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

a reply to: Prezbo369

But yeah great response.

Not great at all. But fitting.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: jabrsa
No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

You sound like you understand science, so please list just a few of the scientific theories you do accept and then the ones you don't along with your reasons as to why.

Then maybe you can demonstrate how and why I'm wrong about your position.

I am not stupid therefore I understand that we have a long way to go before we are able to formulate theories that are correct.
Only evolutionists believe that they know everything.
If you did you would reply to my questions, so you don't even understand your own theories and point the finger at me because I don't have a theory that is set in stone?
I am only interested in possibilities, data, observation, keeping an open mind and adapting to new ideas, something science used to do before they became religious and dogmatic.
I would rather admit that I don't know the truth than to follow dogma and turn science into a religion.

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: jabrsa
No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

You sound like you understand science, so please list just a few of the scientific theories you do accept and then the ones you don't along with your reasons as to why.

Then maybe you can demonstrate how and why I'm wrong about your position.

I am not stupid therefore I understand that we have a long way to go before we are able to formulate theories that are correct.
Only evolutionists believe that they know everything.
If you did you would reply to my questions, so you don't even understand your own theories and point the finger at me because I don't have a theory that is set in stone?
I am only interested in possibilities, data, observation, keeping an open mind and adapting to new ideas, something science used to do before they became religious and dogmatic.
I would rather admit that I don't know the truth than to follow dogma and turn science into a religion.

Well you haven't demonstrated that you know ANYTHING! So don't criticize "evolutionists" - at least they do the hard work.

BTW, the OP requested a "well reasoned" response. That means logic. It means evidence. It means articulation.
Go ahead and try it some time - you'd be surprised what an organized mind can do for you.

a reply to: kayej1188

**JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**

I believe you are right. The style is very much the same, though jabsra's posts are, on average, longer than borntowatch's.

I'll quote you again, just for visibility's sake:

**JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: jabrsa

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?

It's called genetic drift. Look it up.

Wrong again.
I have already answered my question before and the answer was:

If two groups are split and they start changing one individual would have to develop a mutation that enabled it to breed with its own group but not with the separated group and then that mutation would have to be passed on successfully.
I have no clue why the whole group would then inherit the same mutation but I didn't invent the theory of evolution so someone else is going to have to explain that one for you.
Please stop throwing links and explanations that you don't explain, it is becoming obvious that you don't even know your own theory and I am having to go on other forums to get answers.
The answer above is the only possible scenario where speciation can occur, it does not explain how that mutation circulates to the whole group though as it carries no selective advantage, I would it explained by an evolutionist but I have given up on getting any sense out of an evolutionist.
Its like talking to a bible thumper to be honest!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: jabrsa
No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

You sound like you understand science, so please list just a few of the scientific theories you do accept and then the ones you don't along with your reasons as to why.

Then maybe you can demonstrate how and why I'm wrong about your position.

I am not stupid therefore I understand that we have a long way to go before we are able to formulate theories that are correct.
Only evolutionists believe that they know everything.
If you did you would reply to my questions, so you don't even understand your own theories and point the finger at me because I don't have a theory that is set in stone?
I am only interested in possibilities, data, observation, keeping an open mind and adapting to new ideas, something science used to do before they became religious and dogmatic.
I would rather admit that I don't know the truth than to follow dogma and turn science into a religion.

Well you haven't demonstrated that you know ANYTHING! So don't criticize "evolutionists" - at least they do the hard work.

BTW, the OP requested a "well reasoned" response. That means logic. It means evidence. It means articulation.
Go ahead and try it some time - you'd be surprised what an organized mind can do for you.

I think you have not read the thread, I have given several well thought out reasons why I don't believe in the premise stated in the OP and therefore I have no reason to believe that what the OP states is happening happens.
It is up to the OP to show us the evidence that his premise has any foundations, if he cant do that then why is he asking people to deny a premise that he cant prove himself?
The only way you can explain to a brainwashed evolutionist with a god complex the fallacy of their logic is by using examples, science and logic.
Unfortunately if your logic was sound you would show me the proof that the premise in the OP has any validity when compared to current scientific theories, the data available and the observations made in the examples given by the OP.
Why cant you even elaborate on what your definition of speciation is?
What are your constraints in discussing your beloved theory?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: kayej1188

**JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**

I believe you are right. The style is very much the same, though jabsra's posts are, on average, longer than borntowatch's.

I'll quote you again, just for visibility's sake:

**JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**

Stop being childish and answer questions so that other people can learn something.
Why cant you turn this thread in a fact finding mission where everyone is able to contribute without being abused?
I don't understand your constraints.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: vasaga
Between the pretending of science's omnipotence/omniscience and the desire to believe rather than think, lies the deception between actual science (which is exploration) and scientism (which is a prohibition to question.

