So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, you've never read a scientific article before have you?

You do not speak directly to the content, rather you say "its stubit" and "its dumb".

So prove you understand science. Because Several of us work in fields that are scientific. At this point, I doubt you read that paper.

a reply to: Raggedyman

PROVE it was stupid. You also have not read the paper as evidenced by the "WHere does it say new information was added to the genome".

You are not capable of honestly engaging.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Yes, every individual organism has a slightly different genome, that's how it works. No organisms are "unmutated." Mutations happen every time a cell replicates or an organism reproduces.

I hope not!

The frequency of mutation is not that simple or frequent.

I think you must have meant, "Mutations CAN happen every time a cell replicates or an organism reproduces".

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation - Genetics Society of America

Although mutations are more likely to happen during replication, mutation can also occur at other times, too. By far the majority of mutations are fatal (at least to the mutated cell). Your suggestion implies that the majority of our cells would die every time they replicate, which is nonsense.

I have seen estimates that the spontaneous mutation rate in humans is about 64 point mutations per generation (human generation, not cell generation). From whole genome sequencing, it is estimated that the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be about 1.1 × 10^−8 per site, per generation.

Why would it increase exponentially?

Standard population growth rates where each new generation is a multiple of nearly all the previous generations' population, an arithmetical progression. Unless it is limited somehow, it is always exponential.

It's a clear example of EVOLUTION, not micro evolution. There is no difference between micro and macro. Evolution is ALL "micro" changes. Every single change is small, the small changes just accumulate.

Microevolution does not include speciation.

You are misunderstanding this and how it relates to speciation. No, the branch doesn't always terminate.

If it cannot breed successfully, how does the genetic line not terminate for a sexually reproducing organism?

Sometimes they are isolated from one another, as demonstrated in the experiment I posted.

You call it isolation, I call it population partitioning. Same thing. It is still absent from some observed examples and yet is absolutely mandatory theoretically. Obviously if the theory does not reflect observed data, the theory is false in the situation, which means there must be another explanation for the observed.

I already explained that speciation is a process that takes thousands of generations at bare minimum. You don't have a sudden change of species causing the offspring to be unable to breed with the parent generation.

Apparently you do have sudden changes of species, like with the European Peppered Moth example that I gave. Affirmed speciation, no 'isolation' of the various populations, no gradualism.

Twice.

Changes like that would take a very long time to render breeding nonviable. This is why your point makes no sense to me. There isn't enough genetic change from one generation to the next to speciate. When you look at humans specifically, it's like questioning whether a homo sapien from 200,000 years ago could breed with a human today. It's not about breeding from one generation to the next where you suddenly have a new species in a single generation trying to breed with the old. It doesn't work like that.

Mutations occur in single organisms, not populations. At the point where mutations achieve enough differentiation to achieve speciation, how does a new population of that speciated genome establish? How does it replicate to become a new population?

Now hold on a minute here. 200 years is not the same as 200 generations

It is, the European Peppered Moth has an annual life cycle in nature, dependent upon seasonal temperature, as do most Lepidoptera in their natural environments.

Here's an article on Monarch Butterflies (of Order Lepidoptera), Annual Life Cycle - University of Minnesota

and there is no set speed or rate of speciation.

There is no set speed or rate of movement for cars either. Doesn't mean we can't define the normal range in which they may travel.

For European pepper moths, there can be as many at 7-8 generations within a year period depending on the temperature and conditions

Like in a greenhouse, where the species is a perennial pest? You need to read your sources more carefully.

, so 200 years would be more like 1400-1600 generations and that's only if you follow the ancestry of one single moth, not factoring in the millions of other moths experiencing genetic mutations and sharing genes.

The theory's implication is that the 'full set of mutations', which are speciating, are first expressed in a single organism. That organism cannot breed. It has a change or changes that will not produce a viable offspring with any potential mate that exists concurrently with it. You keep conveniently forgetting that.

Unfortunately Raggedy doesn't agree, but I could have told you that on the very first page of this thread. We kind of knew this would happen, regardless of what paper is posted.

Again, there is no such thing as an "unmutated" population. Everything mutates. Your objection here is irrelevant. Of course they were isolated and given slightly different environments, that's the point of the experiment. To show that isolation for enough generations can lead to speciation.

There are too many examples where there is/was no isolation in nature and no gradualism.

Sometimes the theory just doesn't work.

How so? Are you really suggesting that genetic isolation doesn't occur in nature or am I not understanding your point?

Sure, genetic isolation occurs in nature. My point is that there are examples of apparent speciation where it doesn't occur.

Think beyond the theory and look at the data!

This is a fair definition if you put thousands of generations in between ancestor and decedent.

Gradualism's your thing and there is data that precludes it.

You are right that sometimes minor appearance differences do not always indicate a new species, but it always depends on how far back you trace the lineage. That is the reason why minor differences can breed to the entire population group, it's because they aren't different species.

