Why, then, did zebras, horses, and donkeys all evolve from a common ancestor? Why didn't genetic homeostasis prevent this?

These ar very similar organisms. Horses can breed with either. Genetic homeostasis would have nothing to prevent, especially if the variation already existed in the original population and some selection process plus geologic isolation did the rest.

Why do we have wolves, coyotes, jackals, foxes, and over 400 breeds of dog? Why isn't genetic homeostasis preventing these transitions?

First we would have to determine what transition took place. And again there are only minor morphological variations. However you do bring up a good point. These populations have very different genomes- yet they are very similar- similar enough that some can interbreed.

Now we have very different genomes producing (if DNA really was all that made an organism what it is) very similar organisms. And at the molecular level those differences do not effect molecular-level functionality.

Yet the same process is supposed to account for great transformations.

Also the Creationists I have read put the Kind at the Genus level for most organisms. That is also what Karl von Linne proposed about 2 centuries ago.

TP sez:
Sure, Joe. It was in Science about 5 years ago. The sequencing of the human genome.

It was in Nature and it did nothing to support your claim. Just because we know what a human genome looks like does NOT mean we know what makes a human a human.

TP:
other way we know is that genetic engineering would be impossible if we didn't.

But genetic engineering is mostly a bust.

ldn't know what to expect when we insert a gene. We wouldn't have been able to create a working virus from off the shelf chemicals. You see, Joe, just because you are ignorant of genetics doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

The following is from a geneticist and editor of a peer-reviewed lournal:

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) "Why is a Fly not a Horse?", the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI "Why is a Fly not a horse?" (same as the book's title)

"The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply "I'm sorry but I do not know." This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg."

We do know the information for the coding of genes which then code for the assembly of proteins & enzymes, resides in the genome, i.e. the organisms' DNA. We also know there are HOX genes, and clusters of those (HOX clusters), which control the development of body parts during the organisms' developmental (embryonic) stage. We also know that many of the HOX genes are common throughout the animal kingdom. We also know that the HOX genes only control (for any specific part) the development of, as in does it develop or not, a body part and not what type of part it is, its shape nor the function. IOW a mouse "eyeless" gene transferred to a fly missing that gene, would give the fly back its fly-eyes.

IOW HOX genes are genetic switches and routers. And that is another thing to consider- communication at the molecular level as well as communication throughout the organism. Mutations in HOX genes can cause the loss of body parts. It can also cause body parts to show up where they aren't supposed to. But in all cases that have been observed, the survivors are always deformed versions of the original, with no chance of reproductive success nor any indication the deformity would lead to the evolution of a new and viable body plan.

OK so if HOX genes are genetic switches, that can cause body parts to not develop or to develop on a different body segment, what about the information for the body part itself? And just how would unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes account for the use of genetic switches never mind their origin?

But anyway- we do observe many similarities on the molecular & cellular levels of life. But if, as the evidence shows, these parts are interchangeable without any real over all outward effect, where does the CSI reside that governs the organisms' body plans?

Joe: Yes the real observed resistance a population has towards change.

TP sez:
There is no such resistance, unless the observation period is very short.

Experimentation and observation demonstrates otherwise. Why do you think scientists came up with genetic homeostasis in the first place? To explain the observed resistence a population has towards change.

TP:
Mutations are accrued generation after generation. There is no stopping them.

Death stops them very quickly.

Joe: Those are all minor variations. Variations that surely could have been present in the original population.

TP:
Excuse me? Fox, coyote, jackal, and wolf are minor variations? Well, maybe to a "˜calibration expert', but not to anyone who knows genetics. The DNA differences are greater than that of humans and chimps. Not exactly what anyone I know (who is competent in genetics, that is) would call minor variations. They are quite substantial. You have differing chromosome numbers and hundreds of millions of base pair differences. So much for your "˜genetic homeostatis' hypothesis. It has just been falsified.

As I said the variants could have been in the original population. That you ignore that part of what I posted demonstrates your willfull ignorance.

Joe: LoL! It is the SAME request made by anti-IDists of ID/ IDists!

TP:
Of course this is patently false.

It has been done here and at NAiG. IOW it is reality. That you would deny reality just demonstrates your agenda.

It is also very telling that TP refuses to support his anti-ID position…

Omar: I would be grateful for that.

It was a gibbon:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...

Anat Rec 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape–the gibbon, Hylobates lar–both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

I would be grateful for that.

Pez: I don't know how this fits (or if it does) into the above conversation, but thought I would point out that dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals can all interbreed to fertile progeny.

I seriously doubt that a jackal can interbreed with a fox or a wolf. If you have evidence, I would like to see it. Not that it matters, because we don't know if humans and chimps are interfertile. There was a study published years ago that showed that a human sperm would fertilize the egg of some kind of monkey. Obviously they did not allow development to take place, but it was interesting nonetheless. (If anyone needs a reference for this, I can dig it up).

