A challenge for evolution deniers: Explain why changes do not continue to add up over time

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Barcs
One species cannot breed with other species, it is part of the definition.

If accumulated genetic change in a population is heading them towards being a new species, then it makes sense that a new species could arise (in theory).

The issue arises because the mutation that 'tips the balance' and gives rise to the new species, occurs in an individual. At that point, the mutated individual cannot breed with the gene pool from which it mutated - end of line.

The only caveat on this would be that partners, with exactly the same speciating genetic mutation, arise within the breeding lifetime of each other.

It is not "in theory". Speciation has been observed in a lab, so it does happen. Species is just a classification, it isn't exact and there is no point where one individual tips the balance and suddenly becomes another species. Evolution is about traits becoming dominant in a given population. This must happen before speciation can occur. Speciation has nothing to do with individuals. It occurs when numerous dominant traits add up to the point where the organisms can no longer breed with the originals. So far you have given the best answer, although it doesn't really answer my question because one trait in an individual does not make it a new species. Good effort, though.

Firstly, thank you.

I am aware of modern definitions of species (old Carl Linnaeus must be spinning in his grave) and concur that by modern definitions, speciation has been observed.

But you have to admit that at some point, one species becomes unable to breed with another and modern evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain it, as it also has explaining aspects of punctuated equilibrium or rates of change versus what we know of genetic mutation rates.

I am not saying that evolutionary change doesn't happen, as you pointed out, it has been observed. I am suggesting that we are missing something in our understanding of the process.

To my way of thinking, we have not sufficiently removed the 'hand of God' from it.

I suspect isolation has an effect. The african and indian elephant being a good example. If two groups who can interbreed separate then each group will continue to breed within that group. All the changes will occur and be reflected in the whole group. However, those traits that have an evolutionary advantage will only be maintained in one group. Different changes will be maintained in the other. Eventually sufficient changes occur within the group (who can all still interbreed within that one group) that prevents it from interbreeding with any individuals in the other long separated group.

Easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again with the 'group think'! You can abstract your understanding in terms of barriers between groups but each changed individual arises from its unchanged immediate peers.

[Start here]

Genetic change initially happens in individuals. If the change is heritable, it gets into the group. If the change has an advantage, it is selected for and the unchanged population die off. This leads to a greater population of those carrying the change. We agree on that, I think.

You cannot have group change without it coming from individuals first.

At the point where an individual cannot breed (speciation), it is end of its line because it cannot breed.

If the changed individual can breed with the unchanged breed, but not with earlier breeds, then the selection advantage is not with the final changed breed but with the in-between breed that can mate with both. The final mutated gene is selected against by nature.

Go back to the 'Start' and iterate through the loop laid out in this post a few times until the penny drops.

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: jabrsa
I don't agree with the fact that you choose to not involve people in the discussion with the excuse that they will derail the thread, I am talking about borntowatch here.

Remarkable... "borntowatch" has soured his reputation very badly on this forum and LIKE MAGIC you registered on 2/14/2015 and one of the first posts you make is to defend him and all of your talking points sound exactly like his.

You're not as slick as you think you are, born.

