It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
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 use the example of rain drops falling in a bucket as an analogy. If it rains, and we observe the bucket as it begins to fill up, would it be faith based to think that if it keeps raining and the bucket has no holes that it will eventually fill? If you believe that it will not, then you must justify it, the case for mutations per generation is the same.

Please do not respond with straw man definitions that falsely separate micro and macro evolution. We are talking about evolution as a whole, aka the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. We are not talking about any other version of the word evolution except for "genetic mutations sorted by natural selection". If you think macro evolution utilizes a different mechanism than micro evolution, then it is on you to define and prove this mechanism. Remember, no assumptions, no denial. I'm looking for a logical argument based on evidence or facts.

evolution.berkeley.edu...


Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change


If you wish to claim this is wrong, then you must find a scientific source that conflicts with this. Biased creationist sites will not be accepted, as we are looking for science only.

Responses like "well the fly was still a fly" or "the ecoli was still ecoli" will not be accepted because that point is not being disputed and is irrelevant. The point is that those organisms changed enough to become a NEW SPECIES of fly, and a NEW SPECIES of bacteria. If this can happen under direct observation in a lab, then why would these changes not continue to add up over millions of generations leading to much greater diversity amongst the species?

If you are going to dismiss the experiments as faith, or deny macro evolution without evidence then you are in the wrong thread. Creationists and science deniers have an opportunity here to present their case without fallacies. If you are not answering the primary question in this thread about mutations adding up, then you should not respond.

Thanks




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
My belief, or just a thought: everything you said is spot on dead nuts accurate and science hit a home run on the evolution theory. Just as god willed it and set the whole thing up. His hand guides the process.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

i have a simpler argument :

if you believe in " micro evolution " - what is the cumulative effect of 10 billion micro changes ?



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
My best analogy I've come up with for this process is to view it like this:

Imagine that that you are trying to build a mound of sand. You can stack grains of sand individually and slowly create a small pile of sand. Let's call this microevolution. However you also know intuitively that if you continue to stack grains of sand, eventually you will form a mountain. Let's call this macroevolution. There is no set point where the sands stacked on top of each other stop being a pile of sand and become a mountain. I also don't need to see the stacking to the end to create the mountain. I just know that it will happen as a mountain is just a giant pile of sand. The pile WILL go through several different versions that we have names for (like mound, pile, hill, etc.) while the process continues to the creation of the mountain.

The same holds true for evolution. The whole "macroevolution is the changing of species over time" is really bollocks since life is all genetically linked. Every living thing on the planet is of the classification of "Life". Taxonomic ranks were just invented to help us better classify the different evolutionary paths that life has taken (this is true even if the inventors of the taxonomic scale didn't realize this). As evolution goes on, we may even have to invent newer taxonomic ranks, but that is irrelevant to evolution. According to evolution, we are all just different grains of sand that make up the mountain that is life.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It's called dormant genes. Past changes that no longer useful are no longer expressed. Look up junk DNA and you will answer your own question.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: Barcs

It's called dormant genes. Past changes that no longer useful are no longer expressed. Look up junk DNA and you will answer your own question.


And how many percent of our shared working genes with chimpanzees is apparently NOT "old junk"?

Exactly.
edit on 13-2-2015 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

One species cannot breed with other species, it is part of the definition.

If accumulated genetic change in a population is heading them towards being a new species, then it makes sense that a new species could arise (in theory).

The issue arises because the mutation that 'tips the balance' and gives rise to the new species, occurs in an individual. At that point, the mutated individual cannot breed with the gene pool from which it mutated - end of line.

The only caveat on this would be that partners, with exactly the same speciating genetic mutation, arise within the breeding lifetime of each other.

Assuming a linearity of genetic changes leading, and subsequent to speciation, the offspring of these highly unlikely pairings would also exhibit the effects of inbreeding. For instance:
  • metabolic disorders
  • inherited disease conditions
  • structural abnormalities
  • decline in reproductive capability
This 'inbreeding depression' is a major issue under selection pressures. So the survivability of the offspring becomes even less likely.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: Barcs

It's called dormant genes. Past changes that no longer useful are no longer expressed. Look up junk DNA and you will answer your own question.


I asked why the deniers claim that macro evolution is based on faith. If they believe in micro evolution, why can't lots of micro evolutionary changes add up over millions of years? I'm talking about the genetic mutations that are observed from parent to offspring in all creatures that have been studied on the genetic level. I'm not talking about junk DNA, I'm talking about observed evolutionary changes in a population.

Are you suggesting that all evolutionary changes become dormant before they can add up? Do you have evidence for this?
edit on 13-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
On the flip side you could ask how a sparsely haired pink farm pig can escape, go feral and grow full hair and tusks, and even change their basic body shape in a matter of months?

How does a creature like a caterpillar/butterfly "evolve"? What kind of transitional species could survive partial pupation?

You've got no such thing as a predecessor species of bat with little tiny flightless wing stubs. These are the kinds of questions that people have that aren't creationist zealots.

The phenomenon of evolution by various means (natural selection etc.) can be demonstrated in a lab, but does that mean all species development follows the same mechanism? I wouldn't say it is necessarily so.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

Some of the questions you ask have answers if you'd just bother to look.

How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve?

Having questions is one thing, but pretending like there aren't answers to them is a whole other animal.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, they have a theory as to how they evolved. It may be a possible answer, but it is still just a theory.

in fact it is only "a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis" even according to your source. If you read their actual theory it is a pretty far fetched chain of events.
edit on 13-2-2015 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So I guess "its not in the bible" isn't a valid argument eh?

