Except that I don't. Where you got that idea I haven't the slightest clue... We haven't even discussed much of cellular, system, or molecular biological facets yet, apart from all that I had to explain about cell death earlier...
That's because evolution is not about purely random mutation, you're just leaving out one of the most vital aspects: natural selection. Natural selection is a filter and magnifier of mutation, steering it a direction which will be beneficial for the organism in question. And it is no "assumption" whatsoever, the species I've listed for you: that you assume that yourself only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to do any research, and just jumped to your own, baseless conclusions. Again...
Interesting, because given I am a biologist, and work with other biologists on a regular basis, I beg to differ. Heredity can indeed give rise to new species, and, again, is among the driving forces of the evolutionary process.
You misunderstand. Again. You were claiming that somehow a monkey "transformed" into a man one day; which didn't happen, and will never happen. Groups evolve, not individuals, as I've said before. Hominin human ancestors did diverge from chimpanzees 4.1 million years ago, as both fossil and molecular evidence demonstrate overwhelmingly. That you misunderstand and deny that fact is irrelevant.
You're clearly just reading from a creationist website. The "spontaneous appearance of life" and abiogenesis are two different things. The "SAOL" ("spontaneous appearance of life") hypothesis is an antiquated one from the 19th Century, which claimed that life on earth diversified from worms and maggots, which were thought to "spontaneously arise" out of mud. This was later disproved. The concept of abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way, since evolution is about the diversity and development of life, not its origin) which exists today is completely unrelated, and well supported by fossil, molecular, and experimental evidence. Yes, in the lab, numerous experiments have taken place over the past century which demonstrate conclusively that amino acids and proto-proteins can form organically.
You wish. Excuse me while I go and laugh my ass off. You're certainly not right; I considered ending he conversation, again, because you refuse to learn. But I'll keep trying... as foolish as it is to try and teach someone who refuses education.
That's because saltation is not a majority view in biology. Punctuated equilibrium is more reasonable, but still not substantiated effectively enough to have a majority subscription. And mutations in duplicate genes are one among numerous factors which can result in the process of speciation over time. I didn't dismiss any of them; saltation is improbable and unsubstantiated; punctuated equilibrium is better, but still not majority; and mutation in gene duplication is an irrefutable fact.
The majority I refer to is the bulk of the biological community; none of whom are "mindless parrots" (ironically, you yourself would better fit that description, given you're just spouting long-ago debunked creationist arguments, not any original ones). And you can pretend that you are using "technical terms"; it's clear that you're just borrowing from fringe sites that happen to have access to Wikipedia.
You give no evidence of this whatsoever, and you are 100% incorrect. You have given no case to substantiate that there are "limits" to allelic gene flow and evolution. All evidence demonstrates that it is among the primary driving forces of evolution. Do yourself a favor, and read a remedial science textbook.
Intriguing you think so, because everything you've so far only demonstrates your own ignorance of modern biology. You have given not a single refutation of any of the information I have presented.
Interesting. Your trolling skills are no less potent than ever, but fortunately I can see through them now. You're just trying to rile me up by telling me I haven't studied. Honestly, when you spend years studying to become a biologist, dedicate years studying marine species, observe African ecology and animal behavior, participate in studies of evolutionary epigenetics and the fossilized structure of theropodan crania, and any number of other things, then maybe we could talk about evolutionary science on equal ground. You need to prove yourself, son. And so far all you've proven is your own monstrous ignorance of evolutionary biology.
We haven't been friends to start with.
First let me state that there are some merits in the modern theory of evolution which is thought provoking and slightly digestable,i never rejected the theory completely until you started stating it as a scientific fact,which is the biggest insult to a person who really admires the objectivity of science.