Look I am new, I am a woman and I am in the Uk, if Borntowatch had intelligent questions he would have asked them. He isn't I am.
Are you going to answer my questions?
Do you believe like all evolutionists that a near death experience is a mutation...you must do you have no choice, but unlike the other evolutionists you deny purpose.
So you differ from academic evolutionists by denying purpose and environmental pressures..just trying to understand what kind of evolutionist you are and you don't seem to be up to date with the latest evolutionists trends and you have no detail.
I am OK with someone that says: "we don't know how it happens but we know it does" and then I can reply that I believe there are many ways that it might happen, you on the other hand have no understanding of evolution whatsoever. Its pointless discussing with a paranoid pseudo religious evolutionist who scrambles accusations because asked to give details about his/her beliefs.
I will leave this thread because it is impossible to further an understanding with someone that wont answer questions, tries to fool people into thinking answers have been given, accuses people of being other people, but most importantly will not describe the very processes he claims has been scientifically proven.
There are many more questions I have for you but I see that your apetite for a discussion with someone that has genuine queries is not there.
You thought you could turn this thread into a bash the Christian thread and it went wrong for you and you were challenged and you just started attacking everyone.
OP, evolutionists want everyone to believe a scientific theory is basically fact, on that premise the ARCH-OR theory is fact and we have always egsistsed and always will.
So I have to assume that you believe the ARCH_OR theory of consciousness and therefore why do you believe in a blind natural process when we now know that consciousness is all around us, its eternal and survives death?
If Arch-OR is true then we have no limitations on what other consciousness is out there that probably created everything you see, why would you when it would fit the observations much better?
If you believe ARCH-OR then why do you deny intelligent design?
It's a scientific theory and evolutions insist that scientific theories are practically fact so I have to assume that you believe it.
ARCH-OR opens up the reality that there is more to this world and its probably intelligent therefore Intelligent design starts to become the more reasonable explanation for the purpose you see in everything around you, I have answered your question again....there are many reasons why people have no reason to believe that small changes lead to bigger changes or that evolution even happens.
When you drill down into the details you quickly see that some other process is at play, we might not know what that process is but many are starting to see that its probably much more complex than we would like it to be.

Pay attention to who you're quoting. You're addressing me about things I've not said in this thread.

I know you're rushing to post as many inane walls of text as you can in this thread, borntowatch, but at least know who you're addressing. You referred to me as the OP in one of your replies.

a reply to: Barcs

Good luck to you megaminds who strive to figure this all out Barcs.
The field has always had my respect even tho I rarely make it known.
I have a great faith that if you masterminds delve into the mechanics
of life far enough? You yourselves will find the evidence of the master
mechanic undeniable. And I know that's the only way Barcs would ever
reconsider.

originally posted by: GetHyped
9 pages in

Number of evolution/science deniers that have answered the OP: zero

The amount of assumptions that are loaded into that question is huge, and not all of them hold true at all. So... Maybe the question is unreasonable. Not only unreasonable, but it simply has an agenda. Because the concerns regarding the question itself are not allowed to be talked about. I'll make another thread asking people to prove that since I can throw a ball on my roof, how I can not throw a ball to the moon, and see how many can give me an answer, without making me prove that I can actually throw it to the moon first and disallowing them to question the question.

One of the first rules of propaganda is that if you can slide premises by people without their knowledge, you've got them. Congratulations evolutionists. You're successful propagandists.

originally posted by: vasagaMaybe the question is unreasonable. Not only unreasonable, but it simply has an agenda. Because the concerns regarding the question itself are not allowed to be talked about.

The problem is that no one understands the OP's angle of approach. He came from a thread in which multiple posters suggested that they were willing to believe in short-term mutations and what they referred to as "micro evolution", but were not willing to believe in what they referred to as "macro evolution." Therefore, in order to extract this issue from that thread (which inevitably devolved into a mess, as has this one), he has stated here the simple, straightforward question. I'll restate it for him in a new phrasing:

"If you are a creationist who acknowledges the existence of mutation, genetic drift, and what you refer "micro evolution", why is it outside the realm of believability that mutations could add up over eons to produce major changes?"

The OP is free to correct me if my rephrasing has strayed from his intent.

a reply to: Barcs

If it rains, and we observe the bucket as it begins to fill up, would it be faith based to think that if it keeps raining and the bucket has no holes that it will eventually fill? If you believe that it will not, then you must justify it, the case for mutations per generation is the same.

Since when does Science ask people to to give evidence for a negative? I would say the burden of proof falls on the one who believes the bucket will fill up. This is entire thread is similar to a creationist making a thread asking for evidence that God is not real, which I am sure you know the problem with doing such a thing is you can't prove a negative.

Please do not respond with straw man definitions that falsely separate micro and macro evolution.

Micro-evolution is also called variation. What evidence do you have that variation leads to speciation over extended periods of time?

You claim that we have seen speciation in hundreds of generations show me one. I am using the very basic definition of species which is the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. You see what we have observed is that lets say finches have different types of beaks, but darwins finches never continued to evolve rather than diverge they merged.

