What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[GalvestonTommy]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have no desire to join you in your childish and obviously flawed delusions. 

Okay.

[iNow]

You’re damned right, okay

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Do I detect prejudice? Hopefully no fantasy, just the facts.

My understanding of the theory of evolution that I think is universally accepted is that it primarily involves descent with modification and natural selection. I know that genetic drift and other processes are mentioned also.

I'll use the jawbone (simpler than heart, brain, lung, etc.) as an example. And for purposes of this discussion, I'll use the term characteristics for things like material or color. And I'll use the term traits for things like calcium phosphate for the material characteristic and red or brown for the color characteristic.

Going back far enough in time we are told there was an ancestor that had no jawbone, an invertebrate, say. Now all vertebrates, excepting maybe hagfish and lampreys, have jawbones.

Lots of our vertebrate ancestors had no jaw, in fact at one time no vertebrate had jaws. Where do you get this stuff from? 

Quote

 In addition to size/shape, material, position, and color there are other characteristics like connectivity, polarity (left and right), orientation, surface texture, extracellular makeup, quantity, and developmental process to mention a few.

It appears that all of the characteristics of a feature like the jawbone (beak if it is a bird) must be in place for the jawbone or beak to be of benefit to the vertebrate. And each controlling factor must not have a detrimental mutation or the feature could be rendered unusable to a point that would be hazardous to the organism. I.e., the genes and other controlling factors must be in place and in sufficiently good order.

 

So you are asserting irreducible complexity? Really? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Quote

 

My question is; is it logical to assume that all of the necessary characteristics (and therefore all of the genes and controlling factors) must be in place before a feature is of benefit to the organism in order to be selectable by natural selection? Or, will these factors show up periodically throughout time until eventually a jawbone will appear?

 

No it is not logical, in fact it's completely false, generally something like a wing, starts out as something else for a completely different reason that what it is currently used for.

talkorigins.org is your friend... 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Moontanman

[GalvestonTommy]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Lots of our vertebrate ancestors had no jaw, in fact at one time no vertebrate had jaws.

I wasn't referring to the ancient vertebrates in that statement " Now all vertebrates, excepting maybe hagfish and lampreys, have jawbones." The idea that lots of vertebrate ancestors had no jaw begs a different set of questions about the jawbone evolving down multiple lines that I'm not concerned with.

 

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So you are asserting irreducible complexity?

No, more like irreducible simplicity. Michael Behe defined irreducible complexity as "... a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." The jawbone is a single part. We can even leave out the dentary in this discussion to keep it as simple as possible. The jawbone is the simplest feature that I can think of that lends itself to functions like eating and communicating that give the vertebrate an advantage that make it (the jawbone) selectable by natural selection. The same questions might apply to the distal phalanx of the little toe but its functionality is less critical to selectivity.

My query involves the number of characteristics that every feature or body part, the jawbone and little toe bones alike, require to just become what they are. For example in the size/shape characteristic, even though the jawbone conforms to the general location and configuration of Meckel’s cartilage, other parameters must be determined such as length, width, depth, thickness, special bends, offsets, holes, cavities, protrusions, curvatures and all other aspects necessary to define the final form. This requires a gene or gene set. And then another gene or gene set is required to determine the material of the jawbone. And another gene or gene set determines the position and so fourth for each of the many separate characteristics of the jawbone or any other feature. There are no "interacting parts", just one.

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

No it is not logical, in fact it's completely false, generally something like a wing, starts out as something else for a completely different reason that what it is currently used for.

Even if the wing started out as something else that "something else" must have required a similar set of characteristics that were determined by genes, gene sets or other controlling factors.

 

[mistermack]

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I'm not sure if I got the answer I was looking for in the first place, that scientists haven't yet been able to explain the plan that controlling factors go by to produce the expected complexities we are born with. I'm not implying intelligent design with this question nor creationism. I'm only trying to point out one of the countless bits of knowledge that has eluded us so far. Do I understand that you agree that details of the genetic instructions have not yet been fully discovered? It was really a simple query, I thought.

