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

a reply to: Astyanax

The horizontally transferred genes come from other organisms in the environment. The original organism is attacked by bacteria. The restriction enzymes in that bacteria break the DNA into segments, particularly likely at cell division/DNA replication/PCR. The fragments are then the up taken by the bacteria (more likely under high heat stress as may be expected in the case of an organism fighting a bacterial infection).

In the target organism a simultaneous viral and bacterial infection (with the bacteria containing the DNA fragment from the source organism) where the bacteria infecting the cell is itself compromised virally, as well as the organism's cell also attacked by the virus, the DNA fragment gets passed into the genome of the target, again most likely during DNA replication.

It is acknowledged that a significant portion of our DNA is viral. The proof that this happens is there in our DNA.

It is the same thing we do in the lab when we manipulate genes.

The modified genes are spread if they are heritable.

originally posted by: amazing
And one step further...

If not the theory of Evolution, then what is the competing theory.

If evolution is the best we have...even with holes or questions, then we have to go with it unless there is a better theory.

No creationist will ever tell you the competing theory. Ever.

Let's revert back 200 years...

If not slavery, then what is the competing food production method?

If slavery is the best we have...even with holes or questions, then we have to go with it unless there is a better method.

No freedom fighter will ever tell you the competing method. Ever.


These arguments need to just stop.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: chr0naut

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

The ball of ignorance in which it resides grows smaller by the day....

Yeah, OK, you go off and play with your ball.

a reply to: jabrsa

Borntowatch did not address the topic of this thread, he just flat out denied it. In the OP I asked a specific question. He did not answer it, and neither did you. That's a simple fact, it's not me being intolerant. If you'd like to discuss other aspects of evolution, creationism, or quantum theory, there are plenty of other threads that are more general. This is a specific thread about genetic mutations and speciation.

I would have to concur with jabrsa, you ask a believer in the Evolutionary theory to provide evidence and they get hyper intolerant and insulting. It would be amusing if it wasn't so common and widespread

modern evolutionary theory is absolutely a faith based belief system. Claiming that it has been shown to be plausible through lab experiments is laughable. Either you don't understand the scope of the experiments that have been run, or you don't understand the difficulty of the process which evolution claims to have occurred.


Let me give you a very easy to understand analogy of what I see when I look at the meager and pitiful "scientific evidence" for Evolutionary theory. It would be something like telling someone that you can make 1 million full court shots on a basketball court in a row... without missing. Then when I ask you to prove it, running out on the court, missing the first 3 or 4 hundred shots in a row before getting incredibly lucky and making 1, then stopping and saying that you have proven your claim possible and even likely.

Actually that isn't even fair, the mathematical probability is far more daunting for evolutionary theory then it is for my analogy.

Somehow in our society the cocky and ignorant basketball player would be looked at as a moron. The cocky and ignorant evolutionist is held up in a special place where he gets to criticize anyone who doesn't think as he does, while remaining immune to explaining how his own theories get to magically violate numerous well established scientific norms.

I would challenge your thought process, but something tells me you are sorely insufficient and unwilling to meet the challenge.

Soul

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Barcs

Why is it so difficult to understand that evolution is a response, not a force?

Evolution isn't a force that requires species to change. Species change in response to environment. Epigenetic markers are responsible for short term change (one generation to the next....like response to overpopulation, for example). Genetic markers, the actual genes, are responsible for long term changes, the things that actually define a species.

Evolution can stop in any species, so long as the environment it is in does not induce change. And then some environmental pressures can create dramatic changes. The dinosaur that first gained winged flight....opened up a whole new world of possibilities for genetic expression. The first animal that could survive on land...created an explosion of genetic diversity for the same reason.

To sum it up: evolution is not a force. It is a response. That is why the thesis of the OP is flawed.

I did not refer to evolution as a force or a response. Evolution is very specific and I defined it clearly as genetic mutations and natural selection. That doesn't go against epigenetics. The environment can indeed cause genetic mutations, I never denied that. You may want to read the OP again, because I clearly asked about genetic mutations and speciation. Evolution does seem to stop when species are well adapted to their environment, yes, but the genetic mutations do not stop. They happen every generation at conception. If you are arguing that they do not, I must ask for a reference to the genomes that exhibit no mutations from parent to offspring, because that would be revolutionary.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: jabrsa

Borntowatch did not address the topic of this thread, he just flat out denied it. In the OP I asked a specific question. He did not answer it, and neither did you. That's a simple fact, it's not me being intolerant. If you'd like to discuss other aspects of evolution, creationism, or quantum theory, there are plenty of other threads that are more general. This is a specific thread about genetic mutations and speciation.

