Multiple animals have scales but they don't come from the same DNA sequence. For example fish in the arctic have antifreeze that is produce from a different sequence than the ones in the Antarctic.
That's just convergent evolution. It's a useful trait, it'd develop and be naturally selected for. It's also perfect evidence for evolution: if two species on opposite sides of the world developed the exact same genetic code without interbreeding etc, that would be in favour of a designer.
We haven't observed constant mutation. We have observed genetic limits in sizes, breedability, and resistance to diseases.
Sizes, disease resistance - irrelevant. No one's claiming an elephant the size of a skyscraper will evolve.
Breedability - we know there are grey areas, like mules.
Like I said, kind is family. Family is a group of animals with similar traits and DNA that can breed either directely or a third party. As for why can't mutations bridge that gap, I don't know. That's for the scientist to discover why.
So you don't actually have a single argument, then? If you can't explain why what you're claiming is impossible, you're just asserting it.
You've been using multiple definitions for kind and family over the course of discussion. This one's already been shown to have grey areas, strongly implying development between them.
I don't think I need to find a reason why mutations have limits. I only need to show that they do.
Which can only feasibly be done by providing a reason. No one's said mutations are unlimited, but you're claiming certain animals can't evolve into others, and if your only argument is based on the fact evolution occurs too slowly to be directly observed, then you don't have an argument. And you certainly do need to explain how you know the mutations you're referring to are impossible. Demonstrating abstract limits is pointless unless you can show how they apply.
Even just baggy skin has uses, for gliding: arms have muscles as it is. Why would the existing muscles vanish?
They wouldn't, however they wouldn't work properly to aid even in gliding.
How is that the case? To glide, it's just need to be able to hold its arms out. I can do that just fine with my very much wingless limbs.
Jane...leaving the sexism subject alone let me answer your question that I do not recall you asking multiple times, or that I did not intentionally ignore. I want to see a mutation in genetic code caused by the addition of information that will result in a net benefit of the organism. Not a somatic mutation I want to see it in the code, it must also be beneficial.
Are you serious? I have asked you twice now how you are defining information. I can't answer a question if you won't explain what you're talking about.
Plus, moving the goalposts to encompass 'beneficial.' Already been over this with Luke: no mutation is going to be strictly beneficial. Everything's a balancing act: gaining a new ability might be useful, but it would also mean you might need to, say, eat more to have the energy to use it, which would reduce resources available... How do you plan to gauge 'net benefit?' Seems rather unfeasible to me: you could point out the negatives and all we'd be left with is asserting that the positives or negatives outweigh the other.
And further, this is still not my question. I am asking, and have always been asking,
why you claim that this is impossible. Stop just asserting that it is and say
why.
I also want to see something somewhere that is beginning to be "something else", a mutation that can bridge a gap between species and breed ability.. we can leave this alone for the moment until the previous is settled
No need, it's trivial: evolution doesn't think in terms of end goals. It doesn't think. It's just random mutation governed by natural selection: good mutations survive. There's no goal 'something else,' everything is constantly mutating. Every animal is beginning to be 'something else.'
You see you kind of put yourself in a rut as you said the reason we have not witnessed any evidence of macro evolution is because there was no reason to, even in test that are drawing close to 100k generations. So if lack of "purpose" is the cause of no evidence? Then what was the purpose of the original transformation ? For 100k generations no one has witnessed a piece of bacteria unhappy being such , wanting more trying for more. Nor do we have any instances to refer to in the uncontrolled world. However we are in a lul right now... convenient. Just the same an athiest would say to a creationist about the lack of miracles...God's just not in the mood... convenient.
A one-off minor trait is just random mutation by force of numbers. A massive change of kind relying on an upheaval of pretty much everything about the species, that definitely requires a cause. you're comparing apples and oranges.
Don't forget there are two key elements to evolution: random mutation and natural selection. The former causes the changes, the latter is what streamlines them: the beneficial changes get passed on because those creatures without them have less chance to do so. Huge changes, such as you're asking for, would plainly need natural selection, otherwise the mutations would likely just even out over the generations.
The more times the human genome is copied the more crap it picks up. Which is why our ancestors 1000s of years ago on a technical level are better than us. We have ideas and think we are the intelligent ones, yet in reality we are the inferior product. This is as simple as I can put it. This is also another knock against evolution but I will leave that alone as well for now.
It's just assertion.
And, quick note:
All i will say is I don't like the assumption of the decay rates being unchanged.
That's usually just the simplified model for quicker calculations. Scientists use calibration curves when they're being specific, using the amount of whatever chemical they're looking for in something they know the age of (eg: via tree rings) to gauge how much would have been around.
Poll