Well, I think you are pointing out the obvious. Nobody is claiming that every step is known. I'm sure that no scientist would ever claim that for anything. Is there a point to pointing out the obvious? Are you worried that the scientists working in the field are on the wrong track? If so, what track do you think they should be on, and why?

Just pointing to gaps in knowledge without reasons or purpose is a nudge nudge wink wink tactic. Spell it out, if you think people are wasting their time. And give your reasons.

[Moontanman]

35 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I wasn't referring to the ancient vertebrates in that statement " Now all vertebrates, excepting maybe hagfish and lampreys, have jawbones." The idea that lots of vertebrate ancestors had no jaw begs a different set of questions about the jawbone evolving down multiple lines that I'm not concerned with.

I think you are obfuscating yet again. 

35 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

 

No, more like irreducible simplicity. Michael Behe defined irreducible complexity as "... a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." The jawbone is a single part. We can even leave out the dentary in this discussion to keep it as simple as possible. The jawbone is the simplest feature that I can think of that lends itself to functions like eating and communicating that give the vertebrate an advantage that make it (the jawbone) selectable by natural selection. The same questions might apply to the distal phalanx of the little toe but its functionality is less critical to selectivity.

 The jaw bone is a single part in some but not all modern vertebrates. The jaw bone resulted from gill arches being repurposed, again the idea of irreducible complexity has been debunked.

35 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

My query involves the number of characteristics that every feature or body part, the jawbone and little toe bones alike, require to just become what they are. For example in the size/shape characteristic, even though the jawbone conforms to the general location and configuration of Meckel’s cartilage, other parameters must be determined such as length, width, depth, thickness, special bends, offsets, holes, cavities, protrusions, curvatures and all other aspects necessary to define the final form. This requires a gene or gene set. And then another gene or gene set is required to determine the material of the jawbone. And another gene or gene set determines the position and so fourth for each of the many separate characteristics of the jawbone or any other feature. There are no "interacting parts", just one.

Again you are incorrect, the jaw bone does not consist of one part in early vertebrates and even in some modern vertebrates.  Gene interaction is very complex with multiple genes being used in multiple ways. You're setting up a strawman... 

35 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Even if the wing started out as something else that "something else" must have required a similar set of characteristics that were determined by genes, gene sets or other controlling factors.

 

Actually the wing started out as many things, from arms, running stabilizers, arm feathers used to keep eggs warm,and even gliding from tree to tree.  The wing, like many body parts, is quite a more complex than you are trying to make them out. 

[GalvestonTommy]

47 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Spell it out, if you think people are wasting their time. And give your reasons.

I definitely would encourage all the field and lab work that will, hopefully and eventually, uncover the facts. The biggest problem I see in a lot of previous findings is in the interpretation of those findings. History has proven that occasionally some deductions have been erroneous, especially before the 20th century. It's those deductions, erroneous or not, that have caused the biggest arguments. So, keep digging and testing and deducing (whether right or wrong). It's what science is all about. Eventually the truth will come out. I'm just mentally digging into the process by which even a simple feature like the jawbone can evolve. I hope that complies with scientific principles.

24 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Again you are incorrect, the jaw bone does not consist of one part in early vertebrates and even in some modern vertebrates.

I'm aware of reptilian jawbones having multiple bones that appear in humans as ear parts. I'm also aware that the jawbone starts out as multiple parts that become fused in the same manner as the skull does. Maybe I should have used our opposing thumb, but again it is made up of multiple bones that don't fuse. Or maybe the humerus. Just looking for a simple feature as an example whose function is selectable.

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The wing, like many body parts, is quite a more complex than you are trying to make them out

That is why I used the jawbone as an example to pose my query. It is functional, it is selectable, and it is simple compared to those other parts.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

History has proven that occasionally some deductions have been erroneous, especially before the 20th century. It's those deductions, erroneous or not, that have caused the biggest arguments. So, keep digging and testing and deducing (whether right or wrong). It's what science is all about. Eventually the truth will come out.

The theory of evolution has been studied, analysed, tested, re-interpreted and extended for 160 years. I think if we were going to find out that it was all a huge misunderstanding, that would have happened by now.