I disagree, in your OP you state that speciation has been observed and you use that as an example to prove your point, it is totally normal in a discussion for someone to ask you specifics about your statement in the OP and once you answer the conversation can flow.
I did reply to you OP and I asked if perhaps you can explain why you think that changes do add up and create new species, new organs etc. Once I understand your point of view I can better join into the conversation...but you are not interested.
I believe the onus is on evolutionists to explain themselves, which they never do.
You believe that because speciation has been observed that this means that changes add up to bigger changes, what is wrong if someone asks you to elaborate?
You don't want to elaborate because you want to turn this thread for the purpose of ridiculing the religious folk, you are not interested in a conversation...and that my friend is typical of evolutionists.
If you want answers now then elaborate so we can give answers, I am not going to read up on 50 years of research in a day am I?
You mentioned speciation and you were asked to elaborate but chose to become abusive instead.
I have no problem with evolution and have tried to dig deep to find real evidence but I have come up with very, very little.
Just my two cents.

originally posted by: SoulReaper
I would have to concur with jabrsa, you ask a believer in the Evolutionary theory to provide evidence and they get hyper intolerant and insulting. It would be amusing if it wasn't so common and widespread

Completely false. If you are suggesting this, you don't read this section very often because evidence has been provide to folks ad nauseam. This thread was about a very specific question, in fact I consider it THE question, because every time it is posed, it is dodged. It is specifically in reference to the folks that claim they believe micro evolution but not macro evolution. If that is not your viewpoint, and you do not wish to answer the question, then you are being off topic. Sorry!

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?

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

I'll go with my car analogy again that I used in a different thread. It doesn't get simpler than this.

If a car can accelerate to 60 mph within 3 seconds, why can't it keep accelerating until it reaches the speed of light? Why does the acceleration stop past a certain point?

You believe that because speciation has been observed that this means that changes add up to bigger changes, what is wrong if someone asks you to elaborate?

There is nothing to elaborate on. I am asking why the changes would NOT add up. That is the question at hand. What would cause them to stop? Has this ever been observed? I'm asking for the deniers to elaborate on this but all they can do is dodge the question and change the subject. This is why I issued the challenge. If you can't explain it, then that's the way it is. I'm looking for somebody that can.

originally posted by: vasaga

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?

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

I'll go with my car analogy again that I used in a different thread. It doesn't get simpler than this.

If a car can accelerate to 60 mph within 3 seconds, why can't it keep accelerating until it reaches the speed of light? Why does the acceleration stop past a certain point?

Basically this is what I was saying, explain why you think that it does first and then people can tell if they think its valid and if not why.
I only see evolutionists dodging answers to be honest and this comes from someone that is completely open to the discussion, but I always fail to get answers.
Also another poster mentioned the fact that eventually the new species would not be able to reproduce and I have not seen an adequate response.
When a baby is born and it is fully a new species who will it reproduce with?
Will this baby have another baby somewhere in its community with the same mutation that will enable it to reproduce?
How does the switch from one species to another happen, ie only one baby is a new species or more than one so that they can reproduce?
Also, if mutations only happen when there is a need and stop if there is no need is this a genuine example of evolution as is described by evolutionists?

originally posted by: vasaga

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?

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

I'll go with my car analogy again that I used in a different thread. It doesn't get simpler than this.

If a car can accelerate to 60 mph within 3 seconds, why can't it keep accelerating until it reaches the speed of light? Why does the acceleration stop past a certain point?

It's about accumulation, not acceleration, which makes your entire analogy is invalid . The mutations are observable. If you deny this, then link me your study that shows a genome comparison where no mutations happened from parent to off spring.

Or maybe answer the question in the OP instead of dodging it with invalid analogies. Thanks.

originally posted by: Barcs

You believe that because speciation has been observed that this means that changes add up to bigger changes, what is wrong if someone asks you to elaborate?

