How about the fruit fly with a leg for an antennae?

If we go by the absurd claims of evolutionists then both would be evidence for macroevolution.

Two simultaneous and specified mutations occurring naturally?

Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

Not likely.

However perhaps someone could plant thousands or even millions of these plants and see what happens.

IOW nothing natural about the process.

i am not a scientist, but isn’t that how all experiment are carried out? do you think this process could not have happened naturally?

Art Hunt sez the following:

Melzer et al. constructed double mutants deficient in the expression of these two proteins, with the intent of understanding the physiological significance of interactions between these two proteins, associations discovered using the so-called yeast two-hybrid assay.

IOW nothing natural about the process.

2- There isn’t any genetic evidence to demonstrate the transformations are possible

3- The plant thing has been explained.

I can’t help it if you refuse to understand the explanation.

What is really amusing is that when you _start_ with the genetic evidence, such as the switch to woody perennial from annual in a plant, then the discussion becomes about something else. But you are correct, Mr Joseph’s default comeback to fossil evidence is a demand for genetic evidence of the same thing.

What is the genetic data which demonstrates such a transition- from fish to tetrapod- is even possible?

Something just occurred to me in reading this. It’s this: when it comes to debates, evolution’s curse is its details. The theory is so immensely detailed in terms of evidence that there’s always another pathway to attack it on. One it’s been demonstrated beyond a doubt that the Tiktaalik fossil is intermediary, you can ask for the genetic evidence (never mind, of course, that obviously no extinct fishapod specimen has surviving DNA).

My own brief web-research prompted by that question suggests that there are plenty of studies analyzing the genetic divergence between fish and tetrapods. (You’ll like this one, as it relates to front-loading.) No studies, however, appear to examine the question of whether the transition is “possible”. This is likely because very few people are raising the question. The question is kind of silly, given the fossil evidence of intermediaries, indicating that such a transition almost certainly happened. (Not to mention the morphological similarities between the relevant limbs, etc.) The only real question at this point is, which environmental factors spurred the selection for these limbs? There are plenty of different hypotheses out there, and perhaps one of them, thanks to the advantage of evidence, will win out in our lifetimes.

Compare this to the following question: What is the data which demonstrates such a transition- from fish to tetrapod- is even possible for the designer to bring about? I’m being silly, because we all know that anything is possible for the designer. This saves you, I think, from the obligation of having to give an answer. I could very well ask that same question of every major evolutionary transition, but that would be wasting time.

you guys seem to think that science is done via imagination and promissory notes.

Whereas intelligent design…?

Also the vast majority (>95%) of the fossil record is of marine inverts- which is to be expected given what we know about the fossilization process.

Yet in that vast majority evidence for universal common descent is missing.

IOW you guys seem to think that science is done via imagination and promissory notes.