Dern it...



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Barcs
One species cannot breed with other species, it is part of the definition.

If accumulated genetic change in a population is heading them towards being a new species, then it makes sense that a new species could arise (in theory).

The issue arises because the mutation that 'tips the balance' and gives rise to the new species, occurs in an individual. At that point, the mutated individual cannot breed with the gene pool from which it mutated - end of line.

The only caveat on this would be that partners, with exactly the same speciating genetic mutation, arise within the breeding lifetime of each other.


It is not "in theory". Speciation has been observed in a lab, so it does happen. Species is just a classification, it isn't exact and there is no point where one individual tips the balance and suddenly becomes another species. Evolution is about traits becoming dominant in a given population. This must happen before speciation can occur. Speciation has nothing to do with individuals. It occurs when numerous dominant traits add up to the point where the organisms can no longer breed with the originals. So far you have given the best answer, although it doesn't really answer my question because one trait in an individual does not make it a new species. Good effort, though.

edit on 13-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, they have a theory as to how they evolved. It may be a possible answer, but it is still just a theory.

in fact it is only "a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis" even according to your source. If you read their actual theory it is a pretty far fetched chain of events.


Yes it is a theory, based on all of the observed instances of the metamorphosis. It is not complete. No definition or explanation can incompass all of the variable outcomes that evolution and gene expression can take. But we are building a theory that has many human minds working on the problem. You act like someone just guessed up an idea that sounded good.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Barcs
One species cannot breed with other species, it is part of the definition.

If accumulated genetic change in a population is heading them towards being a new species, then it makes sense that a new species could arise (in theory).

The issue arises because the mutation that 'tips the balance' and gives rise to the new species, occurs in an individual. At that point, the mutated individual cannot breed with the gene pool from which it mutated - end of line.

The only caveat on this would be that partners, with exactly the same speciating genetic mutation, arise within the breeding lifetime of each other.


It is not "in theory". Speciation has been observed in a lab, so it does happen. Species is just a classification, it isn't exact and there is no point where one individual tips the balance and suddenly becomes another species. Evolution is about traits becoming dominant in a given population. This must happen before speciation can occur. Speciation has nothing to do with individuals. It occurs when numerous dominant traits add up to the point where the organisms can no longer breed with the originals. So far you have given the best answer, although it doesn't really answer my question because one trait in an individual does not make it a new species. Good effort, though.


Firstly, thank you.

I am aware of modern definitions of species (old Carl Linnaeus must be spinning in his grave) and concur that by modern definitions, speciation has been observed.

But you have to admit that at some point, one species becomes unable to breed with another and modern evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain it, as it also has explaining aspects of punctuated equilibrium or rates of change versus what we know of genetic mutation rates.

I am not saying that evolutionary change doesn't happen, as you pointed out, it has been observed. I am suggesting that we are missing something in our understanding of the process.

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



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, they have a theory as to how they evolved. It may be a possible answer, but it is still just a theory.

in fact it is only "a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis" even according to your source. If you read their actual theory it is a pretty far fetched chain of events.


Great, another person who likes to use the "it's only a theory" line.

Please educate yourself on the definition of scientific theory before using that tired, old, spoken-only-by-ignoramuses line.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, they have a theory as to how they evolved. It may be a possible answer, but it is still just a theory.

in fact it is only "a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis" even according to your source. If you read their actual theory it is a pretty far fetched chain of events.


Scientific theories are not "just theories". They are backed by evidence. Gravity is just a theory, but you don't see people floating away. Scientific theories cannot be established until the process / mechanism in question can be confirmed. This post and your previous one suggest that science might not be able to account for all transitions, as there are tons of fossils that haven't been found, but that begs the question, what about the numerous ones that we can account for that paint the picture of evolution?

You doubt evolution because we don't have all the info and haven't documented all transitions. I get this, but I don't see what it has to do with the fundamental mechanism of genetic mutations adding up over time. I'm curious why folks believe this cannot happen.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


I get this, but I don't see what it has to do with the fundamental mechanism of genetic mutations adding up over time. I'm curious why folks believe this cannot happen.


im pretty sure my first post in your thread will explain it...




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing


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


Sure they will.

The competing theory is that god created the Earth in 6 days. He's all-powerful without limitations but he still needed 6 days for some reason and he had to rest afterward because apparently, god gets tired.

On day 6, god created all the animals that are now living or have ever lived. Dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, giant sloths, dodo birds, and all of the species of insect/plant/fish/mammal/reptile/amphibian/etc in the fossil record which are no longer around were living alongside modern birds, fish, insects, and mammals. Apparently, god rigged the system so that these species could co-exist without eating each other or without destroying each other's ecosystems. He also created man on this day. Creationists aren't in agreement about how long ago this occurred but the young-earth sect believe that it happened around 5000 years ago so, somehow, fossilized remains ended up much deeper than possible in those 5,000 years. Even IF the world was created with mountains and valleys already formed (which is a young-earth argument I've heard), it still doesn't explain the placement of fossils in older layers of strata... but young-earth creationists write this off as dating errors because they think that radio-carbon dating is the only method used and they've convinced themselves that it is a massively flawed method.

As for so many species going extinct, apparently god was very selective about who he let on Noah's ark. "Ok, elephants you're cool but mammoths... nuh uh, you gotta drown. Who's next? Oh, brachiosaurus... yeeeeahhhhh, see we only really designed the ark to fit these guys over here and, frankly, just the two of you would take up the whole damn cargo hold so... sorry, you've got to drown."
edit on 2/13/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/13/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join