How is adaptive somatic change contrary to evolution?
And no, it's not the only thing that has been observed, germline changes are pretty frequently observed too. The fact that you don't realize that germline changes are extremely common does not bode well.
wa:do
I'll respond to PW seeing as this evokes humour for some members.
Again PW you have misrepresented what I said. I did not say that somatic change was contrary to evolution. I said somatic change is all you have demonstrated and that in itself supports in-kind variation and does not 'prove' evolution. Big difference in terminology and I am sure you see it and are not that stupid.
In
multicellular organisms with dedicated
reproductive cells, mutations can be subdivided into
germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants through their reproductive cells, and
somatic mutations (also called acquired mutations),
[23] which involve cells outside the dedicated reproductive group and which are not usually transmitted to descendants. If the organism can reproduce
asexually through mechanisms such as
cuttings or
budding the distinction can become blurred.
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you disagree with this info above? If not, then what on earth are you on about?
So Toe is meant to show how organisms change over time to not only become another species that denotes in kind variation, but also a totally different organism in time. Hence you suggest that some common ancestor became chimps and humans, another common ancestor became hippos and whales (that's a scream). For these changes to occur it requires germ line mutations/changes that are passed down to offspring PW, otherwise there is no mutation that will 'set' in a population. Have you learned something PW because it appears that you are unaware of what it actually takes to procure macroevolution?
I'll show you something else to do with all your horse species, one of your alledgedly best evolutionary examples.
DNA Sheds New Light on Horse Evolution
ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2009) — Ancient DNA retrieved from extinct horse species from around the world has challenged one of the textbook examples of evolution -- the fossil record of the horse family Equidae over the past 55 million years.
"Previous fossil records suggested this group was part of an ancient lineage from North America but the DNA showed these unusual forms were part of the modern radiation of equid species," Dr Orlando says.
A new species of *** was also detected on the Russian Plains and appears to be related to European fossils dating back more than 1.5 million years. Carbon dates on the bones reveal that this species was alive as recently as 50,000 years ago.
"Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have under-estimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna," Professor Cooper says.
"This has important implications for our understanding of human evolution, where a large number of species are currently recognised from a relatively fragmentary fossil record.
DNA sheds new light on horse evolution
Even your own researchers are suggesting that a single species of horse, including some ancient ones of 1.5 million years, can have much variation but regarding DNA they ain't so different after all.
Is misquoting and misrepresenting people, in an aid to bolster yourself and point avoidance, something you get taught while undertaking a Biology degree? OR ...is this a skill you have picked up all by yourself?
Below is a summary of what your horse fossil record means to a creationist. Read the article from Truth in Science. So again I suggest that you do not have evidence that illustrates an organism has sufficient ability to morph past its kind and will never change sufficiently that it will resemble an entirely different organism. There is no common ancestor between kinds.
Truth In Science - Horse Evolution
Summary
The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Below is what your tree of life should look like. Oh.I forgot Horizontal gene transfer has killed the tree of life. Maybe you would have less debate if your researchers were asking the right questions!
