"John Clancy McDonald" <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote in
messagenews:fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net...

I support evolution as a theory that is plausible and probable given the
evidence, but not everything about it has been adequately explained yet.
For example, the complexity of the eye is difficult to explain through
natural selection alone; there may well be (an)other force(s) at work.

Actually, evolution of the eye *has* been fully explained and
demonstrated.

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered
a fact?

I support evolution as a theory that is plausible and probable given the
evidence, but not everything about it has been adequately explained yet.
For example, the complexity of the eye is difficult to explain through
natural selection alone; there may well be (an)other force(s) at work.

"John Clancy McDonald" impersonated by JABRIOL <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof
theworld.net"> wrote in message news:fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net...

Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living
things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process "descent
with subsequent modification." Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term "microevolution."

Er, sorry: I only ever see the term 'microevolution' used by
*non-scientists* and *anti-evolutionists*...

M.

"John Clancy McDonald" impersonated by netstalker JABBERS

<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote in message
news:fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net...

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with
subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name
implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish the
proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his
famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said
that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called
simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight
modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth.
Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the
big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These
proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this
second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur
within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long
periods of time?’

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered
a fact?

"John Clancy McDonald" impersonated by netstalker JABBERS

<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote in message
news:fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net...

On Jan 22, 5:44 pm, "Ernie Sty" <fake_em...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:ca27f54c-63a2-4629-b9ef-fb047ae0aef5@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 20, 6:04 pm, John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof
theworld.net"> wrote:

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

BZZZT! Mutation is not the only source of genetic diversity.

If you would be so kind, please tell me what the other source(s) is/are.
I'm not saying I doubt your word, in fact I believe you. I just don't
know
much about it and want to learn a little more (and am too lazy to read
through entire science books.)

The most obvious source of genetic diversity that does not involve
mutation is the genetic recombination that results from sex. In most
eukaryotes, for example, sex involves meiosis which involves mixing up
the chromosomes from two individuals. The children thus do not look
like their parents. The genomes are different between parents and
children. The children vary from each other. In an ideal sexual
interaction, no genes are created or destroyed.
Of course, standard recombination by sex is the most easily
demonstrated and easily repeated process of genetic change. One can
make new breeds, within limits, using merely this type of change
alone. An argument can be made that such change is limited by a
process called Mendelian segregation. when one tries too hard to make
a new breed, the lineages can become very inbred and the genes
separate out. However, without any radical changes in genes quite
notable alterations can occur. That covers a good deal of the
discoveries made in what is called the "new synthesis" of evolution.
What people learn about Mendelian Laws often refers to this type
of ideal sexual reproduction. Genes are spread out and recombined but
no other genetic changes occur. This type of recombination puts quite
a limit on the amount of variation, however. Looking at the human
genome locus for locus, it is impossible that two people starting the
human race could have contained so much genetic variety as we see
today if this was the ONLY type of genetic variation. If you like to
stick to the Adam and Eve model, or even the Noah's family model, how
come there are all these different shades of skin color, eye color,
genetic diseases, special abilities, and other things considered
inheritable?
This of course can create a lot of variation even without
mutation. By some definitions, mutation includes ALL changes in
genetic material that are not included in this sexual recombination.
Unfortunately, this means that the definition of mutation can get
ambiguous since many types of genetic variation can arguably be
included in sexual recombination.
Mutations include the knockout of genes, the fusion of
chromosomes, the asymmetric crossover of chromosomes, and several
other effects that are not usually included in meiosis. Many of these
processes result in lethal effects. However, the effect of other genes
that come with recombination varies the magnitude of the effects.
Example: Not all Down's syndrome people are retarded, and most are not
retarded to the same degree. The degree of retardation depends partly
on what other genes are inherited. So even a known mutation can't be
said to have a narrow range of effects. Often, other genes can hide
the mutation for a long while.
Most often, a person with a genetic disease is called mutations.
This is not usually correct. The disease possibly started with a
mutation many generations ago. However, the person who inherited it
got it by normal sexual reproduction between his parents. The disease
just hasn't shown itself for a long time. The other genes hid it.
Processes like asymmetric crossover could technically be called
a form of sexual recombination (?) but it can generate an entire
spectrum of changes depending on how asymmetric the crossover is. A
crossover that is slightly asymmetric may cause less effect than an
extremely assymetric one. One can argue that slight asymmetry does not
constitute a mutation, while extreme asymmetry does. Whether you cal
it a mutation or not, a change like this can greatly add

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

As indeed it has been shown and observed to do.

Again, the observation of evolution leading to the production of a new
species is outside my realm of scientific knowledge. Where and when was
this observed?

A criteria for species has to be made. Many people use the
criteria that a new species results when the population can't
interbreed with the parent population, even when allowed to do so.
Drosophilia flies have been bred to not breed with other
flies. This is artificial.
The Rhigolettis fly used to be considered an example of a a fly
species that split into subspecies in historic time by natural
selection. I think that has been called into question, so check it
out.
The Tritacalee grain was bred using a chemical that doubled
chromosomes. The chemical is found naturally, although the use of it
was synthetic. Triticalee breeds are made using a process that is
supposedly occurring in nature. No one has ever caught the process
occurring in nature, but there is genetic evidence that a process like
that produced modern strains of wheat about 10 KYA.

You know, other people can give you all sorts of FAQS with this
information, and references to books on the subject. I checked into
this a long time ago, reassured myself there were plausible examples,
and eventually went on to other things. My references were all thrown
out to make room for my comic books. Try doing your own research, or
ask somebody else. I hate to be impolite, but why should my time be
less important than yours?

That wasn't me. That was part of someone elses quote. I was just
wishing him well. Well, I hope he reads the post and feels reassured
that people care.

"Steven J." <steven_j@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:3a1d1c9f-f49e-4239-beb3-107278dc9d11@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 20, 7:04 pm, John Clancy McDonald (JABRIOL)<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof
theworld.net"> wrote:

Snip

You're trying to reason with JABRIOL, a devout creationist Jehovahs Witness
impersonating legit posters to by pass your killfiles. You can't reason with
99% of JWs. They're totally brain washed.