Yes, that is the gist of what I said.

It's not just mate preference, it's about the compatibility of the genomes to viably combine. You do realize they can combine genes without them directly mating, right?

Sure, the moths use asexual mitosis, CRISPR, zinc fingers or gene shears and other horizontal transfer methods all the time in their moth laboratories, exactly as evolutionary process describes.

< -- indicates just kidding.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

PROVE it was stupid. You also have not read the paper as evidenced by the "WHere does it say new information was added to the genome".

You are not capable of honestly engaging.

he can't prove a damn thing except that he can't prove a damn thing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am not 100% sure of that either. I am pretty sure he has not read the paper, not even the abstract

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I am not 100% sure of that either. I am pretty sure he has not read the paper, not even the abstract

I'm pretty sure of it.

I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

this demand was met, and the provided journal submissions were regarded with ridicule and dismissal without ever refuting a single point made in the articles. he doesn't ever address one specific detail and provide a concise informative rebuttal. he just says "not good enough", but doesn't explain why, doesn't explain how it's incorrect. just shrugs it off and repeats his initial demand. without ever proving how our submissions don't meet his demands or answer his questions. even chronaut has offered more contribution than mr raggedy. he at least addresses particulars about the subject, for which I have a grudging respect. not that he has anymore intention of changing his opinions than raggedy does.

so yeah, i'm pretty sure of it. OP is not the "peer" spoken of when they say "peer reviewed studies". he is the guy drawing a mustache on darwins picture in the textbook.

a reply to: TzarChasm

even chronaut has offered more contribution than mr raggedy. he at least addresses particulars about the subject, for which I have a grudging respect.

Im pretty sure the difference here is Chronaut can read, and actually does... while the other one, im unsure of his capabilities of literacy or comprehension

a reply to: TzarChasm

You forgot to say he said it was dumb and stupid. That Scientists hate science, and its a bunch of atheists picking on the Christians

We've all supplied Peer reviewed papers. He either says he cant access them (not my issue) or "they are dumb" but he never goes into details .

I do remember once when creationist posted a bunch of papers, and some of us tore them up ... we could not have read them it was "too fast". Well its almost 1pm here in New Zealand (and I have a meeting with a new client ) I've read 20 papers for that project, and understood them. I've sworn at two (for contradicting each other) When you do something for a living, you get efficient at it.

a reply to: Akragon

I am convinced that there is a little coven of Creationist Trolls who post here, and get brownie points from their church for being trolls. We have at least one person (hello Coop) pretending to be a scientist, despite evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: Noinden

this whole thread is dumb. there is a reason people come to this site to pick fights about stuff they can easily look up on google and research for themselves.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where does it say new information was added to the genome

It doesn't need to say that because it's obvious. For that you'd really need to look deeper into genetics research to understand genome mapping and how genetic information changes via mutation. This paper on speciation isn't about to give you a genetics 101 course in the conclusion.

I'm over simplifying here, but if you have a sequence ABACCDAB and it changes to ABACABACCDAB (like a duplication mutation), that is a new sequence and could have a different function. The base pairs themselves are the same basic compounds, so when you say "new information", there are no new compounds, just changes to the sequence.

a reply to: chr0naut

Dude, man... There is too much wrong with what you just said to even begin addressing it all. Why bring up a butterfly life cycle when you are specifically referring to European Pepper Moths.

At 68°F, it takes about a month and a half for the moth to complete its lifecycle, meaning that 7-8 generations are possible per year at this temperature in year-round greenhouses.

If the conditions are right they can have 8 generations per year. That's the reason these things are considered an invasive species and are a threat to California right now.

And saying micro evolution doesn't include speciation is absurd. How many times do I have to explain that there is no "micro" evolution. There is EVOLUTION and speciation is the result of that over thousands to millions of generations.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where does it say new information was added to the genome

It doesn't need to say that because it's obvious. For that you'd really need to look deeper into genetics research to understand genome mapping and how genetic information changes via mutation. This paper on speciation isn't about to give you a genetics 101 course in the conclusion.

I'm over simplifying here, but if you have a sequence ABACCDAB and it changes to ABACABACCDAB (like a duplication mutation), that is a new sequence and could have a different function. The base pairs themselves are the same basic compounds, so when you say "new information", there are no new compounds, just changes to the sequence.

Technically, each codon is one of four bases, abbreviated A, C, G & T (not A, B, C & D) and the duplication would functionally consist of a multiple of three bases (codon bias), i.e: it is the minimum unit for amino acid expression or a 'stop' code (TAA, TAG or TGA).

Perhaps I'm being far too pedantic, though.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Dude, man... There is too much wrong with what you just said to even begin addressing it all. Why bring up a butterfly life cycle when you are specifically referring to European Pepper Moths.

