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: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
In the picture below we see a lot of branches and dead ends so I'm not sure what the OP is asking with this statement below.


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?


Humans today are so closely related that we will most likely not see any new branches for 500,000 years or more. We too almost went the direction of all the other hominids and the Dodo bird. It is suggested that we were down to about 10,000 humans on the earth before we started a recovery, one that the close cousin neanderthals didn't survive.






edit on 15-2-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vasaga


If a car can accelerate to 60 mph within 3 seconds, why can't it keep accelerating until it reaches the speed of light? Why does the acceleration stop past a certain point?

Acceleration ceases when resistance to motion — friction, essentially — equals the motive force.

Could you please explain what, in your analogy, equates to 'resistance to motion' when it comes to mutation?
Well, mutation is not exactly the right word. Beneficial mutation is more accurate, because it's that specific type that is required for evolution to take place rather than extinction. It's the difference between pressing the gas or the break on the car. So, you could theoretically say that when the transfer rate of degenerative mutations and beneficial mutations are the same, the evolutionary progress stops. When degenerative is higher, extinction follows, when beneficial is higher, evolution progresses.

Before I go on, I think it has been fairly well established that most mutations are neutral, the next majority are harmful, and the smallest fraction are beneficial.

Remember that when things are tested in a lab, it's generally tested in single cells, or genetic manipulation is performed to see how it spreads, rather than a natural mutation. With a single cell, the genetic mutation is immediately transferred to the next cell through division. Easy transfer, easy change in species, easy adaptation, easy evolution.

There's a reason bacteria can become resistant very quickly, or can change their food source very quickly, but us as humans can not. The more life has progressed, the more obstacles there are. In a being with thousands of cells, the mutation already gets transferred a lot more difficult through the whole being, with trillions even worse. The more cells a creature has, the more difficult it is for a mutation to be beneficial, because a lot more factors come into play before that change can be expressed. That's not even accounting that it has to reach the reproductive cells, and even then, it has to be conceived to spread. The next step is the whole population.

And now comes the most important part. A first cell might not have had a repair system for its DNA, but most creatures developed this quite early in the supposed evolutionary tree. This feature does not differentiate between a beneficial and a harmful mutation. Even if the repair fails, the chances of a detrimental mutation getting transferred is larger than a beneficial one. With a first cell pretty much anything can be beneficial, depending on where the cell lands and lots of adaptation can take place. More complicated the creature, the slower the adaptation and the harder to find a beneficial environment. Taking this into account, evolutionary speeds should be slowing down until it reaches a halt. This flies in the face of things like the Cambrian explosion.

And all this is negating other things. Why would random mutations + environment develop life with traits for experience, emotions, cognitive capabilities to understand the world and the ability to investigate itself? To a lot of us, it is far-fetched to conclude that speciation in a LAB can explain all this with the current models that we have. It's the equivalent of the car suddenly getting a fusion reactor that gives it the energy to reach the speed of light.
edit on 15-2-2015 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

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



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I'm suprised the same person has started this up again when we have concluded the proof. Reptiles into birds. Enough said.

If u still don't believe this check out the experiment of reactivating dorment genes on chickens to produces scales and teeth.

Shame on you for not listening/willing to understand. There is no better proof. If the response is why haven't they evolved further...its is evolution in progress...birds like the ostrich and secretary birds that are land bound can be examples of this progression



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

I feel I have to type in layman terms because I do not believe the OP understands certain basic terms



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
I'm suprised the same person has started this up again when we have concluded the proof. Reptiles into birds. Enough said.

If u still don't believe this check out the experiment of reactivating dorment genes on chickens to produces scales and teeth.

Shame on you for not listening/willing to understand. There is no better proof. If the response is why haven't they evolved further...its is evolution in progress...birds like the ostrich and secretary birds that are land bound can be examples of this progression


We share genes, we all knew that.
What we don't agree is that those genes are shared because of evolution instead of something else.
As you well know people have other ideas as to why we share genes, does your statement prove in any way that randomness and chance created life on earth?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: rossacus
I'm suprised the same person has started this up again when we have concluded the proof. Reptiles into birds. Enough said.

