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

Quote:

OP in a response above you claimed that evolution was proved to be ongoing and not dependant on environment. Now you are saying that speciation changes are determined by the environment.

You aren't paying attention. The rate of mutation is ongoing and not fully dependent on the environment. The rate of mutation is not the same as the rate of evolutionary change. I did not ever claim that evolution was not dependent on the environment, but by all means keep dragging us further and further off topic.

End quote/

OP So you are saying that the rate of evolutionary changes is dependant on the environment as it isn't the same as the mutation rate?
And what do you mean by :"not fully dependant"?
And no I am not dragging anyone off topic because the dependency on the environment completely changes everything in my opinion and needs to be considered fully if one is to accept a concept.
Because with the e . coli bacteria research that you showed me the premise around evolutionary spheres is that the environmental pressure cause the e. coli to adapt.
If environmental pressure causes positive mutations then we need a completely new theory and that would put your answer to rest, or it would me anyway.

originally posted by: jabrsa
If environmental pressure causes positive mutations then we need a completely new theory and that would put your answer to rest, or it would me anyway.

It didn't cause the positive mutations, it killed off the ones that didn't have it causing the new ones to become dominant. Mutations happen first. Selection happens 2nd. That's evolution 101, but you don't seem to understand the basics of how it works, yet you're on here trying to deny the validity of the science without providing a single reference or source. You are just posting personal opinion. This is a science thread. If you don't like that, I'm sorry, you're in the wrong place.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: jabrsa

Sorry pal, I'm done wasting time with you. My link clearly said that dogs breeds were the same subspecies, so your insistence on ignoring the facts is on you completely. Can you please form coherent paragraphs and back up your claims? Can you stop posting one liners and ignoring any and all points I make? If you have an argument and can answer my question, then be out with it. You are just plugging your ears and denying everything I say. Give me proof. I'm not going to repeat myself any longer and I will ignore any more off topic posts you make.

Deny ignorance.

I thought you might choose to not give me the detail and therefore I must assume that I am right that there is no detail and its probably completely unfeasible.
I think you need to open up to learning new things and not just ignoring people like that.
I gave you specific questions that required you to prove to me that speciation is possible but you just like to give irrelevant answers that don't address the specific question.
Basically we have proof that speciation is impossible and therefore it would be stupid for us to think that small changes add up to different species.
There you have answered your own question by refusing to give me the detail of how it might actually happen in real life.
And if you agree that dogs are not different species then how can you say that another species such as in your examples are a different species when the only characteristic that you think might prove speciation can be found also in dogs and seeing that you don't think that different dog breeds are different species then you cant assume that the E.coli or the fruit flies are different species, get it?
My paragraphs don't matter, your ignorance does.
I always knew that evolution was a badly thought out religion and your attitude proves it.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: jabrsa
If environmental pressure causes positive mutations then we need a completely new theory and that would put your answer to rest, or it would me anyway.

It didn't cause the positive mutations, it killed off the ones that didn't have it causing the new ones to become dominant. Mutations happen first. Selection happens 2nd. That's evolution 101, but you don't seem to understand the basics of how it works, yet you're on here trying to deny the validity of the science without providing a single reference or source. You are just posting personal opinion. This is a science thread. If you don't like that, I'm sorry, you're in the wrong place.

Well that's funny because an evolutionist that is studying near death experiences thinks that we somehow developed the ability to have an experience that makes us think we are dead and have gone to heaven, is that a mutation too or an example or purpose and need which you denied above, which one is it?

originally posted by: jabrsa
I thought you might choose to not give me the detail and therefore I must assume that I am right that there is no detail and its probably completely unfeasible.

I have given you tons of details, you just keep denying it and misunderstanding it. Where is your science? Where are the links that support your side?

I think you need to open up to learning new things and not just ignoring people like that.

Take a look in the mirror. You have ignored all the science I posted and referenced. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the validity of it stands, unless you can provide evidence for something different. You cannot and will not do this, so your arguments are just personal opinons.

I gave you specific questions that required you to prove to me that speciation is possible but you just like to give irrelevant answers that don't address the specific question.

I linked you to scientific experiments. You just denied them. I addressed every single irrelevant question you asked in that other post. You ignored every single counterpoint and explanation I gave. You haven't explained why they are wrong and provided any evidence for anything you have stated. You have basically refused to stay on topic and answer the question requested.

Basically we have proof that speciation is impossible and therefore it would be stupid for us to think that small changes add up to different species.

You have proof that it's impossible? Now THIS I'd love to see.

There you have answered your own question by refusing to give me the detail of how it might actually happen in real life.

You are lying again. I gave you lots of details and examples based on the real world. You denied them without counterpoints or any explanation or reference.

And if you agree that dogs are not different species then how can you say that another species such as in your examples are a different species

Because they attempted to breed them and could not! Dogs can be bred although sometimes problems or bad mutations happen and they can't.

when the only characteristic that you think might prove speciation can be found also in dogs and seeing that you don't think that different dog breeds are different species then you cant assume that the E.coli or the fruit flies are different species, get it?