The reason people separate the two is because you have no way of explaining how things like the flagellum or the human eye could have mutated through this slow process of evolution. During the intermediate stages the mutations would be hindrances, and would lead to extinction.

Responses like "well the fly was still a fly" or "the ecoli was still ecoli" will not be accepted because that point is not being disputed and is irrelevant. The point is that those organisms changed enough to become a NEW SPECIES of fly, and a NEW SPECIES of bacteria

Show me one. How about the fly was still a fly that could reproduce with the previous fly. I would like specific examples from you so I can check the specifics. Anytime i've been given an organism that has supposedly mutated and evolved. I actually devolves. Example, Bacteria and antibiotic resistance. Whenever a bacteria mutates a resistance to an antibiotic it loses other favorable information. The moment that environmental factor is gone, the original population takes back over.

If you are going to dismiss the experiments as faith, or deny macro evolution without evidence then you are in the wrong thread

There you go again. Asking for proof of a negative. The reason people probably dodge this is because you don't understand where the burden of proof lies.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, they are two separate things but one is dependent upon the other. The mutation rate becomes the lower bound of possible rates of evolutionary change. Exactly what I said.

The mutation rate is always significantly higher than the rate of new traits emerging and becoming dominant. If that's what you meant by lower bound, then you are correct, but an organism doesn't change based on the mutation rate alone, it changes based on which traits emerge and how helpful they are to reproduction and survival.

originally posted by: jabrsa
You say here that the environment can influence the rate of mutation whereby you denied it to me in a previous post because I stated that this to me is a game changer, a clue that there is something else going on, something smart that helps us adapt and survive when needed.

Please quote me where I denied that the environment can cause mutations or influence the mutation rate. Natural selection is a big part of evolution.

The environment doesn't choose which genes mutate, but it can affect which genes are expressed and which genes are best suited for long term survival.

You then state that : "This happens in well adapted organisms", what happens differently in well adapted organisms that doesn't happen in non well adapted organisms?

I already addressed this thoroughly! Well adapted organisms experience less change, provided the environment does not change much. They still experience mutations, but the traits that emerge are less beneficial and do not become dominant, so the new traits die off and the organisms that stay the same have the advantage.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, they are two separate things but one is dependent upon the other. The mutation rate becomes the lower bound of possible rates of evolutionary change. Exactly what I said.

The mutation rate is always significantly higher than the rate of new traits emerging and becoming dominant. If that's what you meant by lower bound, then you are correct, but an organism doesn't change based on the mutation rate, it changes based on which traits emerge and how helpful they are to reproduction and survival.

Yes, that is what I meant by mutation rate forming a lower bound on the range of possible rates of the appearance of new traits.

But what is going on, then, when the evolutionary rate of change (the appearance of new traits over time) appears to be somewhat faster than the mutation rate suggests (as it does in the case of the European Peppered Moth that I previously linked to)?

I know that the creator of the linked page speculated that it may be due to natural selection but by now I would hope that you can see the problem with that as a solution.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Genetic change initially happens in individuals. If the change is heritable, it gets into the group. If the change has an advantage, it is selected for and the unchanged population die off. This leads to a greater population of those carrying the change. We agree on that, I think.

You cannot have group change without it coming from individuals first.

At the point where an individual cannot breed (speciation), it is end of its line because it cannot breed.

If the changed individual can breed with the unchanged breed, but not with earlier breeds, then the selection advantage is not with the final changed breed but with the in-between breed that can mate with both. The final mutated gene is selected against by nature.

Go back to the 'Start' and iterate through the loop laid out in this post a few times until the penny drops.

The first problem with what you are saying is that it's not JUST the traits in individuals that lead to speciation. That is one small part of it. It's a series of changes, and it's the genetic mutations as well. Remember that pesky mutation rate that we've been talking about? Well, the longer 2 groups are separated, the bigger the difference in DNA. The DNA must be compatible to breed. When the 2 separate groups no longer share DNA for thousands of generations, they acquire tons of mutations that are vastly different from the mutations acquired in the other group. Remember, just because mutations are neutral, does not mean they can't affect the compatibility of DNA.

