Or something like that?

Evolution by natural means happens. The case for evolution by natural means being adequate to explain the last 60 million years of mammal history (at the end of the era of dinosaurs, mammals existed but had very little variety) is sketchy to say the least.

His response was the very simple answer that the virus “changes over time.”

Yes it does. I think we can see change in the lab, since the number of generations is what matters, not the absolute amount of time. Viruses reproduce very quickly, producing more generations in a human lifetime than all the generations of mammals that have ever existed.

So if we don’t see enough major, functional, morphological change by unguided mechanisms with that many generations of virii (or bacteria), then it is implausible to assume Darwinism as an explanation for the functional morphological change we see in mammalian history, which have had far less generations (opportunities for change.)

I appreciate your point, but here is what leo stotch was responding to:

The neo Darwinists have been doing this research for years and what they get is what was there before.

I didn’t see a reference to horses in particular in there, and leo’s reply was more general than just horse generations. He seems to imply that millions of years are necessary to see any significant change in the lab, which is why I wanted his clarification.

I don’t disagree with you on horses. But leo’s point seems more general.

Why are millions of years needed? Isn’t the number of generations more important than an arbitrary absolute number of years?

While the number of generations is the point, the length of generations of the wild horse is measured in years. If you need lots of generations you need lots of years. If you have lots of years, which you do, then you have lots of generations.

Now, natural selection is never given credit for providing new information, for creating new traits. That is the role of random mutation, or Non-Foresighted Variation, to keep Allen MacNeill happy. The process of producing new traits via random mutation takes lots of generations. Lots of generations are required to pull off good traits amongs the mutational accidents. Lots of generations are required for natural selection to filter out the bad, and filter in the good. This is the theory of evolution. We may as well begin by understanding the theory, then start disassembling it.

Again, natural selection doesn’t produce new traits, random mutation produces new traits. Random mutation, filter by natural selection takes many generations. With horses, many generations takes many years.

Well, at least until the breed a Darwinist with a life span of millions of years.

Hey leo,

Why are millions of years needed? Isn’t the number of generations more important than an arbitrary absolute number of years? (If not, what do the years themselves add, except for more breeding/generation opportunities?)

You apparently do not understand the debate. You can only get what is in the gene pool. Nothing will ever be exactly the same but what appears comes from the gene pool. The statement of reverting to the original is probably an over statement but reflects that the new wild will be very similar to the old wild and not to the selective breeds that were designed.

Convergent evolution is a concept that does not apply here. It is relevant to unrelated species that develop the same characteristics starting with unrelated gene pools. If the capability is within the gene pool then one could not call it convergent evolution.

The neo Darwinists have been doing this research for years and what they get is what was there before. Otherwise you would have been hearing a lot of different stories.

I suggest you read the Arthur Conan Doyle story, “Silver Blaze.” In it is the famous tale of the dog barking in the night. Except there was no dog barking and that is how the mystery was solved by Sherlock Holmes. It is the same behavior here. No Darwinist barking means no changes that mean anything. It’s human nature. Darwinist like to bark so when they don’t, it is telling.

You can do the same on this blog. When people do not bark it means they have no objection to what is being said. It is very telling. We have many Darwinists here who never bark or only bark at trivia or minutiae. As I said it is very telling.

You don’t know what causes these specific phenotypes, nor do I. Before one makes any assumption either way, wouldn’t it be best to figure that out?

If the traits are caused by a reversion back to the ‘old’ state, then Ms. O’Leary’s conclusion is correct. If, however, the traits are due to changes in different genes or new alleles of the same genes than the opposite conclusion would be warrented and this would be a case of convergent evolution, correct?

So, it is a simple task. Do the research and then come up with the conclusions. It a simple formula and one usually has a stronger argument if you have data to back yourself up when all is said and done.

These types of studies have been going on for years by the biology community. They are ID studies and are just not thought of as such. Even the researchers do not know they are conducting ID research. And so far there has been radio silence from them on the finding of new alleles or gene combinations that are novel and complex. That says more than anything. There is a nobel prize in it for anyone who does find such a combination.

Besides there would be reports from those who have observed the horses if there were anything that was new and complex about them. Maybe there is something that is so far hidden but it is unlikely nothing more than just the reshuffling of the genes that the modern synthesis has always predicted. It is all it has ever shown.

All you are trying to do is take a pot shot at the obvious. Load your gun up with something more intelligent.