There remain two hypotheses in the evolutionary model that have not been proven
1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.
2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.
Both represent the minimum necessary for Evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?
Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.
Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.
Good luck!
1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.
2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.
Both represent the minimum necessary for Evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?
Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.
Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.
Good luck!
-
Both have been demonstrated multiple times.
Examples:
1)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15…
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.…
2)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,…
http://www.pnas.org/content/70/6/1841.fu…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…
Examples:
1)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15…
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.…
2)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,…
http://www.pnas.org/content/70/6/1841.fu…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…
-
False premise. Those two assumptions are not necessary for evolution, no novel alleles nor phenotypes are necessary for species differentiation, minor, subtle and gradual changes can accomplish this.
That said, those two have been seen both in the lab and in the wild.
This argument sounds "sciency" but is the same old "nothing can be added by mutation" argument and has been refuted a hundred times over. Nice try, thanks for playing. -Momofthreeboys
That said, those two have been seen both in the lab and in the wild.
This argument sounds "sciency" but is the same old "nothing can be added by mutation" argument and has been refuted a hundred times over. Nice try, thanks for playing. -Momofthreeboys
-
You resist a far more obvious argument---that the so=called "Theory of Evolution" is a crock!!!