There is nothing to elaborate on. I am asking why the changes would NOT add up. That is the question at hand. What would cause them to stop? Has this ever been observed? I'm asking for the deniers to elaborate on this but all they can do is dodge the question and change the subject. This is why I issued the challenge. If you can't explain it, then that's the way it is. I'm looking for somebody that
can.

Exactly, you issued the challenge but refuse to engage in a conversation that will enable anyone to challenge you.
Why should I think that small changes create a new species?
What data do you have to back this up?
What problem have you got with having a conversation about this?
If you knew why YOU think that this actually happens you would have no problem explaining it to us all and challenging our beliefs but you fail to explain why it should even happen in the first place!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga

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?

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

I'll go with my car analogy again that I used in a different thread. It doesn't get simpler than this.

If a car can accelerate to 60 mph within 3 seconds, why can't it keep accelerating until it reaches the speed of light? Why does the acceleration stop past a certain point?

It's about accumulation, not acceleration, which makes your entire analogy is invalid . The mutations are observable. If you deny this, then link me your study that shows a genome comparison where no mutations happened from parent to off spring.

Or maybe answer the question in the OP instead of dodging it with invalid analogies. Thanks.

No OP, you don't understand what this analogy actually means.
He is asking you why do YOU think it would do such a think just like he would ask someone why they think a car would accelerate indefinitely.
I explained to you that I don't believe that the thickening of a cell that makes a bacteria resistant to antibiotics is not in my opinion an example of evolution. The thickening could happen for many reasons.
So, again, why do YOU think that it should happen?

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

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.

I'm trying to understand what you are describing here. Remember, the mutation rate and the rate of evolutionary change are not the same thing. Extinction level events are sudden, so when something drastic happens, like an asteroid or comet hitting the earth, a large portion of organisms die out, and the ones that had accumulated the best mutations over time for that circumstance become the survivors and pioneers for the new world. This would seem like a sudden change, however the mutations had already been happening for millions of years, they just were not dominant until NS wipes out the others.

That's why I said that natural selection was a bigger factor in the rate of change. Mutations can happen until the cows come home, but if the environment doesn't change, the creatures won't aside from genetic drift.

Speaking of that, I think we are slightly drifting away from the question I posed in the original post, which is why the mutations stop adding up after a certain point (according to deniers).

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.

Can you give me some examples of the species you are talking about? The mutation rates do vary from species to species, but you seem to be also saying "rate of change." Which one are you referring to? They are both different. I am really referring to speciation events in populations here, not individuals. If hundreds to thousands of mutations can add up to such an event, why would they stop afterwards, or not add up any further to increase the diversity from the original? That's the heart of the matter, here.

The European Peppered Moth, annual life cycle, phylum Lepidoptera, one heritable (non-speciating) change expected once every 300-600 generations. Two (biologist confirmed) speciation changes observed over 200 years. That's one change per 100 generations observed, compared to one change per 300-600 generations calculated.

Mutations Effect on the Genetic constitution of a population - Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology

Similar problems observed in Drosophila Flies, Yeasts, Vinyl eating Bacteria & etc.

Observed time-frames are shorter in all cases.

I'm going to say this one final time. The question in the OP, is specific and clearly defined. It is for the folks that say they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. If you deny micro evolution and genetic mutations, you are in the wrong place. If you wish to discuss the emergence of complex organs and other aspects of evolution, then please create a thread or use one of the existing threads. Many of them are much more general. This thread is specific and refers to genetic mutations, speciation and the accumulation of changes over time. I issued this challenge because every time it is brought up in a thread, the deniers dodge it, ignore it, or change the subject. Thus far that is precisely what has happened. Don't get me wrong, there have been a few thought provoking responses, they just haven't really addressed the topic. The parameters for the question were clearly defined, and people still will not answer the question. It seems like Chr0naut is the only one attempting to answer it.

a reply to: chr0naut

So according to you, if I take the source code for two completely different computer programs, break bits and pieces out of one and randomly insert them into the other.... I can expect that my computer program will remain functional?.... beyond that, what your telling me is that it can actually be expected to improve its functions or develop brand new functions that seamlessly integrate into the existing program? Do you understand how unlikely it would be for random jumbled biological information to ever self organize into useful and functional source code for a precision built biological organism?

Of course this is presuming the source code for both programs already magically appeared from other random processes.

