Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Where is your evidence?
There remain two hypotheses in the evolutionary model that have not been proven
1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.
2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.
Both represent the minimum necessary for Evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?
Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.
Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.
Good luck!
Mark Cuban: Cutting and pasting somebody else's nonsense response does not really impress. If for the Evolutionary model to explain the diversity of life in the biosphere, novel alleles are necessary. Denying it only makes you look ignorant.
novangelis: I give you credit, you actually tried, however your evidence does fall a bit short.
Your first link: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15%E2%80%A6 does not show the formation of novel alleles but rather it shows the increased expression of existing alleles. This process is largely similar to bacteria obtaining resistance to antibiotics. There is some disagreement between medical epidemiologists and evolutionary biologists with respect to calling the effects mutations. The changes are non-random, mediated by plasmids and reversible. Epidemiologists assert these are functions of the cell and not true mutations. Either way, no novel alleles were produced, only minor changes to the control area of the gene controlling expression.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.%E2%80%A6
Your second example is essentially the same process but the paper is older so it is understandable that the authors were not aware of more recent findings with respect to what was observed.
3 Answers
- novangelisLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
Both have been demonstrated multiple times.
Examples:
1)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.ful...
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract
2)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%2...
- Anonymous9 years ago
False premise. Those two assumptions are not necessary for evolution, no novel alleles nor phenotypes are necessary for species differentiation, minor, subtle and gradual changes can accomplish this.
That said, those two have been seen both in the lab and in the wild.
This argument sounds "sciency" but is the same old "nothing can be added by mutation" argument and has been refuted a hundred times over. Nice try, thanks for playing. -Momofthreeboys
- NelsonLv 79 years ago
You resist a far more obvious argument---that the so=called "Theory of Evolution" is a crock!!!