[Moontanman]

12 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I definitely would encourage all the field and lab work that will, hopefully and eventually, uncover the facts. The biggest problem I see in a lot of previous findings is in the interpretation of those findings. History has proven that occasionally some deductions have been erroneous, especially before the 20th century. It's those deductions, erroneous or not, that have caused the biggest arguments. So, keep digging and testing and deducing (whether right or wrong). It's what science is all about. Eventually the truth will come out. I'm just mentally digging into the process by which even a simple feature like the jawbone can evolve. I hope that complies with scientific principles.

I'm not sure what you are looking for here, "the truth will come out"? Truth is a strange word to use in this context, science doesn't result in truth, science describes models supported by known evidence. Nothing is ever officially labeled "truth".  

 

Quote

I'm aware of reptilian jawbones having multiple bones that appear in humans as ear parts. I'm also aware that the jawbone starts out as multiple parts that become fused in the same manner as the skull does. Maybe I should have used our opposing thumb, but again it is made up of multiple bones that don't fuse. Or maybe the humerus. Just looking for a simple feature as an example whose function is selectable.

That is why I used the jawbone as an example to pose my query. It is functional, it is selectable, and it is simple compared to those other parts.

I would suggest eye color, much more simple and still selectable and known to have occurred as a result of  selection... 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Moontanman

[mistermack]

12 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I definitely would encourage all the field and lab work that will, hopefully and eventually, uncover the facts. The biggest problem I see in a lot of previous findings is in the interpretation of those findings. History has proven that occasionally some deductions have been erroneous, especially before the 20th century. It's those deductions, erroneous or not, that have caused the biggest arguments. So, keep digging and testing and deducing (whether right or wrong). It's what science is all about. Eventually the truth will come out. I'm just mentally digging into the process by which even a simple feature like the jawbone can evolve. I hope that complies with scientific principles.

Yes but do you THINK that science is on the right track? You seem to be dodging the question. 

I'm convinced that science is on the right track, and every new discovery so far, ( and it's millions ) has fitted in with the basic picture of evolution that is generally accepted. A Nobel prize undoubtedly awaits anyone who can show that the generally accepted picture is wrong. There's plenty of motivation out there for a new approach. All that's needed is evidence. Gaps in the current knowledge is just evidence of an incomplete picture, which everybody is fully aware of. 

Evidence of some other process would definitely make you a household name like Darwin.

[Strange]

This seems to be the same dishonest argument that Tour uses: "scientists should really look into this evolution thing". Because, of course, they have sat around for the last 160 years contentedly saying what a clever idea that Wallace-Darwin pair came up with. Whereas, of course, the theory has been repeatedly tested and challenged. 

I guess what Tour really means is, "they should keep looking into it until they find what I want them to". Sorry, but that isn't how science works.

[GalvestonTommy]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure what you are looking for here, "the truth will come out"? Truth is a strange word to use in this context, science doesn't result in truth, science describes models supported by known evidence. Nothing is ever officially labeled "truth"

In my opinion, gravitational force fits in with a truth that came out with Newton's third law of motion. Also, electrical energy that we all use (along with its properties) fits in with my idea of truth. The truth is, if I fall off a ladder and land on a live wire on the ground, I don't expect anything good to come out of it. But I guess that is not very scientific.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I would suggest eye color, much more simple and still selectable and known to have occurred as a result of  selection.

Eye color is only one characteristic of the eye, or any other feature that exhibits color. It's like Darwin coming to his conclusions by observing the change in the size/shape characteristic of the beaks of finches or the size/shape of tortoise shells. One characteristic along with its controlling factors does not cause an eye, beak, tortoise shell or jawbone to come into being. It requires a multitude of characteristics, which in turn requires there being a multitude of genes, gene sets or other heritable factors in place. How and when did the bird beak become selectable, not just its size/shape?

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Yes but do you THINK that science is on the right track? You seem to be dodging the question. 

I'm convinced that science is on the right track, and every new discovery so far, ( and it's millions ) has fitted in with the basic picture of evolution that is generally accepted. A Nobel prize undoubtedly awaits anyone who can show that the generally accepted picture is wrong. There's plenty of motivation out there for a new approach. All that's needed is evidence. Gaps in the current knowledge is just evidence of an incomplete picture, which everybody is fully aware of. 