1.Yes i agree we have not been discussing much of cell biology,systems biology etc as you have been constantly trying to avoid the same.I brought it up on numerous occasions but you fail to reply even once,trying to only talk about falsified pro macroevolution case studies which rely on wild assumptions (so and so species evolved from this simpler species without any intermediates with half formed organs).Because of your constant ignorance of the same i assumed you don't have a clue of what i am talking about.
2.My friend 'Abiogenesis' (i.e life assembled itself from non-living things on itself randomly) mind you for which there is no proof or reproducability still and 'random beneficial mutations' (which is as good as believing that a short circuit in your computer is going to make it better) are the first two pillars of theory of evolution,'Natural selection' comes into play only after a beneficial mutation has manifested itself which can only happen after life has first evolved.In either scenario 'random beneficial mutation' is the main and only agent to drive evolution by bringing into existence Mutants after which natural selection can take place,so if you are an evolutionist of any salt you cannot refute or understate the importance of 'random beneficial mutations' to the theory of evolution.Probably you feel 'natural selection' and as you say 'heredity' is more important since you have probably focused your 'studies' on these.
3.http://www.biology-o...ionary/Heredity.I will not bother explaining to you the meaning or heredity again or how it cannot give rise to new species a)because it is concerned with transfer of genetic material from parents to offsprings b)it requires organism of the same species to reproduce and cause the transfer in the first place.I will also help you by telling you that what you actually mean is genetic recombination at the time of meiosis and zygote formation which can give rise to 'variation' and not entirely new species.
4.Now we come to the infamous 'a monkey turned into a man some day' is not what i am saying,it is what the traditional evolutionist insinuate and you shouldn't have a problem in openly accepting it.Since there is absolutely no fossils or living transitional species showing half formed organs or any sort of 'intermediates' hence modern evolutionist have concocted the 'beneficial mutation accumulate in duplicate genes' and spontaneously manifest themselves after enough 'beneficial mutations accumulate' .This new theory of spontaneous evolution has been denied by you so no point in discussing it's merits and demerits.Again i would like to bring to your notice theres is no objective proof of 'transitional species or organism' and it is only a assumption.
5.About the divergence of man from monkey (mind you i am assuming evolution is true in the first place) refer to the link i posted on the same and you will be able to see the genetic studies that have actually time and again destroyed that notion,and how geneticist who reached the conclusion had to remodify their basic mutation rate assumptions just to fit in the traditional evolutionist time line(poor people are being funded by senseless evolutionists and pseudoscientists so they have to murder their own experimental observations just to confer with the direction of money).But i can understand if the information in the link is too difficult for you to understand or you have not read it.
6.( I am going to love discusiing this point)Now when you talk of abiogensis and peptide chain formation,this is the first time you have broached on anything to do with 'molecular biology',my hearty congratulations.
I will start with the basic first "proteins and amino acids can form organically" (i.e organically=living systems) is beyond contestation,but what you probably meant "proteins and amino acid can form naturally and spontaneously" is what you meant.
If you suggest that (which is if you consider yourself a evolutionist) that you do not confer with 'abiogenesis' then you are defacto a creationist or something else.Since if a evolutionist can't explain where the first life came from (and at the same time make lame attempts of stating lame experiments to try to prove abiogenesis) then what do they ascribe to?How did life come into existance?
Now when you talk about amino acids and proteins can form under natural environments,that is possible no doubt but what are the chances of a self replicating simple life to evolve in completely natural and spontaneous circumstances.You are refering to the famous Urey and Miller experiment,now tell me what is the chance of a single 20 polypeptide protein chain to form coherently (i am assuming you know that if even one amino acid position or type is changed potentially the entire protein becomes useless),i will tell you it goes in one in millions of trillions.Complex protein in its 3d conformation is a whole differnt ball game.This is the reason i have been constantly asking you the probability of 'random beneficial mutations).Most evolutionist realised this and gave up relying purely on chance and ultimately concoted the theory of 'uncatalysed replicating systems'.
Now fact still remains that there is no objective proof that can be reproduced even in the lab with technicians monitoring the process where simple life is created.Another faith based assumption called upon by evolutionist and stated as fact.