The point is that Joe postulated genetic homeostatis as an evolution stopper. One has to wonder then how it allowed a canine to have the wide variety of descendents that it did. Why didn't genetic homeostatis prevent this? Furthermore, if one happens to believe the flood story, they have to believe that these changes occurred in just a few thousand years. That is evolution on a much more rapid scale that humans and chimps from a common ancestor in 6 million years.

Joe: If we "know" that then you should be able to post the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that "knowledge".

Sure, Joe. It was in Science about 5 years ago. The sequencing of the human genome. The other way we know is that genetic engineering would be impossible if we didn't. We wouldn't know what to expect when we insert a gene. We wouldn't have been able to create a working virus from off the shelf chemicals. You see, Joe, just because you are ignorant of genetics doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Joe: Yes the real observed resistance a population has towards change.

There is no such resistance, unless the observation period is very short. Mutations are accrued generation after generation. There is no stopping them. In most cases, this leads to change over time as the DNA drifts. But again, I am talking about genetics again so I am probably speaking Greek to you.

Joe: Those are all minor variations. Variations that surely could have been present in the original population.

Excuse me? Fox, coyote, jackal, and wolf are minor variations? Well, maybe to a 'calibration expert', but not to anyone who knows genetics. The DNA differences are greater than that of humans and chimps. Not exactly what anyone I know (who is competent in genetics, that is) would call minor variations. They are quite substantial. You have differing chromosome numbers and hundreds of millions of base pair differences. So much for your 'genetic homeostatis' hypothesis. It has just been falsified.

Joe: LoL! It is the SAME request made by anti-IDists of ID/ IDists!

Of course this is patently false. I would ask you to give some evidence that your designer exists. Asking me to prove that processes that have already taken place were not in any way influenced by a designer is asking me to prove a negative. Quite different, I am afraid.

Joe: Reality sez that if you cannot show me what you have either you don't have anything or you are too embarrassed to present it.

Reality says that if it were even possible in principle to fulfill your request, then you should be able to point to what evidence you would accept. The fact that you can't even in theory say what evidence you would accept clearly demonstrates how vacuous is your position and how ridiculous is your repetitive request.

If not, how exactly does your card pack analogy bear on my claim that it is in principle possible for T2 to be confirmed without positive evidence in its favour? I'm not seeing it right now.

I totally agree that one can confirm a hypothesis by process of elimination. However, doing this in a small search space where you can deductively show you have eliminated alternatives is one thing. Doing this in a large, uncharted, inductive search space is a different matter.

You end up with three problems.

First, how do you measure the volume of claims in T1? We really have no idea how many mechanisms or claims there are in T1. It's not a finite deck of cards, if you will.

Second, even if you restrict and oversimplify the search space, and call T1 = NDE, you cannot raise your confidence in T2 until the NDE program is completed. The NDE program is maybe 1% complete, and NDE will need decades to connect the dots and provide you with a simulation that demonstrates macroevolution. In the card analogy, NDE is like Q1. It tells us that if current models of NDE won't work, we are only going to know this many years down the line (near the end of the deck). So, you cannot raise confidence in T2 (Q2) on the grounds that NDE should have given you a detailed simulation by now.

Third, your line of reasoning would appear to work in reverse. If we are to admit purely eliminative procedures as valid scientific induction, then NDE can play the same game against ID by demanding positive evidence for ID. We might then argue that, if ID were true, surely we would have evidence of designers, manufacturing, etc. by now. Yet, the ID responses would be 1) to claim that the non-NDE search space is so large that one cannot play the eliminative game against it, and that some designer models can be tweaked to keep the designer from being discovered, and 2) the ID research program hasn't even got off the ground yet.

tika is right about the need for positive evidence. Science isn't a search through a known space of possibilities. There are an infinite number of scientific models that are compatible with a finite set of data. You have no idea how many scientific advances will be required to find a mechanistic explanation.

TP:
Yes, we do know. The DNA of the organism is what makes it what it is.

If we "know" that then you should be able to post the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that "knowledge".

And as for any alleged barrier- genetic homeostasis makes a good case for its existence.

TP:
Genetic homeostasis?

Yes the real observed resistance a population has towards change.

TP:
Why, then, did zebras, horses, and donkeys all evolve from a common ancestor? Why didn't genetic homeostasis prevent this? Why do we have wolves, coyotes, jackals, foxes, and over 400 breeds of dog? Why isn't genetic homeostasis preventing these transitions?

Those are all minor variations. Variations that surely could have been present in the original population.

Joe G: Can you tell us what is the positive evidence that we exist due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes?

TP:
As I have already pointed out, this is a very stupid and impossible to fulfill request.

LoL! It is the SAME request made by anti-IDists of ID/ IDists!

Joe G: Don't ask me what I would accept.

TP:
There is a very good reason for my request. If you can't say what kind of evidence you would accept, then there is no point showing you any evidence.

Reality sez that if you cannot show me what you have either you don't have anything or you are too embarrassed to present it.

I understand. Thank you.