What Prevents Macroevolution- Another Look

-
What prevents macroevolution? This says it best

Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102 (bold added)

IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes  that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

Major adaptive changes would be legs in place of fins- gradual or rapid. Lungs in place of gills. Bones, nervous systems, muscles- MAJOR changes. Wolves to dogs is very minor and a loss at that- ie no help. The differing sizes of dogs are also of no help.

Major changes mean different body plans requiring different body parts.

The point? In a childish attempt to show that evolution can produce adaptive changes and McDonald even said so, a zealous evoTARD posted MCDONALD – THE GREAT DARWINIAN PARADOX.

The imbecile posts the following:

 From the perspective of the neo-Darwinian geneticist, these challenges have been more irritating than devastating.  Effective counter arguments have been presented showing that strict gradualism is not an inherent characteristic of modern synthetic theory. Moreover, it has been pointed out that what a paleontologist considers a rapid rate of adaptive change may, in fact, be viewed as a quite comfortable pace by neo-Darwinian geneticists.  This the neo-Darwinian view of evolution, whereby adaptive genotypes are drawn from the store of genetic variation that segregates within species, is not necessarily incompatible with the evidence of rapid adaptive change. [my emphasis]

This paragraph pretty much dismantles the entire line of argumentation used by Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt.  I wonder if he even knows about?  The evidence suggests that Meyer has never read this article.  If he has, then he is lying about it.

Dumbass just proved he doesn't have a clue as to what Meyer if referring to. He thinks that just cuz minor adaptions can happen that means major adaptions can happen. Yet that doesn't follow from the evidence as there aren't any minor adaptions that we can extrapolate into the major transformations that are required.

What recent research has shown is that the further back in development you tweak regulation the better the chance you are to get a complete failure . Only subtle tweaks like those of epigenetics, are tolerated. Fruit flies with legs for antennae is not a good sign. Shubin has not been able to cox fish to produce Tiktaalik-like features.

Earth to evolutionists- "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is not a science documentary. And we are not the sum of our genome.