Evidence of some other process would definitely make you a household name like Darwin.

I KNOW that science is on the right track, especially medical science. I (and millions like me) would not be alive today if were not for medicines and treatments discovered by hard working scientists. I go into a risky esophagectomy this coming Wednesday with the knowledge that my chances are greatly increased because of the advances in medical science. So on a personal basis I do think science is on the right track.

Ive presented my ideas to about 6 PhD's about the need for controlling factors of multiple characteristics to be simultaneously present for a particular body feature to come into being. I was told " Your approach is fresh and so far as I am aware is unique." Otherwise I would probably not be pursuing this approach. I hardly expect any prizes or recognition if the approach is looked a seriously, but do believe it is a valid question. Your exchange of thoughts about this is greatly appreciated.

[Strange]

53 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

In my opinion, gravitational force fits in with a truth that came out with Newton's third law of motion. Also, electrical energy that we all use (along with its properties) fits in with my idea of truth. The truth is, if I fall off a ladder and land on a live wire on the ground, I don't expect anything good to come out of it. But I guess that is not very scientific.

Gravity exists (i.e. it is a truth). We than have theories (from Newton and Einstein) that attempt to explain it. (Incidentally, I can' see any direct connection between gravity and Newton's third law. Other than Newtonian gravity is a force.)

So applying that to evolution, the "truth" (fact) is that evolution happens. And the theory of evolution is our attempt to explain how and why it happens. Does that make sense?

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

In my opinion, gravitational force fits in with a truth that came out with Newton's third law of motion. Also, electrical energy that we all use (along with its properties) fits in with my idea of truth. The truth is, if I fall off a ladder and land on a live wire on the ground, I don't expect anything good to come out of it. But I guess that is not very scientific.

Actually Einstein's theory of relativity overturned Newton. While it might be proper in colloquial terms to say electricity is real, truth is a bit of a loaded word that implies the current understanding is the end of the investigation... 

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Eye color is only one characteristic of the eye, or any other feature that exhibits color. It's like Darwin coming to his conclusions by observing the change in the size/shape characteristic of the beaks of finches or the size/shape of tortoise shells. One characteristic along with its controlling factors does not cause an eye, beak, tortoise shell or jawbone to come into being. It requires a multitude of characteristics, which in turn requires there being a multitude of genes, gene sets or other heritable factors in place. How and when did the bird beak become selectable, not just its size/shape?

The shape of the jaw is just one characteristic of the jaw, you said you wanted to simplify, I suspect you are trying to bring irreducible complexity into the discussion. I can go there if you want but rest assured that IC was debunked in open court with its main supporters being unable to defend IC. 

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I KNOW that science is on the right track, especially medical science. I (and millions like me) would not be alive today if were not for medicines and treatments discovered by hard working scientists. I go into a risky esophagectomy this coming Wednesday with the knowledge that my chances are greatly increased because of the advances in medical science. So on a personal basis I do think science is on the right track.

Maybe I do not understand your questions but it certainly seems like you question if science is on the correct track. 

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Ive presented my ideas to about 6 PhD's about the need for controlling factors of multiple characteristics to be simultaneously present for a particular body feature to come into being. I was told " Your approach is fresh and so far as I am aware is unique." Otherwise I would probably not be pursuing this approach. I hardly expect any prizes or recognition if the approach is looked a seriously, but do believe it is a valid question. Your exchange of thoughts about this is greatly appreciated.

Care to name them? 

[GalvestonTommy]

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Maybe I do not understand your questions but it certainly seems like you question if science is on the correct track.

Isn't that what science is all about, questioning itself if it is on the right track. It seems like some areas are untouchable, even from a scientific approach. If some aspects of evolution prove to be in question that doesn't automatically make creationism valid. I believe that the right track is to keep questioning and not make certain concepts out of bounds. As you stated "Nothing is ever officially labeled 'truth'." It appears evolutionists want to label evolution "truth". It's a sort of "cake and eat" it approach. I'll be okay with a satisfactory explanation to the query I posed.