You would have better luck getting me to believe that a tornado could rumble through a junk yard and in its wake leave a perfectly assembled and functional nuclear power plant.

I look at the world with my eyes wide open, not half closed. If you can present reasonable proposals, I'm all ears.

I have much more respect for those who acknowledge the truth, the more we learn, the less we know. We are primitive even now in our ability to observe what is really going on at the subatomic level. Much less understand what we are looking at.

Evolutionists are old news, they are well behind the curve of scientific advancement. Quantum physics is beginning to posit theories that the visible world is being manifested out from an invisible reality beneath the fabric of space and time which remains beyond our ability to measure or even begin to properly comprehend.

We are being carried along on this spinning rock in the middle of a vast universe, largely ignorant regarding the forces which provide the foundations for our existence.

100 years from now, people will look back on this generation and scoff at the nonsense it promoted. The wise among them will acknowledge even then what we should today, that we are barely able to perceive and grasp at the world around us.


Surely we will advance in our techniques and increase our knowledge base, but we will still just be scratching the surface.

Soul

originally posted by: Barcs
I'm going to say this one final time. The question in the OP, is specific and clearly defined. It is for the folks that say they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. If you deny micro evolution and genetic mutations, you are in the wrong place. If you wish to discuss the emergence of complex organs and other aspects of evolution, then please create a thread or use one of the existing threads. Many of them are much more general. This thread is specific and refers to genetic mutations, speciation and the accumulation of changes over time. I issued this challenge because every time it is brought up in a thread, the deniers dodge it, ignore it, or change the subject. Thus far that is precisely what has happened. Don't get me wrong, there have been a few thought provoking responses, they just haven't really addressed the topic. The parameters for the question were clearly defined, and people still will not answer the question. It seems like Chr0naut is the only one attempting to answer it.

Sorry but the OP wants to know why small changes don't add up to become organs and new species so if that is what the OP wants to discuss I have every right to want to discuss the same matters as the OP and not be kicked out of the thread.
I have not derailed the thread in any way, infact those that did derail the thread get some answers those that want to engage in relevant conversation don't get answers...stop being petty and engage in conversation that is relevant and on topic and yes a conversation on a forum implies answering quastions about matters mentioned in the OP which is exactly what is going on here...!

originally posted by: Barcs
It's about accumulation, not acceleration, which makes your entire analogy is invalid .

That's nonsense. It's an analogy for a reason. If you can get to X amount of miles in Y amount of time, it's the equivalent of getting X amount of mutations in Y amount of time. You can argue that if Y increases enough, you can reach a certain target. That is valid for both cases. If you don't think the analogy is valid, I have no choice but to conclude that you don't actually have reasoning skills.

originally posted by: Barcs
The mutations are observable.

So is the car's acceleration.

originally posted by: Barcs
If you deny this,

I'm not denying anything. You're refusing to acknowledge a problem because it doesn't suit your agenda.

originally posted by: Barcs
Or maybe answer the question in the OP instead of dodging it with invalid analogies. Thanks.

The question was answered. That you're too pigheaded to see it is not my problem.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Astyanax

The reason I am saying that the mechanism/s described in modern evolutionary theory don't work is that the numbers don't add up. The equations don't balance. There is something we are missing.

May I please request a reference to these equations?

This means that the speciating step can be down to a single mutation. I doesn't have to happen as a stack of gradual changes as this is the less likely path.

It starts with a single mutation, but it's never just 1 mutation, and it's never in 1 single individual. Speciation is generally a combination of numerous mutations. Many remain neutral until combined with others. Speciation boils down to a noticeable trait becoming dominant.

at some stage the accumulated changes still reach a 'tipping point' and that individual with that final mutation cannot breed with any of its 'peers'.

When a species "tips the balance" it is in reference to breeding with the original species, not the other individuals in the same group. You don't suddenly have one animal that can no longer reproduce with everyone else around him because there isn't as much difference between him and the others. If that were to happen, the individual would die. The difference is between him and his ancestors from thousands of generations ago. You seem to be confusing mutations in individuals with speciation events that affect entire populations.

As the others "in its own group" do not have the speciating change the mutant cannot breed with them.

The group is made up of individuals. You cannot suggest changes coming into a group except through it members as individuals.

As to your request for mutation rates calculations, I have just replied to Barcs with a link that may clarify things.