In his interview by Joe Rogan, Steven Meyer says he believes in microevolution but is skeptical about descent from a single common ancestor. he is really saying what I've been saying about how there is variation tht is built into the genome, but he's calling it evolution and eseems to leave it open although he says he's skeptical about itg. What he actually says, however, affirms what I've been saying abourt variation though he uses different terms for it. I've been making it a major argument against evollution lately and he doesn't quite do that, but his terms are nevertheless desdriptiove of the same processes that make evolution impossible. All that is possible given what he acknowledges, is variation, or what he is claling microevolution, which really isn't evolution at all. variation is not evolution. SIt's simply different combinations of genetic codes that allows for many different versions of given traits, but the traits are built into the genome and the variations can't do anything but p[roduce different versions of those traits. You can get many varities of dogs or cats or horses or cows or bears or birds or fish, but you can't get anything BUT a dog or a cat or a bear etc. That's something that should be clearly enough recognizable by anything one who gives the facts an honest thought. There is no way for variation to get outside the genome as it were.
Meyter puts it in different terms but he is saying the smae thing.
Paraphrasing someone else, he says that the mutation[ selection model sdoes a goot job of explaining the modigifation of preexisting forms, but it can't explain the orgin of any of the gidffernet groups. So it can explain how the different beaks of Darwin's finches are formed but can't explain how birds got here in the first place. Mdodification yes, innovation no.
So you can make changes in what already exists but to get something new, some entirely new function, say a new way of digesting food in the difference from one animal to another, you chave to have new code. but all we have in the genome is a given code with built in alternatives that cause the variations. this can never lead to something entierely new, some completely new function or gtrait which would define the difference between one animal and another. He points tout that the method of darwinism is random changes in the code, but that it is well known that random change only degrades the function of code, it doesn'[t lead to new functions.
Seems to me threr is enough evidence already that mutation doesn't do anything but degrade fucntion. the supposed beneficial changes that coulde supposedly lead to new forms are extremely rare and all we really ever hear about are the vast majority of mutational changes that either make no clearcut change in the protein product or lead to genetic diseases, of which there are now thousands.
I've arrivesd at the point of thinking it's silly thereat there is aoso much discussion about this when it seems obvious that the genome olimits all that change to mere variations or different versions of the same thing and that th you can never get anything new from a genom. I also think it is obvious that the variations are built in, that it's all a product of the fact that each gene has the two different versions known as alleles, that bring about different products, the most familiar one beting the blue eyes versus brown eyes. It's all about homozygosuity versus heterozygosity. All the variaqtionsz amount to shifts in these forms of a gene from generation to generation. Mutation has nothihgn g to do with any of it. that has always been merely an assumptiona and it doesn't work at all. Not at all. They dstick it in because they have rjeected the creation model which has the GENA created whole for each Kind. They have to imagine it being formed and there is no other way than mutation although it doesn't work at all to anything of the sort.
It's high time this obvious fact was recognizined. It's the undoing of evolution and it's right in front of your face.
yTurns out I am unable to capure the URL but this disscussion occurs fairly early on in the interview of Meyer by Rogan so it should be easy enough to find.
Listening further I find him taklking about a regularory system that determines the body plan of a given animal, and one oint I've been making is that body p-lan for each kind or species appears to be particularly stable and unot amenable to variation or changes of any sort. This seems to be forne out by the studies Meyer is talkoing about. The amount of change that would be required to get a completely new body bplan or a new species from a different apecies is simply undoable.