The second problem is in regard to your "in between" species. As far as individuals speciating, yes if this happens the individual dies and no genes get passed down so the change is deleted from the gene pool and rendered irrelevant, so technically it is not speciation. This is why individuals do not speciate from the group they are in because the genes do not change enough. The speciation is when compared to thousands of generations ago because the genetics have changed enough in that time. So basically, an individual will develop a mutation that makes him incapable of breeding with the population from thousands of generations in the past, not the group he is currently in.

This renders the idea of "in between" breeds inaccurate. You are looking at evolution as sudden quick changes that happen in one single event. That's not how it is.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Barcs
Micro-evolution is also called variation. What evidence do you have that variation leads to speciation over extended periods of time?

You claim that we have seen speciation in hundreds of generations show me one. I am using the very basic definition of species which is the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. You see what we have observed is that lets say finches have different types of beaks, but darwins finches never continued to evolve rather than diverge they merged.

Have a citation supporting that claim for Darwins Finches? Because all research I have read indicates the opposite if your claim. As climatic conditions have changed over the last century and a half, food supplies have been altered and some species of finch have oerished while others thrived depending on the particular adaptations of their beaks. Just as Darwin wiuld have predicted.

The reason people separate the two is because you have no way of explaining how things like the flagellum or the human eye could have mutated through this slow process of evolution. During the intermediate stages the mutations would be hindrances, and would lead to extinction.

Bull... Anyone willing to do the reading can find this information. The eye for example, can be traced back to before the first photosynthesizing cells emerged. Initially the emerged from light sensing photoreceptor proteins in unicellular organisms. They are referred to as "eyespots" and only sense ambient brightness. Not sufficient enough for even determining the direction of the light source let alone actual vision but enough to establish photoperiodism and create the first circadian rhythms. Its a complex adaptation that emerged over Millions of years and evolved independently dozens of times.

Show me one. How about the fly was still a fly that could reproduce with the previous fly. I would like specific examples from you so I can check the specifics. Anytime i've been given an organism that has supposedly mutated and evolved. I actually devolves. Example, Bacteria and antibiotic resistance. Whenever a bacteria mutates a resistance to an antibiotic it loses other favorable information. The moment that environmental factor is gone, the original population takes back over.

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved

originally posted by: vasaga
The amount of assumptions that are loaded into that question is huge, and not all of them hold true at all. So... Maybe the question is unreasonable. Not only unreasonable, but it simply has an agenda. Because the concerns regarding the question itself are not allowed to be talked about. I'll make another thread asking people to prove that since I can throw a ball on my roof, how I can not throw a ball to the moon, and see how many can give me an answer, without making me prove that I can actually throw it to the moon first and disallowing them to question the question.

One of the first rules of propaganda is that if you can slide premises by people without their knowledge, you've got them. Congratulations evolutionists. You're successful propagandists.

Your posts are nothing but baseless accusations and presuppositions of my position, plus you blatantly and intentionally misuse analogies that don't even fit. Anybody can add an unrealistic concept to an analogy in attempt to falsely diminish the meaning of the other. There's a fallacy for that I just forget the name. The fact that you still cling to that absurd unrealistic analogy rather than addressing the question, speaks volumes. We know that buckets can fill with water. We don't know that anybody could ever throw a ball to the moon or accelerate to the speed of light. It makes zero sense, and is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. Let it go. Find a real argument.

My analogy was meant to help people understand the accumulation of mutations and traits. This seemed to go way over your head, and rather than address the mutations, you ONLY addressed the metaphorical analogy. I didn't ask for metaphors, I asked for science and well reasoned arguments. You have not provided either to this discussion.

My only agenda here is to find an evolution denier that has actually studied and understands the mechanics of the theory and can discuss them honestly and intelligently. Maybe it's true that such a person does not exist, but I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt, and think there might just be somebody out there that can offer a compelling argument. All I've heard so far is the same ol' same ol'. Denial and rejection without reason or evidence.

