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

Part 2

a reply to: Barcs

So you deny that there is a gene that can cause dark wings to be expressed?

It has nothing to do with denial friend. Read the literature. In only rare instances can one gene be linked to a single trait. Most of the time these relationships involve multiple gene and gene products. They're called polygenic traits. Things like eye color, hair color, height et al, all fall into this category. Your evolution site continually refers to a "gene for this" and a "gene for that", and bases their lessons on this false concept of genetics. It's misleading and lazy. Did you even bother to look at the link I posted re: common misconceptions about genes? What's wrong with it?

More off topic stuff. I explained why I made the thread. If it doesn't apply to you and you can't argue the point, then you are in the wrong place.

Funny, I think I am arguing the point. I find it telling that you keep demanding an answer for a question you already know the answer to, is all.

So you deny the story of the whale then? Without a single detail posted about why it's wrong, just "OMG I can't believe that!"
Again, this is off topic. This thread is about mutations adding up. Sorry that you don't like the whale account or the question I posed. Frankly I don't care.

Is this not a discussion about how micro changes lead to macro changes? The story of the whale is very on topic. But you're right, I can't believe that from a few bone fragments they think a dog like creature eventually turned into a gigantic fish mammal. Sorry for not buying that narrative on good faith. Just time and mutations, is all it takes, right Barcs?

Did you watch the animation? That's one hell of a story loaded with a lot of speculation. Here's another story that might actually make more sense. You be the judge. I only post this stuff to show the highly speculative nature, and the different beliefs that can pervade the study of fossils and their placement in evolutionary history.

Now pass the salt.

You're doing a good job DENYING the question, but again you refuse to provide an answer.

Now now Barcs. Don't you have a better argument than that? You're asking why mutations can't add up to cause a new species. This question has a couple of problems with it. First, we all know mutations can add up. So it's a moot point. Second, it's not clear, (if at all thought) that millions of mutations lead to speciation. So this question in my eyes can't be answered. Not that you were expecting to get one.

But again, maybe you can answer your own question.

Do you understand that natural selection plays a bigger role than the mutations, when it comes to evolutionary change?

I don't believe natural selection warrants the hype that it gets. It's a form of population dynamics. It seems obvious that things live and die, and that those who live will pass along their genetic info. NS only seeks to assign stories to this dynamic process about which genes or traits or whatever got selected, or why certain organisms get to keep on living. Plausible as it may be, it's still guess work.

To answer your question, NS plays a role, although it's not the only game in town. Not by a long shot.

The study I cited about the sulfur cycling bacteria of 2.3 billion years of stasis is between samples found off the coast of western Australia and Chile. Think about how far away those locations are from each other. Not to mention that land masses have shifted greatly in the last 2.3 billion years. I have to believe that this would lead to some sort of change in environment. Yet these things mutated for over 2 billion years and never evolved. This shows that accumulation of millions of mutations over billions of years does not lead to evolution. So how might this be relevant to your question? Natural selection, right?

originally posted by: Barcs
It is YOU GUYS that aren't understanding MY position, because not a single one of you has answered the question.

As a man who grew up in Mississippi and was educated in a private Christian school for 12 years, I believe I can answer the question for you and it will cover the beliefs of the majority of the posters.

You see, in my school we were not taught anything about evolution. We had a Bible class every day and we actually had biology classes but the real how and why of biology was never discussed. We were taught the anatomy and physiology of various species but the topic of evolution was basically considered a joke in my school. We learned that all species were created by god, more or less, exactly as they appear today. The huge gaping holes in that theory were never addressed.

I'll preface this by saying not all creationists/Christians have these beliefs but it covers the majority:

Microevolution is not necessarily a "natural" process but it's a genetic coding implanted by god to allow a species to adapt to a changing environment. These adaptations are minor, like the classic example of the peppered moth. Instead of genetic mutations being selected by the environment over many generations, these adaptations happen fairly quickly so the species does not go extinct. In order to accept this assertion, one must believe that the genetic coding "knows" when to adapt so the belief basically has to coincide with a belief in a creator god and treats DNA as an intelligent mechanism.

