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

a reply to: chr0naut

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.

Wow. Somebody starred that. I hope they went to the page first, and read the indicated section with care.

I did. There were references to various instances of (claimed, but I'm happy to accept the claims) saltational events, like the appearance of centipedes with extra body segments and the like, but as far as I could see only one example of single-event speciations — a whole class of them, I grant you, but they're all the same thing: the appearance of polyploidy in hitherto diploid species, which renders the polyploids unable to mate with their diploid forebears.

However, a lot of polyploid species are asexual, and many are the result of selective breeding by humans, and they are reproduced by artificial cloning and suchlike. Polyploidy does occur in nature, and is poorly understood. As an example of speciation occurring within a single generation, I don't think it really cuts the mustard.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

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.

Wow. Somebody starred that. I hope they went to the page first, and read the indicated section with care.

I did. There were references to various instances of (claimed, but I'm happy to accept the claims) saltational events, like the appearance of centipedes with extra body segments and the like, but as far as I could see only one example of single-event speciations — a whole class of them, I grant you, but they're all the same thing: the appearance of polyploidy in hitherto diploid species, which renders the polyploids unable to mate with their diploid forebears.

However, a lot of polyploid species are asexual, and many are the result of selective breeding by humans, and they are reproduced by artificial cloning and suchlike. Polyploidy does occur in nature, and is poorly understood. As an example of speciation occurring within a single generation, I don't think it really cuts the mustard.

but you quite clearly and unambiguously stated that single step speciation did not happen.

Do I hear a retraction of that, very particular point, then?

Polyploidy is where there are more than a pair of chromosomes. It is most prevalent in plants but may potentially arise due to mutation and affect any organism. It is not unknown in humans. Here's a link in Wikipedia on it.

a reply to: chr0naut

Do I hear a retraction of that, very particular point, then?

Certainly not. Are you arguing that a child with Down's Syndrome isn't human?

You are apparently defining a species as a set of organisms able to produce fertile offspring through mating. This is acceptable, roughly, for sexually reproducing species, but how do you define an asexually reproducing species? It is very difficult, and biologists argue about it. There is no agreed definition. However, the existence of such a definition is presupposed in the claim that polyploidy equals speciation. This is wrong. But since that Wikipedia article of yours is bad science about an outdated theory, written by a creationist (as is evident from the talk page), I can't say I'm surprised. Did you write it?

Genuine speciation has never been observed in a single generation — except, as I understand it, at the Institute for Creation Research.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Do I hear a retraction of that, very particular point, then?

Certainly not. Are you arguing that a child with Down's Syndrome isn't human?

You are apparently defining a species as a set of organisms able to produce fertile offspring through mating. This is acceptable, roughly, for sexually reproducing species, but how do you define an asexually reproducing species? It is very difficult, and biologists argue about it. There is no agreed definition. However, the existence of such a definition is presupposed in the claim that polyploidy equals speciation. This is wrong. But since that Wikipedia article of yours is bad science about an outdated theory, written by a creationist (as is evident from the talk page), I can't say I'm surprised. Did you write it?

Genuine speciation has never been observed in a single generation — except, as I understand it, at the Institute for Creation Research.

I did not write the Wikipedia article, nor did I edit or contribute to it in any way. Not even slightly.

I am not associated with the Institute for Creation Research (or any other organization that specifically has an agenda to promote Creationism as science). I do not recall reading any of their publications. I am not an American and doubt that I may even unknowingly have met someone associated with that organization.

I am not a Biologist (although I have studied Biology and Medicine to above grade school standard). My primary educational background and forte is in Astrophysics with leanings toward space-time physics and cosmology.

My best friend's wife is a geneticist, employed in that capacity, and we have had occasion a few times to discuss evolutionary biology. She is also a Christian (of the born again, immersed in the Holy Spirit type). She was the one who initially suggested to me that everything that she does in the lab, also occurs in nature yet is conspicuously absent as mechanism, from the modern evolutionary synthesis.

My observations and reasoning are my own. As such, I have to search out supportive information. One such 'found' source was the Wikipedia article on Saltation.

In regards to the link to the discussion on the Saltation article, the posts suggesting an absence of citations and that the article is out of date are, themselves somewhat out of date.

The majority of the posts in the talk section of the article make reference to Stephen Jay Gould's 2002 book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". But also makes specific reference to:

1. Balon, Eugene K. Epigenetic processes, when natura non facit saltum becomes a myth, and alternative ontogenies a mechanism of evolution. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2002; 651-35.

2. Hallgrimsson, Benedikt and Hall Brian. Variation: A Central Concept in Biology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005; p. 511.

3. Dietrich, Michael R. From Hopeful Monsters to Homeotic Effects: Richard Goldschmidt's Integration of Development, Evolution, and Genetics. American Zoologist. 2000 Nov; 40(5):738-747.

4. Levinton, Jeffrey S. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001; pp. 157-162.

5. Matthew I. Goldsmith, Shannon Fisher Rick Waterman and Stephen L. Johnson. Saltatory control of isometric growth in the zebrafish caudal fin is disrupted in long fin and rapunzel mutants. Developmental Biology. 2003 Jul 5; 259(2):303(15).

6. Schwartz, Jeffrey H. Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.

7. Laubichler, Manfred D. and Maienschein Jane, Editors. From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007; p. 173.

8. Minelli, Alessandro and Fusco Giuseppe, Editors. Evolving Pathways [Key Themes in Evolutionary Developmental Biology]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008; pp. 50-51.

9. Reid, Robert G. B. Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007; pp. 50, 184, 245, 271, 276, 330, 48. (The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology.)

10. Hall, Brian K. Pearson Roy D. and Müller Gerd B. Environment, Development, and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2003. (The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology.)

11. West-Eberhard, Mary Jane. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003; p. 3.

12. Muller, Gerd B. and Newman Stuart A. wip, ed. Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003. (The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology.)

13. Wilkins, Adam S. The Evolution of Developmental Pathways. Massachusetts: Sinaur Associates; 2002; pp. 369-371; 389.

14. Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. New York: Columbia University Press; 2007; p. 99.

15. Gregory, T. Ryan, ed. Macroevolution and the Genome. In The Evolution of the Genome. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005.

16. Cabej, Nelson R. Neural Control of Development: The Epigenetic Theory of Heredity. New Jersey: Albanet; 2004.

17. Cabej, Nelson R. Epigenetic Principles of Evolution . New Jersey: Albanet; 2008.

18. Sapp, Jan. Genesis [The Evolution of Biology]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

19. Woese, Carl R. Evolving Biological Organization. In Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution: Concepts and Controversies (Jan Sapp, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005; pp. 107-109.

20. Kingsley, David M. et. al. Adaptive Evolution of Pelvic Reduction in Sticklebacks by Recurrent Deletion of a Ptix1 Enhancer. Sciencexpress, 10 December 2009.

I suspect that none of the above works can trace their origins to the Institute for Creation Research.

Your inference then, that there was some connection, is evidentially a red herring. Your attempt at character assassination by association, doubly so.

a reply to: chr0naut

I did not write the Wikipedia article, nor did I edit or contribute to it in any way. Not even slightly.

All right, all right, it was just a joke. Besides, how would I know? You could be a famous biologist for all I know.

I am not associated with the Institute for Creation Research (or any other organization that specifically has an agenda to promote Creationism as science). I do not recall reading any of their publications. I am not an American and doubt that I may even unknowingly have met someone associated with that organization.

Never accused you of any of the above. My search for 'single-generation speciation' just brought up several ICR links, that's all.

Regarding the meat of your post, you will notice that nearly all the citations are of secondary sources, not original research. There are two papers on fish, neither of which appear to be about speciation; the rest are reviews of the literature — reviews, mind, not metastudies or anything that might be called research. Do you know what that suggests to me? It suggests that the author is not a professionally active biologist, and may not indeed be a biologist at all.

Your inference then, that there was some connection, is evidentially a red herring.

I did not make such an inference, although I see how my words might be taken like that. My apologies for being insensitive.

Your attempt at character assassination by association, doubly so.

You'll have to point out the bit to me where I tried to assassinate your character. Which one do you usually go for? I like Mr Green, whom I think of as an Edwardian clergyman; I think you might make a good Professor Plum, the brainy one.

a reply to: Barcs

If you are suggesting that my concept of speciation is wrong, then please provide a reference.

I'm suggesting your concept of evolution is incomplete and narrow based off of your comments thus far.

You’re ignoring that in general, the factors leading to all manners of speciation have not been adequately resolved and are still up for debate. Your repeated stance in this thread has been that "evolution (speciation)" happens in one main way- i.e. mutations (adaptations?), sorted by natural selection, adding up in a population enough to cause reproductive isolation through new traits. This is basically phyletic gradualism, or evolution by anagenesis, which is not thought to be as common (vs cladogenesis). Either way there is clearly not a consensus on this. Or, this.

It makes logical sense that there should first be a speciation event ( e.g. a natural barrier) that splits a population, along the lines of the allopatric method. Mutations will happen, alleles may become fixed, but that accomplishes very little in the face of a static environment, right? Only after a population has split, could mutations eventually lead to adaptations that would further push the groups to diverge into incipient species, provided there is no migration or gene flow. Or at least this is one of the ways speciation is believed to commonly occur.

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.

You seem to be invoking a version sympatric speciation here, which relates to anagenetic speciation I mentioned above. Essentially it's speciation within a single lineage rather than by branching off from a common ancestor. Researchers aren't too clear on how this type of speciation works, and it's believed to be one of the least likely to occur among animals. More so in plants perhaps.

-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.

Is this your conclusion? Please excuse me for not accepting this claim out of context, and without proper citation. Perhaps linking a source to this study so others can do proper due diligence would help here.

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.

Your equating of reproductive isolation as occurring only after mutations have lead to new traits suggests an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms. There are many ways it happens. It is my hope that you will at least read the links I've provided to see what the experts are saying. Or, feel free to post your sources so we can compare notes.

And while we're on the topic of reproductive isolation, please read this interesting study:

Macroevolutionary speciation rates are decoupled from the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation in Drosophila and birds:
Rates of species diversification vary widely in the natural world, leading to profound differences in species richness among different kinds of organisms. Variation in the rate at which new species arise is frequently assumed to result from factors that influence the rate at which populations become reproductively isolated from each other. We tested this assumption in Drosophila flies and birds. Surprisingly, we find no evidence that the propensity of organisms to evolve reproductive isolation predicts the rate at which they form new species over geological timescales. These results suggest that factors that cause intrinsic reproductive isolation may play less of a role in explaining biological diversity than generally assumed.

In short they compared several species of Drosophila and birds, and found the correlation between reproductive isolation and speciation seems to be lacking. www.pnas.org...

Feel free to comment and link to sources that contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion.

[Speciation is] 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"

It's what you're saying re: the causes of speciation that I'm getting caught up on. You're conflating the actual event with how divergence into incipient species happens afterward.

According to the descriptions I've read, epicgenetics isn't about traits and genes being inherited.

It isn't?

Ya sure? Epigentic Inheritance, fact or fiction?

Please post your sources so we can compare the facts.

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.

Fine. Link me to books you've read on the subject. I have read the papers. The MES needs to be extended to include all the new research that is showing the impact of non-mendelian inheritance factors on expression of phenotypes. If it's happened then kindly link me to sources. The Wiki was meant to show that nothing has changed.

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.

No no no. Let's get something clear. You said that evolution (speciation) is about mutations adding up. You've asked why evolution can't happen this way. So it is you who has gone all or nothing on this one aspect.

It's to prove a point, I get it, but in doing so you've inadvertently constructed a straw man. Do you think it's possible to debate evolution by honing in on just one mechanism, and isolating it from all the others, known and unknown? No, Im sorry. Can't be done.

I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

a reply to: Barcs

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.

Seems like hand waving to me. Not my personal dispute. You just made that up. Regardless, it's a convenient response considering we're talking about genetic mutations, and a proper understanding of these terms would add some much needed credibility to the topic at hand.

But I guess your personal opinion based purely on the shock value of a change that big overrides decades of study.

It's not just that. It's that other experts have different opinions on it. I've read the material, have you?

It simply means that piecing together lineages through fossils is a rather speculative science, which leaves room for debate and alternative interpretations. You would be hard pressed to deny this. I posted a link in a previous post highlighting this fact.

Natural selection is now guesswork? Really?

LMAO at assigning stories.

NS is nothing but probability distribution. A form of population dynamics. Assigning likely hoods that a trait may confer an advantage. How does one decide this? Does the mere existence of a trait always mean it was selected for an advantage? What about variants invisible to natural selection?

Here's a good read, written with a different perspective by two of the leading biologists of our time. rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Can you explain how a trait can become dominant within a population without natural selection?

Genetic drift? Migration?

Here, see if you can wrap your head around this. www.genetics.org...

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.

Kind of ironic considering it's been you this entire thread who's been stubbornly insistent of this very notion.

What do you think I've been arguing this entire time?

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
You’re ignoring that in general, the factors leading to all manners of speciation have not been adequately resolved and are still up for debate. Your repeated stance in this thread has been that "evolution (speciation)" happens in one main way- i.e. mutations (adaptations?), sorted by natural selection, adding up in a population enough to cause reproductive isolation through new traits.

This is basically phyletic gradualism, or evolution by anagenesis, which is not thought to be as common (vs cladogenesis). Either way there is clearly not a consensus on this. Or, this.

Look, I'm not saying that mutations adding up is the absolute only way it can happen. You keep getting stuck on absolutes. The example of speciation I gave does indeed happen, and has been proven in a lab. This why it is the main example I have given. It is relevant to the main point I've been trying to make, that mutations and traits DO add up and CAN lead to genetic incompatibility down the road. I'm trying to keep things simple here, but all you are doing is bringing all kinds of other things into the conversation to make it more confusing to folks that might not understand it on that level. They aren't really relevant or have identical meanings. I'm not saying that other factors couldn't be involved, I'm saying that the one I have described has been proven via experiment. This part is NOT up for debate and is absolutely relevant to my main point.

Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.[1] When evolution occurs in this mode, it is usually by the steady transformation of a whole species into a new one (through a process called anagenesis). In this view no clear line of demarcation exists between an ancestral species and a descendant species, unless splitting occurs. The theory is contrasted with punctuated equilibrium.

Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the evolution of species involving an entire population rather than a branching event, as in cladogenesis. When enough mutations have occurred and become stable in a population so that it is significantly differentiated from an ancestral population, a new species name may be assigned.

^Those are from the wiki you linked on anagenesis plus the one on phyletic gradualism.

Please explain how that is ANY different than what I described specification as? What you are doing is saying, "no, it's not nuclear fusion, it's is a nuclear reaction where multiple atomic nuclei collide at an extremely fast speed causing them to form a new type of atomic nucleus, you noob!" I'm not debating any of that! You are distracting people from the issue, plus you really have to do better than internet blog sites as sources.

You seem to be invoking a version sympatric speciation here, which relates to anagenetic speciation I mentioned above. Essentially it's speciation within a single lineage rather than by branching off from a common ancestor. Researchers aren't too clear on how this type of speciation works, and it's believed to be one of the least likely to occur among animals. More so in plants perhaps.

No, I'm not invoking sympatric speciation. Allopatric speciation is precisely what I am describing.

Is this your conclusion? Please excuse me for not accepting this claim out of context, and without proper citation. Perhaps linking a source to this study so others can do proper due diligence would help here.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Feel free to comment and link to sources that contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion.

This discussion is 75% red herrings and semantics. After all that, you have the nerve to suggest I am not contributing in any meaningful way to the discussion? You still haven't answered my question, nor have you shown anything to counter anything related to the topic of the thread. Your main argument has been that what I've said isn't the ONLY way it can happen, something I never claimed. That would be a straw man, no?

If you wish to discuss epigenetics, then you must show me how this conflicts with my premise of genetic mutations and natural selection, or how it relates to genetic mutations adding up. The fact is, it DOESN'T. It adds on to our understanding and shows a different way it can potentially happen, without genetic mutations. I admitted I wasn't an expert on the subject, and I guess I was wrong about inheritance, but it's a fairly new field of study. Suggesting that it automatically overrides genetic mutations, natural selection, or speciation means nothing. It's the latest buzz word for the evolution denier crowd, as they will latch onto ANYTHING that could show a different method of evolution. Let the science evolve. Evolution has been worked on and studied for 150 years. Epigenetics is still new and still has a limited amount of evidence that isn't all fully understood yet. It's disputable that it can even happen in mammals and it seems to be based on genetic markers rather than genetic mutations. Just because this can happen, doesn't mean the mutations do not. Another red herring to add to the pile.

No no no. Let's get something clear. You said that evolution (speciation) is about mutations adding up. You've asked why evolution can't happen this way. So it is you who has gone all or nothing on this one aspect.

This aspect is the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, so pardon me for wanting to discuss it rather than the countless red herrings you have posted. I am asking about limitations on traits or mutations adding up, I'm not just saying, "Why doesn't it happen?" or "Give me other methods in which it can occur."

It's to prove a point, I get it, but in doing so you've inadvertently constructed a straw man. Do you think it's possible to debate evolution by honing in on just one mechanism, and isolating it from all the others, known and unknown? No, Im sorry. Can't be done.

I have not constructed a straw man. That is absolutely false. This thread isn't for debating the whole of evolution. There are dozens of threads in this section for that. It is specifically about the mutations and speciation, and asking why deniers impose a limit to how much change can occur given numerous speciation events. If this is not what you'd like to discuss, then by all means, post in one of the other threads about epigenetics and all that other stuff. Maybe make a new one to help us all understand epigenetics better. You have given me alternative ways that speciation can happen, but you haven't disputed allopatric speciation, or addressed the question at hand. I really didn't think it was that complicated.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Seems like hand waving to me. Not my personal dispute. You just made that up. Regardless, it's a convenient response considering we're talking about genetic mutations, and a proper understanding of these terms would add some much needed credibility to the topic at hand.

I made that up? You are the one that nitpicked whether it's a single gene or group of genes, and the terminology involved. It makes no difference at all in the premise of this thread outlined in the OP. It is semantics, completely unrelated to traits emerging or speciation events.

It's not just that. It's that other experts have different opinions on it. I've read the material, have you?

It simply means that piecing together lineages through fossils is a rather speculative science, which leaves room for debate and alternative interpretations. You would be hard pressed to deny this. I posted a link in a previous post highlighting this fact.

It's not speculative because the evidence for evolution is so conclusive. When the evidence across the board is THAT strong, you can draw connections like that, because the validty of evolution isn't reliant completely on that ONE EXAMPLE. You mention the whale purely because you don't like the account and feel land mammal to ocean mammal is unrealistic, but you haven't explained why or what this has to do with genetic mutations not accumulating or limitations on how far they can go. You have only denied the account. If fish can become amphibians and slowly adapt to land, who's to say that a mammal can't adapt to the water?

www.talkorigins.org...

www.proof-of-evolution.com...

ocean.si.edu...

^ This one has a nice video to compare the anatomy and features

Can you explain why Dorudon still had remnants of hind legs? What purpose did they serve?



If you are disputing that these changes occurred via evolution you need an explanation for that as well as an alternate theory on the emergence of the whale. Why do you feel that the slow transition from Maiacetus to Dorudon is unrealistic over 9 million years? Is there another transition in the series that you don't agree with? That is by far the biggest transition and largest gap in the fossils, plus it took longer than ancient ape to modern human. It sounds to me like you are just comparing the very beginning and the very end rather than looking at each transition individually, but maybe you can break it down for me. In the future when they find more fossils in between those 2 will you still dispute it?

Can you explain how a trait can become dominant within a population without natural selection?

Genetic drift? Migration?

Migration? What exactly do you think causes animals to migrate? Change in the environment (seasonal change, temperature, food source change, new competition, natural disasters, etc). Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence. Genetic drift is still influenced by the environment and if a new trait emerges in that fashion it would indeed be influenced by natural selection because it gives them an advantage which leads to it becoming dominant. Otherwise it doesn't become dominant, it just slightly changes the DNA over time via neutral mutations.

What do you think I've been arguing this entire time?

I'm still trying to figure that one out. It's been mainly red herrings thus far and you haven't directly addressed the premise, you have only brought up alternative ways it can happen, nothing that negates anything in the OP, and nothing that suggests there is a limit on how far mutations and traits can add up.

Don't get me wrong here, I've learned a few cool things from our discussion, and I greatly appreciate that, but from here on out I'd prefer that we focused on the premise, which is the artificial limitation on mutations / traits adding up proposed by evolution deniers.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

But isn't that the best theory we have?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: amazing
I'll say it again.

We should question evolution. Why this, why not that, etc.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ... don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

But isn't that the best theory we have?

Depends on who you want to offend. The argument for creation is just as valid ... right up until the moment evolutionary 'science' provides proof. So far, no act of science has created life and no scientific endeavor has produced speciation. And remember ... 'Science' is repeatable.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm trying to keep things simple here, but all you are doing is bringing all kinds of other things into the conversation to make it more confusing to folks that might not understand it on that level.

I know you are, and I think that's the problem. Evolution is not as simple as you are trying to make it. The devil is in the details.

^Those are from the wiki you linked on anagenesis plus the one on phyletic gradualism.
Please explain how that is ANY different than what I described specification as?

Yes, I know they are from the links I posted. And yes, you are right, they are NO DIFFERENT from what you described to be speciation, which is WHY I posted them. It's the version of speciation you've been touting in this thread. Didn't you read my commentary where I included those links?

In short, anagenesis is a gradualistic concept of evolution, which says one species transforms into another within one lineage. It's not how most think it happens. It's a competing hypothesis with punctuated equilibrium. Do you not think I know what I'm posting here?? Sheesh, I'm not trying to trick you.

No, I'm not invoking sympatric speciation. Allopatric speciation is precisely what I am describing.

No it's not "precisely " what you've been describing. Did you not read up on this? I'm posting links for a reason.

Sympatric speciation is the process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same geographic region.

It is exactly what you're talking about, and is the same as anagenetic evolution, which you, just above, acknowledged is no different than what you've been saying.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Your link doesn't work.

This discussion is 75% red herrings and semantics. After all that, you have the nerve to suggest I am not contributing in any meaningful way to the discussion? You still haven't answered my question, nor have you shown anything to counter anything related to the topic of the thread.

Look, I'm only trying to have an honest discussion about evolution. My intention was never to unleash a flock of red herrings or to derail from the discussion. I've been trying to address your question as best as possible. Mutations will not stop until the organism dies. Mutations happen in the organism, not the population. A mutation has value when it affects the expression of a certain trait that confers an advantage or not. Identifying this is not cut and dry since not all traits are visible to NS, nor do they express from just one gene.

I get the sense you think mutations equate to evolution. That's a yes and no answer. It's just not that simple.

It (epigentics) adds on to our understanding and shows a different way it can potentially happen, without genetic mutations.

Exactly, now you're catching on.

Suggesting that it automatically overrides genetic mutations, natural selection, or speciation means nothing

When did I suggest anything about it overriding?

It's disputable that it can even happen in mammals and it seems to be based on genetic markers rather than genetic mutations. Just because this can happen, doesn't mean the mutations do not. Another red herring to add to the pile.

Genetic markers that can be inherited, correct. I never said anything about mutations not happening. That would be stupid.

You have given me alternative ways that speciation can happen, but you haven't disputed allopatric speciation, or addressed the question at hand

But it's not clear if that's what you're talking about.

Sorry,

When you say things like :
"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."
That's not allopatric.

a reply to: Barcs

I made that up? You are the one that nitpicked whether it's a single gene or group of genes, and the terminology involved.

You're right. My mistake, I forgot what I said. It's not nitpicking as I see it. It's important to any discussion about genetic mutations and their effect on phenotypes.

ocean.si.edu...

^ This one has a nice video to compare the anatomy and features

That's the same link I posted earlier. I question it because it's not plausible.
I then posted this as an alternative hypothesis, which seems more plausible, if you bothered to read it. The idea is there is more than one way to look at these grander scale speciating events. They're puzzles with lots of missing pieces.

Migration? What exactly do you think causes animals to migrate? Change in the environment (seasonal change, temperature, food source change, new competition, natural disasters, etc). Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence.Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence.

Yes migration. It's a separate mechanism from NS. Your site lists it as an alternative way alleles become fixed in a population. This is basic stuff. And no, Natural selection is not environmental changes themselves.

Genetic drift is still influenced by the environment and if a new trait emerges in that fashion it would indeed be influenced by natural selection because it gives them an advantage which leads to it becoming dominant.

You asked another way a trait can become fixed (dominant?) in a population other than NS. Genetic drift is another way. It's different than NS. Read the definitions.

from here on out I'd prefer that we focused on the premise, which is the artificial limitation on mutations / traits adding up proposed by evolution deniers.

Right, I think Ive overstayed my welcome..

Good luck finding the answers you claim to be seeking.

originally posted by: Snarl
LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the 'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

Oh please. You aren't scientist. You googled a catch phrase "bona fide" and came up empty. How scientific of you! Try searching for evidence of evolution, and reading the peer reviewed research papers instead of silly catch phrases and maybe you'll learn something. No scientist would ever say that evolution is on par with creation as far as validity goes. I thought your first post was satire, but I was wrong. But by all means, please present an argument BASED ON THE TOPIC instead of just broad generalizations that have nothing to do with anything being discussed or the OP.

Depends on who you want to offend. The argument for creation is just as valid ... right up until the moment evolutionary 'science' provides proof. So far, no act of science has created life and no scientific endeavor has produced speciation. And remember ... 'Science' is repeatable.

Clearly, you haven't even read the thread because references have been made that show speciation has been done in a lab and evolution has nothing to do with creating life. Please stay on topic or find another thread to troll in. Flat out denial isn't an argument.