39 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Care to name them?

Because they are members of the creationist community, I told them I appreciated their comments but if my approach was to be valid it needed to stand apart from creationism.

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Isn't that what science is all about, questioning itself if it is on the right track. It seems like some areas are untouchable, even from a scientific approach. If some aspects of evolution prove to be in question that doesn't automatically make creationism valid. I believe that the right track is to keep questioning and not make certain concepts out of bounds. As you stated "Nothing is ever officially labeled 'truth'." It appears evolutionists want to label evolution "truth". It's a sort of "cake and eat" it approach. I'll be okay with a satisfactory explanation to the query I posed.

No, the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably an observed fact, as I said earlier the word "truth" implicates that investigation serves no purpose. In science everything remains open to new evidence. Just like the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or the atomic theory of the atom something simply become ever more accurate. It seems highly unlikely the heliocentric theory of the solar system will ever be overturned but small details might change. Evolution is the same, it's quite improbable that Evolutionary Theory will ever be overturned, the details might change but the fact that life evolves will not... I've never heard of a concept in science being "completely" out of bounds but you can't just claim something isn't true without something other than God did it... 

1 minute ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Because they are members of the creationist community, I told them I appreciated their comments but if my approach was to be valid it needed to stand apart from creationism.

I would like to say that if you have an approach that falsifies Evolution I would suggest you tell us what your approach is. Simply trying to show some aspect of Evolution isn't true because you can't understand it really gets us nowhere... 

Please define what you mean by "creationist community" you really need to be precise about what you are defining as a creationist community. I personally know of no aspect of creationism that isn't at it's basis "god did it"... 

[GalvestonTommy]

27 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I would suggest you tell us what your approach is

For evolution to work as advertised the following must happen:

1. Something in an organism must be modified to make it different from its parents.

2. The modification must be caused by something that can be inherited by descendants.

3. The modification must be beneficial to the organism.

4. The benefit derived from the modification must provide an advantage to the organism such that natural selection will cause descendants to increase in numbers in the population.

5. If multiple modifications are required in order for the change in the organism to be beneficial then all of those required modifications must be present in the organism at the same time for the change to occur.

Requirements 1 thru 4 above occur constantly throughout biological history. In most cases the benefits are derived from one or no more than two or three modifications. The modifications are primarily adaptations of traits of characteristics of already existing features; bird beaks, tortoise shells, pea pods, etc.

Requirement 5 above (simultaneous accumulation of multiple modifications) has not been addressed fully by science. And, it is necessary for all of the required genes, gene sets and/or hereditary units to all be present simultaneously for all the expressed characteristics that are needed by a feature for that feature to come into existence and be suitable for natural selection.

So the question is, how many generations will a population of organisms continue to exist (with perhaps a partial jawbone evolving into a complete jawbone) while modifications to the separate genes, gene sets and/or hereditary units accumulate until all of those necessary are in place so that the complete jawbone can be “selected” by natural selection?

I think it is down to irreducible simplicity. Do the odds and deep time favor this happening? Am I being unscientific in asking this? If so, I'll sign off.

32 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I personally know of no aspect of creationism that isn't at it's basis "god did it"

That is why I told them I didn't want to involve creationism. As I said earlier, creationism is a matter of faith.

[mistermack]

Galveston Tommy, your five points show a complete misunderstanding of how evolution happens. You would be better off reading the many books on the subject, than trying to work out your own theories in a vacuum.

Evolution doesn't happen at individual level, as you are picturing it. It happens at population level. And you keep saying "beneficial" as if it's a black and white subject. It's actually grey areas, and evolution doesn't need to produce clearly beneficial features. Things can be beneficial in one corner of an environment, and not so in another. Or they can become beneficial as a change in climate progresses. Or you can just get change due to drift, when a population is split for some reason.

An example of that is the difference that's arisen between Bonobos and Chimpanzees, due to the populations becoming separated by the course of a river. They live in environments that are pretty identical, but they have drifted apart due to the lack of exchange of genes.

Point number 5 in particular is way off the mark. You really need to read a bit about how the frequency of genes in a population come into it. I would get a copy of the selfish gene, if I were you. It's been out for forty years now, but it's still relevant.

