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

a reply to: vasaga

Poppycock. It's a very succinct and unambiguous question. That you (and others) are pulling all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid actually answering it is very telling indeed.

12 pages in

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

a reply to: Barcs

The rate of mutation is measured statistically using models which have already been established. The rate of "favorable" versus "unfavorable" mutation in all life forms follows Darwinian principles. The models are observable and repeatable in the laboratory. Questions as to what a mutation rate was in the past or what it might be in the future can be derived simply by plugging in the numbers into the algorithms which have already been developed.

Mutations are not necessarily linear i.e. one mutation causes one change in the genome. Mutations are usually multi-functional and are enzyme dependent for expression - think malaria and sickle cell anaemia.

So do mutations "add up" to cause a change - yes and no because there's no set number of mutations for a single biological change because there are multiple components to mutation.

Here's a couple of papers that describe how it's done in the lab.

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
www.genetics.org...

The Fluctuation Test
www.sci.sdsu.edu...

Methods for Determining Spontaneous Mutation Rates
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families
www.nature.com...

This is the best article about the development of the human eye. You have to be a subscriber to Scientific American to read the whole thing (if anyone seriously wants the article, send me a pm and I'll send it to you in a Word doc).

Evolution of the Eye
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be

www.scientificamerican.com...

I sincerely hope that people who are reading and posting on these threads on evolution take the time to read through the real science. Evolution and science in general is only a mystery when you're not curious and don't investigate.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

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?"

Even when framed like this, the question is loaded with assumptions. Among others;

- If you don't believe evolutionary theory, you must be a creationist. This is already insulting and dishonest, since it's pretty much an attempt to ridicule anyone that does not share the same view.
- What is classified under 'major changes'? How is anyone answering this supposed to know? Family, species and genus is still too vague, because it cunningly bypassed detailed problems.
- If we don't know what these major changes exactly are, how do we know he has evidence for them or that they have been proven right, for anyone to try and disprove it?

He's says he's referring strictly to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, that's also known as neo-darwinism. So... I'll just be leaving this stuff here and call it a day. I really hope everyone takes the time to read this, but it's really there for the ones who are actually interested in knowledge, rather than pushing an agenda. It really shows that what is being asked from the so-called creationists to prove to be false, has not been proven to be true at all in the first place, so, just like it's not up to the atheist to prove that God does not exist, it's not for anyone in here to prove that what he's stating does not happen.

Some quotes by Lynn Margulis through this interview in Discover Magazine.

Most scientists would say there is no controversy over evolution. Why do you disagree?

All scientists agree that evolution has occurred—that all life comes from a common ancestry, that there has been extinction, and that new taxa, new biological groups, have arisen. The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? Is it the driver of evolution?

And you don’t believe that natural selection is the answer?

This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create....

Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

What kind of evidence turned you against neo-Darwinism?
What you'd like to see is a good case for gradual change from one species to another in the field, in the laboratory, or in the fossil record--and preferably in all three. Darwin's big mystery was why there was no record at all before a specific point [dated to 542 million years ago by modern researchers], and then all of the sudden in the fossil record you get nearly all the major types of animals. The paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould studied lakes in East Africa and on Caribbean islands looking for Darwin's gradual change from one species of trilobite or snail to another. What they found was lots of back-and-forth variation in the population and then--whoop--a whole new species. There is no gradualism in the fossil record.

Gould used the term “punctuated equilibrium” to describe what he interpreted as actual leaps in evolutionary change. Most biologists disagreed, suggesting a wealth of missing fossil evidence yet to be found. Where do you stand in the debate?

“Punctuated equilibrium” was invented to describe the discontinuity in the appearance of new species, and symbiogenesis supports the idea that these discontinuities are real. An example: Most clams live in deep, fairly dark waters. Among one group of clams is a species whose ancestors ingested algae—a typical food—but failed to digest them and kept the algae under their shells. The shell, with time, became translucent, allowing sunlight in. The clams fed off their captive algae and their habitat expanded into sunlit waters. So there’s a discontinuity between the dark-dwelling, food-gathering ancestor and the descendants that feed themselves photosynthetically. 

