How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[ding]

Who said natural selection causes mutation?
When a mutation occurs, is it subject to natural selection?

I said natural selection does not cause mutations. I am so happy you agree with me. Again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said natural selection does not cause mutations. I am so happy you agree with me. Again.

You're arguing a strawman again, no one claimed natural selection causes mutations.

 

[ding]

You're arguing a strawman again, no one claimed natural selection causes mutations.

I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation. To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement. I don't have to have someone say natural selection causes mutations to state that natural selection does not cause mutations.

 

[ding]

What was the title of Darwin's book again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation. To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement. I don't have to have someone say natural selection causes mutations to state that natural selection does not cause mutations.

I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.

I see your argument.

To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement.

Since no one ever said "natural selection causes genetic mutations therefore natural selection with respect to speciation is supported by the fossil record"........so what?

Once a mutation occurs, do you agree that the mutation is then subject to natural selection?

 

[ding]

I am arguing that with respect to speciation natural selection is not supported by the fossil record because the fossil record overwhelmingly shows long periods of stasis followed by abrupt speciation.

I see your argument.

To say that natural selection does not cause genetic mutations is in support of that statement.

Since no one ever said "natural selection causes genetic mutations therefore natural selection with respect to speciation is supported by the fossil record"........so what?

Once a mutation occurs, do you agree that the mutation is then subject to natural selection?

Darwin literally argued that new species were created by slight successive changes to the herd due entirely to breeding. He literally expected that there should be intermediate fossils showing slight successive changes. Darwin had no idea of genetics which is why his basis for how new species emerge is wrong. News species don't emerge because of breeding within the species. New species emerge because of genetic mutations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What was the title of Darwin's book again?

 

[ding]

Once a mutation occurs, do you agree that the mutation is then subject to natural selection?

Only if there is a sufficient number of the new species to take root.

 

[ding]

View attachment 601690

That's my point. His theory does not work for the origin of a new species. At least that is what the fossil record shows anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if there is a sufficient number of the new species to take root.

If the mutations were favorable, why wouldn't there (eventually) be a sufficient number?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Darwin literally argued that new species were created by slight successive changes to the herd due entirely to breeding. He literally expected that there should be intermediate fossils showing slight successive changes. Darwin had no idea of genetics which is why his basis for how new species emerge is wrong. News species don't emerge because of breeding within the species. New species emerge because of genetic mutations.

You're saying that we literally have new information in the 160+ years since some guy wrote a book?

That's crazy!

 

[ding]

If the mutations were favorable, why wouldn't there (eventually) be a sufficient number?

Because it's genetics. If it's a random mutation then I wouldn't expect there to be a significant number of the same random mutations. If it is a stress driven mutation (something like a change in diet brought on by changing conditions to their habitat) then I can see it occurring across a herd at the same time.

 

[ding]

You're saying that we literally have new information in the 160+ years since some guy wrote a book?

That's crazy!

Technically he knew about the lack of intermediate fossils in the geologic record. And the work by Mendel was published about the same time as Darwin's book, but Darwin had no knowledge of Mendel's work. Mendel's work wasn't widely recognized until like 50 years later when two guys were arguing over which one of them would be called the father of genetics when someone found Mendel's works and showed it to them and they agreed that Mendel was the father of genetics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it's a random mutation then I wouldn't expect there to be a significant number of the same random mutations.

You only need it once. And, because it's random, you most likely only ever get it once.

 

[ding]

You only need it once. And, because it's random, you most likely only ever get it once.

I don't think so. Adam and Eve situations wouldn't have the necessary gene pool to keep the lineage from excessive inbreeding. Which is why I believe it must occur across a herd.

 

[ding]

Another thing - which is totally unrelated to this but worth mentioning - is that at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all. It would most likely only become obvious as it developed from adolescence into young adulthood.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another thing - which is totally unrelated to this but worth mentioning - is that at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all. It would most likely only become obvious as it developed from adolescence into young adulthood.

Are you claiming a single mutation results in a new species?

 

[ding]

Are you claiming a single mutation results in a new species?

No. The exact opposite. I don't believe a new species would take unless there were numbers significant enough for the new species to take root and not result in excessive inbreeding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. The exact opposite. I don't believe a new species would take unless there were numbers significant enough for the new species to take root and not result in excessive inbreeding.

at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all.

Sounds like you're saying mother and child are not the same species.

 

[ding]

at birth it probably wouldn't be apparent that it was a new species at all.

Sounds like you're saying mother and child are not the same species.

That is exactly what I am saying, yes. But at birth it wouldn't be obvious to the mother. Only later would it become obvious that it was a different species and by then it would be able to survive on its own and find a mate so that natural selection could work then. This phenomenon would also explain why there are no transitional fossils of an intermediate species.