[Moontanman]

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Galveston Tommy, your five points show a complete misunderstanding of how evolution happens. You would be better off reading the many books on the subject, than trying to work out your own theories in a vacuum.

Evolution doesn't happen at individual level, as you are picturing it. It happens at population level. And you keep saying "beneficial" as if it's a black and white subject. It's actually grey areas, and evolution doesn't need to produce clearly beneficial features. Things can be beneficial in one corner of an environment, and not so in another. Or they can become beneficial as a change in climate progresses. Or you can just get change due to drift, when a population is split for some reason.

An example of that is the difference that's arisen between Bonobos and Chimpanzees, due to the populations becoming separated by the course of a river. They live in environments that are pretty identical, but they have drifted apart due to the lack of exchange of genes.

Point number 5 in particular is way off the mark. You really need to read a bit about how the frequency of genes in a population come into it. I would get a copy of the selfish gene, if I were you. It's been out for forty years now, but it's still relevant.

I could not have said it better, Galveston Tommy, what mistermack said... 

[GalvestonTommy]

52 minutes ago, mistermack said:

your five points show a complete misunderstanding of how evolution happens

As mentioned in my post of Thursday at 11:46, I have studied the subject. I posted a list of some of the sources. The Selfish Gene was one of the first I read when I began research 8 years ago. I understand that my 5 steps are not the only way that the theory of evolution is supposed to work, they are perhaps an oversimplification, but I believe that the other proposed or additional processes involved still have to answer my query. I just outlined what I thought was the most predominant process, descent with modification along with natural selection.

I'm going to stand my ground with step 5. Are you telling me that if one of the genes, gene sets or other heritable factors that define one of the necessary characteristics of the jawbone is missing or faulty, that the jawbone will emerge in a population of organisms that has no jawbones?

[mistermack]

59 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I'm going to stand my ground with step 5. Are you telling me that if one of the genes, gene sets or other heritable factors that define one of the necessary characteristics of the jawbone is missing or faulty, that the jawbone will emerge in a population of organisms that has no jawbones?

You seem to be picturing a sudden jump, from a population with no jawbones, to a population with. It really doesn't happen like that. It's an incredibly slow process, with successful animals all along the way.

I believe that jawbones in fish evolved from previous structures that were originally part of the first set of gills. And were originally of benefit in the most primitive form as a pumping mechanism, to enable the fish to pump water in and out of the gills while at rest. It might have been the benefit of not having to constantly swim that originally helped the feature to gradually develop. Later, it might have became a more efficient feeding mechanism. The genes or gene sets that you are talking about might have been proliferating for different reasons, before the recognisable jaw came into being.

[GalvestonTommy]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

You seem to be picturing a sudden jump, from a population with no jawbones, to a population with.

Not really. That is why I asked the question: " how many generations will a population of organisms continue to exist (with perhaps a partial jawbone evolving into a complete jawbone) while modifications to the separate genes, gene sets and/or hereditary units accumulate until all of those necessary are in place so that the complete jawbone can be “selected” by natural selection?" Your response included an "I believe" and several "might have beens". That is why I'm not really picturing it happening, whether by a sudden jump or during many eons. Until more solid proofs of what you say "might have been" are unearthed, I will keep asking.Our divergent opinions on the possibilities of the mechanisms of evolution being a sure thing are like the difference  between "guilty until proven innocent" and "innocent until proven guilty". Just a joke, please don't take that seriously. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree at this point. I hope I can continue this after a couple of weeks. If not, thanks for letting me participate.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

That is why I'm not really picturing it happening, whether by a sudden jump or during many eons. 

So what exactly are you picturing?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Not really. That is why I asked the question: " how many generations will a population of organisms continue to exist (with perhaps a partial jawbone evolving into a complete jawbone) while modifications to the separate genes, gene sets and/or hereditary units accumulate until all of those necessary are in place so that the complete jawbone can be “selected” by natural selection?"

Depends entirely on the environment and other related variables. 

[GalvestonTommy]

49 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So what exactly are you picturing?

I can't. It's beyond my understanding.