The frequency of comments like this from religious posters makes me think they're completely unaware of projection....

The fact that you label anyone that questions things a religious poster, despite them never making such comments, shows that you're actually in a cult rather than anything else. It's exactly the same as the church calling non-believers heretics.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: kayej1188

**JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**

I believe you are right. The style is very much the same, though jabsra's posts are, on average, longer than borntowatch's.

I'll quote you again, just for visibility's sake:

**JABSRA is the same person as BORNTOWATCH**

You are accusing me of stalking and creating multiple accounts.
I am going to contact the mods!
Either you allow me to contribute to a thread or you ignore me, you can not abuse me OK?

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: jabrsa
No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

You sound like you understand science, so please list just a few of the scientific theories you do accept and then the ones you don't along with your reasons as to why.

Then maybe you can demonstrate how and why I'm wrong about your position.

I am not stupid therefore I understand that we have a long way to go before we are able to formulate theories that are correct.
Only evolutionists believe that they know everything.
If you did you would reply to my questions, so you don't even understand your own theories and point the finger at me because I don't have a theory that is set in stone?
I am only interested in possibilities, data, observation, keeping an open mind and adapting to new ideas, something science used to do before they became religious and dogmatic.
I would rather admit that I don't know the truth than to follow dogma and turn science into a religion.

Well you haven't demonstrated that you know ANYTHING! So don't criticize "evolutionists" - at least they do the hard work.

BTW, the OP requested a "well reasoned" response. That means logic. It means evidence. It means articulation.
Go ahead and try it some time - you'd be surprised what an organized mind can do for you.

I think you have not read the thread, I have given several well thought out reasons why I don't believe in the premise stated in the OP and therefore I have no reason to believe that what the OP states is happening happens.
It is up to the OP to show us the evidence that his premise has any foundations, if he cant do that then why is he asking people to deny a premise that he cant prove himself?
The only way you can explain to a brainwashed evolutionist with a god complex the fallacy of their logic is by using examples, science and logic.
Unfortunately if your logic was sound you would show me the proof that the premise in the OP has any validity when compared to current scientific theories, the data available and the observations made in the examples given by the OP.
Why cant you even elaborate on what your definition of speciation is?
What are your constraints in discussing your beloved theory?

That simply goes to show that you're the one who has never read through threads where "speciation" was defined.

Do some work for a change and look it up yourself.

The reason I ask about speciation is because the same researchers that conducted the studies on fruit flies and e.coli claim that speciation can occur without any physical genetic change, the reason they say this is because the speciation they claim to have produced in a lab has not been linked to a physical genetic change but to a behavioural change.
I don't accept the above definition of speciation, I don't believe Gays will develop into a separate species because they refuse to breed with the opposite sex, do you?
I agree that the e.coli bacteria developed an ability to feed on citrate but this has been observed in several populations in different labs suggesting that its an ability that they were genetically predisposed to. Also I have seen no proof that this ability arose due to added complexity, it seems to be an ability that is easily induced in e.coli bacteria.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

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

Can you provide even one example of lateral gene transference that resulted in a complete eye?

Meanwhile, an answer to the actual questions would be appreciated.

I don't know of any case of naturally occurring 'eye transfer". I do know that traits have been transferred from one species to another in the lab.

I was pointing out that the limitations of 'long time period' change are overcome in spontaneous horizontal gene transfer.

I did not provide all the answers to your questions because they were mostly strawman arguments and irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not going to try and write an online textbook for you. I have neither the time or inclination. If you believe that your questions that remain unanswered were in fact relevant, then please re-state them, using different wording and perhaps explain why you believe they were relevant.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: jabrsa
No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

You sound like you understand science, so please list just a few of the scientific theories you do accept and then the ones you don't along with your reasons as to why.

Then maybe you can demonstrate how and why I'm wrong about your position.

I am not stupid therefore I understand that we have a long way to go before we are able to formulate theories that are correct.
Only evolutionists believe that they know everything.
If you did you would reply to my questions, so you don't even understand your own theories and point the finger at me because I don't have a theory that is set in stone?
I am only interested in possibilities, data, observation, keeping an open mind and adapting to new ideas, something science used to do before they became religious and dogmatic.
I would rather admit that I don't know the truth than to follow dogma and turn science into a religion.

Well you haven't demonstrated that you know ANYTHING! So don't criticize "evolutionists" - at least they do the hard work.

BTW, the OP requested a "well reasoned" response. That means logic. It means evidence. It means articulation.
Go ahead and try it some time - you'd be surprised what an organized mind can do for you.

