One issue I am seeing, and why I keep bringing up evolution, is because you’re ideas are in fact not lining up with evolution. The theory of evolution is all life had a common ancestor and that it evolved over billions of years from single cell organisms , to multi cell organisms, and even things like rna and dna evolved.
You’re arguing something different. Your statements about carbon and tree rings being false or highly problematic in general means you believe in a much younger earth. You seemed to say you believe that various families , or maybe just genera , started out with a ancestor that had all the genetic makeup inside of it without the need for mutations. So there was ancient ape ancestor that was created completely formed with all the info inside it. There was a human , probably Adam and Eve, created from which all humans come from, there was a reptile from which all lizards ( maybe birds ) came from. That’s not evolution when all you’re beliefs are considered so that’s why I say you don’t seem to agree with evolution.
You feel like I’m not understanding and I disagree. I feel like i do understand and that my understanding is similar to that of the majority of others in here and of the scientific community at large.
That’s why I brought up the mimicry of the passionflowers with the longwing butterfly’s eggs,
How would the common ancestor of all passionflowers end up with the mutations resulting in mimicry of the Heliconius butttrflys occur in your theory? How would the data of future butterflies not even in existence yet just happen to be mimicked by passionflowers or vice versa? I don’t see how any of the host plants and insect interactions fits within your view if your view demands the ancestors to already contain the complete genetic material. The “tree of life” diagram showing phylogenetic relationships. You’re sort of does but you’re is more of a series of unconnected saplings vs or tree.
The evidence does support the typical evolutionary process. The evidence does not seem to support thousands of full formed lineage heads.
Also I am probably going to back out of the conversation for the most part. Once two opposing concepts are brought out and hashed back and forth it begins to turn into a circle argument where the same things are repeatedly multiple times and the discussion has no where else to really go. I especially feel that way when I notice that it seems to be in a ambush style. Not that anyone here is trying to hang up on you but a byproduct of being the only one sharing your particular point it view and everyone else sharing a mostly similar view to each other it turns into just you defending against multiple people and everyone roughly saying the same thing.
Plus even though no one has been rude , or so I believe, it also seems like tension is rising and personal attacks could be getting ready to sprout. Again I don’t think anyone is doing that yet, but that the textual environment is being slowly cultivated that way.
It’s very easy for this to change.
I disagree with that opinion.
I disagree with you.
You don’t understand.
That belief is dumb.
You’re dumb.
I see that kind of change slowly build up all the time and it begins every time once a discussion is becoming circular and “ambush-y“.
I will still engage in the post but I’m going to cut back a bit.
You who stated that wolves have all necessary genes for all the dog breeds. We find mutations in dog breeds in the same positions of wolf genes so these are new alleles. So they obviously “evolved”, even under your scenario.
I think the question is what role did mutations play in the formation of new breeds. That two breeds have the same mutation does not speak to whether the mutation itself was efficacious in producing the new breed. And, actually it was not, since the breeds share the mutation, so it cannot be the cause of the difference.
So if I have a code library with an error, and reuse some of the code to create a new app, the new app will have the error too. The fact both code bases share the error does not thereby imply the new app came about precisely due to the error. All the error establishes is the linneage, nothing about the mechanism of production.
Sure, there will be neutral mutations which are not expressed. But others are known mutations with phenotype expression. Probably none of these would be of any benefit in the wild, but have appeal to some people, who tend to like distinctiveness in their pets, hence the breed.
In any given population in the wild, there is existing variation due, in part, to mutation. These variations may have immediate selective consequence, or become only significant when the environment changes to present pressures or new opportunity.
back to the code example, if i pointwise randomly mutate my code I am certain I will never generate any functional improvement. in fact, in the vast majority of situations it will completely destroy functionality, hence many failsafes built into software systems subject to random mutation
why assume things are any different in the vastly more complicated world of biology? seems entirely unfounded to me
Ok, nice one. Now take notes, my potential brother in Christ, because I’m pretty convinced that you will understand that easily:
I’m not arguing from what I don’t know, but what I do know is possible, ok?