What about the famous “beak of the finch” evolutionary studies of the 1970s? Didn’t they vindicate Darwin?

Peter and Rosemary Grant, two married evolutionary biologists, said, ‘To hell with all this theory; we want to get there and look at speciation happening.’ They measured the eggs, beaks, et cetera, of finches on Daphne Island, a small, hilly former volcano top in Ecuador’s Galápagos, year after year. They found that during floods or other times when there are no big seeds, the birds with big beaks can’t eat. The birds die of starvation and go extinct on that island.

Did the Grants document the emergence of new species?

They saw this big shift: the large-beaked birds going extinct, the small-beaked ones spreading all over the island and being selected for the kinds of seeds they eat. They saw lots of variation within a species, changes over time. But they never found any new species—ever. They would say that if they waited long enough they’d find a new species.

Some of your criticisms of natural selection sound a lot like those of Michael Behe, one of the most famous proponents of “intelligent design,” and yet you have debated Behe. What is the difference between your views?

The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific.

This one is very important. She herself is a critic and a scientist. One does not have to be a creationist in order to criticize neo-darwinism. Get that through your thick skulls, and stop calling everyone that disagrees with you a creationist. Chances are they are more scientific than you with your evolutionist cult.

In before "it's just the opinion of one person".

Its fairly obvious that most evolution deniers are indeed creationists, aren't you one?

a reply to: chr0naut

I did not provide all the answers to your questions because they were mostly strawman arguments and irrelevant to the discussion.

The questions were extremely relevant, and simple. I will answer them for you.

This post:

1. Why?
   They don't.
   
   
2. And who will the mutant mate with in order to propagate the new species?
   Its conspecifics, because it is still a member of the parent species.
   
   
3. What would define such a species?
   All species are link species.

This post:

1. What determines whether they are expressed or not?
   The environment, which in this case includes the rest of the genome.
   
   
2. What determines whether the expression is beneficial or detrimental to the organism?
   Ditto.

The man of straw is your insistence that speciation cannot occur because it is something that happens overnight.

a reply to: jabrsa

You are accusing me of stalking and creating multiple accounts.

That's right.

I am going to contact the mods!

Feel free.

Either you allow me to contribute to a thread or you ignore me, you can not abuse me OK?

I can't imagine something that you would hate more than being ignored. Which is precisely why I mean to do just that from after I type the next full stop.

a reply to: chr0naut

Natural selection is entirely dependent upon there first being genetic change.

The mutation comes first.

There is nothing to 'select' if there is no genetic change.

This places mutation rate at the lower bound of possible evolutionary change rates.

It is not possible for natural selection to operate faster than the genetic changes it 'selects'.

It is not possible for natural selection to speed up mutation rates.

Mutation rates are not given for individuals. They are given for populations. Once a mutation has occurred, it can spread through the population far more rapidly than the rate at which mutations occur.

Really, this is kindergarten stuff.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Its fairly obvious that most evolution deniers are indeed creationists, aren't you one?

I'm not a denier. I'm a critic. I'm not a creationist and I don't really fall into a specific category regarding that topic. I can tell you I'm not a determinist and not a materialist. Take that for what it is.

a reply to: Barcs

Why does this process not continue for thousands to millions of generations, where the changes add up enough to be classified as a different species, genus or family? Why do the changes stop adding up past a certain point?

Extinction.

I use the example of rain drops falling in a bucket as an analogy. 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?

Yes, and I will use the example of me kicking over your bucket. No more raindrops.

We are talking about evolution as a whole, aka the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. We are not talking about any other version of the word evolution except for "genetic mutations sorted by natural selection". If you think macro evolution utilizes a different mechanism than micro evolution, then it is on you to define and prove this mechanism. Remember, no assumptions, no denial. I'm looking for a logical argument based on evidence or facts.