I think you have not read the thread, I have given several well thought out reasons why I don't believe in the premise stated in the OP and therefore I have no reason to believe that what the OP states is happening happens.
It is up to the OP to show us the evidence that his premise has any foundations, if he cant do that then why is he asking people to deny a premise that he cant prove himself?
The only way you can explain to a brainwashed evolutionist with a god complex the fallacy of their logic is by using examples, science and logic.
Unfortunately if your logic was sound you would show me the proof that the premise in the OP has any validity when compared to current scientific theories, the data available and the observations made in the examples given by the OP.
Why cant you even elaborate on what your definition of speciation is?
What are your constraints in discussing your beloved theory?

That simply goes to show that you're the one who has never read through threads where "speciation" was defined.

Do some work for a change and look it up yourself.

You see you still sit on the fence and refuse to tell us what YOUR definition of speciation is.
I believe there is a reason for this, you don't want to explain what the data from the links provided mean in real life.
I feel sorry for you.
This is a forum where people exchange ideas, why cant evolutionists elaborate on their ideas and contribute to a thread in a civilised manner?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: jabrsa

What evolutionists have to do to prove speciation is prove that they cant breed not that they wont breed.

Here's a horsefly. Here's a horse.

>shakes head in wonder

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: jabrsa

What evolutionists have to do to prove speciation is prove that they cant breed not that they wont breed.

Here's a horsefly. Here's a horse.

>shakes head in wonder

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

Actually, the rate of mutation has nothing to do with the actual rate of change. The rate of mutation is pretty much fixed, although the environment can influence this factor as well. The majority of mutations are neutral, meaning they have no noticeable effect on the morphology of the organism. This happens in well adapted organisms, for example the white shark. The white shark has not changed much in the grand scheme of things and predates the dinosaurs. Does that mean the shark has not been experiencing genetic mutations all this time? Of course not. It means that the sharks who ended up with changes, had ones that were not beneficial, and as a result they died before reproducing. Therefor they do not have many speciation events because new traits do not get a chance to become dominant. The crocodile is another example. Mutation rate and speciation rate are 2 completely different things.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

However, the source in your link offers an explanation: good old natural selection. Speaking of which,

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

And what is that, then, if not natural selection?

it could be explained by the existence of Transposons (doubtful) or by the effect of other factors of evolution such as the selection.
Linked source

You don't want to accept that, so you pretend there's no explanation? Is that it?

Again, clear answers to the questions asked earlier would be appreciated.

I never suggested that natural selection did not play a part in modern evolutionary theory. This is a 'strawman' argument on your part.

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

The mutation comes first.

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

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

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

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

Also, the question that I believed were relevant to the discussion, I have answered clearly. There was no obfuscation at all. Your suggestion that they were unclear is yet another strawman argument.

I have not answered questions that I believe to be irrelevant to the discussion, as I have explained in a previous post.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

Actually, the rate of mutation has nothing to do with the actual rate of change. The rate of mutation is pretty much fixed, although the environment can influence this factor as well. The majority of mutations are neutral, meaning they have no noticeable effect on the morphology of the organism. This happens in well adapted organisms, for example the white shark. The white shark has not changed much in the grand scheme of things and predates the dinosaurs. Does that mean the shark has not been experiencing genetic mutations all this time? Of course not. It means that the sharks who ended up with changes, had ones that were not beneficial, and as a result they died before reproducing. Therefor they do not have many speciation events because new traits do not get a chance to become dominant. The crocodile is another example. Mutation rate and speciation rate are 2 completely different things.

Yes, they are two separate things but one is dependent upon the other. The mutation rate becomes the lower bound of possible rates of evolutionary change. Exactly what I said.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: randyvs

Yep, along with the belief in a magic creature in the sky, a super special place to go after you've died, talking animals, women being created from rib bones or an entire graveyard of zombies rising from the dead and walking on a town.

etc

We are discussing evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

Actually, the rate of mutation has nothing to do with the actual rate of change. The rate of mutation is pretty much fixed, although the environment can influence this factor as well. The majority of mutations are neutral, meaning they have no noticeable effect on the morphology of the organism. This happens in well adapted organisms, for example the white shark. The white shark has not changed much in the grand scheme of things and predates the dinosaurs. Does that mean the shark has not been experiencing genetic mutations all this time? Of course not. It means that the sharks who ended up with changes, had ones that were not beneficial, and as a result they died before reproducing. Therefor they do not have many speciation events because new traits do not get a chance to become dominant. The crocodile is another example. Mutation rate and speciation rate are 2 completely different things.

You say here that the environment can influence the rate of mutation whereby you denied it to me in a previous post because I stated that this to me is a game changer, a clue that there is something else going on, something smart that helps us adapt and survive when needed.
You then state that : "This happens in well adapted organisms", what happens differently in well adapted organisms that doesn't happen in non well adapted organisms?
Just curious.