The OP had zero assumptions. If you'd like to quote them exactly I can back them up. I have already backed up most of it and even broke down the emergence of traits via natural selection and gave the one guy an evolution 101 course. The other topics of evolution have been discussed to death. I made this thread to get to the heart of the matter on this particular question because it is ALWAYS DODGED. Even as I type this post folks are trying to figure out new ways to avoid answering the question.

If you do not have the understanding of evolution enough to accept "micro" evolution and understand its mechanisms, then you probably shouldn't be mudslinging in here. I clearly stated that this thread is for the folks that accept "micro" evolution as valid science, but deny macro evolution. I'm confused by why this is so difficult to understand. Folks are using red herrings out the wazoo trying to pick apart micro evolution, rather than address the reason why micro evolution would stop or have limits as folks have suggested.

a reply to: Barcs

You are looking at evolution as sudden quick changes that happen in one single event. That's not how it is.

And if your saying evolution occurs slowly. Then please explain how the human eye or flagellum could have come into existence through this process.

This is why individuals do not speciate from the group they are in because the genes do not change enough. The speciation is when compared to thousands of generations ago because the genetics have changed enough in that time.

What evidence do you have that animals diverge? As I stated earlier darwins finches have merged rather than diverged.

So basically, an individual will develop a mutation that makes him incapable of breeding with the population from thousands of generations in the past, not the group he is currently in.

Except that doesn't happen in the fruit fly experiments, which have been going on since the early 1900's...Not one fly that isn't interfertile has been produced....come on man give it up...evolution is your faith and your attempting to shift the burden of proof to ignore your cognitive dissonance.

Why do people always debate the "How" with the "Why"?

The "how" is evolution, God's simple magic trick, aliens....etc.

The "why" is either intelligent design or randomness based on rules/laws. One could easily say the "why" is God and the "how" is evolution that God used as the tool. This is why I typically do not understand where people are coming from in that it all can be Gods plan with a person with faith, and it can all still work just the same with a person who has no faith.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Since when does Science ask people to to give evidence for a negative? I would say the burden of proof falls on the one who believes the bucket will fill up. This is entire thread is similar to a creationist making a thread asking for evidence that God is not real, which I am sure you know the problem with doing such a thing is you can't prove a negative.

Nobody's asking to prove a negative. I'm asking folks to show me why they impose limits on how far the changes can add up or why they suggest that the changes stop adding up (contradictory to the evidence). The mutations that happen from generation to generation are observable. This is confirmed. There is no need to prove a bucket will fill with water provided it will continue to rain. You can measure how quickly it fills up based on the rainfall and use this to predict how long it will take to fill up and how much rain fall you are getting in your area. Every single aspect of it is based on fact. The deniers seem to think that it could rain for years nonstop and their small 1/2 gallon bucket would never fill up.

Micro-evolution is also called variation. What evidence do you have that variation leads to speciation over extended periods of time?

You claim that we have seen speciation in hundreds of generations show me one.

I already referenced 2 science experiments. Try to keep up.

The reason people separate the two is because you have no way of explaining how things like the flagellum or the human eye could have mutated through this slow process of evolution. During the intermediate stages the mutations would be hindrances, and would lead to extinction.

Actually there are perfectly valid and reasonable explanations for both flagellum and the eye. You assume hindrances because you haven't actually looked at the models to understand them. If you can prove something is irreducibly complex, you would become famous, but that topic is for another thread. I'm talking strictly mutations and speciation.

originally posted by: Barcs
The deniers seem to think that it could rain for years nonstop and their small 1/2 gallon bucket would never fill up.

With something like a hyperomphalism (my favorite is Last Thursdayism) the bucket could always be 1/2 empty.

originally posted by: chr0naut
But what is going on, then, when the evolutionary rate of change (the appearance of new traits over time) appears to be somewhat faster than the mutation rate suggests (as it does in the case of the European Peppered Moth that I previously linked to)?

Okay, let me try to break this down.

Based on the studies that I have read, the mutation rate is an estimate. Mutation rate varies from species to species, but also slightly from individual to individual. Since we can't map every genome in a given population, there is definitely a margin of error when it comes to these rates, so when something is shown to have a different rate it's not that surprising.

