Evolution's Mechanism

I agree you have presented nothing surprising or new, and in fact, I agree with most of what you said regarding mutational observations. What of course I do not agree with is using this as evidence for macro-changes. What I was taught in college biology is that mutations guided by natural selection equates to macro-evolutionary changes. And while we indeed see this for micro-changes, I do not see any evidence for macro-changes. Let me address the issue given your response in two parts, problems with the absence of demonstrable evidence, and problems with extrapolation based on microevolution. Problems With Macro-Evolution I. Lack of Evidence While you indeed provided a seemingly viable mechanism(s), you did not demonstrate how these mechanisms have given rise to "all the diversity of biology we observe." I do not believe you have addressed the resolution. If the resolution were: There is no viable mechanism which can support the hypothesis of macro-evolutionary changes," then you would have fulfilled the resolution. But the key word is "demonstrably." I hope this was clear. You have not demonstrably shown how these mechanisms can give rise to macro-changes, neither in your predictions nor in your examples. Your first prediction, "There must be a mechanism which allows for large changes to occur," was not demonstrably supported. I do not agree that without this mechanism for "large changes, we would have nothing but clones." We do have a mechanism for small changes which we both agree on which provides plenty of variation within groups of organisms. This variation however has limitations. Genetics is no where near the point of providing definitive evidence for the case of macro-evolutionary changes by means of mutations guided by natural selection (http://genome.cshlp.org...). The sum of you argument is: changes are possible via mutations guided by natural selection, therefore macro-evolution has occurred. Without demonstrating your first prediction, you have failed to address the resolution. What evidence suggests that indeed mutations guided by natural selection supports the hypothesis of macro-evolutionary changes. Your first physical example is the adaptation of bacteria to eating nylon waste. While early-on in its discovery, this adaptation was explained by frame-shift mutations, "it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons" (http://creation.com...). While you may dismiss the source I provided, indeed, the source contains cited references for their claims. In either case, this poor example is a far cry away from demonstrably showing that mutations guided by natural selection supports the hypothesis of macro-evolution. Your example of Lenski's experiment with E. coli also does not address the resolution. Besides this, ". . .the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell" (http://creation.com...). Other than your two poor examples of bacteria, I have no quarrel with most of the rest of your statements. The problem is, you never provide demonstrable evidence which shows how these valid mechanisms for micro-changes can lead to macro-changes. I can imagine an evolutionist who might be reading this get very frustrated with what I'm saying because he/she might be thinking, "IT'S LITTLE CHANGES OVER TIME THAT LEAD TO BIG CHANGES!" To that person I would simply say, where's the evidence? If they haven't already blown a gasket, might they consider the following: What we know from demonstrable research is that micro-changes do occur and these changes are never shown to lead to macro-changes. Dogs which have been bred and selected for thousands of years are yet only 0.2% genetically different than grey wolves. Dogs are the greatest example of variation within a species today, and while the wolf to dog change might be categorized as macro-evolution, this change actually involves a loss of information. Dogs are degenerate wolves whose various traits have been selected for, but never can you select for wings or gills. This may sound silly and of course is not what evolution proposes, but at what point does an organism show signs of evolving into another. I posit that taxonomic designations are man-made and arbitrary, but even using this system, never do we see organisms traverse the last few ranks, namely order, family, genus, and species. Dogs are a good example. We can breed for a large Mastiff or a miniature Chihuahua, but they always remain within certain Canid parameters. We have one of the greatest examples of variation with dogs, ". . .no other species of animal displays the range of phenotypic diversity seen in purebred dogs" (http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org...), yet with all this variation they do not even traverse the species level, let alone the genus or family level. The obvious evolutionary objection to the above would be to point out that we do not see macro-changes because they require lots of time. But this then rules it as unscientific as we cannot see or test it. All we can do is observe micro-changes and extrapolate backwards in time, which brings me to my next problem for macro-evolution. II. Extrapolation is Not Testable To observe micro-changes and extrapolate backwards in time is an entirely hypothetical endeavor based on no demonstrable evidence. To extrapolate without demonstrable evidence is simply imaginative speculation. The resolution I gave is actually quite simple. Provide evidence of a viable mechanism which demonstrably supports the hypothesis of macro-evolutionary changes and you win! Well, you at least will have adequately addressed the solution. Whether or not your evidence stands up to scientific scrutiny is another story. I actually did expect examples to be given, as even I can think of many (which don't ultimately turn out to be very good), which I was prepared to address. Conclusion You have yet to prove your case, as already discussed, and are left with a burden of proof. It is my responsibility to address your evidence and demonstrate why it is inadequate, but I have not yet been able to do this because you have not provided any. I realize this debate is setup in such a way where you are left with the burden of proof and I only have to address what you provide, but surely you can provide something? I do not mean to be condescending in any way. Here is what I hope you will do. I hope you will provide some evidence I can address. I hope you will understand my response and realize that you indeed have not addressed the resolution. I hope you do not dismiss this round's response as lazy or unlearned. I didn't have much to work with. You provided a mechanism, now show me how this mechanism can provide support for macro-evolution. Feel free to point out any misunderstanding on my part. I may have missed a crucial point or your entire argument (its possible). If you feel I have understood your case, then great! I gladly await your response.