What does the fossil record say?

[painted wolf]

From what I've read of Lonnig's work, he seems to making two major errors:

1) Assumption of heterozygosity. Natural populations are never fully heterozygous (unless they are extremely inbred and near extinction or are clonal). Lab populations are preferred heterozygous for genetic studies.

2) He is purposely limiting the types of mutations applied in research. (my guess would be because it is what is used in his lab with plants) He ignores polidy mutations like polyploidy, which is odd as this has produced our modern species of domestic wheat.

Just a couple of quick thoughts.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
How? Mutations?
Mutations can vary the old, but they can't create the new.

Good catchphrase. But not true.

 

[wilsoncole]

Emergence of new distinct traits through mutation has been observed, most notably in Lenski's Long Term E-Coli Experiment. The use of artificial selection to select for desired traits is as old as farming, and is how we got modern cows, chickens, dogs, cats, corn, and lord knows what other species

Show me the scientific evidence that mutations results in new species. I would like to see the evidence that verifies the notion that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

1. Result of long-term experiment with Drosophilia:
No new species.
2. Result of long-term experiment on E-Coli:
Change of diet but still E-coli.
Still waiting for the evidence that mutations can and do produce new species.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Good catchphrase. But not true.

The refutation - please.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

The refutation - please.

Well, if we are talking about the biological concept of mutation (as opposed to some other definition of the word), then it is quite simply wrong. Mutation has been consistently observed to create new species.

 

[Gunfingers]

Show me the scientific evidence that mutations results in new species. I would like to see the evidence that verifies the notion that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

1. Result of long-term experiment with Drosophilia:
No new species.
2. Result of long-term experiment on E-Coli:
Change of diet but still E-coli.
Still waiting for the evidence that mutations can and do produce new species.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

The change in diet was only one of the observed changes, albeit a very significant one. Do you understand the level of change it takes to eat something your ancestors couldn't? The new E. Coli species is as different from its ancestors as cats are from dogs.

But that's not the point. You claimed that mutation could not produce new features. The citrus eating trait, however, did not exist in the original E. Coli. It was not a recessive trait that got brought out as a result of pressure, it was a completely new trait that emerged as a result of mutations.

Here's another example with fruit flies evolving to eat poison.

It's true that they're still fruit flies, but by definitional fiat they'll always be fruit flies. There's no two ways around that. They're also still animals.

 

[lunamoth]

Mutation has been consistently observed to create new species.

Out of curiosity, which example do you have in mind?

 

[lunamoth]

Emergence of new distinct traits through mutation has been observed, most notably in Lenski's Long Term E-Coli Experiment. The use of artificial selection to select for desired traits is as old as farming, and is how we got modern cows, chickens, dogs, cats, corn, and lord knows what other species.

Corn from teosinte is a good example of the development of a new species due to artificial breeding.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Show me the scientific evidence that mutations results in new species. I would like to see the evidence that verifies the notion that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

1. Result of long-term experiment with Drosophilia:
No new species.

Drosophila <---is spelled this way and is a Genus not a species
and YES there have been observed examples of new species of said Genus generating within the span of human observation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Anyway, this thread is about the fossil record and the fossil record clearly shows insects like flies have common ancestral forms to other Classes within the Arthropods.

2. Result of long-term experiment on E-Coli:
Change of diet but still E-coli.

Again, the 'E' in E. coli stand for a Genus, Escherichia and there have been examples of mutational changes in lab E. coli causing them to be different enough beasties to be defined as a separate species, though microbes not reproducing sexually sometimes muddies the species defining waters. And Again, off topic.

How 'bout them common fossil ancestors to bears and dogs? Hippos and whales? Humans and other Hominids?

Still waiting for the evidence that mutations can and do produce new species.

And you'll keep waiting since you aren't attending to knowledge freely offered you in any event.

 

[lunamoth]

I would say that things like the evolution of viruses observed naturally, the acquisition of new traits by bacteria under laboratory conditions, and artificial breeding are all good evidence for natural selection, the mechanism of evolution.

The fossil record and DNA sequence similarities are good evidence for evolution itself.

2c

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The change in diet was only one of the observed changes, albeit a very significant one. Do you understand the level of change it takes to eat something your ancestors couldn't?

To piggy back on this question we have this new species that evolve to do exactly that....
Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Additionally we have these....
[youtube]YCoEiLOV8jc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCoEiLOV8jc

 

[LuisDantas]

Out of curiosity, which example do you have in mind?

The nylon eating bacteria, the London subway mosquitoes, any of several artificially selected species of plants and animals, Homo Sapiens himself.

 

[wilsoncole]

From what I've read of Lonnig's work, he seems to making two major errors:

1) Assumption of heterozygosity. Natural populations are never fully heterozygous (unless they are extremely inbred and near extinction or are clonal). Lab populations are preferred heterozygous for genetic studies.