When you say "faster than the mutation rate suggests", you are ignoring environmental factors. The emergence of a trait will never be faster than the mutation rate, but how do you know what that rate suggests without knowing exactly when and how the environment changes to lead to a trait becoming dominant?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
And if your saying evolution occurs slowly. Then please explain how the human eye or flagellum could have come into existence through this process.

Like this:



There is no point where it goes from 0% eye to 100% eye. Slow incremental accumulated changes.

Can we PLEASE get back to the topic of the thread and address the mutations, or do you deny them as well?

Except that doesn't happen in the fruit fly experiments, which have been going on since the early 1900's...Not one fly that isn't interfertile has been produced.

Hmmm, "not one fly that isn't infertile has been produced" is a bit difficult to understand. Are you saying that fertile flies have never been born during the experiment? Can you please explain and give me a source to the claim?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Genetic change initially happens in individuals. If the change is heritable, it gets into the group. If the change has an advantage, it is selected for and the unchanged population die off. This leads to a greater population of those carrying the change. We agree on that, I think.

You cannot have group change without it coming from individuals first.

At the point where an individual cannot breed (speciation), it is end of its line because it cannot breed.

If the changed individual can breed with the unchanged breed, but not with earlier breeds, then the selection advantage is not with the final changed breed but with the in-between breed that can mate with both. The final mutated gene is selected against by nature.

Go back to the 'Start' and iterate through the loop laid out in this post a few times until the penny drops.

The first problem with what you are saying is that it's not JUST the traits in individuals that lead to speciation. That is one small part of it. It's a series of changes, and it's the genetic mutations as well. Remember that pesky mutation rate that we've been talking about? Well, the longer 2 groups are separated, the bigger the difference in DNA. The DNA must be compatible to breed. When the 2 separate groups no longer share DNA for thousands of generations, they acquire tons of mutations that are vastly different from the mutations acquired in the other group. Remember, just because mutations are neutral, does not mean they can't affect the compatibility of DNA.

The second problem is in regard to your "in between" species. As far as individuals speciating, yes if this happens the individual dies and no genes get passed down so the change is deleted from the gene pool and rendered irrelevant, so technically it is not speciation. This is why individuals do not speciate from the group they are in because the genes do not change enough. The speciation is when compared to thousands of generations ago because the genetics have changed enough in that time. So basically, an individual will develop a mutation that makes him incapable of breeding with the population from thousands of generations in the past, not the group he is currently in.

This renders the idea of "in between" breeds inaccurate. You are looking at evolution as sudden quick changes that happen in one single event. That's not how it is.

Those "sudden quick changes that happen in a single event" do actually occur and have been observed. Please review this section on the current status from the Wikipedia article on Saltation.

Evolutionary Theory proposes gradualism, I understand that. It is a nice, ordered and simple to conceive process. But nature is chaotic. We see sudden changes that no longer fit so well with gradualism.

Could there be other processes than the gradual one?

You see I'm not really suggesting that gradual change cannot happen. What I am suggesting is; firstly, that it is not without its 'problems in theory' and secondly that it is the exception, rather than the rule.

Saltation, Punctuated Equilibrium and change through horizontal gene transfer are all rather random and harder to reason out than the nice comfortable, calculable gradualism but they have been observed, so we cannot ignore them and remain true to science. They have to come to the fore and not remain the unmentioned retarded cousins of modern evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
And if your saying evolution occurs slowly. Then please explain how the human eye or flagellum could have come into existence through this process.

Like this:

There is no point where it goes from 0% eye to 100% eye. Slow incremental accumulated changes.

Can we PLEASE get back to the topic of the thread and address the mutations, or do you deny them as well?

Except that doesn't happen in the fruit fly experiments, which have been going on since the early 1900's...Not one fly that isn't interfertile has been produced.

Hmmm, "not one fly that isn't infertile has been produced" is a bit difficult to understand. Are you saying that fertile flies have never been born during the experiment? Can you please explain and give me a source to the claim?

I think he is suggesting that it is the mutated flies that were all infertile.