there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.
its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.
not remotely plausible.
No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right. Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof. I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing. At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.
By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution. I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence. It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.
is the debate you remember a fantasy, perhaps?
when was that?
who was it who proposed that there was a barrier to the theories of earlier biologists, and
how did they argue that it worked? the history with which i am familiar has never included serious inquest into this matter of a barrier.
i dont think your history is true at all, but welcome you to substantiate that is.
evolution is of course based on genetics which employs the same mechanism for encoding phenotypes for a lizard as in a human. in this way, perhaps your characterization of 'entirely different' is inaccurate. in fact, DNA and RNA are fundamental to all life.
no barrier there. no different system between creatures.
next there's heredity the natural method of gene transfer between generations retains genes from the parent or parents. in this way we know that the genes from offspring will indicate the parentage of the subject. using this fact, it is indicated that while genomes for different creatures are different, that there is evidence for direct heredity between different creatures. they are related.
no barrier had functioned to obstruct alleles from ascendant creatures from being transferred to descendant creatures, even though they are of a different species. this is how creatures which are descendant from one another share genes for crucial proteins and enzymes, and why descendants' genes indicate 'elaborations' and truncations on ascendant versions. no barrier.
then there's the phenotype-genotype relationship. in all life, without barrier or exception, genes are the mechanisms which determine the traits or phenotypes of organisms. because of the inability for fossils, sometimes aged millions of years, to provide genetic information, we rely on the way all life uses genes to determine the appearance of creatures. similarly to our ability to associate children with their parents from how they look, even without getting a DNA test, we could and have used phenotypes of creatures to presume heredity of fossilized creatures. combined with observations of time, heredity is further established. that is, offspring cannot precede parents. we know that traits are communicated between generations exclusively via genetic heredity. there appears to be heredity,
there appears to be no barrier.
i dont trust that any scientist has proposed any barrier to the extents of evolution because evidence of its existence would have been the reason why they proposed that possibility. since no evidence exists, i think there's good reason to conclude that a time when scientists proposed such an idea broadly is a figment of your own imagination which you have put forward as fact.
