Which is what?Ã‚Â That evolution has only thrown out a finite amount of phenotypes and that we do not observe every imaginable morphology?
Are you seriously asserting that evolution does not have limits? Please think carefully. I'm giving you a chance to back away before you get embarrassed, because I'm a really nice guy.
Every marathon is a sequence of steps; so it must be with evolutionary change unless you can think of a barrier.
You have criticized others for using examples that you say have nothing to do with evolution. You have just done the very same thing.
I've said that gene duplication + subsequent mutation in a copy = increase of novel info on the genome (how can it not?).
If you believe that this accounts for novel info on the genome, then why are scientists hard pressed to answer this question? Think back to abiogenesis. If a replicating gene did arise and gene duplication was the only means of mutating, there would not be enough information on that genome to explain the variety of life by tinkering,interchanging, or deleting genes.
You don't dispute that mutations can happen and in post 54 I linked to an observed example of gene duplication.Ã‚Â In post 43 I mention the Antarctic Ice Fish, an example of where a duplicated gene has subsequently mutated (therefore an increase in novel info on the genome)and benefitted the host.Ã‚Â The human genome is comprised of about 3 billion microscopic bases - how can I show you a genome?
So you define beneficial mutations as an increase of information? Is this really what you are implying?
I have no trouble finding pictures of the genome online. However, I do have A LOT of trouble finding a genome with increased/novel information online. Hmm, why would that be?
I have given empirical examples and self-evident logic to show that gene duplication (observed) and subsequently a mutation (observed) = increase in novel info on the genome.Ã‚Â In response you post mysterious comments like "no mutation results from an increase of information", nonsense about "back burners" and continually try to swing the conversation to abiogenesis.Ã‚Â If time wasting has taken place on this thread it has not been by me.
I didn't intentionally mischaracterized someone's position as you have. I have not shown hypocrisy by using arguments that I disputed against in other threads as you have. If you believe that I am a "time waster" then you are alone on this forum. However, feel free to report any of my posts to an admin.
Abiogenesis is the clearest way to show how gene duplication can not explain the variety we see of the environment today. If you dispute this, then you do not understand gene duplication at all. The first gene would not have enough information to result in the variety of life that we have today. There was no information present on their genome to cause wings to grow, or legs to grow, etc. We do not see any benefits gained by an organism that was not the result of information that was already there or deleted. Therefore, if we apply these observations to abiogenesis we can easily see that one gene would not be able to produce all of the variety of life that is present today. If you do not understand then I don't know what to tell you, but all of these people who believe in a "fairy tale" seem to understand it.