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

originally posted by: Astyanax
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?

The DNA segments could be a base pair or a string of genes.

For example, a blind organism could even be 'gifted' a naturally selected complete eye from another species (but this would be very rare).

Some splicings would be 'beneficial' for the recipient, most would be death - exactly like with mutations.

In fact, an observer may mistakenly attribute the death of the organism to the bacterial or viral infection going on at the time or even cancer after the fact and may miss that it is an unsuccessful, naturally administered, gene therapy.

originally posted by: vasaga

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.

Please tell me you don't believe in creation if that's your response.

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

Major Histocompatibility Complex and all sorts of biocompatibility genes there. Just are.

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't really tell you why they don't add up. I could theorize but I have no data to refer the theories to.

I can only show that the numbers don't equate.

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

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

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

It still seems like people are interpreting "speciation" as something that occurs in a single generation.

Please, stop it. That's a fallacy that is only clouding the issue.

Speciation is observed when, after many generations of genetic mutation/natural selection, the new organism is no longer able to mate with its predecessor.

To put this in human terms: if evolution occurred rapidly, you wouldn't be able to mate with your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother. You would still be able to mate with your grandmother and even your great x6 grandmother because you have enough in common with her but not enough in common with the original one. I really can't think of any way to dumb it down more than this and now you get to imagine mating with your grandmother. You're welcome.

a reply to: Answer

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

Well to be fair OP said this.

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

And this.

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

But he never said anything against two accounts.

Damn, did I just write that out loud?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Answer

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

Well to be fair OP said this.

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

And this.

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

But he never said anything against two accounts.

Damn, did I just write that out loud?

I'm just amazed at how low some trolls will stoop to carry on their nonsense.

"Well everyone dismisses my posts now so it's time to start fresh with a new name and hope they don't notice!"

originally posted by: Answer
It still seems like people are interpreting "speciation" as something that occurs in a single generation.

Please, stop it. That's a fallacy that is only clouding the issue.

Speciation is observed when, after many generations of genetic mutation/natural selection, the new organism is no longer able to mate with its predecessor.

To put this in human terms: if evolution occurred rapidly, you wouldn't be able to mate with your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother. You would still be able to mate with your grandmother and even your great x6 grandmother because you have enough in common with her but not enough in common with the original one. I really can't think of any way to dumb it down more than this and now you get to imagine mating with your grandmother. You're welcome.

Please read this Wikipedia link to Saltation with particular reference to the section called "Current Status" to find out why others may disagree with your statement.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
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.

Still no detail of how this incapability to breed comes about and I mean the detail.
How does it happen in real life not in theory, if you are unable to answer how the first individual became incompatible with other individuals and how that mutation got passed on then the logical conclusion is that it didn't happen unless you state that it happens simultaneously to multiple individuals who then manage to breed.
How did the original two ancestors that created the new species develop this mutation at the same time and find each other to breed?

originally posted by: Answer

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

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

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

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

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: borntowatch

You just can't resist adding your nonsense to any thread about evolution, can you?

You have your own thread with over 50 pages worth of responses but that's not enough for you.

You are the online evolution debate's equivalent of "I know you are but what am I !?!?"

Face it, Evolution is pretty much as stupid as Creationism , at least the theories sponsored by both trains of thought that we have now.

Both theories are boring, incomplete and should be entirely ruled out, they get us NOWHERE.

Yet again, people taking sides with FORCED narratives and never trying for something more likely.

originally posted by: Answer
It still seems like people are interpreting "speciation" as something that occurs in a single generation.

Please, stop it. That's a fallacy that is only clouding the issue.

Speciation is observed when, after many generations of genetic mutation/natural selection, the new organism is no longer able to mate with its predecessor.

To put this in human terms: if evolution occurred rapidly, you wouldn't be able to mate with your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother. You would still be able to mate with your grandmother and even your great x6 grandmother because you have enough in common with her but not enough in common with the original one. I really can't think of any way to dumb it down more than this and now you get to imagine mating with your grandmother. You're welcome.

OP, I have to go elsewhere to get this explained to me which proves that you have no clue how this might happen.
Well basically the only way this would happen is if a group gets separated, changes and then one individual develops the mutation that stops it breeding with the group that its been separated from but can still breed with his/her group and the mutation is passed on.
I just answered one of my questions which proves that you didn't answer it and that I was genuine.
Do you have any proof that this happens, is this not just speculation?
Again, the fruit flies changed mating habits there is no conclusion in the experiments they couldn't breed, they wouldn't that's true but its not the same thing and I explained it to you before. The fruit flies were partially not breeding but not completely either, so this is why I ask for the detail not the sound bite.
If you considered a change in mating preferences between groups as speciation then I might reply that I have a different definition of speciation.
Having said all that, if a group of humans mutated and became unable to breed with Asians I still wouldn't think that is proof of evolution and I wouldn't expect them to change into something a different animal or to develop a new complex organism.
So again I have given another answer as to why I have no reason to believe that true speciation has occurred or that if a population becomes sterile because of a mutation or sterile when breeding with a separate group of its own species that it is proof that complexity can arise from mutations and form complex organisms.
I would see the newfound sterility a negative mutation, probably a deletion and not proof that a mutation can create a complex organism.
But still I think you define speciation loosely and so I believe you should have answered borntowatch because understanding what your definition of speciation is would clear up the air.