If u still don't believe this check out the experiment of reactivating dorment genes on chickens to produces scales and teeth.

Shame on you for not listening/willing to understand. There is no better proof. If the response is why haven't they evolved further...its is evolution in progress...birds like the ostrich and secretary birds that are land bound can be examples of this progression


We share genes, we all knew that.
What we don't agree is that those genes are shared because of evolution instead of something else.
As you well know people have other ideas as to why we share genes, does your statement prove in any way that randomness and chance created life on earth?


There are also gene transfers and such..there is probably more that we still don't understand....



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jabrsa
You quote what I said without reading it and come up with sharing genes??????

I want what your on



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Evolution is a direct result of something adapting to its environment. When there is a need it happen over generations. When there is no need things like alligators don't change over the long run. As they are perfectly adapted to their environment.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: roth1

Well really they are adapted enough not adapted perfectly. I'm sure that alligators could be more streamlined for their environment, so they aren't perfect. They just are adapted enough that they don't need to adapt anymore. Sorry, semantics, but words like "perfect" can get confusing to people.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vasaga


If a car can accelerate to 60 mph within 3 seconds, why can't it keep accelerating until it reaches the speed of light? Why does the acceleration stop past a certain point?

Acceleration ceases when resistance to motion — friction, essentially — equals the motive force.

Could you please explain what, in your analogy, equates to 'resistance to motion' when it comes to mutation?
Well, mutation is not exactly the right word. Beneficial mutation is more accurate, because it's that specific type that is required for evolution to take place rather than extinction. It's the difference between pressing the gas or the break on the car. So, you could theoretically say that when the transfer rate of degenerative mutations and beneficial mutations are the same, the evolutionary progress stops. When degenerative is higher, extinction follows, when beneficial is higher, evolution progresses.

Before I go on, I think it has been fairly well established that most mutations are neutral, the next majority are harmful, and the smallest fraction are beneficial.

Remember that when things are tested in a lab, it's generally tested in single cells, or genetic manipulation is performed to see how it spreads, rather than a natural mutation. With a single cell, the genetic mutation is immediately transferred to the next cell through division. Easy transfer, easy change in species, easy adaptation, easy evolution.

There's a reason bacteria can become resistant very quickly, or can change their food source very quickly, but us as humans can not. The more life has progressed, the more obstacles there are. In a being with thousands of cells, the mutation already gets transferred a lot more difficult through the whole being, with trillions even worse. The more cells a creature has, the more difficult it is for a mutation to be beneficial, because a lot more factors come into play before that change can be expressed. That's not even accounting that it has to reach the reproductive cells, and even then, it has to be conceived to spread. The next step is the whole population.

And now comes the most important part. A first cell might not have had a repair system for its DNA, but most creatures developed this quite early in the supposed evolutionary tree. This feature does not differentiate between a beneficial and a harmful mutation. Even if the repair fails, the chances of a detrimental mutation getting transferred is larger than a beneficial one. With a first cell pretty much anything can be beneficial, depending on where the cell lands and lots of adaptation can take place. More complicated the creature, the slower the adaptation and the harder to find a beneficial environment. Taking this into account, evolutionary speeds should be slowing down until it reaches a halt. This flies in the face of things like the Cambrian explosion.

And all this is negating other things. Why would random mutations + environment develop life with traits for experience, emotions, cognitive capabilities to understand the world and the ability to investigate itself? To a lot of us, it is far-fetched to conclude that speciation in a LAB can explain all this with the current models that we have. It's the equivalent of the car suddenly getting a fusion reactor that gives it the energy to reach the speed of light.


Except.. requisite cellular processes don't exist! These imaginary processes would have, in effect, mean the cell would need to be able to think. Your imaginary mechanisms in a bacterium, for example, would have to be able to examine the chemical structure of a novel antibiotic, look at the metabolism of the bacterium, and figure out what changes needed to be made to its genetic code to make its metabolism invulnerable to the antibiotic.
When we investigate such mechanisms they don't involve organisms doing genetic engineering on their germ cells. Cells are complicated, but that's no reason to suppose that they are capable of performing any particular complex task that you happen to dream up.

As others have noted most mutations are not particularly useful. Now you might suggest that only one cell in a million has the intelligence to figure out what the right mutation is, but it seems simpler to imagine that they all mutate at random and one cell in a million is lucky enough to get it right.

I would like to point out the existence of genetic algorithms and genetic programming. We know that these processes work, and we know exactly how these processes work, and there is not a chance that the random number generator of a computer somehow knows how to solve every problem that computer scientists throw at it. In this case we can be utterly certain that there's no intelligence in the mechanisms. But! the random variation is indeed sufficient.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: jabrsa
You quote what I said without reading it and come up with sharing genes??????

I want what your on

No...I quoted what I said???
I made a mistake and quoted what I said is that the problem?
I am new I made a mistake with the quote, do you have something to contribute?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: onthedownlow
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.


Equivocation fallacy. I clearly outlined the definition of evolution that we are talking about in the OP. Evolution of numbers uses a completely different definition of the word. Plus, basic math is on my side. It's like how we can predict that there are 24 hours in a day every day. Is that faith based? Of course not, we see the speed the earth rotates and can easily predict such things. This is why we have leap years. Because we know ahead of time that there are actually 23 hours and 56 minutes in a single rotation, but we want even numbers, so instead of making it exact, we add an extra day every 4 years. When we observe mutations adding up in a species, it is a direct observation of this phenomena and we can make predictions based on it in the same fashion.
edit on 15-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I understand why some question evolution and want to give all credit to god for these great creations.

But after watching this,
Andromeda in 4k:
www.youtube.com...

And reading this,
Half of all stars may have at least one habitable planet:
www.sciencedaily.com...

I realized how insignificant this earth is. I see what billions of stars actually looks like. And half of those billions could start a process of life like we have so LUCKILY gone through here.
So why would a god even bother specifically picking out what lives and doesnt on this planet. I believe he would just let his process of evolution take over. With so many opportunities.. life, eventually intelligence, will emerge. Were just lucky to experience it here.

edit on 15-2-2015 by iFloButta because: spelling error



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


I suspect isolation has an effect. The african and indian elephant being a good example. If two groups who can interbreed separate then each group will continue to breed within that group. All the changes will occur and be reflected in the whole group. However, those traits that have an evolutionary advantage will only be maintained in one group. Different changes will be maintained in the other. Eventually sufficient changes occur within the group (who can all still interbreed within that one group) that prevents it from interbreeding with any individuals in the other long separated group.

Easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
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.


Basically there are 2 ways you can look at it.

1. Two or more populations of the same species are isolated from one another and become different enough so that they can't breed after many thousands of generations of genetic changes.

2. One population changes enough from the original, so that IF the original version of the creature were still alive it would not be able to breed with the newer one.

This is why classifications of organisms are merely labels and estimations in many cases. It's not exact because you can't tell exactly when a species can no longer breed with it's original form, so there's always a degree of error and estimation. I think that people are getting too hung up on the literal classification labels, rather than the process we are describing. The species classification is an estimate and has been wrong in the past (ex, neanderthals and humans were once thought of as different species, but they could breed as little as 60,000 years ago, so now they are classified as different sub species, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neanderthalensis).



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
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.


I was going to ignore this because this and his last post were completely off topic, but since you decided to accuse me of a red herring in the OP, I have no choice. This accusation is unsubstantiated, because a red herring is a distraction from the point being discussed. Since I created it, how is it possible to distract from my own established parameters? That doesn't make sense. Can you please highlight and explain this fallacy?


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.


Why is it that nobody can answer the question in the OP? Why is your only form of argument denial?
edit on 15-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: jabrsa

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?


You are still way off topic. I have not yet seen any science posted by you. If you wish to debunk established science you must show why it is wrong and link conflicting evidence, instead of just denying it. Back up what you said. I didn't deny that the environment can cause mutations lol.
edit on 15-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
9 pages in

Number of evolution/science deniers that have answered the OP: zero




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join