Now, because of that particular way of thinking, the notion of macroevolution is then twisted to mean "a species adapts to its environment so much that it becomes another species." This obviously doesn't make logical sense in the context of creationism because if the species has an inherent genetic code that allows it to adapt, why would it need to change into another species? This also flies in the face of the notion that god created all species that have ever lived. It's FURTHER convoluted with the classic implication "man descended from monkeys" so many Creationists dismiss the idea outright because of the absurdity of that statement since, to them, it means a monkey quickly changed into a man. So the reason that most Creationists reject the notion of macroevolution is because they believe that minor adaptations occur in species in order to allow them to survive but those adaptations stop once the species is no longer under threat. The adaptations do not continue to happen over millions of years, only when they're needed to ensure the survival of the species. This doesn't even cover the Young-Earth Creationists whose world view doesn't allow enough time for any of the changes to occur anyway but they're a whole different level of delusional.

So this should answer your question and also addresses why Creationists have conveniently redefined Microevolution and Macroevolution as two different processes to fit their world view. When most Creationists say "I believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution", what they're really saying is "I believe that god built in a code that lets species adapt to survive but I don't believe that god would ever have those species change into another species because he has already created the species he wanted on Earth."

Sorry for the wall of text.

snip

originally posted by: Barcs
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?

There's a false assumption here.
You're implying that Creationists are imposing an artificial limit on the extent to which speciation can occur.
I'd suggest to you that It's genetics itself that would be the limit.

The point is this:
Mutations are very rarely beneficial.
Even when they are beneficial practically, they are destructive genetically.
Continued destructive modification of the genome doesn't lead to greater speciation - it leads to death.
THAT is the limit... and I'd suggest that limit is far more strict than most of us realize.

a reply to: peter vlar

But that doesn't mean that, as you say, science (I love when people refer to it in this way, as if Science is its own person) in and of itself is flawed nor would the scientific method be so.

Right, I wasn't referring to it as a person. When I wrote "in Science", I was referring to the scientific community. If you're someone within that community then you may know what I mean.

They weren't pushing things simply for the sake of it or the sake of their reputation or ego.

I believe you and am glad to hear that. In fact I think that most folks in the scientific community are the way you describe. But then again I'm not sure how many of them are in positions to discover new things.

When big money is involved I can see why people will push their agendas, theories, etc by any means necessary, even if at the risk of some sanity, and/or their reputation.

You're right, it's not endemic to just science. But considering the topic that's why I said it.

By they way it's Lynn Margulis' quote that's in my signature. I honestly haven't read her material regarding AIDS/HIV, so can't comment.

a reply to: vasaga

So, you could theoretically say that when the transfer rate of degenerative mutations and beneficial mutations are the same, the evolutionary progress stops.

Why? Deleterious mutations are weeded out by selection. Beneficial ones prosper. The rate of mutation has nothing to do with whether or not evolution takes place.

You seem to be making one of the same mistaken assumptions as Chr0naut. But at least — so far as I can see — you have not fallen victim to his other false assumption, that the process of speciation renders an organism incapable of producing offspring with other members of the same or an immediately preceding generation.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

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.

Chr0naut is disputing it.

a reply to: chr0naut

Mutation happens in strands of DNA. The DNA resides in cells in the bodies of individuals. Those individuals exist within groups of similar individuals. At the actual time of mutation, only the individual mutant has the mutation. The mutated gene gets into the group via breeding.

Nevertheless, mutation rates are given for populations, not individuals.

And mutation rates, as we have seen, have nothing much to do with selection rates.

Sexual selection, a form of natural selection, can alter the phenotype of a population massively in a few generations. And all it takes are a few heritable mutations — possibly even one.

To imply that groups mutate is unreasonable.

