How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is exactly what I am saying, yes. But at birth it wouldn't be obvious to the mother.

How did the new species come to be in a single generation?

 

[ding]

How did the new species come to be in a single generation?

The same genetic mutation in significant enough numbers across a herd.

This would explain long periods of stasis followed by an abrupt change which is what the fossil record shows.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The same genetic mutation in significant enough numbers across a herd.

This would explain long periods of stasis followed by an abrupt change which is what the fossil record shows.

1000 members of a herd.

Suddenly the same mutation appears in 200 of them?

Why the same mutation?

 

[ding]

1000 members of a herd.

Suddenly the same mutation appears in 200 of them?

Why the same mutation?

Don't know what the right number is. Maybe it's 10 or 20. Whatever that number is there is probably some minimum where it's not enough to propagate without significant inbreeding.

Why the same mutation? Because it's literally a new species. Think about the very first humans who had a different number of chromosomes than chimps or apes or whatever species we branched from. They needed mates with the same number of chromosomes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't know what the right number is. Maybe it's 10 or 20. Whatever that number is there is probably some minimum where it's not enough to propagate without significant inbreeding.

Why the same mutation? Because it's literally a new species. Think about the very first humans who had a different number of chromosomes than chimps or apes or whatever species we branched from. They needed mates with the same number of chromosomes.

Why is a herd of 1000 in danger of inbreeding?

Why the same mutation? Because it's literally a new species.

What single mutation has ever created a new species?

 

[ding]

Why is a herd of 1000 in danger of inbreeding?

Why the same mutation? Because it's literally a new species.

What single mutation has ever created a new species?

I didn't say a herd of 1000 was in danger of inbreeding. I said the new species was in danger of inbreeding if they did not have a deep enough gene pool to propagate the species. I would think 1 male and 1 female would not be enough.

Humans would be as good example. So the question is how many humans did the species start with. My belief is that the humans didn't start in just one geographic location in Africa but in multiple geographic locations across a region of Africa. Where ever there was a significant enough number of mutations that made humans take at each location.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say a herd of 1000 was in danger of inbreeding. I said the new species was in danger of inbreeding if they did not have a deep enough gene pool to propagate the species. I would think 1 male and 1 female would not be enough.

Humans would be as good example. So the question is how many humans did the species start with. My belief is that the humans didn't start in just one geographic location in Africa but in multiple geographic locations across a region of Africa. Where ever there was a significant enough number of mutations that made humans take at each location.

Where did you ever see that a single mutation can create a new species?

 

[ding]

Where did you ever see that a single mutation can create a new species?

Again... humans. It just didn't happen in one birth but across some number at roughly the same time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... humans. It just didn't happen in one birth but across some number at roughly the same time.

Which single mutation created the human species?

 

[ding]

Which single mutation created the human species?

Chromosome fusion

Demonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes

www.evolutionpages.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Chromosome fusion

Demonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes

www.evolutionpages.com

Thanks for the link.

Where did it say that this mutation/fusion created the human species?

 

[ding]

Thanks for the link.

Where did it say that this mutation/fusion created the human species?

It didn't. Do you think natural selection is responsible?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It didn't. Do you think natural selection is responsible?

Which single mutation did?

Which single mutation created any new specie?

There must be thousands of examples......millions even.

 

[ding]

Which single mutation did?

Which single mutation created any new specie?

There must be thousands of examples......millions even.

Hold up. Do you think natural selection will cause chromosomes to fuse? I don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hold up. Do you think natural selection will cause chromosomes to fuse? I don't.

Nope. Not even a little bit.

You think one mutation can create a new specie?

 

[ding]

Nope. Not even a little bit.

You think one mutation can create a new specie?

One mutation? As in one animal was born with the mutation? No.

One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation? Yes.

Are you a fan of Sherlock Holmes? When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record. Which means that however improbable it seems that genetic mutations are responsible for driving speciation, it's the only theory that matches the observed data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One mutation? As in one animal was born with the mutation? No.

One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation? Yes.

Are you a fan of Sherlock Holmes? When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record. Which means that however improbable it seems that genetic mutations are responsible for driving speciation, it's the only theory that matches the observed data.

One mutation? As in one animal was born with the mutation? No.

Excellent!

One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation? Yes.

What would cause the same mutation to arise independently, in 10 or 20 animals, at the same time, in the same herd?

Explain it like your name was Sherlock.

 

[ding]

One mutation? As in one animal was born with the mutation? No.

Excellent!

One mutation as in the same mutation across the herd producing 10 or 20 animals born with the mutation? Yes.

What would cause the same mutation to arise independently, in 10 or 20 animals, at the same time, in the same herd?

Explain it like your name was Sherlock.

Stress. At least that's one theory that has been proposed. But I suspect it may be food related. There's some interesting work being done on how we are altering our genes based upon the things we eat. It's possible the two are linked. Food shortage leading to stress resulting in a different food source. But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.

I think it's important to remember that Darwin did not know about genes. If he had he may have proposed a different theory that matched the observed fossil record. Darwinism has taken on an almost religious fervor. I think 100 years from now people won't be as emotional as they are today about honoring a bad theory that isn't based on genetics and doesn't match the observed data of the fossil record.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stress. At least that's one theory that has been proposed. But I suspect it may be food related. There's some interesting work being done on how we are altering our genes based upon the things we eat. It's possible the two are linked. Food shortage leading to stress resulting in a different food source. But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.

I think it's important to remember that Darwin did not know about genes. If he had he may have proposed a different theory that matched the observed fossil record. Darwinism has taken on an almost religious fervor. I think 100 years from now people won't be as emotional as they are today about honoring a bad theory that isn't based on genetics and doesn't match the observed data of the fossil record.

Stress can cause a mutation? Diet? Any links to those theories?

But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.

There should be trillions of fossil examples of intermediate species, if a single mutation
can create a new species. Right? I mean, what's more gradual than one mutation?

 

[ding]

Stress can cause a mutation? Diet? Any links to those theories?

But again... it all starts with the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record so it must be something else.

There should be trillions of fossil examples of intermediate species, if a single mutation
can create a new species. Right? I mean, what's more gradual than one mutation?

I'll have to look. Not sure I saved it.

You don't have to believe it. I'm cool with that. Are you?