If the genetics are incompatible they can't breed. This clearly happened with the fruit flies. Just because they didn't breed, doesn't mean they didn't try. You are just making things up and drawing imaginary lines. If you deny micro evolution you do not belong in this thread. You are seriously testing my patience. If your next response does not address my counterpoints or provide any references to back up anything you have stated, it will be ignored. You can't just state one liners as facts without references. Sorry. It doesn't work like that and the fact that you have been so demanding of me, yet you blindly deny everything I say, speaks volumes. Again, address the question in the OP or don't respond. Please. I'm not asking for the world. Go against the grain. Prove that you're not just a troll and post something with substance.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: jabrsa
I thought you might choose to not give me the detail and therefore I must assume that I am right that there is no detail and its probably completely unfeasible.

I have given you tons of details, you just keep denying it and misunderstanding it. Where is your science? Where are the links that support your side?

I think you need to open up to learning new things and not just ignoring people like that.

Take a look in the mirror. You have ignored all the science I posted and referenced. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the validity of it stands, unless you can provide evidence for something different. You cannot and will not do this, so your arguments are just personal opinons.

I gave you specific questions that required you to prove to me that speciation is possible but you just like to give irrelevant answers that don't address the specific question.

I linked you to scientific experiments. You just denied them. I addressed every single irrelevant question you asked in that other post. You ignored every single counterpoint and explanation I gave. You haven't explained why they are wrong and provided any evidence for anything you have stated. You have basically refused to stay on topic and answer the question requested.

Basically we have proof that speciation is impossible and therefore it would be stupid for us to think that small changes add up to different species.

You have proof that it's impossible? Now THIS I'd love to see.

There you have answered your own question by refusing to give me the detail of how it might actually happen in real life.

You are lying again. I gave you lots of details and examples based on the read world. You denied them without counterpoints or any explanation or reference.

And if you agree that dogs are not different species then how can you say that another species such as in your examples are a different species

Because they attempted to breed them and could not! Dogs can be bred although sometimes problems or bad mutations happen and they can't.

when the only characteristic that you think might prove speciation can be found also in dogs and seeing that you don't think that different dog breeds are different species then you cant assume that the E.coli or the fruit flies are different species, get it?

If the genetics are incompatible they can't breed. This clearly happened with the fruit flies. Just because they didn't breed, doesn't mean they didn't try. You are just making things up and drawing imaginary lines. If you deny micro evolution you do not belong in this thread. You are seriously testing my patience. If your next response does not address my counterpoints or provide any references to back up anything you have stated, it will be ignored. You can't just state one liners as facts without references. Sorry. It doesn't work like that and the fact that you have been so demanding of me, yet you blindly deny everything I say, speaks volumes. Again, address the question in the OP or don't respond. Please. I'm not asking for the world. Go against the grain. Prove that you're not just a troll and post something with substance.

Why don't you reference my questions in your replies and show me the answers?
Just because you say you have answered a question doesn't mean you have.

Welp, just as I predicted, not a single denier has answered my question. Each response has been a dodge or finding some way to avoid answering it via denial of science. If you are here to deny rather than formulate a logical argument then you need to find somewhere else to troll. Off topic responses will now be ignored.

These were the questions:

Where the fruit flies subjected to artificial insemination like they do with dogs?
Where they seen procreating and not being able to produce an offspring or were they simply not attracted to one another?
Does the final mutation that stops a species from breeding with another group happen in only one individual or in many at the same time?
How is the final mutation, that determines that a fruit fly can not breed with another fruit fly, get passed on to another fruit fly if only one fruit fly has that mutation?
You said that there is no need or purpose in evolution and I described the near death experience where you die and go to heaven, is that a mutation without need or purpose?
How did we develop the ability to experience heaven and death, I am talking about near death experiences?
I am drilling down into the detail and I would like a concise reply to these questions.

originally posted by: jabrsa
These were the questions:

Where the fruit flies subjected to artificial insemination like they do with dogs?
Where they seen procreating and not being able to produce an offspring or were they simply not attracted to one another?
Does the final mutation that stops a species from breeding with another group happen in only one individual or in many at the same time?
How is the final mutation, that determines that a fruit fly can not breed with another fruit fly, get passed on to another fruit fly if only one fruit fly has that mutation?
You said that there is no need or purpose in evolution and I described the near death experience where you die and go to heaven, is that a mutation without need or purpose?
How did we develop the ability to experience heaven and death, I am talking about near death experiences?
I am drilling down into the detail and I would like a concise reply to these questions.

These are just some of the reasons why I feel that I have no reason to believe that small adaptations leads to bigger adaptations, I might decide that it is more feasible to believe that there is an intelligence behind everything that can do whatever it wants and it manipulates our reality.
But I have no reason to believe in the theory of evolution based on my experiences and your no reply posts.

a reply to: Barcs

Reminds me of the rhino (forget his username) threads.