Scientist are just guessing things! Evolution? More like evilution! Am I right? AM I??

My own mortality scares me.

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.

The question IN the OP is a red herring logical fallacy.

Indeed many tangents have gone off in it, even with people who by into the current paradigms of evolution as if it is Biblical.

Why are people so interested in pushing something that is so badly researched and likely covered up???? Smacks of yet another new religion, one that pretends it is all about figuring it out.

FACT: SCIENCE is controlled with AND without stakeholders.

FACT: SCIENCE is slow to try new things, and to think outside of the box, and until this changes theories will always be common while actual truth about it all will forever stay hidden.

OP,

I was once told that I might have been incompatible with my ex and couldn't get pregnant, there are also incompatibilities between Mediterranean's and northern Europeans.
Are you saying that people that carry the genes or mutations that make them incompatible with each other are examples of evolution?
If we took two groups of humans that were selected for reproductive incompatibility and isolated them and returned after 1000 years and noticed that we still have two groups of humans that have remained reproductively separate, would you define this as speciation?
Just trying to elicit some thought and give evolutionists examples of why it is perfectly normal to find your claims not plausible.

Op,

I have another answer as to why we have no proof that evolution is valid.
Take the example of the many physicists that believe that consciousness has been proven to be a fundamental force in the universe based on the double slit experiment, you can deny this but you have to accept that people like the much acclaimed Penrose do hold this belief and so did Planck and so do the authors of the ARCH-OR theory like many others, well if consciousness is a fundamental force of which we are a part of then do you still believe that natural random forces created our bodies and one day we decided to inhabit them all?
So this is another reason to not feel like there is a need to believe the very flimsy evidence behind randomness and chance as an explanation for what we observe around us.
I am not sure evolutionists minds stretch so far though, your answer is probably that you don't believe my conclusions are true, it doesn't stop leading scientists believing exactly what I believe.
There are tons of examples as to why your premise is false, your evidence flimsy and inconsistent and therefore your question is pointless because you have provided no proof of complexity arising at any point in any kind of research whatsoever.
Also you deny purpose even though adaptability to an environment is observed all the time and as you stated above evolution seems to stop when environmental pressures disappear, you claim mutations don't stop but evolution does.
Evolutionists that study near death experiences believe they are caused by a mutation that helps make us happier before we disappear for ever, can you elaborate on your theory that accounts for our ability to have an experience that mimicks death and heaven so that we can feel relaxed about dying?
Are you able to say with a straight face that a near death experience has no purpose?
Why do people that are unaware that they are dying or are atheists still have these experiences?
Don't say a near death experience is a trick of the brain because I will then ask you whether you believe our brain has a separate consciousness that can develop mutations that serve the purpose of making us feel safe about dying once the process of death starts.
Its about applying logic, taking into consideration all options, stating the details of your assumptions and coming to conclusions.

Op have you stated in your OP why you believe that new complexity has been observed in an organism that wasn't the product of a swap or deletion of information?
Can you prove that you have observed the process by which a cell can be created where the information required was created randomly and by chance?
If you claim that the links you showed me prove that scientists have observed new information being added to an organism that was not the product of degradation of information and therefore luck then can you back your claims with proof?
Please elaborate on why you believe that the e.coli experiment or the fruit fly experiment was caused by an addition of information that wasn't already in existence.
These are simple questions and if you are truly passionate about your religion you would be very happy to elaborate on the premise you set out in your OP.
If this thread was mine I would back up my premise with examples and facts not just throw a link without explaining the detail of the findings.
Lets discuss the details of the findings in the links you provided, namely the e.coli experiment and the fruit fly experiment.
The truth is that the experiments that you mention are ongoing and they have failed to prove that new information is being added, the word mutation means a swap or deletion not addition of new information that was never in existence in an organism before.
Scientists theorize that new information that creates complex interrelated functions are the product of random mutations, where is the proof?

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.

Yes OP, this is a science thread and you deny the environment influences changes in our genetics therefore you deny epigenetics which is science.
Just because evolutionists say that they use science doesn't mean that debunkers of evolution don't use science too.
As I said before you deny the environment causes genetic changes in organisms, you deny epigenetics and it doesn't surprise me because the very first epigenetics study had a bunch of evolutionists try and defund the study because they considered epigenetics heresy!
Epigenetics is a science...get it?

Just because evolutionists say that they use science doesn't mean that debunkers of evolution don't use science too.

Those that deny evolution just pick and choose which facts or scientific theories to accept, usually depending on whether or not they think said facts and theories conflict with their particular set of superstitions.