Is this what you think I mean when I say 'mutation rates are given for populations'?

a reply to: chr0naut

As this was the point I was initially making, namely that it would be unlikey that there existed another individual that had the same speciating mutation/s and could mate with the individual who was now a different species than the gene pool from which it arose, I did not think that question warranted a repetiton of that point.

But that isn't how it works. You're clinging to this false idea that speciation takes place in a single generation — hell, no, even that's not enough, you want to make it the result of a single mutation! Look: as has now been painstakingly explained to you several times, that's wrong.

Histocompatibility, forsooth. Way not to see the wood for the tiny florets at the ends of the twigs at the ends of the branches at the ends of the limbs of some very leafy trees.

Look, Chr0naut, you sound like an educated and intelligent person (or, at any rate, an articulate one). I've seen you make lucid and meaningful contributions to threads on other subjects. It never fails to surprise me, then, how poorly you understand evolution, a subject on which you insist on engaging in debate. If I were in your position, sheer embarrassment would have driven me to a proper understanding of the subject by now. Come on — I understand it pretty well, and I'm not especially smart. If I can, I'm sure you can, too.

Please don't think I'm patronizing you; that is certainly not my intention. I recognize there is always a problem unlearning what one thinks one already knows. But at the risk of having a post removed for being personal, I feel I must say this. You're too good for this ghetto you've barricaded yourself into. Read and think yourself out of it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

As this was the point I was initially making, namely that it would be unlikey that there existed another individual that had the same speciating mutation/s and could mate with the individual who was now a different species than the gene pool from which it arose, I did not think that question warranted a repetiton of that point.

But that isn't how it works. You're clinging to this false idea that speciation takes place in a single generation — hell, no, even that's not enough, you want to make it the result of a single mutation! Look: as has now been painstakingly explained to you several times, that's wrong.

Histocompatibility, forsooth. Way not to see the wood for the tiny florets at the ends of the twigs at the ends of the branches at the ends of the limbs of some very leafy trees.

Look, Chr0naut, you sound like an educated and intelligent person (or, at any rate, an articulate one). I've seen you make lucid and meaningful contributions to threads on other subjects. It never fails to surprise me, then, how poorly you understand evolution, a subject on which you insist on engaging in debate. If I were in your position, sheer embarrassment would have driven me to a proper understanding of the subject by now. Come on — I understand it pretty well, and I'm not especially smart. If I can, I'm sure you can, too.

Please don't think I'm patronizing you; that is certainly not my intention. I recognize there is always a problem unlearning what one thinks one already knows. But at the risk of having a post removed for being personal, I feel I must say this. You're too good for this ghetto you've barricaded yourself into. Read and think yourself out of it.

I have explained, using a hypothetical example, how single mutation speciation might possibly occur. I did this as an example that shows the possibility of single step speciation. I could understand how one could reason that this actually proves nothing.

I then pointed you to documentation of several observed instances of single step speciation.

Yet, after this, you deny that single step speciation is possible.

ok - hear is my attempt at explaining the mechanism of speciation // genetic drift etc - " for dummies "

lets start with a population of 10 thousand ok ?

generation one - 10000 individuals

generation 20 - 9900 pure bred and 100 progeny that each have a single mutation [ mutation A through J ]

generation 2000 - 100 projeny that have now aquired 60 of the mutations from gen 2 , and 900 projeny that have a single unique mutation

generation 10000 - 100 projeny that have aquired 40 of the gen 2 mutations and 400 of the gen 20 mutations [ new mutations are ignored ]

the number of mutations that occur is higher than the number of mutations that is passed on to descendants - as not all all mutations are beneficial - and even benefical ones are " lost " if the individual does not breed

now by gen 10000 the mutant island of the population - has drifted - and the " divergant genome "is by now causing physiological changes in the mutant population

now extend that down the line to gen 500k - and the mutant island not only has different physical characteristics , and distinct genome - it can no longer back breed with the " purebred " that are unchanged since gen 01

voila - speciation has occured

thats it - i cannot both " dumb it down " , keep it in one readable ATS post and document every step

but as the illustration above demonstrates - speciation does not occur in a single genaration - so can people at least drop that canard

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: PhotonEffect

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.

Chr0naut is disputing it.

I never said or even implied that "the fly was still a fly" or "the ecoli was still ecoli".

I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I have not made reference to observed genetic change NOT showing speciation.

I was saying speciation can occur in a single step and that it has been observed to do so. This is entirely the opposite to what you suggested.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

As this was the point I was initially making, namely that it would be unlikey that there existed another individual that had the same speciating mutation/s and could mate with the individual who was now a different species than the gene pool from which it arose, I did not think that question warranted a repetiton of that point.

But that isn't how it works. You're clinging to this false idea that speciation takes place in a single generation — hell, no, even that's not enough, you want to make it the result of a single mutation! Look: as has now been painstakingly explained to you several times, that's wrong.

Histocompatibility, forsooth. Way not to see the wood for the tiny florets at the ends of the twigs at the ends of the branches at the ends of the limbs of some very leafy trees.

Look, Chr0naut, you sound like an educated and intelligent person (or, at any rate, an articulate one). I've seen you make lucid and meaningful contributions to threads on other subjects. It never fails to surprise me, then, how poorly you understand evolution, a subject on which you insist on engaging in debate. If I were in your position, sheer embarrassment would have driven me to a proper understanding of the subject by now. Come on — I understand it pretty well, and I'm not especially smart. If I can, I'm sure you can, too.

Please don't think I'm patronizing you; that is certainly not my intention. I recognize there is always a problem unlearning what one thinks one already knows. But at the risk of having a post removed for being personal, I feel I must say this. You're too good for this ghetto you've barricaded yourself into. Read and think yourself out of it.

Please explain, with sources (not opinion pieces), why you cannot accept that single step speciation in the observed examples provided (like the Wikipedia article on Saltation) are not sufficient evidence for you to accept that single step speciation occurs.

The problem for most Humans is simple.

Evolution / Ever expanding , contracting universe / Time etc....

Are all ideas only an omnipotent being could probably fully comprehend. The rest of us monkeys know this, so its not over whelming. We just inch our way along knowing whatever we find , only shows us more of what we don't know.

But if you are not just a monkey, but Gods child. Then you should get it right ?



To admit not being smart enough is tough. Better to just deny it even exists, and go back to what you can comprehend.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
ok - hear is my attempt at explaining the mechanism of speciation // genetic drift etc - " for dummies "

lets start with a population of 10 thousand ok ?

generation one - 10000 individuals

generation 20 - 9900 pure bred and 100 progeny that each have a single mutation [ mutation A through J ]

generation 2000 - 100 projeny that have now aquired 60 of the mutations from gen 2 , and 900 projeny that have a single unique mutation

generation 10000 - 100 projeny that have aquired 40 of the gen 2 mutations and 400 of the gen 20 mutations [ new mutations are ignored ]

the number of mutations that occur is higher than the number of mutations that is passed on to descendants - as not all all mutations are beneficial - and even benefical ones are " lost " if the individual does not breed

now by gen 10000 the mutant island of the population - has drifted - and the " divergant genome "is by now causing physiological changes in the mutant population

now extend that down the line to gen 500k - and the mutant island not only has different physical characteristics , and distinct genome - it can no longer back breed with the " purebred " that are unchanged since gen 01

voila - speciation has occured

thats it - i cannot both " dumb it down " , keep it in one readable ATS post and document every step

but as the illustration above demonstrates - speciation does not occur in a single genaration - so can people at least drop that canard

No canard but I doubt that it is too f@%canard for you to understand.

Single step speciation has been observed. Please read this I count five references to observed saltational speciation there.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Mutations add up, okay, obviously they do. But we all knew this already. And technically, extinction stops accumulations from happening in a lineage. This then answers your question in the title, whether you accept it or not, even if it is just a technicality.

This is a red herring from the OP because we all know that mutations do not add up in extinct organisms. This was never in question. This topic is about comparing small changes with bigger ones and explaining this change. Extinction isn't a limit on a evolution, it's a mechanism of natural selection that plays a huge role in it.

The question to you is: does this adding up necessarily cause speciation as you have suggested? Read the literature on speciation and see if you can find in the list of causes: "Millions of mutations adding up". I haven't found it.

If you are suggesting that my concept of speciation is wrong, then please provide a reference. I don't recall saying speciation is strictly millions of mutations adding up and that's all she wrote. I mentioned that it was about genetic compatibility. Millions of generations was in reference to the really big changes. (ie land mammal to whale, dinosaur to bird, fish to amphibian, etc), but different organisms have varying lifespans, so don't get hung up on the numbers. I clearly defined speciation as new traits becoming dominant within a population that add up over time and change the organism enough so that it can no longer reproduce with the originals.

One example of natural speciation is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish that, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. Over an estimated 10,000 generations, the sticklebacks show structural differences that are greater than those seen between different genera of fish including variations in fins, changes in the number or size of their bony plates, variable jaw structure, and color differences.[5]

-10,000 generations.

-structural differences
-variations in fins
-changes in bony plates
- variable jaw structure.

This would clearly be speciation where 4 different traits combined together to cause enough change in the species that they can't reproduce with the originals.

Hint: it's reproductive isolation that is believed to be the cause of lineage splits, not millions of accumulated mutations.

I've mentioned reproductive isolation numerous times. Here's a hint: Reproductive isolation causes speciation because genes are no longer shared between the 2 groups and they experience different mutations. Accumulated mutations lead to the new traits. So saying that something is caused by reproductive isolation but not mutations is absurd because the mutations are the cause of the new traits in the first place.

Hint: we still don't fully understand how macro speciation events occur

I'm glad you mentioned this because this is one of the PRIMARY misunderstandings demonstrated in this thread.

Hint: There's no such thing as a "macro speciation event".

Speciation is about SPECIES. It's never a single event, just like with the bigger level changes (ie genus). They are accumulations of mutations and traits that cause different enough appearance for scientists to classify them differently. Stop getting hung up on single events, and numbers like "thousands or millions of generations"

If you don't mind, I don't want to delve anymore into the world of metaphors. They do more harm then good, and biology is full of these.

You were the one that nitpicked it in the first place. I only used the bucket filling with water to explain the concept of accumulation, not to back it up or use as a reason to prove it.

You said: "Natural selection causes extinction, they are pretty much the same mechanism".

Very rarely does that happen, so it's odd you would assert that as a definition of natural selection. It's also odd that you would equate extinction with natural selection, since the latter is believed to keep organisms from dying.

You keep twisting my words around. I didn't say that Natural selection is ONLY defined by extinction. No, just like speciation isn't ONLY "millions of mutations adding up". There are numerous aspects of natural selection. Extinction is one of them, a big one. The fit survive, the weak die out. Funny how you say that rarely happens when 99.9% of all species has gone extinct as you kindly pointed out a few posts back. What exactly do you consider rare about that?

Once again, extinction can stop mutations from adding up. So yes, it is relevant. The ones that are alive today just haven't gone extinct yet. Do you think humans will split into something else?

It's not relevant and I explained it above. If you think extinction is relevant to my question, then you don't understand this thread or its purpose. Humans could very easily split off into something else. It's already happened partially, just look at all the races of human out there. If they were all kept isolated for longer, this exact thing could eventually happen.

A lot is already known about epigenetic factors and their roles in development. Wiki has the essentials on MES, but trust me I've looked all over to find what changes have been made to it in light of all the recent discoveries in the last decade. Guess what, not much at all, yet it keeps getting to referred to as if there's nothing wrong with it.

According to the descriptions I've read, epicgenetics isn't about traits and genes being inherited. It's about changes in gene expression due to environmental pressure during the lifetime of the organism. These changes are not passed down. That makes it 100% irrelevant in the discussion, as I am discussing mutations adding up over time, NOT un-inheritable changes to creatures caused by the environment during a single lifetime.

To truly delve into Modern Evolutionary Synthesis you need to read BOOKS on the topic and research papers. You aren't going to find everything in a single wikipedia link.

You say MES isn't relevant to this thread, but oddly enough you referenced it in your OP, so pardon me for thinking it was fair game. It's very important to your question to understand the role of genes. You seem to believe that if we throw enough time and mutations at a population it will morph into a completely different and physically unrelated one. But maybe I've misunderstood your question.

Where did I say that MES wasn't relevant to the thread? I said that this thread is about mutations adding up over time, not the countless other factors that have already been discussed to death. You seem to keep going all or nothing. I'm talking about one aspect of MES here. Essentially, yes, if you "throw" enough genetic mutations to an isolated population it can speciate from the other, this isn't rocket science. No, it doesn't morph, the genetic changes ACCUMULATE leading to greater genetic difference between organism A and organism B. A leads to B leads to C, etc etc all the way down to Z. One could say A and Z appear vastly different while A and B are very similar, R and S are similar, and something like A and H would be different, but not was much as comparing A to Z.

I'll be back for part 2 in an hour.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
It has nothing to do with denial friend. Read the literature. In only rare instances can one gene be linked to a single trait. Most of the time these relationships involve multiple gene and gene products. They're called polygenic traits. Things like eye color, hair color, height et al, all fall into this category. Your evolution site continually refers to a "gene for this" and a "gene for that", and bases their lessons on this false concept of genetics. It's misleading and lazy. Did you even bother to look at the link I posted re: common misconceptions about genes? What's wrong with it?

That sounds like nitpicking to me. Nobody is disputing that multiple mutations and hence genes lead to certain traits. Would it be more proper to say "sequence of genes" instead of just "the gene". I like the Berkley site because they communicate their message simply and effectively. This thread wasn't addressed to geneticists, and the Berkley site wasn't written for evolutionary biologists and geneticists. My thread was addressed to the folks that impose limits on the accumulation of mutations. Your personal dispute with the terminology of "the gene" vs "the gene sequence" doesn't matter in this regard and is dragging us even further off topic.

Funny, I think I am arguing the point. I find it telling that you keep demanding an answer for a question you already know the answer to, is all.

You aren't answering the question, you are asking about my motivations behind it and bringing up red herrings like extinction and your dispute with terminology used on a website designed for students. If you have a better source, by all means. I was trying to keep it simple for the folks that might not have an advanced understanding of the subject matter.

Is this not a discussion about how micro changes lead to macro changes? The story of the whale is very on topic. But you're right, I can't believe that from a few bone fragments they think a dog like creature eventually turned into a gigantic fish mammal. Sorry for not buying that narrative on good faith. Just time and mutations, is all it takes, right Barcs?

Don't buy it on good faith. "Buy" it because dozens of certified experts in the field have studied those fossils for decades and pretty much all of them have reached similar conclusions because of the common bone structures and anatomy that doesn't make sense otherwise. But I guess your personal opinion based purely on the shock value of a change that big overrides decades of study. If you wish to relate this to my topic, then you must formulate a reasoned response back by evidence, related to why the mutations did not or can not add up in this case. Your denial of it is irrelevant. Break it down.

I don't believe natural selection warrants the hype that it gets. It's a form of population dynamics. It seems obvious that things live and die, and that those who live will pass along their genetic info. NS only seeks to assign stories to this dynamic process about which genes or traits or whatever got selected, or why certain organisms get to keep on living. Plausible as it may be, it's still guess work.

Natural selection is now guesswork? Really? It's about as common sense as saying that lightning strikes during thunderstorms. LMAO at assigning stories. It's a simple fact. Better adapted creatures in an environment will outsurvive the others. That isn't a guess. An asteroid hitting the earth, making 80% of the species extinct and leading to the rise of mammals is not a guess. It is obvious and I'm not even going to waste my time debating if you deny natural selection.

To answer your question, NS plays a role, although it's not the only game in town. Not by a long shot.

No kidding, again it's not all or nothing, but Natural Selection plays a big role in pretty much every evolutionary change. Can you explain how a trait can become dominant within a population without natural selection?

The study I cited about the sulfur cycling bacteria of 2.3 billion years of stasis is between samples found off the coast of western Australia and Chile. Think about how far away those locations are from each other. Not to mention that land masses have shifted greatly in the last 2.3 billion years.

There is nothing unusual or wrong with that. The oceans connect everything. Crocodiles live on at least 4 different continents now, white sharks pretty much roam all of the oceans on earth. 2.3 billion years is a long time. What matters here is their level of fitness. If you are suggesting they were not fit for their environment, and did not ever experience any big changes I would be shocked. 2.3 billion years of survival suggests the exact opposite.

I have to believe that this would lead to some sort of change in environment. Yet these things mutated for over 2 billion years and never evolved. This shows that accumulation of millions of mutations over billions of years does not lead to evolution. So how might this be relevant to your question? Natural selection, right?

This statement here once again shows lack of understanding of not only natural selection, but also of rate of mutation vs the rate of evolutionary change. The bottom line is that they were fit enough to survive. If they are equipped well enough to survive extinction level events, they will continue to thrive. Remember these organisms and types like it are the main reason why life on earth hasn't all gone extinct. I would wager my life savings that if you tried to breed one of them with the same type of organism 2.3 billion years ago, it wouldn't work. So for the 20th time, mutations alone do not create evolutionary changes. Get this notion out of your head. It's about new traits emerging and becoming dominant in a species. For an organism that is well adapted, most changes will not be beneficial and hence not past down to future generations.

originally posted by: Awen24
There's a false assumption here.
You're implying that Creationists are imposing an artificial limit on the extent to which speciation can occur.
I'd suggest to you that It's genetics itself that would be the limit.

The point is this:
Mutations are very rarely beneficial.
Even when they are beneficial practically, they are destructive genetically.
Continued destructive modification of the genome doesn't lead to greater speciation - it leads to death.
THAT is the limit... and I'd suggest that limit is far more strict than most of us realize.

Can you please back that up with evidence and science? Please break down the math and prove that this limit exists. It doesn't matter if mutations are rarely beneficial, plus that is a relative term, because beneficial one day could be detrimental as soon as the environment changes and vice versa. The majority of mutations are actually neutral. If they are detrimental they usually aren't passed down, so they aren't destructive to the genome in the least because they die.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I was saying speciation can occur in a single step and that it has been observed to do so. This is entirely the opposite to what you suggested.

Saying speciation can occur in a single step is blatantly wrong, because it takes time for a beneficial trait to emerge, then it takes time for it to become dominant. 2 steps right there. I do not think the reference to "single step speciation" in the wiki for saltation is meant to imply this as I can't find a reference to this anywhere else. People often confuse saltation with punctuated equilibrium. Saltation seems to be more about hybrids sharing genes in others ways besides inherited mutations.

But again, if SSS has happened, how did the organism survive and pass down genes to offspring if it speciated suddenly in the middle of it's life. What organisms would that one breed with? I think we're talking about completely different concepts here. It seems saltation changes as well as epigenetics are not part of evolution, because they aren't about mutations being passed down to offspring, but admittedly I'm no expert on the subjects, nor am I a geneticist. Like epigenetics, it seems like a fairly new concept in genetics with an extremely small amount of evidence. Give the scientists some time to research more and we'll get a clearer picture of how it all fits together, instead of scoffing at the established science every time a new concept is discovered as if it trumps it rather than compliments or works with it.

a reply to: chr0naut

I never said or even implied...

No, the quote was from a post by Barcs, embedded in one by PhotonEffect. What Barcs is saying is what you are disputing.