MES needs an overhaul. It ignores the organism. It relies on long time horizons. And adheres too strictly to Mendelian principles. Ignores soft inheritance, development, the role of epigenetics. on and on... Not to mention mutations sorted by natural selection is not the only version of evolution. It is one possible mechanism.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

You should use a different site to reference. This one is awful in it's gross oversimplification of the processes of evolution. It's misleading if not flat out wrong in some of the things it says. It needs a complete redo

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. If this can happen under direct observation in a lab, then why would these changes not continue to add up over millions of generations leading to much greater diversity amongst the species?

Yes ecoli turning into another form of ecoli is still speciation, if the two groups can no longer breed, as per the current definition of a species. But this is not the type of speciation that causes all the agita.

It's when we get one type of species that eventually evolves into something of a completely different genus. Like going from a Pakicetus to a modern whale.

Please look at this animation and tell me that this isn't some how based on a little bit of faith. ocean.si.edu...

Now I know you and others will argue that the fossil record more than tells this story, so there's nothing wrong with it. But you're blind acceptance ignores the amount of interpretation that goes into this speculative science, and the debates that take place in this field about what is what. I realize this is all we have to lay down the law on macro evolution, for better or worse. But it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

And we're told not to worry, feel comfortable knowing that if mutations continue to pile up over "millions of generations" then we will eventually get a completely different animal with zero resemblance to its ancestors, in terms of morphology, physiology, behaviors etc etc... Great, there's no doubt that mutations never stop happening per se (unless prompted to), so your question to me was a little bit of a strawman.

But we don't have the hard evidence to show how the grand scale evolution occurs. We can't watch it happen, like we can with micro evolution in a lab. So we do have rely on some faith that the fossils are being interpreted correctly, and the narrative that is derived from it is accurate.

a reply to: Barcs

When you say traits, do you mean alleles?

The mutation rate is always significantly higher than the rate of new traits emerging and becoming dominant.

a reply to: 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)?

Have you looked into phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation?

a reply to: Phantom423

Mutations are not necessarily linear i.e. one mutation causes one change in the genome. Mutations are usually multi-functional and are enzyme dependent for expression - think malaria and sickle cell anaemia.

Bingo. I think many people here still think that a single gene influences one specific trait. It doesn't. This "gene for x" syndrome still pervades evolutionary thinking and is still being propagated on sites like the one Barcs referenced in his OP. Most traits are derived from multiple genes and gene products, whose expression is a by product of development and environment. These genetic relationships and interactions are not at all linear. It's also still not completely understood what causes an allele to be dominant or recessive.

So do mutations "add up" to cause a change - yes and no because there's no set number of mutations for a single biological change because there are multiple components to mutation.

And to the expression of that mutation.

Evolution and science in general is only a mystery when you're not curious and don't investigate.

Actually, in light of my curiosity and scientific research being done it's still a mystery

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

It seems like you are confusing individual mutations with speciation again. They only occur in individuals to first bring about a new trait, if it is helpful. Speciation events are entire populations, so they are not defined by one sudden event, rather an accumulation of events. Single events leading to speciation would defy the way speciation works. The only thing that effects an individual is a mutation that first leads to a new trait. You keep mixing up group changes (speciation) with individual changes (new mutations). Saltation does not refer to speciation, it refers to an individual mutation that is considered large in a single generation.

Could there be other processes than the gradual one?

It's possible, sure, we just haven't seen evidence of this aside from extinction level events seeming sudden. The problem is that it takes numerous generations for traits to become dominant, so a speciation change cannot be sudden. Don't get me wrong, a large unexpected mutation could happen and the trait is so beneficial and attracts so many more mates that it becomes dominant fairly quickly, but it won't become species wide in a single generation (as per saltation), unless an extinction level event happens and bottlenecks the population to just the mutated organism and his offspring. If that happens, however there could be issues with inbreeding if merely 2 generations have passed that could lead to extinction.

