1. All you have stated here is that if evolution is assumed to be true then it requires mutation..
2. I hope you realise that there are differences in the amount of variation... In your example the offspring may well have larger ears than its parents solely due to the variation and amount of expression of that gene. It is the same the other way, there may be some offspring born with smaller ears also. Descriptive values such as large, small etc do not hold a specified amount which cannot be exceeded.
Nope totally wrong it has nothing to do with mutation, its merely selective breeding.
3. Actually that is how many evolutionists envisage evolution, you yourself do as well since in order to get fixation of the first bout of mutations your method implies it needs to go through this process... Therefore I believe you may need to research a bit more, since fixation of a trait is very much a crucial factor to consider
4. I've just shown how it is always the case....
5. You do realise you've made some huge assumptions...
- that there is a build up of the same mutation which leads to an increased exageration of a feature
- that ALL these mutations are benign
- that the amount of mutations the organism is required to endure to get the % amount of these very specific mutations are also benign
- that all these accumulative mutations occur in the egg or sperm of the organism, rather than an external mutation which cannot be passed on.
- that these mutations reach fixation within a population
- that these successive mutations also occur within the same population
- that genetic drift doesn't snub out these mutations, (if there is no fitness benefit then there is over 99% chance they will be snubbed out, due to the unique and singular nature of the mutation in the population)
- that these mutation occurs in the first place
Now that is alot of assumptions for something claimed to be "true" and scientific.... Hmmm
I really like your method of numbering the post you are responding to instead of breaking it up into multiple quotes. I might start using it
1. Yes, but what I am trying to show is that even micro
-evolution requires mutation. In this post, I am going to focus on the example of dogs. Most creationists I have talked to agree that domestic dogs are a "kind", and that all the current breeds of dogs came from a common ancestor through adaptation and/or selective breeding. I aim to show that this could not have happened without mutation.
2. What is meant by "variation and amount of expression of [a] gene?" I mean, biologically, in detail, what process are you talking about? When two animals mate, the offspring get some combination of the parents' genes. Period. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but it sounds like you are saying: "When two animals mate, the offspring get some combination of the parents' genes plus a little variation in expression because that's just what happens when animals reproduce
." If that is what you are saying, it is simply, biologically wrong. If not, I apologize for making a straw man, and look forward to a clarification. Either way, "descriptive values such as large, small etc" do
have limits under variation without mutation. When all the genes that enhance a given trait are present in one individual, there is biologically no way to enhance that trait any farther.
3 and 4. I may have been unclear. You are right that "mutation-->fixation-->repeat" is the usual cycle by which populations evolve. I was objecting to the similar but different cycle of "huge mutation-->fixation-->wait a long time-->repeat". In pretty much all micro-evolution that has been observed, the biggest changes have come from a string of small mutations rather than a single big one. I just wanted to remind NewPath that mutation can lead to gradual, continuous change like he was describing.
5. All of the things you call "assumptions" are things that must be true if mutation plays a big role in micro-evolution. But I do not rely on any of them to show
that mutation plays such a big role. In a nutshell, my reasoning is simply: "Micro-evolution leads to variations that are far too big to be explained only by mixing and matching pre-existing genes. Therefore, mutation must also play an important role." Actually, since the facts you listed must be true for mutation to play an important role, they are conclusions
of my argument rather than assumptions.
We were discussing this sort of topic in another thread, and I have just realised today that the extent of diversity (outside of mutation) is limited to the genes found in the original genomes as was originally explained to me in that thread. However as I just stated to Sporktastic this does create nearly an infinite variety of possible genetic combinations which does allow for extreme diversity given enough time for a balanced set of advantageous alleles to set into the diversifying population. ie its not just the big ear gene, maybe Jane inherits a big head gene from her mother and big ear gene from her father, and a big organ gene from her mother and extra earlobe fat cells from her father. Shes slightly overweight and so she's got 4 genes that contribute towards her big ears when her parents only each had two. Combined with a different more modern diet and vitamins, she is larger than her parents and therefore has incredibly large ears, nothing even like her father's big ears. Silly example, but just an idea how the genetic limitations of being confined to the existing genetic pool can still allow for continuous adaptive combinations that can keep enhancing a feature through nearly infinite combinations of genes creating a new look , new behaviour organism. This would be especially prevalent in those animals that had 7 and not 2 representatives on the ark. There would be some limitations because of being confined to only those original two possibilities for each base pair however the number of variations/combinations of genes that can effect or enhance a feature are nearly infinite.
Add to this environmental factors that also have a changing effect, ie plants grown in a highly oxygenated high pressure chamber can reach amazing sizes, we could have organisms of the same core genetic make-up changed by their environment and also genetically adapted to their environment which are nearly unrecognisable from modern ones.
I am glad you brought up the ark, because it makes my point easier to illustrate. According to Leviticus 11:27, dogs are an unclean animal, so there were only two of them on the ark. How could two dogs have all the genes necessary to make all the breeds that exist today? I admit that mixing and matching genes can create a surprising amount of diversity, but english mastiffs can weigh over 20 times as much as chihuahuas. Do you really think that the two ark dogs were carrying around enough conflicting genes to generate body masses that differed by a factor of 20 depending on how they were arranged? Also consider dog breeds that were created more recently, like the Australian cattle dog. In these cases, a breed that has already evolved from the common dog-ancestor responds to new selective pressures and starts evolving in a different direction. Under your model, not only did the ark dogs need to have enough genetic diversity to make all the modern breeds, they needed to have so much diversity that even after
evolving into a particular breed they would still
have enough diversity to evolve more when the need arose. That is just too much diversity to pack into only two individuals.
As a side note, you mentioned that plants can change radically in size depending on the conditions, which is interesting. But these changes are developmental, not genetic. They do not get passed on from generation to generation. If you bred a normally short plant in a hyperbaric chamber for 100 generations, it might get very tall, but as soon as you planted one of its seedlings outside it would go right back to being short. By contrast, two dogs of different breeds will grow up to be very different even if they are raised in identical environments, so we know that many of the most important differences are genetic.