Deeply technical analysis of some aspect of modern evolutionary synthesis

Creationist response:

crickets

Reading through this thread is like reading a how to book on red herring logical fallacies.

Addressing the OP??? Nope, but there are plenty of tangents to go off on.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

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

Observed time-frames are shorter in all cases.

Sorry about the delayed response, I wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings with the OP before addressing this. This answers my question as to whether you are talking about rate of change or rate of mutation. You are talking about evolutionary speciation changes. The problem is that speciation changes are determined mostly by the environment eliminating the weaker. So unless we can predict exactly what environmental change will happen and when, it is impossible to calculate any reliable rate of change. You can calculate the rate of mutations, however, and your link refers to this, rather than speciation it seems.

As you noted previously in another post, responding to someone else, the mutation must come first, before nature can 'select' it.

The rate of gross change should not be able to outstrip the the rate of mutation. It is a lower bound that cannot be crossed.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Reading through this thread is like reading a how to book on red herring logical fallacies.

Addressing the OP??? Nope, but there are plenty of tangents to go off on.

Chill a bit.

We are all at different places in our lives. A good discussion educates and helps us sort our own priorities & opinions.

... and I could point out that mention of logical fallacies (actually fallacies in reasoning if you want to be pedantic) is entirely tangential to the OP.

So, postulate that changes occur over generations, and then suggest that the sum of all changes is equal to a new outcome. Simple math can refute such a theory, we can see the evolution of numbers over time- IV, IIII, ...., 4. But, 4 + IV still equals 8, or VIII. Math is clean, uncluttered by ideology and bias. I was driving down a familiar road the other day. I noticed that weather and the elements had changed the road significantly since I had driven it last, but I was unafraid, it still took me to the same destination.

a reply to: chr0naut

Definitely, changes to any single one of those genes confer bio-incompatibility of some type with organisms with the unaltered genes.

Why?

This means that the speciating step can be down to a single mutation.

And who will the mutant mate with in order to propagate the new species?

To have your accumulative speciation changes requires a 'tween' or link species that can breed with both the old and new species.

Why? And what would define such a species?

Regardless of the possibility of accumulated change being the way speciation occurs, 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'.

Completely wrong. This is a fantasy version of how evolution by natural selection works.

a reply to: chr0naut

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.

Show us the numbers, and why they don't add up.

a reply to: chr0naut

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).

Well done. Yes, the transferred genes are from other organisms, which need not be of the same species.

Now, when they are transferred, what determines whether they are expressed or not? If expressed, what determines whether the expression is beneficial or detrimental to the organism? And are the transferred genes not heritable?

Let's make this simple.

So you have one species,

They are in two groups, isolated geographically.

Millions of years later, these two groups of the same species changes over time to adapt to their specific environment to the point these two groups can no longer breed with the other group. Also, those two groups along the line before becoming a 'separate species' could interbreed, and the offspring over time could be considered a new species.

Evolution is a complex mechanism, and is heavily dependent on luck.

a reply to: Barcs

The difference is that they have the traits and the originals did not. As a result, their genetics become less similar and less and less compatible to breed with over time.

Alright, so what you're referring to is an actual surviving mix
of original organisms and those that received the naturally
selected change in genetic traits.

Thank you for your reply Barcs. I hesitated as per your guidelines, but I'm
sure we both know I couldn't attempt to answer your question.
But I am trying to follow along.

SnF

a reply to: GodEmperor

Yes, exactly.

I state this towards the end, but I just want to state it here again in case you don't read down that far: It's CLEAR that "Jabsra" is the same person as "borntowatch." He is trying his absolute best to derail the conversation. If only he could fully realize how lacking his basic understanding is of things that have been in high school biology textbooks for 100 years. I hate to say this, but he truly does not belong in this thread. His rhetoric about the different dog breeds alone is just some of the most head-scratching stuff I've read here in a while. I tried, but could not decipher what it was he was trying to get at.

@ Barcs: I just finished reading through this thread, every comment, start to finish. It seems as though for the most part, people get it, and are adding useful commentary. A few people have minor issues with the OPs premises, but tend to articulate their arguments in a logical and valid fashion, for the most part. I will say that the analogy to a car accelerating is a horrible example, as you mentioned barcs. We could flip the table and make a similar argument--If a car has traveled 10 miles, and continues to drive, why would it not eventually reach 1,000 miles?

Barcs, you have done a very good job so far keeping a level head and sticking to your guns, as you said you would. I suggest you continue on doing the same thing. Please try and focus the topic of conversation back to your original question, because the micro vs macro BS is just about the ONLY point you see creationists trying to argue. You have finally started a topic on this exact subject, you now you have these same creationists trying to side-step the question and ignore facts that they had previously stated (reluctantly) to be true.

It can be quite frustrating trying to argue with individuals who try to argue against evolution who have absolutely zero understanding of basic molecular and micro biology. **JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**