I was providing support for the order Lepidoptera, to which moths and butterflies both belong, as usually having annual, seasonally linked, life cycles in nature.

At 68°F, it takes about a month and a half for the moth to complete its lifecycle, meaning that 7-8 generations are possible per year at this temperature in year-round greenhouses.

If the conditions are right they can have 8 generations per year, if the temperature stays warm. That's the reason these things are considered an invasive species and are a threat to California right now.

I am fairly sure that greenhouses in California have a different range of seasonal temperatures than in 1800's Dorset, Birmingham and Manchester, England where the initial studies were done on the data collected at those locations and times.

The European Peppered Moth is recorded as "overwintering" in pupal state in cold climates.

And saying micro evolution doesn't include speciation is absurd. How many times do I have to explain that there is no "micro" evolution.

Several have posted, in this thread, links to peer reviewed academic articles that explicitly address microevolution vs. macroevolution.

Were those articles and their reviewers all wrong?

Perhaps there are no trees, only forests?

There is EVOLUTION

I don't disagree.

and speciation is the result of that over thousands to millions of generations.

Most probably, sometimes.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where does it say new information was added to the genome

It doesn't need to say that because it's obvious. For that you'd really need to look deeper into genetics research to understand genome mapping and how genetic information changes via mutation. This paper on speciation isn't about to give you a genetics 101 course in the conclusion.

I'm over simplifying here, but if you have a sequence ABACCDAB and it changes to ABACABACCDAB (like a duplication mutation), that is a new sequence and could have a different function. The base pairs themselves are the same basic compounds, so when you say "new information", there are no new compounds, just changes to the sequence.

Actually IT does need to say new information was added to the genome
Otherwise its not evolution but adapting within its own capacity

You are oversimplifying a lie, the peer review DOES NOT SAY THAT. You say that
There is no evidence in the review

Smoke and mirrors for dummies.

a reply to: Raggedyman

In your first paragraph you don't understand biology. How prey tell did the organism adapt? If a new protein forms ot give a new characteristic it is via the genome. It is thus implied that new information is added to the genome.

Scientific papers are written with the assumption that the read is at least mildly educated in the science involved. There is no "lowest common denominator".

So again, you have NOT read the paper. You do NOT understand the paper, and you are once again not telling the truth.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Technically, each codon is one of four bases, abbreviated A, C, G & T (not A, B, C & D) and the duplication would functionally consist of a multiple of three bases (codon bias), i.e: it is the minimum unit for amino acid expression or a 'stop' code (TAA, TAG or TGA).

Perhaps I'm being far too pedantic, though.

You definitely are, because I clearly said in the beginning I was over simplifying. I made the ABCD code up to make it easier for him to understand how a duplication mutation does indeed add information to the genome. If you aren't disputing that point, you are definition being pedantic and missed the point.

I was providing support for the order Lepidoptera, to which moths and butterflies both belong, as usually having annual, seasonally linked, life cycles in nature.

Yes, but that is an irrelevant red herring, because you stated that European Pepper Moths have 1 generation per year and that's not always the case. I was specifically referring to that claim, not any other type of moth/butterfly. European Pepper Moths can have multiple generations per year and it's proven, so to say 1 year = 1 generation was wrong.

Several have posted, in this thread, links to peer reviewed academic articles that explicitly address microevolution vs. macroevolution.

Micro/macro refers to time. Macro is just the accumulation of micro changes. There isn't a different mechanism, so separating micro evolution and saying it doesn't include speciation is dishonest. Evolution DOES include it and that's the topic. Obviously 1 small change is not speciation. Nobody ever claimed that, so why even bring up something so irrelevant and pointless? This is why I didn't want to respond to your entire post, you are just playing games again and diluting my points.

I also don't understand your partition argument. What exactly are you trying to say? We haven't directly observed ALL organisms become isolated? Just look up ring species, it's not really that complicated. The species spreads out in 360 degree pattern (usually around a lake or something similar) and by the time they get back to the original place, the final species is different from the original and they can't breed together. You don't need absolute 100% isolation all of the time, but it can help in causing species to change enough to be classified as a new species.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Actually IT does need to say new information was added to the genome
Otherwise its not evolution but adapting within its own capacity

Nope this is a straw man.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I recently watched a video .. forgot where and when [too bad for me, but maybe you can find it if you search for it online?]. It basically stated that scientists recently discovered a species of snakes [or was it some other reptile?] that gave birth to its offsprings. but not all the females did/does it: some laid eggs some gave birth.

i guess it all takes a genetic mutation for evolution to happen

I believe in G-D and therefore i'm a creationist, but i don't think the world is as black-white as the opposition between science and religion portrays it. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle and this is one major thing we're not being told by those in power.

however for now, we mostly have proof of the evolution theory - though several Bible events have also been proven as real [such as the flood]

a reply to: Kryscent

Oh they proved the flood?

Who told you that i wonder?

Ron Wyatt?