in question, and its descendants would one day begin a new lineage of a new kind of lifeform.
Now, you show me any modern day examples of descendants being born, being replicated being laid and hatched, looking as though their anatomies were slowly changing from the kind of the parent organism, into a different kind, then you’d have empirical evidence. But, until then, all you have is wishful thinking.
By the way. This would be the same ask, for any oak tree to dolphin.
But, even you know that’s not going to occur.
And in closing, how in the world do you know what you believe occur, could even occur over vast amounts of time.
Remember those fossils you claim evolved, were not observed by you. So, claiming there was an evolutionary event, and you not seeing it, is simply bad science.
So, not one person who has embraced the “BAD SCIENCE” OF EVOLUTION, has ever observed one time when a baby surprised the parents by not being the same kind of life form as the parents.
And even basing your conclusion upon genetics as done by apes and humans, again, there is plenty of evidence that we are not apes. And overlooking it to believe only in the seeming similarities, is not science either.
A lack of fulfilment to Darwin’s prediction of transitional fossils was the very reason why both Gould and Eldredge wished up PE. They stated this.
If you believe it or not, it is stated in their or Gould’s writings.
I’ve supplied clear uncut, statements from both supporting what I have laid out.
So, if you have statements saying one thing, and I have statements where something else is put forth, then yes, they or Gould was waffling.
And you go on so about this, but, I have and can again provide quotes for OTHER evolutionists who have SAID THE SAME THING.
From Darwin’s own confession that he was not finding the transitional fossils, on down to Dawkins who admitted the Cambrian explosion was a contradiction to Darwin’s predictions on through more recent time, the fossil record has been a contradiction to UCA.
And this is supported by some evolutionists more recently declaring that all fossils are transitional fossils, effectively declaring that Darwin, Gould, Eldredge and many others were not fit to understand the fossil record.
So, if there were transitional fossils, why PE. Why the claim all fossils are now transitional fossils?
It makes not sense unless you accept the fact they were under the impression the fossil record was a bust in support of UCA.
“The odds then of finding a fossil of an intermediate species is much greater than the odds of finding a fossil intermediate between a species and its immediate descendant.”
Yes, especially if they don’t exist. Which is the point in contention. Do they or don’t they exist. Does Big Foot exist? Is the moon made up of cheese?
The fact is, what is observed is more sound than what is being imagined up from the past.
And if there are humans today giving birth to human babies, there is more than enough evidence that humans were giving birth to human babies yesterday, the day before, last week, the week before, last year, and the year before.
And this same logic hold true, not just for the ape animals, but all of the animals that are alive today.
Now, no one is saying that parent(s) and offspring are identical. This occurs when there is only one set of DNA involved in the formation of the fetus. Both single cell organisms and offspring through asexual reproduction is a testimony to this.
But, all you need to do is observe that each of the different kinds of lifeforms have their own parameters set by the DNA of the kind of lifeform in question.
They have enough variety in their parameters to allow for speciation. But, beyond this each of the different kinds of lifeforms have DNA that is KIND SPECIFIC.
And this is what is observed in real life. This is why today, horses are horses. They give birth to horses. If there is a mutation, the mutation happens to a horse. Or if too severe the mutation happens to a dead horse.
There is no science that supports UCA.
This is why UCA, is ludicrous
