Wha…?
Regarding your exceptions to A): Ageing is not descending. Sex difference applied to sexual reproduction would not be a difference from ancestors. Sex difference applied to parthenogenesis would only occur in a male descendant. I do not believe we have any evidence of such an event.
You claim to know where Adam’s skeleton is. You are the one who wants to show evidence for a non-standard position. The rest is up to you.
Adam’s DNA would be standard human DNA with nothing particularly special about it. It would not be “perfect” of contain a lot more variation than standard human DNA.
If it is significantly different, then he might or might not have been human. Only if the DNA was capable of having fertile offspring with a standard human would he be considered human. Inability to interbreed is an indicator that two organisms belong to a different species.
So all your ancestors were the same sex as you are? Only half of my ancestors were the same sex as me.
Any and all variations in DNA count as evolution. The definition C) only requires “change”, it does not specify the type of change.
Just looking up ‘Genetic disorders’ in wiki is hardly going to further any argument you might have (and you should quote your sources where applicable). If you want to know more, read the whole book (it’s not concerned with evolution). Although it’s pretty dense. So unless you have some background in genetics then…it may be above your pay grade. But here it is anyway.: Gene Editing, Epigenetic, Cloning and Therapy - Amin Elsersawi Ph.D. - Google Booksrossum:
Regarding your exceptions to A): Ageing is not descending. Sex difference applied to sexual reproduction would not be a difference from ancestors. Sex difference applied to parthenogenesis would only occur in a male descendant. I do not believe we have any evidence of such an event.
Regarding your revised C) would you clarify DNA changes which characterize evolution as all or only some of these mutations. If not all, please specify which apply.
- P – Point mutation, or any insertion/deletion entirely inside one gene
- D – Deletion of a gene or genes
- C – Whole chromosome extra, missing, or both
- T – Trinucleotide repeat disorders: gene is extended in length
Exactly one-half of your parents is the same sex as you. No difference.
Then all these genetic disorders are an evolution of the human species?
| Disorder | Chromosome | Mutation |
|---|---|---|
| 22q11.2 deletion syndrome | 22q | D |
| Angelman syndrome | 15 | DCP |
| Canavan disease | 17p | |
| Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease | 17 | |
| Color blindness | X | P |
| Cri du chat | 5 | D |
| Cystic fibrosis | 7q | P |
| Down syndrome | 21 | C |
| Duchenne muscular dystrophy | Xp | D |
| Familial Hypercholesterolemia | 19 | P |
| Haemochromatosis | 6 | P |
| Haemophilia | X | P |
| Klinefelter syndrome | X | C |
| Neurofibromatosis | 17q/22q/? | |
| Phenylketonuria | 12q | P |
| Polycystic kidney disease | 16 (PKD1) or 4 (PKD2) | P |
| Prader–Willi syndrome | 15 | DCP |
| Sickle-cell disease | 11p | P |
| Spinal muscular atrophy | 5q | DP |
| Tay–Sachs disease | 15 | P |
| Turner syndrome | X | C |
Relax. We are only sharpening your proposed definition of “evolution”. Would you agree that all these genetic disorders are “evolution” under your definition?
I already answered that when I said “Those and others” earlier. There is little point in my answering your questions if you do not read my answers.
You know, it is customary in making an argument to present, …well…, an argument, and not just a list of derogatory terms for your opponent’s position.
Be patient with me; you are the expert. Are all mutations novel? If not, how do we know any particular mutation is novel and is that indicative of a new specie?
socratic.org
No, overwhelmingly not. There are 7 billion people on earth, with an average of around 75 mutations each. Most mutations will appear more then once in the overall human population.
Being novel is not of any particular importance, and DNA sequencing the entire human population so as to find out is not practical.
A new species cannot breed with the old species, or does so at significantly reduced effectiveness. That has very little to do with whether a mutation is novel or not.
The argument over what constitutes macroevolution vs. microevolution in terms of definitions of these words per se is not nearly so important for our purposes as the argument over what kinds or degrees of evolution you claim do not exist. The scientific definitions that have been presented so far just say that these two things differ only in scale. But you are claiming something more fundamental - that one kind exists and the other kind does not. The use of convenient labels like “micro” and “macro” are not useful if we cannot agree on a common definition. Fortunately we do not have to arrive at any such agreement. All you have to do is define, in whatever scientific term you like, the smallest degree of evolution that you say cannot exist. This definition should not be composed of examples, such as “reptile to bird”, but rather should be general enough to exactly delineate this fundamental line which you see so that we will be able to take any example and easily decide, based on your definition, whether it is “too far” an evolutionary change or not. Would you care to have a go at it? The same challenge goes to @buffalo and others who are arguing against evolution in its full form.
Wikipedia is not a scientific authority. Its references do generally refer to good scientific authorities, but in itself it is not an authority.
This is incorrect. The appearance of blue eyes instead of the original brown in humans is new information, but is simply microevolution – variation within a species. New information may, or may not cause speciation.
Pterosaurs (flying reptiles) died out with no living descendants. Birds are descended from non-flying dinosaurs, which developed feathers before they developed flight. Pterosaurs did not have feathers, their wings were skin, similar to modern bats. Some dinosaurs were warm blooded, and birds inherited that along with feathers from their non-flying ancestors. Your source is misinforming you here.
So, you refuse to submit to an actual investigation of your claim by nailing down exactly what you are claiming.