I dont quite understand what you mean by molecular proof (lol XD).
7.Now we come to your allegation of me rufusing to learn.I feel you only learn what you have read in outdated text books.I will not ascribe to faith based nonsense as science,if you are reffering to that as learning.
8.Now we come to the discussion of 'Saltation' and 'Punctuated' equilibrium'.In your comments regarding the same do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof.I don't like talking about majority views when i talk about science but i prefer to rely on objective proof.There is no denying that mutations in duplicate genes happen but what are the chances of a 'series of beneficial mutations happening in duplicate genes' in the perfect order to give rise to a new species let alone a new beneficial physical character (it is very important to discuss the probability of the same to decide wether a event is plausible or not).The truth of the matter is that without relying on the theory of "beneficial mutations in duplicate genes",the theory of evolution is dismissed as a fairytale by modern genetics,epigenetics.
You say 'saltation' is false but then where are the intermediate species or organisms when one species gets converted to another(half formed organs etc).Is there any objective proof of these intermediate species?If you say 'saltation' is wrong then there is no proof to explain intermediate stages of 'speciation' and if you agree with 'saltation' then you shouldn't have a problem when someone say 'a monkey turned into the man'.
9.When i say mindless parrot i mean a person who has studied and gobbled up text books without thinking or updating their knowledge and just keep repeating what they have learnt and expect people to believe it.'Mindless parrots' have nothing to do with science and scientific research and reasoning based on objective scientific proof,they are just slaves of a doctrine they have byhearted.It is sad that you are so oblivious to your native intelligence and other feilds of science.If you don't like facts written in the links i have posted please go and refer to 'the cell' and other widely accepted textbooks (of which you are certainly a fan of and cross verify all the information).I have studied these subjects that are talked about in these links and the premise they have used for their arguments against evolution is hard scientic observations.Mind you i read the material in this link at the same time i posted them and all the points i put forward before are of my own accord.
10.I am not claiming that i am 100% correct about anything because i harbor a scientific spirit,even the people who discoverd the 'higgs boson' recently didn't say they are 100% correct (they gave their result as 99.999% or 6 sigma level of accuracy).So please if you truely have any scientific spirit learn to think in terms of probabilites when you are dealing with theories (without objective proof) and not absolutes.If you don't allow dissent to any idea when you are thinking critically then you are no better then relegious nut jobs who ask for only reliance on faith.
When you talk of evidence i already told you that the onus lies on the person who proposes or believes a particular doctrine,but i have given you ample evidence to point out the holes in your great doctrine.I have not suggested any alternative as Sesh correctly pointed out.
When you talk about allelic gene flow as a agent of variation,you very well know the experiments which have proved their limits,no where a new species has been created.Mutations,beneficial or bad are almost naturally supressed and wiped off.
11.When you list your achievements am i supposed to bow down and worship everything you say?Probably all the things you mentioned about your career, after this debate it seems that you trolled through out your life as a biologist since you have problems stating and understanding simple biological terms.Did you participate in evolutionary epigenetics by sleeping of in the last row?Now i don't mean to be too rude but i did give you in my last post that you probably have studied particular case studies probably under heavy guidance from evolutionist zealots (no different from relegious zealots).Here in your last point you have finally waved the white flag by doing what most outdated scientists do i.e. wave their degrees and achievements.You can be proud about your achievements but know that a man of science should have enough humility to acknowledge that no matter how much he has studied or learnt,he still is only a student.
And most of the things you mentioned as a part of you experiences are probably based on observable facts with objective proof (i.e ecology etc) so you should stick to what you actually know and not theorize.
P.S- Believe in true science and not fairy tales based on assumptions paraded as science.Evolution is not science,it is at best a fanciful theory,there is no objective proof that it is true.Evolution cannot be stated as hard fact as of now or in all probabilities ever.