What “mistake?” You still haven’t shown that a “Grolar” HAS reproduced. You claim that there have been two of 'em. How do you know that the first one “reproduced?” These animals aren’t captive.
Dave, quit being dumb:
“We’ve known for decades that, in captivity, grizzly bears and polar bears will hybridize and in fact produce fertile offspring,” says Dr. Brendan Kelly
You just had to read the article I posted, everything you’ve denied is in there.
They don’t “hybridize” NATURALLY. They will if you do it via artificial insemination. A polar bear will EAT a grizzly it encounters in the wild and vice versa if the grizzly is the larger animal.
Dave, you should have read the article:
“…2006, when a hunter in the Canadian Arctic took down an odd-looking bear—white with brown patches—that, DNA testing later confirmed, was part-grizzly, part-polar bear. Another hybrid, the second-generation offspring of a grolar bear and a grizzly, was killed by a hunter, and later tested, in 2010”
You’re still presenting evidence of micro evolution and apparently claiming it is macro evolution. This is getting boring.
So? It’s not new information. It’s being transferred from somewhere else. The issue is how the information came to be. If by evolution, then there had to be generations of random mutations naturally selected with a benefit at every step. Where and when was that? That’s the issue. That it’s new to the receiver is irrelevant.
Okay, since you won’t define it, I will.
It’s an adaption being spread not among just one species, but to several branches. That’s a change at scale, which is what the definition of macro-evolution is.
“Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.”
Mammals evolving placenta is a macro-evolutionary change. It created a fork between them, and the species of mammals who didn’t. Placental mammals became the clade “Eutheria”.
I wouldn’t know the difference; in either case…
In my opinion, he does it on the basis of pride; he’s been pinned a number of times on a number of subjects, yet digs in his heels and insists he’s right. He’s intelligent, but his arguments frequently devolve into sophistry.
I’m sorry FC, but there is no validity here. Scientists aren’t coming around to a different position; Ken is in bubble, I’m trying to figure out why.
That’s the whole debate.
If you think I’m “doubling down”, then this is just a repeat of the God as being-itself; you don’t know where you are, and you’re attacking me by reflex.
So thinking on it; Ken is trying to say he doesn’t like the way Darwinism describes Evolution; which I happen to agree with.
It’s incomplete, and over emphasizes randomness.
But asserting fault with the theory, isn’t the same as denying Evolution happens. That’s like saying quantum particles don’t inform larger reality, because we can’t fully figure out how quantum mechanics work, and you don’t like one of the theories (many worlds, let’s say).
Not liking the theory trying to describe what goes on, doesn’t change the fact that something is going on.
Ah! I haven’t been clear enough. Let me try again.
Errors (mutations) can’t accumulate to form the complex, hierarchal, interconnected, well-designed systems which we see across all living organisms.
New proteins can’t come to exist through the accumulation of errors because there are way, way, way too many non-functional states on any path, which would violate natural selection.
“Not liking” evolution is irrelevant.
The very fact that evolutionists feel a need to conflate micro-evolution (adaption) with mythical macro-evolution, is an indication that they know the later has never happened so they need to obfuscate.
A reactive system guided by epigenetics can. Just like a tree, or mushroom growing an intricate, well-embedded root system.
The growth of such systems are not random, rather they react to the surrounding environment, and grow from simple constructs, to something far more complex. Complexity which is tailored to the landscape, bit by bit.
Ken, CRISPR literally encodes new proteins (actually, it’s more than that; it encodes entirely new strands of RNA), and CRISPR is a defense mechanism we discovered hiding among bacteria.
Once again, it’s a niche nature does in fact do. CRISPR is perhaps the ultimate way, but there’s more gradual ones.
It’s randomness you don’t like, you’ve made that very clear Ken.
So I’m telling you it isn’t simply Random; Evolutionary theory is getting a healthy dose of Lamarckism, which is concerned with how these systems are reactive, and are the result of inheritance.
So this where we stand:
Ken, you have a criticism that Darwinism doesn’t fully describe what is happening in Evolution.
A criticism I agree with.
What you use that for however, is something I haven’t seen you sustain. That macro-evolution doesn’t occur.
At this point, I’ll have to ask you to define what you mean by macro-evolution, as I’m not seeing how the development of placental mammals via viruses doesn’t fit the definition I’m seeing scientists use.