Parameterized designed objects which are adaptable by recombination will have a variation range. Fact! Depending on how they are designed, their variation ranges will be so wide that they either are not closely together or they will neighbor each other or they will overlap each other. I know that because I can model it on the computer.
The evidence clearly shows that variation diversifies life forms living in the same environment towards one another. This is evidenced by what you would call “analogous evolution” - which is possible by recombination and epigenetics only.
Examples of evidence showing overlapping variation ranges:
Sharks and rays are both sharing an overlap zone between their respective variation ranges. This is evidenced by the guitarfish which shares traits from both sharks and rays.
flies and wasps have at least neighboring variation ranges, evidenced by the phenotypic appearance of the hoverfly.
dinosaurs and birds share an overlap zone of their variation ranges. It’s evidenced by the Archaeopteryx.
Fish share and overlap zone of variation ranges with Amphibians - evidenced by legged fish.
The platypus could well be at an overlap zone of variation ranges of quite a couple of different animals, maybe.
Do you want more evidence? I think I made my case very clear.
So, if you want to believe in evolution by mutation from molecules to man - fine! I couldn’t care less. But you clearly don’t do so because of the scientific data, but due to a bias pro evolution because of an underlying ideological commitment to Darwinism.
Because the genetic code is unlike any programming language you’ve used, and the differences undercut the analogy between them. There are only four letters, most combinations of those four letters are valid commands, and most commands have multiple spellings. Further, the programs you start with should have long sequences of apparent gibberish (and the compiler is extremely tolerant of this – it doesn’t crash the whole program), other sequences that look like old subroutines but with parts commented out, long sequences that simply repeat the same letter or a short pattern of letters for ages, and many subroutines appear multiple times in various places with only slight differences.
Imagine a program like that in a programming language like that with a compiler like that, and it will have far more relevance to the impact of mutations in the complicated world of biology.
Sure, if you want to push the problem back and say “life is amazing!” I think we all agree. However that process came about (I believe it is part of God’s creativity), it is elegant and powerful.
No, I think the OP’s position, to continue the analogy, has been that everything accomplished by changing the program could have also been accomplished by changing how the compiler works. And while I could see how – in principle and in an alternate universe – such a thing could be true, by being compatible with everything I don’t think it actually tells us anything.
My computer program models >recombination according to the Mendelian Laws Of Inheritance< ! Does recombination not happen in nature? Sure it does! So every life form that recombines is spanning a variation range! Period! The question remains how wide the respective variation range is! If I assume very wide variation ranges, overlaps occur. If one kind has a wide variation range and another has a narrow variation range, overlaps are at least possible.
Fact is: You cannot possibly know the variation ranges of anyting! So, if I assume wide variation ranges, I can explain shared traits - completely without ANY mutation at work.
You don’t want shared traits to come about by variation - I know - but that doesn’t falsify my hypothesis! Learn living with it!
Ok guys, it’s been fun.
I think I’ve made my case. Let it sink in and rethink your beliefs regarding theistic evolution. It’s highly probably not true and it’s inconsistent with the Bible. For all atheists out there:
Knowledge claims demand for an objective truth to be discoverable. Objectivity demands for a back-assurance that your perception and the reality outside of your skull correlate. Nobody within reality could give you this back-assurance. So, everything you claim to know reduces to mere opinion. Who cares about your opinion? Don’t take it personally.
While we mull it over I was curious if you’ve had this reviewed by someone within a field you deem qualified to do so. Or have you tried to submit it anywhere and it gets rejected. Do you have any of their remarks on why they disagree or are you still working on that?
Also none of that is meant to undermine it. But it does help bring more clarity to others who are curious about expert opinions on it.
Obviously I’m primarily interested in their feedback to see if I am missing your point. I don’t believe you’re opinion is supported by science as a way to describe the clades we have now. I did find that thousands and thousands of papers have been wrote on the subject but significantly less was about the overlap of evolution of species concerning mutations vs epigenetic inheritance. I think almost everyone here agrees it played a part within evolution. But it’s not the main drive. This article covers some of those issues and cites many more.