Teenage Mutant Ninjas

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify. The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.

Not to be harshly critical, but your sentences are fu ...[text shortened]... her (you). In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?

The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify.

Yes they have.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Here's another source for the same event:

4) SYMPATRIC SPECIATION IN PLANTS: AUTOPOLYPLOIDY
•Doubling of chromosome number in germline cell à tetraploid gametes
•Interbreeding between tetraploid gametes in species à self-fertile tetraploid progeny
•Barrier to gene flow can be established in single generation
•Can result from mitotic nondisjunction or meiotic nondisjunction
•E.g.: evening primroses Oenothera gigas (2N = 28), parental species O. lamarckiana (2N = 14); commercial tobacco, horticultutal strains of snapdragon

http://www.mun.ca/biology/tmiller/courses/b2900/lec6.htm

The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?

Nor do I understand this. DNA is not a means of communication between two intelligences. It's a molecule which is involved in the synthesis of proteins and other biochemical reactions.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify.

Yes they have.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromo 's a molecule which is involved in the synthesis of proteins and other biochemical reactions.[/b]

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.
I see. So de Vries found a plant that became... a plant. Congratulations. Nobel, anyone?

DNA is not a means of communication between two intelligences.
Exactly. And yet, miraculously, genetic information is somehow able to transfer information (random, mutated and corrupt information) on to a receiver who is able to get the intended meaning, despite all errors.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

I see. So de Vries found a plant that became... a plant. Congratulations. Nobel, anyone?

Actually he found that a new species had emerged. Exactly what you asked for. Or are you now going to claim you meant something else (like say plants turning into lizards)?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Actually he found that a new species had emerged. Exactly what you asked for. Or are you now going to claim you meant something else (like say plants turning into lizards)?

I am now claiming what I was then claiming, i.e., no new speices was detected. Type within type is not a new speices, and (as pointed out previously) not a new path capable of reproduction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify. The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.

Not to be harshly critical, but your sentences are fu ...[text shortened]... her (you). In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?

Look, there are 6 and a half billion versions of the human genome - most as equally fit as each other. How can you claim that most mutations are deleterious?

What don't you understand?

Do you deny mutation?

Do you deny that some animals are bigger and stronger than others?

Do you, perhaps, deny that stronger animals, which are better predators will live longer and have more offspring perhaps?

Do you deny the earth is 4 billion years old?

Do you deny that small changes can lead to big changes over time (obviously not, or your example in the OP would not fit with your worldview)?

What is it Freaky? What problem is there?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am now claiming what I was then claiming, i.e., no new speices was detected. Type within type is not a new speices, and (as pointed out previously) not a new path capable of reproduction.

It was a new species though. It was unable to breed with its forebearers.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It was a new species though. It was unable to breed with its forebearers.

What, like a mule?

rot13
''Va ortvaavat, Tbq perngrq gur urniraf naq gur rnegu".

Originally posted by frogstomp
rot13
''Va ortvaavat, Tbq perngrq gur urniraf naq gur rnegu".

Exactly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What, like a mule?

But a mule is sterile. The plant was not.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But a mule is sterile. The plant was not.

Actually, the link you provided only stated that the variant was unable to reproduce with its atecedants. No mention was made of its ability to reproduce in kind.

That notwithstanding, there is no indication of taxa-related speciation, simply a moving of the goalposts to fit the desired results. The site you offered goes to great lengths in discussing the controversy regarding what constitutes a species, without conclusive findings.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, the link you provided only stated that the variant was unable to reproduce with its atecedants. No mention was made of its ability to reproduce in kind.

That notwithstanding, there is no indication of taxa-related speciation, simply a moving of the goalposts to fit the desired results. The site you offered goes to great lengths in discussing the controversy regarding what constitutes a species, without conclusive findings.

It wasn't me which offerred that link, although I agree with it.

There are about a dozen different definitions of what a species is, all required for different groups. For example the whole "ability to breed successfully and produce viable offspring" doesn't work in fungal taxa with 13 different sexes, or in bacteria which don't require sex to reproduce (although they do occassionally undergo conjugation).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?

The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:

lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha

Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelli ...[text shortened]... ens and the earth.

To try it for yourself, visit:

http://www.randommutation.com/index.php

How ignorant can you be? Seriously.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How ignorant can you be? Seriously.

Was that a refutation, or are you just bored?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Was that a refutation, or are you just bored?

What claim are you making that stands subject to refutation?