Evolution? How?

'most all (Farmerman's characterization of the distribution)' of the differences in the genes of these two species be concentrated in a given area or few areas?

Why would they not be fairly evenly distributed among all the genes in a random fashion?

Thats pretty much waht happened with NIle Cichlid fish (perch like fish) They were trapped by the spreading center in the Rift Valley and were isolated into lakes , each with its own unique species (and some new genuses ) of cichlids.
The thoughts were that cichlids, being isolated and pretty much alone, began to capture many niches from meat eaters to algae eaters , some nocturnal, others living deep, etc. It was the Galapogos finches all over except here we knew , geologically, when the lakes ripped from the Nile. So the Nile cichlids and the new genuses and species of lake cichlids all became isolated and began evolving into unique forms etc.

The mosquitos of Greece were the same way, in the 50's, these Anapholes mosquitoes, all malaria carriers, were sprayed with DDT. Within 4 or 5 years , they became immune to DDT. This ws seen in their genome.
Creationists dont want to understand the mechanisms of speciation so they argue that this is merely "variation within a kind" yet they fail to define the word "kind", or come up with any mechanisms to account for genus and higher taxa.

Repetitive or drastic adaptation may result in speciation within a genus.(?)

real life said

Quote:

'most all (Farmerman's characterization of the distribution)' of the differences in the genes of these two species be concentrated in a given area or few areas?

Why would they not be fairly evenly distributed among all the genes in a random fashion?

Pattern obviates randomness. I dont think I have to explain definitions do I?

In science, we always say "the data is what the data is" we do not try to ascribe a theistic grand "why is it this way?".

real life wrote:

djbt wrote:

real life wrote:

Here, you can try to start with the easy question that I just asked Farmerman: If mutations that supposedly cause Evolution are simply random occurrences due to sheer blind chance, then why would 'most all (Farmerman's characterization of the distribution)' of the differences in the genes of these two species be concentrated in a given area or few areas?

Why would they not be fairly evenly distributed among all the genes in a random fashion?

Well, I'm really no expert, but until farmerman arrives, my first guess would be that mutations did occur in all areas of the genome, but in most the impact of the mutation was negative, only in certain areas was mutation positive (perhaps because in those areas mutation resulted in very small phenotypic effects - which are more likely to be positive, than large ones).

I believe you are correct, DJBT, when you say that most mutations are thought to be harmful rather than helpful. Another odd reason why evolutionists tend to place mutation as the cause of a rise from amoeba to man in a rather limited time frame.

However, whether the effect of the mutation was positive, negative or neutral -- the mutation would still be "THERE"; that is, it would be in evidence wherever it occurred.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that you really have so little understanding of evolution that you could say this. It's equivalent to thinking that the theory of gravity makes rocks fly up away from the earth...

Just in case this was genuine, and not a rhetorical trick; a negative mutation wouldn't be still "there", because, obviously, the organism that was cursed with it would have likely died (or, more likely, never lived), and therefore not passed it on.

Conversely, an organism with a beneficial mutation would thrive, and reproduce, and so that new gene would spread.

(By the way, mutation is just one small factor, change in allene frequencies is central).

So, what's your point?

I agree cicerone. I have one more thing to add to my last post. Adaptation is the basis for evolution. You cannot have evolution without Natural Selection. Natural Selection is random mutation, and the successful mutations become what we know as adaptations. Just some changes over billions of years are larger than those we see over the past twenty. The adaptations that occurred over the past twenty with HIV are not obviously creating a new species (though, HIV is a virus and is thereby sub-living, that is, it needs a host). But the same changes have occurred between Astralopithucus and Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens, and also between certain land mamals and whales. It is the process of adaptation that fuels evolution, real life. That's a basic tennet of the theory.

farmerman, As you well know by now, neologist can only create new phraseology for science that doesn't exist to defend his stance of creationism. It's a wonder that he can show such intelligence, but lacks the ability to accept evolution with its track record of evidence.

real life,

I do not understand why you are making analogies like scattering coins and pumping iron. The time frame in those activities are drastically shorter than the millions of years involved in evolution.

(By the way, mutation is just one small factor, change in allene frequencies is central).

djbt wrote:

(By the way, mutation is just one small factor, change in allene frequencies is central).

That point bears repeating: "mutation is just one small factor, change in allele frequencies is central".

Too many people still think that mutation is necessary for change. Mutation is necessary for the whole process to have started, and it was more important back when the gene pool was small. However, now that the gene pool is so large and contains so much variation to work with, evolution can occur without much mutation at all. Again, this was covered in at least two other posts on the science forum.