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.

Fair enough. I'm not ruling out sudden changes completely, the environment can affect mutation rates, so during a time period after an asteroid impact for example, there would be more radiation, and I would expect faster mutation rates coupled with faster change rates due to the sudden change in environment, because there will be niches to fill. You just can't have sudden speciation changes, however, because that concept doesn't make sense as it requires multiple generations.

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.

Plenty of people misuse those terms when it comes to evolution. But again, this is why science is great. When new evidence is found, new things get added to the theory like punctuated equilibrium, convergent evolution, etc. It's all about learning more, so I don't really understand the beef with the theory that so many folks are having. Nobody's saying the theory is perfect or absolute, but it's a great way to learn how it all works and expand upon our knowledge of biodiversity.

originally posted by: vasaga
- If you don't believe evolutionary theory, you must be a creationist. This is already insulting and dishonest, since it's pretty much an attempt to ridicule anyone that does not share the same view.

I have been very careful to use the word "evolution denier" in the majority of my posts because many folks get offended by the word "creationist". I've tried to be as respectful as possible. Ash worded it very well, except I would have said evolution denier rather than creationist. it doesn't mean you MUST be a creationist if you deny it. It so just happens that the majority of deniers are indeed creationists. I try to avoid the term, because this thread isn't about religion and I don't want to talk about ID or god.

What is classified under 'major changes'? How is anyone answering this supposed to know? Family, species and genus is still too vague, because it cunningly bypassed detailed problems.

How is genus or family too vague? Genus is the next level above species. Deniers constantly bring up stuff like "kinds" of animals, which isn't even a classification. You are getting hung up on terminology rather than the substance of the argument. We're talking about small changes becoming dominant in a population and adding up over time to eventually affect the morphology in a big enough way to be classified differently. Remember the labels aren't exact. But change is constant and demonstrated in everything we have observed with DNA.

- If we don't know what these major changes exactly are, how do we know he has evidence for them or that they have been proven right, for anyone to try and disprove it?

We do know what these major changes exactly are. We have the fossil record to reference for that and genetic code to compare. You are doing nothing but distracting from the topic. Why is the question too difficult for you to answer? You are nitpicking irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with topic of genetic mutations and speciation.

He's says he's referring strictly to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, that's also known as neo-darwinism.

Only by the deniers, and who cares anyway? Was that supposed to be some kind of ground breaking idea?

So... I'll just be leaving this stuff here and call it a day. I really hope everyone takes the time to read this, but it's really there for the ones who are actually interested in knowledge, rather than pushing an agenda. It really shows that what is being asked from the so-called creationists to prove to be false, has not been proven to be true at all in the first place, so, just like it's not up to the atheist to prove that God does not exist, it's not for anyone in here to prove that what he's stating does not happen.

Of course, it always goes back to atheism and god for you guys. This is a science topic Can't you just address the topic of the thread instead of dodging it and posting red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic? I haven't discussed or brought up religion or god once in this thread. If you can't answer the question, then you are wasting space in my thread and you should definitely be calling it day using arguments as poor as "can you throw a rock to the moon?", because that totally undermines the idea of genetic mutations adding up over time. Quote mines are also irrelevant in this discussion. Address the topic or kindly leave.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It is indeed a mystery, but that's why we became scientists!

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

Why does this process not continue for thousands to millions of generations, where the changes add up enough to be classified as a different species, genus or family? Why do the changes stop adding up past a certain point?

Extinction.

That would be a good point if everything went extinct, but life on this planet today says otherwise.

Yes, and I will use the example of me kicking over your bucket. No more raindrops.

That is outside intelligent interference, and even with that, the rain will accumulate in other places in the same manner, whether you kicked my bucket over or not. You kicking the bucket over could also be considered natural selection, as it renders the bucket's ability to gather water useless. But what about the other buckets out there that you have not kicked over?

I'm referring to natural processes and the concept of accumulation. You will not have a genetic mutation that ever "empties the bucket" and clears all the past history of changes, without killing off the creature. I'm certainly not saying genetic manipulation is out of the question, there just isn't any direct evidence of this at this point.

MES needs an overhaul. It ignores the organism. It relies on long time horizons. And adheres too strictly to Mendelian principles. Ignores soft inheritance, development, the role of epigenetics. on and on... Not to mention mutations sorted by natural selection is not the only version of evolution. It is one possible mechanism.

How does MES ignore epigenetics? It is part of the environmental influence on evolution. The environment affects everything. How is it not part of natural selection?

You should use a different site to reference. This one is awful in it's gross oversimplification of the processes of evolution. It's misleading if not flat out wrong in some of the things it says. It needs a complete redo

The purpose was to be simple. I created this thread to see if anybody could answer my question. So far, nobody has. Based on my understanding of evolution, their definition of micro and macro evolution is accurate. I already said in the OP, that if you disagree with that reference about micro and macro evolution then provide a scientific source that conflicts with it or suggests otherwise. Did you read each part of that section on the site or did you just look at the picture and then leave?

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. If this can happen under direct observation in a lab, then why would these changes not continue to add up over millions of generations leading to much greater diversity amongst the species?

Yes ecoli turning into another form of ecoli is still speciation, if the two groups can no longer breed, as per the current definition of a species. But this is not the type of speciation that causes all the agita.

It's when we get one type of species that eventually evolves into something of a completely different genus. Like going from a Pakicetus to a modern whale.

That's exactly what I am referring to. If the small changes can be directly observed, then who is to say that they can't add up to eventually change the genus classification? Speciation only happens at the species level. When something changes the genus, we're talking about hundreds or thousands of speciation events on top of each other. Something like that is never sudden, and it uses the same exact mechanism as what folks call "micro" evolution. It seems that the folks that accept micro evolution as fact can't seem to answer the question in this thread. Perhaps you can be the first, even though I don't consider you an evolution denier, you're more like a philosopher in my book.

Please look at this animation and tell me that this isn't some how based on a little bit of faith.

Now I know you and others will argue that the fossil record more than tells this story, so there's nothing wrong with it. But you're blind acceptance ignores the amount of interpretation that goes into this speculative science, and the debates that take place in this field about what is what. I realize this is all we have to lay down the law on macro evolution, for better or worse. But it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

Common bones, and features are what take the faith part away, but again, this is avoiding my question. We see the common features in fossils to give us an idea of how long certain changes took, but you haven't yet explained why the mutations would have a limit as to the amount of change they can cause given more time. When you compare 100 generations of changes to 1 million generations of changes, that is WAY more mutations, and WAY more speciation events, hence more time for different features to emerge that make the organism genetically different enough to change the genus we classify it in.

And again, I'm not saying MES is complete or perfect or absolute. It's the best picture we have at the moment based on the confirmed mechanism of evolution. It will change over time as more is discovered, but saying that it is based on faith when we have geology, genetics, biology and chemistry that individually confirm one another's findings is a bit over the top, IMO.

And we're told not to worry, feel comfortable knowing that if mutations continue to pile up over "millions of generations" then we will eventually get a completely different animal with zero resemblance to its ancestors, in terms of morphology, physiology, behaviors etc etc... Great, there's no doubt that mutations never stop happening per se (unless prompted to), so your question to me was a little bit of a strawman.

Straw man? Where did I manufacture a false definition or explanation of a phenomena to suggest that the phenomena was wrong? I'm merely asking why genetic changes would stop doing what they've been proven to do, which is add up over time.

But we don't have the hard evidence to show how the grand scale evolution occurs. We can't watch it happen, like we can with micro evolution in a lab. So we do have rely on some faith that the fossils are being interpreted correctly, and the narrative that is derived from it is accurate.

There are hypotheses involved in evolution right now. Yes. Every aspect of every detail of the theory has not been proven completely. Yes. "Micro" evolution, however, is substantially backed by evidence, and most deniers do not even doubt this. But they still can't answer the question of what causes it to have limitations that prevent the changes from getting past a certain point.

When you say traits, do you mean alleles?

Alleles would be part of the process, leading to new traits, would they not?

I always enjoy conversing with you, you bring a new perspective to almost every topic.

I'm still looking for somebody to tackle this question. Thus far, there has been denial of mutations adding up, and tons of red herrings. I clearly defined the parameters in the OP. If you don't like the parameters I set, you either can try to prove them wrong, or you have the option of not responding. I'm looking for folks that can answer the question, not people who can't.

originally posted by: Barcs
I am looking for a well reasoned, evidence based answer

Why do the changes stop adding up past a certain point?

This basic point needs to be addressed. Every time I bring it up, it gets dodged and the subject gets changed.

Funny how even in a thread about this exact question the same thing happens.

If you think macro evolution utilizes a different mechanism than micro evolution, then it is on you to define and prove this mechanism. Remember, no assumptions, no denial. I'm looking for a logical argument based on evidence or facts.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change

If you wish to claim this is wrong, then you must find a scientific source that conflicts with this. Biased creationist sites will not be accepted, as we are looking for science only.

If this can happen under direct observation in a lab, then why would these changes not continue to add up over millions of generations leading to much greater diversity amongst the species?

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

If you are not answering the primary question in this thread about mutations adding up, then you should not respond.

I'm trying to be respectful and fair to everybody's opinions, but in reality very few have even attempted to answer the question and none have actually been well reasoned and backed by evidence to conflict with speciation.

originally posted by: Barcs
Of course, it always goes back to atheism and god for you guys. This is a science topic Can't you just address the topic of the thread instead of dodging it and posting red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic? I haven't discussed or brought up religion or god once in this thread. If you can't answer the question, then you are wasting space in my thread and you should definitely be calling it day using arguments as poor as "can you throw a rock to the moon?", because that totally undermines the idea of genetic mutations adding up over time. Quote mines are also irrelevant in this discussion. Address the topic or kindly leave.

The quoted stuff is very relevant, not off-topic. The part about God is actually indeed irrelevant and the smallest part of all the quotes. There's a reason there are bolded parts in it. I left more text in for people to see the context to rule out quote mining. The red herring is on you, because rather than trying to understand everything that was said, you focus on the last sentence in order to dismiss everything.

But yeah. We all already know that the answer you want to hear is; "We don't have anything that can possibly show that the changes do not add up over time to create genus, family or species". So there. In fact, I'll raise it. I'll say that not only 'us', but no person that ever existed nor ever will exist, nor any supercomputer that will be created nor any AI from now till the end of time, will be able to show why the process does not continue for trillions of generations. That's my answer. Are you happy now?

The ones that are aware will see the truth. The ones who are not, well, I leave them in their delusions and give them what they want.

a reply to: Barcs

That would be a good point if everything went extinct, but life on this planet today says otherwise.

Almost everything has gone extinct.

That is outside intelligent interference,

Ill take that as a compliment.

In all seriousness, the idea of kicking the bucket was to analogize extinction, not any sort of intelligent interference….

and even with that, the rain will accumulate in other places in the same manner, whether you kicked my bucket over or not. You kicking the bucket over could also be considered natural selection, as it renders the bucket's ability to gather water useless. But what about the other buckets out there that you have not kicked over?

I will get in my truck and run them all over. Mass extinction event.
Either way, I think you may be confounding natural selection with genetic drift/extinction.

I'm referring to natural processes and the concept of accumulation. You will not have a genetic mutation that ever "empties the bucket" and clears all the past history of changes, without killing off the creature.

Not talking about mutations “emptying the bucket”. I’m talking about extinction “emptying the bucket”. It’s happened 99.9% of the time. That’s a lot of buckets.

How does MES ignore epigenetics? It is part of the environmental influence on evolution. The environment affects everything. How is it not part of natural selection?

Has MES been extended to include epigenetic factors? "Environment" is not an answer. DNA methylation? Histone modification? Non-coding RNA? Are these part of the MES now? Let's see what wiki says:
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

#4 seems relevant to your OP, although I don't see anything about non-mendelian factors, developmental biology nor the role of the micro-biome either. Why?

Do you know the proportion of the genome that is heritable due to epigenetic or other non-mendelian factors vs genetic mutation?

if you disagree with that reference about micro and macro evolution then provide a scientific source that conflicts with it or suggests otherwise. Did you read each part of that section on the site or did you just look at the picture and then leave?

Believe me, I've been through a large part of that site. It comes off as lazy in the way it explains evolution.
Take this from your linked page in the OP (bold mine):

Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

"The gene for dark wings". What a load of malarkey. At best this is improper use of terms, at worst it’s genetic determinism. This type of “teaching” only obfuscates by contributing to some of the common misconceptions about genetics . It's a shame really, since googling evolution brings up that site as #1 and many folks will read this stuff.

If the small changes can be directly observed, then who is to say that they can't add up to eventually change the genus classification?

And who is to say they can (without some faith)?

It seems that the folks that accept micro evolution as fact can't seem to answer the question in this thread.

As the lovely Ms Vito says in one of my favorite movies "No one can answer that question. It's a bullS##t question."

Are you asking it because you actually think there's an answer that would satisfy you? If there is an answer out there, then what do you think it is?

My feeling is, you are only asking this question to call out those who have, in your eyes, misconstrued the relationship between micro and macro evolution. Should it necessarily follow that if something happens on a small scale, it must happen the same way on a large scale?

Common bones, and features are what take the faith part away, but again, this is avoiding my question. We see the common features in fossils to give us an idea of how long certain changes took,

So you buy that particular story of the whale then? Hook line and sinker? Are you sure you watched it?

When you compare 100 generations of changes to 1 million generations of changes, that is WAY more mutations, and WAY more speciation events, hence more time for different features to emerge that make the organism genetically different enough to change the genus we classify it in.

Really? 1,000,000 is way more than 100? Ok, so we’re back to the question of mutation rates, the types of mutations, their potential affects and so forth. Is it the rule that millions of mutations necessarily must lead to a whole new genus? I don’t think so.

What of the recent discovery of the sulfur cycling micro flora that, according to this study, shows no evolution in 2.3 billion years? That's a whole lotta time. Think there were some mutations? The quick/easy/lazy explanation is that these lucky little guys had no reason to evolve because of lack of pressure to do so. Darwin was right! IOW, stasis due to stable environment. But stable for 2.3 billions years? I have some questions about this given some of the specifics of the paper. What are your thoughts? (you can download it for free from that site)

Straw man? Where did I manufacture a false definition or explanation of a phenomena to suggest that the phenomena was wrong? I'm merely asking why genetic changes would stop doing what they've been proven to do, which is add up over time.

But I don't think you actually believe there's an acceptable answer.

Alleles would be part of the process, leading to new traits, would they not?

Yes, alleles are the part of the process that encompasses evolutionary theory, as spelled out in the current literature. They are different from traits. Which is why asked. Dominant vs recessive alleles, but no clear understanding of what causes this from what I can tell. Although there are some ideas.

I always enjoy conversing with you, you bring a new perspective to almost every topic.

TY

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You said: "My feeling is, you are only asking this question to call out those who have, in your eyes, misconstrued the relationship between micro and macro evolution. Should it necessarily follow that if something happens on a small scale, it must happen the same way on a large scale?"

Aren't the fundamental genetic mechanics the same? It's the same genome, the same code and regulatory mechanisms that govern the organism's outcome. I'm not a molecular biologist, so terminology may be incorrect - but it seems to me that the "flow chart" of evolution doesn't distinguish between micro and macro.