"You are right; mutations are rare indeed." - i was under the impression that the body destroy 5 mutated cells per day. Only the rare mutation gets through and causes a cancer. But most mutations are harmless and increase genetic diversity (though i'm talking about adult bodies not sperm/egg cells)
Secondly, humans are bad at judging probability, however, if you believe you are better than average, please make a calculation (and show your work) - ok go start
" I have not heard that they have ever been able to create a new species of fruit fly that is unable to mate with other fruit flies."
I have, but please go back and re-read what i said about 'new species' and the whole concept of species as a bogus human idea... it is completely made up. Though the practical limitation of number of breeding pairs between two sub-species grouping and thus limits to the gene transfer is important (whether the two groups are unable to mate based on geography or size differences or genetics which prevent viable offspring)
what you're really interesting is how long it takes for new features to develop... anyway, taking your estimate..
-'Given that Dinosaurs were likely long lived species given there size, lets assume that an average generation is 25 years.' - ok
-'Giving 6,600,000 generations.' per species, and i shall estimate that there are 10,000 dinosaur species to begin with (very small, but i'm also assuming there was a mass extinction which left many ecological niches open)
'Scientists have been breeding fruit flies in the lab studying evolution for the last 60 years. A generation for a fruit fly is about 2 days giving 10,950 generations. I have not heard that they have ever been able to create a new species of fruit fly that is unable to mate with other fruit flies.' - a quick search leads to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm "Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists." -here the scientists are arguing not just because they are unsure if this is two species, but also because it's an arbitrary line which they have drawn, and they are free to argue that it should be moved...) anyway - here is another responce to this criticism: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fruit_fly.html
- 'So lets say it would take 10-50 times that number of generations to create a new species. Lets say 250,000 generations (does anyone have a better number to use here). Therefore in the 6.6 million generations of dinosaurs, there would be 26.4 different new species. We have fossil records for many more species then this. "
26.4 * 10,000 different species to begin with, and lets assume that 50% of new species die off eventually, and don't continue to produce new mutations at each generational step... they still count as a 'species' for the purpose of counting the total but not for generating new ones.
so let's say 10,000 species for 100,000 generations, create three new species -> step 1 is about 30,000 species. Assuming 15,000 of these die out, we still have 15,000 new species (distinct from the original 10,000, giving us 25,000) now we have 15,000 species for 100,000 generations, again creating 3 each, giving us 45,000 species (70,000 total) but only 22,500 survive... repeat 26.4 times, and we'll have (3/2)^26.4*10,000 original species = 445,460,000 total surviving species (not counting the ones that died out)
so with a little research and giving me a few slightly different assumptions, i get a much more reasonable number...
)
What's in a defintion
)
)
)