Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 12 2011,09:39)|
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)|
|Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:|
Give us the smoking gun, show us an example of evolution that:
1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics
As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.
If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.
In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?
It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!
So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.
|Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?"|
Because for them it would show that new more complex species could arise. It would be an example of how life became complex.
In the lizard example since the genome was not sequenced we don't know what the cause of the alterations are, so epigenics could be the cause as well as modified DNA or new DNA. But we can't use this example untill we know. Although I read a further study that did say that these morphological changes were already present at the embrionic stage suggesting that there is a genetic link, but we can't know for sure.
I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.
Yes that's why I thought to ask them how we can get to humans with 400 - 700 alleles in under 4000 years from Noah's 16. Without having a HUGE amount of increase in genetic information.
I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species. That's all they are asking. So for example have a skink develop from a snake in nature. Showing that the skink has new genetic material (that was not already present in the snake) for protolegs and is otherwise very genetically similar or identical to a snake.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin