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

originally posted by: chr0naut
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 wouldn't say that exactly. Punctuated equilibrium is part of evolution, and natural selection accounts more for the rate of change, than genetic mutations do. There really is no set rate of change for evolution. I was strictly talking about the mutations adding up, as one would logically expect based on what we have already observed. Remember, if the environment doesn't significantly change, an organism that is already well adapted could stay almost identical for millions of years. They will still experience mutations, but they will likely remain neutral or die as a result.

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.

You are correct. I have no problem with the idea of god using evolution as a tool or method of creation. It's just the idea that so many people are claiming macro evolution is pure faith when it is nothing more than micro evolutionary changes on a large time scale. I was really trying to see if there is a logical argument to suggest why mutations can add up enough to change a species (as has been observed), but not a genus or family given thousands of these speciation changes.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
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 wouldn't say that exactly. Punctuated equilibrium is part of evolution, and natural selection accounts more for the rate of change, than genetic mutations do. There really is no set rate of change for evolution. I was strictly talking about the mutations adding up, as one would logically expect based on what we have already observed. Remember, if the environment doesn't significantly change, an organism that is already well adapted could stay almost identical for millions of years. They will still experience mutations, but they will likely remain neutral or die as a result.

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.

You are correct. I have no problem with the idea of god using evolution as a tool or method of creation. It's just the idea that so many people are claiming macro evolution is pure faith when it is nothing more than micro evolutionary changes on a large time scale. I was really trying to see if there is a logical argument to suggest why mutations can add up enough to change a species (as has been observed), but not a genus or family given thousands of these speciation changes.

As I have posted previously, in every case I have looked at, where genetic change has been observed, the rate of change observed exceeds those expected from known mutation rates (they changed faster than expected). Either there is something else going on or many are falsifying data.

I won't link to each case or to databases of mutation rates or even to the equations for calculating expected change. I have done that before, its a lot of work and people tend to just shrug it off.

If my statement motivates you sufficiently, go and find out for yourself.

originally posted by: chr0naut


As I have posted previously, in every case I have looked at, where genetic change has been observed, the rate of change observed exceeds those expected from known mutation rates (they changed faster than expected). Either there is something else going on or many are falsifying data.

Isn't it contradictory to say "in every case I have looked at, genetic change has exceeded known mutation rates"??

If the mutations are happening at a given rate, then that is the observation. If all experiments produce a rate that exceeds "known mutation rates," then what are the "known mutation rates" based on?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: chr0naut


As I have posted previously, in every case I have looked at, where genetic change has been observed, the rate of change observed exceeds those expected from known mutation rates (they changed faster than expected). Either there is something else going on or many are falsifying data.

Isn't it contradictory to say "in every case I have looked at, genetic change has exceeded known mutation rates"??

If the mutations are happening at a given rate, then that is the observation. If all experiments produce a rate that exceeds "known mutation rates," then what are the "known mutation rates" based on?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Known mutation rates are based upon individual genetic changes in DNA under controlled conditions and are a chemical or molecular assay.

Changes observed by evolutionists are in terms of whole cells at the bottom end of the spectrum and entire colonies at the top.

As you surmise, the numbers should be the same, verifying that our theories as to process are correct.

The genome is just like a computer code - its construction and functionality mimics a computer program almost to a "T".

A computer programmer who is also a molecular biologist wrote this up. Anyone who has ever programmed will recognize the similarities.

So in answer to Barcs' question, which is a very good question, DNA has it's own cleanup tools - just like a Norton or MacAfee. Why are there junk genes then? Some junk genes have been shown to interact thermodynamically - that is to say, their electronic configuration contributes to structural stability (like the helix). Other junk genes have been identified as pre-processors - they code, but don't express, for a particular protein or compound.

I know the next question from some Creationist will be "Well, someone had to write the code". Not necessarily. Because it has also been demonstrated that DNA can self assemble from nucleic acids and create its own original code.
_________________________________________________________________________

DNA seen through the eyes of a coder

or

If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail

DNA is not like C source but more like byte-compiled code for a virtual machine called 'the nucleus'. It is very doubtful that there is a source to this byte compilation - what you see is all you get.

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, a DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256.

The genome is littered with old copies of genes and experiments that went wrong somewhere in the recent past - say, the last half a million years. This code is there but inactive. These are called the 'pseudo genes'.

Furthermore, 97% of your DNA is commented out. DNA is linear and read from start to end. The parts that should not be decoded are marked very clearly, much like C comments. The 3% that is used directly from the so called 'exons'. The comments, that come 'inbetween' are called 'introns'.

These comments are fascinating in their own right. Like C comments they have a start marker, like /*, and a stop marker, like */. But they have some more structure. Remember that DNA is like a tape - the comments need to be snipped out physically! The start of a comment is almost always indicated by the letters 'GT', which thus corresponds to /*, the end is signalled by 'AG', which is then like */.

However because of the snipping, some glue is needed to connect the code before the comment to the code after, which makes the comments more like html comments, which are longer: '' the end. (There's an actual code here but it won't print - maybe interferes with ATS code)

Similar Attributes:

Position Independent Code

Conditional compilation

Runtime binary patching

Dead code, bloat, comments ('junk dna')

fork() and fork bombs ('tumors') (UNIX)

Mirroring, failover

Cluttered APIs, dependency hell

Viruses, worms (9% of human genome is made up of viruses)

Binary patching aka 'Gene therapy'

Bug Regression

Reed-Solomon codes: 'Forward Error Correction'

Framing errors: start and stop bits

Massive multiprocessing: each cell is a universe

Self hosting & bootstrapping

Makefile-The fruitfly and human genomes did not branch just millions of years ago but hundreds of millions of years ago. And you can copy paste parts ('Selectors' in the genetic language) of the Makefile and it still clicks. Please note that the 'build a leg' routine in a fruitfly is of course radically different from that in a mouse, but the 'selector' correctly triggers the right instructions.
_________________________________________________________

Here's a link to the actual source code for the human genome:
ftp.ensembl.org...

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

Simpl answer is the models do not account for the will to be ones one self.

P.S. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution - it's all regulated by the same code inherent in the genome of the organism. It's only a question of scale. What happens small, happens big - and vice versa.

originally posted by: Answer
Great, another person who likes to use the "it's only a theory" line.

You know how some forums have swear filters? Like, if I were to type the word "sh#t" it would autocorrect to something like "poop"? Wouldn't it be hilarious if a swear filter was put in place to autocorrect the phrase "only a theory" to "only a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation"?

a reply to: deadeyedick

I'll take "completely off-topic pseudo-intellectual bullcrap" for $500, Alex.

a reply to: GetHyped

I would be happy if it simply auto corrected to.

It is only a scientific theory.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah, I feel you, but I like to think in for a penny, in for a pound.

"But dude, it's only a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation!"

I can't help but notice we're on page 2 already, and we've not had any resident Creationists fully address the points in the OP.

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

Based on scientific experiments, evolution (speciation) can be observed in multiple species over dozens to hundreds of generations. 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?

So you want us to explain why something that doesnt happen doesnt happen.
This is unreasoned rubbish.

You are suppose to establish a set of facts and then allow others to have an opportunity to test those facts. You havnt established the facts yet, where is speciation observed.?. You say it has but that is your assumption, shouldnt that comment be tested

Start at that one single point, where is speciation observed. See as I understand it speciation is at the very least debatable.
What you are calling speciation may well be a scientific term arrived at by biologists but it does not represent new information arising in the DNA
I need to see new information being added to DNA before I can accept that species can change

So Barcs, please.

Oh and one more thing, need to see new code being added not altered with existing code or rejected. See to evolve new code needs to be added, old code being reused, dropping off. Remember DNA is a closed system, new code must be shown to arise.

You are all of the same mindset, we are right, well prove you are right. Explain your belief with evidence.
In your own words with a few references, dont use other peoples words and dont use links as your answer. By all means use links to support your answer but dont use a link as an answer.
There are a hundred fundy evolutionists who link hundreds of pages and I dont have the time.
Make your statement and then reference it.

Surely if you have evolved a bit of common sense its not hard to work out why I ask this

originally posted by: Phantom423
The genome is just like a computer code - its construction and functionality mimics a computer program almost to a "T".

A computer programmer who is also a molecular biologist wrote this up. Anyone who has ever programmed will recognize the similarities.

So in answer to Barcs' question, which is a very good question, DNA has it's own cleanup tools - just like a Norton or MacAfee. Why are there junk genes then? Some junk genes have been shown to interact thermodynamically - that is to say, their electronic configuration contributes to structural stability (like the helix). Other junk genes have been identified as pre-processors - they code, but don't express, for a particular protein or compound.

I know the next question from some Creationist will be "Well, someone had to write the code". Not necessarily. Because it has also been demonstrated that DNA can self assemble from nucleic acids and create its own original code.
_________________________________________________________________________

DNA seen through the eyes of a coder

or

If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail

DNA is not like C source but more like byte-compiled code for a virtual machine called 'the nucleus'. It is very doubtful that there is a source to this byte compilation - what you see is all you get.

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, a DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256.

The genome is littered with old copies of genes and experiments that went wrong somewhere in the recent past - say, the last half a million years. This code is there but inactive. These are called the 'pseudo genes'.

Furthermore, 97% of your DNA is commented out. DNA is linear and read from start to end. The parts that should not be decoded are marked very clearly, much like C comments. The 3% that is used directly from the so called 'exons'. The comments, that come 'inbetween' are called 'introns'.

These comments are fascinating in their own right. Like C comments they have a start marker, like /*, and a stop marker, like */. But they have some more structure. Remember that DNA is like a tape - the comments need to be snipped out physically! The start of a comment is almost always indicated by the letters 'GT', which thus corresponds to /*, the end is signalled by 'AG', which is then like */.

However because of the snipping, some glue is needed to connect the code before the comment to the code after, which makes the comments more like html comments, which are longer: '' the end. (There's an actual code here but it won't print - maybe interferes with ATS code)

Similar Attributes:

Position Independent Code

Conditional compilation

Runtime binary patching

Dead code, bloat, comments ('junk dna')

fork() and fork bombs ('tumors') (UNIX)

Mirroring, failover

Cluttered APIs, dependency hell

Viruses, worms (9% of human genome is made up of viruses)

Binary patching aka 'Gene therapy'

Bug Regression

Reed-Solomon codes: 'Forward Error Correction'

Framing errors: start and stop bits

Massive multiprocessing: each cell is a universe

Self hosting & bootstrapping

Makefile-The fruitfly and human genomes did not branch just millions of years ago but hundreds of millions of years ago. And you can copy paste parts ('Selectors' in the genetic language) of the Makefile and it still clicks. Please note that the 'build a leg' routine in a fruitfly is of course radically different from that in a mouse, but the 'selector' correctly triggers the right instructions.
_________________________________________________________

Here's a link to the actual source code for the human genome:
ftp.ensembl.org...

Thank you for that post!

(Although, the final link is failing the FTP transfer with a 550, for me. Is it truncated?).

originally posted by: borntowatchSo you want us to explain why something that doesnt happen doesnt happen.
This is unreasoned rubbish.

Going to just start right here. The rest of your post is for later.

Two questions, since you have "successfully" evaded the OP's question by pretending it is built on a false premise:

1. Do you acknowledge that mutations and genetic changes occur in living things? I.E. a spontaneous change in genetic code that is NOT the direct inheritance of genes from the parents.

2. If you do acknowledge that random mutations occur, why is it outside the realm of the possible that given enough time and enough mutations, a genetic line may be radically different from its distant forebear?

This is the simplest form of the OP's question I can put together without having to jump through a bunch of hoops for you.

a reply to: chr0naut

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.

In no process of speciation does there come a point where a single mutant cannot breed with other members of its generation, or the generations immediately preceding. Each generation is the same species as its predecessor, always.

But if you were to take individuals from a much earlier generation and try to breed them with later ones, you would have a problem. That is how speciation works.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

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.

In no process of speciation does there come a point where a single mutant cannot breed with other members of its generation, or the generations immediately preceding. Each generation is the same species as its predecessor, always.

But if you were to take individuals from a much earlier generation and try to breed them with later ones, you would have a problem. That is how speciation works.

Please think about that logically in the mechanics of genetic change. Take some time over it. Perhaps diagram out how a population gets to the point where it can no longer breed with its ancestors (a giant tree diagram of inheritance). I think you have avoided the conundrum by ignoring it.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I am saying that the mechanism by which it happens must be different than modern evolutionary theories propose.

We have gone through this before, you & I, but it appears either that I am blinded to the truth or that you have not thought it through sufficiently.

I have previously suggested horizontal gene transfer as one solution to the various evolutionary conundrums and I get back a "yeah, but that's part of modern evolutionary theory" when it isn't, really.

Horizontal gene transfer happens, uses entirely natural methods, can be repeated in the lab, is really easy to do, has been observed, takes minutes or seconds, makes rational sense and is most probably the primary way genetic change occurs in nature.

In light of that, genetic mutation and genetic drift are secondary in the priority of things. Yet to suggest it is the number one mechanism in evolution is heresy against the Great Darwin (long may his beard be bushy).

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

Two questions, since you have "successfully" evaded the OP's question by pretending it is built on a false premise:

1. Do you acknowledge that mutations and genetic changes occur in living things? I.E. a spontaneous change in genetic code that is NOT the direct inheritance of genes from the parents.

2. If you do acknowledge that random mutations occur, why is it outside the realm of the possible that given enough time and enough mutations, a genetic line may be radically different from its distant forebear?

This is the simplest form of the OP's question I can put together without having to jump through a bunch of hoops for you.

So you want me to accept science based on your assumptions.
Thats a little stretch for a evolutionist who isnt religious, are you?

The burden of proof is not upon me. I am asking a question to answer a question. I need to first understand and clarify the question before I can answer it.

Your two questions leave me with further questions but for the sake of time and relevance and it not being your thread I will deal with the original issue

Pretending? No its not pretending, it needs to be established as a fact first, its an indication of your fundamentalism for you to say pretending. Its quite frightening you would deny me a question. Should I have faith in your beliefs, blind faith in scientists or should I ask questions?

This leaves me another question, why didnt you answer my question. Couldnt?
Why even get involved, do you want a little credit for doing nothing?

originally posted by: borntowatch
This leaves me another question, why didnt you answer my question. Couldnt?
Why even get involved, do you want a little credit for doing nothing?

Why not just say you can't or won't answer the OP's question?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: borntowatch
This leaves me another question, why didnt you answer my question. Couldnt?
Why even get involved, do you want a little credit for doing nothing?

Why not just say you can't or won't answer the OP's question?

Why not just say you can't answer my question?