2) He is purposely limiting the types of mutations applied in research. (my guess would be because it is what is used in his lab with plants) He ignores polidy mutations like polyploidy, which is odd as this has produced our modern species of domestic wheat.

Just a couple of quick thoughts.

Quick thought:
1. This man is a geneticist and employed as a geneticist. The results of his work is available.
2. Am I to understand that the failed results of 100 years of genetic research in breeding plants and animals is dependent on his supposed neglect in expanding his area of research?
3. On what do you attribute the failed genetic research on mutations of the past 100 plus years?
I got those websites from Loennig himself.
Why don't you discuss his failures with him? You can contact him here:
[email protected]
He has responded to my letters.
Just make sure you read his papers first.

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

PR References:
Leonnig, W.-E. (1995): "Mutationen: Das Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation." pp. 149-165. In: Streitfall Evolution. Hrsg.: J. Mey, R. Schmidt und S. Zibulla. Universitas. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft. Stuttgart

Leonnig, W.-E.(2005): "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation." In: Recent Research Developments in Genetics and Breeding (G. Pandalai, Managing Editor), Vol. 2, 45-70

Leonnig, W.-E.(2006): "Mutations: The law of recurrent variation." In: Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology: Advances and Topical Issues, Vol. 1, 601-607. J.A. Teixeira da Silva (ed.), Global Science Books, London
You may find some further points under
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

Let me know how he handles your objections.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[DeistPrimate]

Quick thought:.....
Let me know how he handles your objections.

Quick thought....
What part of "What does the fossil record say?" do you not comprehend?

 

[painted wolf]

Quick thought:
1. This man is a geneticist and employed as a geneticist. The results of his work is available.
2. Am I to understand that the failed results of 100 years of genetic research in breeding plants and animals is dependent on his supposed neglect in expanding his area of research?
3. On what do you attribute the failed genetic research on mutations of the past 100 plus years?
I got those websites from Loennig himself.
Why don't you discuss his failures with him? You can contact him here:
[email protected]
He has responded to my letters.
Just make sure you read his papers first.

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

PR References:
Leonnig, W.-E. (1995): "Mutationen: Das Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation." pp. 149-165. In: Streitfall Evolution. Hrsg.: J. Mey, R. Schmidt und S. Zibulla. Universitas. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft. Stuttgart

Leonnig, W.-E.(2005): "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation." In: Recent Research Developments in Genetics and Breeding (G. Pandalai, Managing Editor), Vol. 2, 45-70

Leonnig, W.-E.(2006): "Mutations: The law of recurrent variation." In: Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology: Advances and Topical Issues, Vol. 1, 601-607. J.A. Teixeira da Silva (ed.), Global Science Books, London
You may find some further points under
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

Let me know how he handles your objections.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

So the only thing you have is an appeal to authority and repeating the same thing over?
If you didn't want to discuss peoples opinions why did you bother to post?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Not so!

"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. ​

The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. ​

The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. ​

No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures.—1Co 15:39."
(Insight vol. 1 p.316)​

Thd DNA makes the difference.​

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Please stop spamming us with useless crap from JW propaganda. Either make your argument, or cite a scientific source to support your claim. No one outside the world of JW thinks there is any merit to JW propaganda.

So apparently you and the JW liars think that all the paleontologists are a bunch of idiots?

 

[Autodidact]

Show me the scientific evidence that mutations results in new species. I would like to see the evidence that verifies the notion that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

1. Result of long-term experiment with Drosophilia:
No new species.
2. Result of long-term experiment on E-Coli:
Change of diet but still E-coli.
Still waiting for the evidence that mutations can and do produce new species.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

If I provide a peer-reviewed scientific article describing the actual emergence of a new species, will you change your position?

 

[wilsoncole]

Well, if we are talking about the biological concept of mutation (as opposed to some other definition of the word), then it is quite simply wrong. Mutation has been consistently observed to create new species.

The refutation - please!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Quick thought....
What part of "What does the fossil record say?" do you not comprehend?

As expected! Running and hiding and dodging.
You can argue with me, but not him, huh?
Someone in the scientific field who has published his findings after decades in genetic research is willing to compare his work with your speculations.

You hide! As usual.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

If I provide a peer-reviewed scientific article describing the actual emergence of a new species, will you change your position?

I reject evolution totally, so don't ask me that again.
Variations in particular species - yes. Like the variety evident in humans. No new species of humans.
It has not been proven, it cannot be proven.
It is much like those UFOs. You can never really get a good look at them.
You scream and yell about the evidence. Lonnig's got plenty.
His work has proved that mutations have never produced new species.
Now - why don't you take on Lonnig's work? You seem to be willing to dodge that.
I provided you with his websites. You have all the information you need to prove that all his research has been a series of mistakes.

Go git 'im!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson