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

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Man... I tried to respond to you twice and both times the response got lost

I'm not typing out that whole thing again, but I'll try to sum it up briefly.

Breaking up speciation into subcategories is misrepresenting my position. When I say speciation happens when traits add up over time, I am making a general statement about speciation as a whole. Genetic mutations leading new traits becoming dominant applies to pretty much every category of speciation. The categories are about types of isolation in populations. The experiments I cited were examples of allopatric speciation. It's also good to note that Sympatric speciation is still contested in the scientific community.

The link I posted is working. I just clicked on it. If you still have trouble run a google scholar search for "three-spined stickleback speciation" and you will see numerous websites that reference this same research paper.

I didn't say mutations alone are evolution. They are part of it.

Epigenetics is a red herring because it does nothing whatsoever to address the accumulation (or lack thereof) of genetic mutations and traits. I don't understand why you would even bring that topic up, as it has nothing to do with my premise. I'm not looking for alternative methods of evolution. I'm looking for a reasonable explanation as to why there are limits being imposed on the accumulation of traits.

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.

It's not plausible, HOW? Please explain in your own words why it is not plausible. I asked you about a specific transition and every other point I made about whale evolution was ignored. Also, I do not trust your source. That website is not an evolution site, in fact it seems to be proposing a completely different version of evolution. That website also mentions human chimp hybrid crosses as responsible for human evolution. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

If you are seriously going to tell me that competition over food sources isn't part of natural selection, then I honestly don't know what to say. Natural selection is defined as:

"the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment."

A group of animals competing with another for a food source is part of it. If one group loses out and is forced to migrate to a different environment, it is part of this because that directly leads to new traits becoming dominant over time, do to the environmental shift.

originally posted by: Barcs

Oh please. You aren't scientist.

And you chose to address my in-thread comments ... not addressed to you ... why?

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Oh wow. You won Barcs. Winner ... winner ... chicken dinner. You got me, brother. You ridiculed me in 'your thread' without (even) a breath of air in your sails, and ... you've ... won. All I am is a lousy troll in 'your thread' because it's 'your thread' and anything you have to say 'here' is right (based on your new rules) and everyone who happens to be a scientist is _wrong_ (even though they signed up to this website under a very different set of rules). Good job, Barcs!! [Start sarcastic tone ... now!!] No one's gonna argue with a guy bearing 2 million stars and ten years on the site, are they? LOL ... right in your face.

Clearly, you haven't even read the thread ... [blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah]. Please stay on topic or find another thread to troll in. Flat out denial isn't an argument.

16d.) Forum Gangs And Topic Control: You will not engage in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Maybe you oughta go back and read through the thread yourself. Look at what you said with no interference (I'll ass-u-me you've figured out how to do that all by yourself over the past ten years). You're comments throughout are filled with ridicule and cast aspersions at (or on) anyone who (or any idea which) doesn't cow-tow to the arbitrary rules you tried to establish within the confines of a public website that publishes its own Ts & Cs.

But, maybe you'd just prefer to spend some time watching two 'other' guys who don't know the definition of 'science' (and fail as scientists) argue simply for the sake of it:



Why is it, do you think, that Bill Nye (the science guy) attacked creationism ... rather than define the 'Scientific Method' and provide bona fide evidence of evolution. I'll tell you. It's because (just like my aforementioned Google Search parameters) ... there is absolutely ZERO """Scientific""" evidence for evolution. You, Sir, may say anything you like. You can call it obvious, common sense, clear as a bell, undeniable, self-evident (pick whatever synonym suits you) ... and I will throw down the scientific gauntlet: Prove it : Repeat it ... If you can't, it's simply not Science, and just another definition of Belief.

It still boggles my mind how many Naturalists there are out there who truthfully consider themselves to be Scientists, because they've actually forgotten what a scientist is. Scientists don't 'believe' in anything on a scientific basis. Scientists don't have questions regarding the material substance of an argument. Scientists aren't going to tell you something 'is' when they 'can't explain it in laymen's terms'. Scientists know. They know what they know ... and they know what they don't know ... and have a pretty damned good idea what is unknowable.

Nice to meet you Barcs. You can have 'your' thread back _now_. Hopefully, we won't cross paths again on this site.

originally posted by: Snarl
And you chose to address my in-thread comments ... not addressed to you ... why?

Because I created the thread, and your post had nothing to do with the topic. You suggested that evolution is equally valid to creationism which is pure nonsense, and a gross misrepresentation of the science that backs it. Sorry but I just don't see a scientist blatantly disregarding the mountains of evidence behind evolution as if it's as valid as world view based completely on faith. That is insulting to evolutionary biologists all over the world.

Is a statement really defamatory if it's true? Post your credentials and prove me wrong.

If you'd like to address the topic instead of making generalizing statements about evolution that are blatantly wrong, I wouldn't have a problem, but you came in here with total disregard for the topic and posted things that were blatantly wrong. Sorry that you don't like me calling you out on that, but it was justified and your essay on forum etiquette is not. Scientists are supposed to follow the scientific method and the evidence, but it's clear by your post you haven't even looked at it. Sorry if this offends you, but that's the way it is. It isn't ridicule to correct faulty logic and misunderstandings.

16d.) Forum Gangs And Topic Control: You will not engage in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Now this is funny. I did not collaborate with anybody on this thread. Your post was not a valid conversation on the topic, and if you read the original post you would know this. I didn't shut you down by sending a gang of posters after you, I recommended that you go to another thread to post your anti evolution rhetoric. Looks like you misinterpreted that rule, because that is in reference to forum gangs influencing topics. I am not a gang, I am 1 person and I am certainly not infallible, but I posted scientific experiments that directly show speciation and you acted as if it hasn't been posted or that it doesn't exist.

Maybe you oughta go back and read through the thread yourself. Look at what you said with no interference (I'll ass-u-me you've figured out how to do that all by yourself over the past ten years). You're comments throughout are filled with ridicule and cast aspersions at (or on) anyone who (or any idea which) doesn't cow-tow to the arbitrary rules you tried to establish within the confines of a public website that publishes its own Ts & Cs.

False. It's not ridicule to tell somebody they are off topic or to call them out when they post lies or misunderstandings. That is what ATS is all about. Denying ignorance.

... there is absolutely ZERO """Scientific""" evidence for evolution.

And that is hilariously wrong. Sorry if that upsets you, it's the truth.

www.talkorigins.org...

Claiming zero evidence is a lie. If you don't understand evolution I can try to help you with that, but not in this thread. This thread is not about discussing the validity of evolution as a whole, it is focused on one aspect of evolution to explain the limitations on genetic mutations adding up over time. If you'd like to re-read the OP, so you can understand the parameters and give it a shot, I welcome you to try, but making ridiculous statements like the one above is going to lead to me calling you out on it, because correcting ignorance in today's society is important, IMO.

You, Sir, may say anything you like. You can call it obvious, common sense, clear as a bell, undeniable, self-evident (pick whatever synonym suits you) ... and I will throw down the scientific gauntlet: Prove it : Repeat it ... If you can't, it's simply not Science, and just another definition of Belief.

If you feel that strongly about it, then by all means create a thread and present your argument against the scientific evidence that I referenced above. To date, no evolution denier has even attempted it. Repeating that same sentiment over and over again doesn't make it true. There is TONS of evidence behind evolution and a basic google search for "evidence evolution" will bring up numerous links that reference valid science experiments that support it. Denial isn't an argument and your statement is on par with saying that there is zero evidence for gravity or heliocentrism.

I ran a little experiment.

First I searched, "bona fide evidence evolution"

Page one of my results:



Then I simply searched, "evidence evolution"

Page one of my results:



Not sure why adding "bona fide" to the search lead to more results for sites attempting to debunk evolution, but it's interesting. However, a more straight forward search lead to results for sites that all support and teach evolution.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

That's pretty funny. It's because the evolution deniers rely on shock value and catch phrases like "bona fide evidence". Funny that that phrase is common on anti evolution religious sites. These guys clearly have a strong emotional connection to their faith, and speak through that rather than logic and reason. The argument about mutations not adding up is like saying that just because we can measure the effects of gravity in our solar system and galaxy, that it's faith based because we cannot prove it exists in other galaxies. It's ridiculous.

Anybody care to take a stab at answering the question in the OP? So far in this thread nobody has answered the question, we've only learned 1,001 ways to dodge it and avoid it. Surely there's somebody out there that can hack it. I'd guess roughly 90% of deniers claim to agree with the science behind micro evolution but refuse to believe it can add up to macro evolution. The big issue is that nobody can explain why this is the case without flat out denial and dismissal of evidence without justification.

a reply to: Barcs

Allow me to post a status update.

16 pages in

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

a reply to: Barcs

When I say speciation happens when traits add up over time, I am making a general statement about speciation as a whole. Genetic mutations leading new traits becoming dominant applies to pretty much every category of speciation.

That is not an accurate generalization about speciation as a whole. This is where you are misleading people. When you keep asserting, specifically, that speciation is mutations leading to traits which add up and become dominant over time in a population yada yada, you are referring (perhaps unwittingly) to one type of evolution – anagenesis. Defined as:

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. A key point is that the entire population is different from the ancestral population such that the ancestral population can be considered extinct. A series of such species is collectively known as an evolutionary lineage.

en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, speciation as descent from ancestral lineage and not by a specific delineating event (geographic barrier), the latter of which is typical of cladogenesis. You are not necessarily wrong, but you're definitely not right in defining/generalizing/asserting that evolution of species happens in that one way.

So each time (and there have been several) you've stated speciation is about mutations/traits/whatever adding up (and that's it), you're leaving out a wide swath of other mechanisms. Perhaps for the purpose of establishing an impenetrable premise?

This way, you can keep asking "why would mutations stop adding up?", without ever having to worry about getting an answer that can prove you wrong. This is known as setting it up to knock it down, or strawmanning. I honestly don't think you ever expected to get an answer to your question. Of course you can prove me wrong by answering your own question.

The experiments I cited were examples of allopatric speciation. It's also good to note that Sympatric speciation is still contested in the scientific community.

I hate to be forced into nitpicking but I have to address these. First off I was the one who told you about sympatric speciation being contested since it's the version you keep invoking. Second, if the experiments you cited represents allopatric speciation, that's fine. BUT that's not what you've been saying throughout a lot of this thread.
Especially with things like:

Barcs:"Speciation is generally a combination of numerous mutations. Many remain neutral until combined with others. Speciation boils down to a noticeable trait becoming dominant."
Barcs:"This thread is specific and refers to genetic mutations, speciation and the accumulation of changes over time."
Barcs:"Via genetic mutation and natural selection as shown in the experiments I referenced. Beneficial traits become dominant in a species over time."
Barcs:"It[speciation] is the accumulation of dominant mutations within a population. Speciation doesn't suddenly happen in one individual. It happens as a current population's DNA becomes incompatible with the originals, or another isolated group."
Barcs:"It[speciation]happens as mutations accumulate to the point where the genes are no longer compatible. It's thousands of generations. "
Barcs:"I explained how traits can arise in an individual and become dominant within a group, because that is what leads to speciation, not a single individual with a huge mutation."

What's a dominant mutation? OR do you mean to say allele? Mutant alleles are generally recessive where wild type (non mutant) are dominant.

Then you seem to change course a little:

Barcs:"Speciation occurs in separate populations, not in single individuals. When 2 groups are separated into isolated environments, they will diverge from one another slowly as mutations arise, and they stop sharing genes between the 2 groups. Over time their genes become less compatible as various mutations accumulate. "

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you are saying or asking but to me it seems you think all of speciation happens the same way, by mutations adding up. But then you go on to equate mutations adding up with traits adding up.. I'm sure you intentions are right, but it's all very confusing.

Here's some more confusing things you've said that muddy the waters:
Barcs: "The mutations that happen from generation to generation are observable."
Is that so? Is this always the case? What about neutral mutations?
Barcs:"Speciation events are entire populations, so they are not defined by one sudden event, rather an accumulation of events. Single events leading to speciation would defy the way speciation works."
But allopatric speciation can start from a single delineating event that separates a population into two, no? What about this from your site : evolution.berkeley.edu... (Note the speciating events)

I didn't say mutations alone are evolution. They are part of it.

Oh no?
From your OP:

Barcs:
"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? "

and

"We are not talking about any other version of the word evolution except for "genetic mutations sorted by natural selection".

Or how about

"I was really trying to see if there is a logical argument to suggest why mutations can add up enough to change a species (as has been observed), but not a genus or family given thousands of these speciation changes. "

Natural selection is defined as:

"the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment."

This is my favorite. I mean what a word scramble that is! Anything but survival of the fittest, right?!

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ah, to live in black and white despite the rainbow.

It looks like the same arguments you've already made, nitpicking semantics and terminology and not addressing the accumulation of mutations or limits on how much change can occur. Again, I have never said that is the only possible way it can happen, but it is a provable way it can happen, so it does happen. Your nitpicking of the terminology is pointless because you aren't addressing what ACTUALLY happened in the lab experiment. You are only saying that I'm using different terms than you use but they mean pretty much the same thing. Stop with semantics and address the actual topic, PLEASE.

I will be back to address it more in depth, if necessary. I only had the time for quick scan of the post, but I just don't see the point in going back and forth over the exact technicalities of definitions and terms. You HAVE to know what I'm talking about as I have clearly described it, but you are just arguing for arguments sake. It's a nice distraction from the meat and potatoes of the matter here, but it's not going to work.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Barcs: When I say speciation happens when traits add up over time, I am making a general statement about speciation as a whole. Genetic mutations leading new traits becoming dominant applies to pretty much every category of speciation.

That is not an accurate generalization about speciation as a whole.

Oh really?

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Allopatric speciation is speciation that occurs when biological populations of the same species become vicariant, or isolated from each other to an extent that prevents or interferes with genetic interchange.

Peripatric speciation is a form of speciation, the formation of new species through evolution. In this form, new species are formed in isolated peripheral populations; this is similar to allopatric speciation in that populations are isolated and prevented from exchanging genes.

parapatry is the relationship between organisms whose ranges do not significantly overlap but are immediately adjacent to each other; they only occur together in a narrow contact zone. This geographical distribution is opposed to sympatry (same area) and allopatry or peripatry (two cases of distinct areas).This distribution may cause speciation into sister species over time, a process called parapatric speciation.

Sympatric speciation refers to the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.

Often-cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects that become dependent on different host plants in the same area.[10][11] However, the existence of sympatric speciation as a mechanism of speciation is still hotly contested. Scientists have argued that the evidences of sympatric speciation are in fact examples of micro-allopatric, or heteropatric speciation.

Please show me which sub category of speciation does not involve mutations or traits adding up? Nobody is being mislead. Each category of speciation involves mutations adding up. It's not always big noticeable traits. It could be something very tiny and insignificant, but enough to make the genes incompatible. It still boils down to the mutations and the environment determining which ones are better off, which is precisely why I'm wondering why there is a limit imposed on how much change can happen.

Maybe you haven't read the whole thread, and it's understandable, but I have said numerous times "mutations OR traits" to avoid semantics traps like this. Unfortunately I didn't say it every time, so I guess that's my fault.

I am not anywhere trying to suggest that there is only one way speciation or even evolution can occur. Your argument is invalid because you ignored the main subject of the thread and went off on red herrings and other tangents that have nothing to do with the premise.

You are not necessarily wrong, but you're definitely not right in defining/generalizing/asserting that evolution of species happens in that one way.

In this thread, I have not once said that it happens only in that one way. I referred to that way, because there is a peer reviewed scientific experiment that shows it happening in that way. I'm sticking with proven verifiable scientific facts here. The experiments prove that it can happen, so this is the type of speciation / evolution that I am primarily referring to. I'm not trying to confuse people with jargon and techno babble they don't understand. It seems that this is your primary goal, however, because you've argued against everything except the actual topic.

So each time (and there have been several) you've stated speciation is about mutations/traits/whatever adding up (and that's it), you're leaving out a wide swath of other mechanisms. Perhaps for the purpose of establishing an impenetrable premise?

No. Where in this thread have I suggested "and that's it" or that there is no other way it can happen? These are things you have asserted, not me. I used an example as evidence for my case, I didn't say there's only 1 way this can happen. I'm seriously trying to understand your argument here. Where does this tie in to the limitations imposed on mutations or traits adding up over time or the level of change possible via that method? I rarely get upset in these threads, but if you use this argument yet again I'm going to be very annoyed.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you are saying or asking but to me it seems you think all of speciation happens the same way, by mutations adding up. But then you go on to equate mutations adding up with traits adding up.. I'm sure you intentions are right, but it's all very confusing.

You have misunderstood, but it seems intentional. Mutations adding up is involved in all four types of speciation. It isn't always noticeable traits. What do you think changes the genetic code over time? Are you invoking some kind of magic here where a population speciates without any mutations? Do you not realize how illogical it sounds to argue that genetic mutations are not involved in speciation? That notion is ridiculous as they are the primary influencing factor in that happening.

Barcs: "The mutations that happen from generation to generation are observable."

PhotonEffect: "Is that so? Is this always the case? What about neutral mutations?"

It is the case in every single generational genome that has been mapped. Neutral mutations are still observable in the organism's genome. A neutral mutation is determined by its affect on the creature's morphology. This means you can't directly see it on the animal, but you can see the change in genetic code.

Barcs:"Speciation events are entire populations, so they are not defined by one sudden event, rather an accumulation of events. Single events leading to speciation would defy the way speciation works."

PhotoEffect"But allopatric speciation can start from a single delineating event that separates a population into two, no? What about this from your site : evolution.berkeley.edu... (Note the speciating events)"

You said it right there in your sentence. It can START from a single event. START. One population becomes separated into two, because of a scarce food source. What you are failing to understand is that this may influence the speciation down the road, but that isn't the speciation itself. It is the first step. The next step is for the populations' genomes to change enough to become incompatible. That is 2 steps, and probably dozens upon dozens of events and probably thousands of mutations. Once again you are arguing pure semantics, except this time you trapped yourself by quoting the part that sums up your error to a T. Single event speciation does not exist. The mutations play a vital role in that.

To be continued.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Your straw grasping gets even more desperate here:

1. I didn't say mutations alone are evolution. They are part of it.

2. 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?

3. We are not talking about any other version of the word evolution except for "genetic mutations sorted by natural selection

4. why mutations can add up enough to change a species (as has been observed), but not a genus or family given thousands of these speciation changes.

Four statements made by yours truly. You claim that 2, 3 and 4 conflict with 1, but they don't in the least.

Statement 2 was in reference to evolution continuing as experiments have shown it to work. Statement 3 (taken out of context by you in this example) was to ensure that the people who think cosmic evolution or the big bang are part of evolution, and equivocate the terms, stay out of the thread and understand that we are talking about biological evolution. Statement 4 is another way of explaining statement 2. As you can clearly see, I did not anywhere in there say that there is only one way evolution can happen. I didn't say that mutations are the only thing involved. But to deny that they are a prime factor in every form of speciation is absurd.

Natural selection is defined as:

"the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment."

This is my favorite. I mean what a word scramble that is! Anything but survival of the fittest, right?

Um, survival of the fittest is pretty much another way of saying natural selection. I'm really confused by your points and how they are anything even remotely close to the topic. You are arguing nothing but semantics and it's really getting old.

No, it's not natural selection, it's survival of the fittest, because those 2 things are completely different... No it's not speciation, it's allopatric speciation.... No it's not evolution it's anagenesis, they are opposites and you are wrong! You said mutations add up, but there is more than that, I got you again!

Just stop it. I don't give 2 flying goose turds about your definitions and the contrived conflict you have invented. I have clearly described precisely what I am talking about with the limit on mutations adding up. I might not have explained it perfectly in the OP, but I have clarified the meaning several times since. Sorry, I just couldn't predict all the absurdly ridiculous responses I would get ahead of time and compensate for them. I tried to predict it, but sometimes you guys seriously just come right out of left field. Not only do you refuse to address the topic, but you are completely wasting my time explaining what I have already explained more than once. This will be the last time.

If you don't understand what the topic is by now, then you are doing it intentionally, for argument's sake. You can play devil's advocate all you want, but as far as I'm concerned this topic is done. Not a single person came forward and took the challenge, they only invented ways to avoid answering it. It's a shame I expected more out of ATS.

I guess evolution denial is finally starting to go the way of the dodo. It's about time.

a reply to: Barcs

Not a single person came forward and took the challenge, they only invented ways to avoid answering it. It's a shame I expected more out of ATS.

Oh please Barcs. Really? No one is trying to avoid your question so save this song for someone who cares.

How about this: Can you answer it? Go ahead and answer it. Take your own challenge.

From the title of your thread:
"Explain why changes do not continue to add up over time"

Give us an answer that would satisfy you and let's end this silly merry go around of nonsense.

All you can say is that I'm arguing semantics. Right, typical evasive tactics. I showed you your quotes of repeating the same lines about how evolution is mutations adding up. I compared them to the definitions. Only one of your uncited definitions in your above post says or suggests anything about mutations adding up. Then you lie and say you never said it was only mutations... How can anyone have a discussion here?

Um, survival of the fittest is pretty much another way of saying natural selection.

Um, yeah, survival of the fittest is a tautology. Have fun with that one.

Well, since everything evolved from the same single celled organism, we see exactly what you're talking about every day...

a reply to: Answer

All that you posted has been answered in the past, it is your problem that you don't accept the answers given to you. This entire thread is just more anti-creationist baiting and back-slapping. Really, you people need to grow up and find something other to do, than to try to convince yourselves that there is no God. Because that's the only person your trying to convince in the end, yourself. When that little voice in the back of your mind asks you about the afterlife, I guess you'll just have to muddle along like the rest of the atheists and suck it up when the time comes. It's not God you doubt, but your own end.

a reply to: Chronogoblin

Care to take a stab at answering OP's question?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Oh please Barcs. Really? No one is trying to avoid your question so save this song for someone who cares.

How about this: Can you answer it? Go ahead and answer it. Take your own challenge.

From the title of your thread:
"Explain why changes do not continue to add up over time"

Give us an answer that would satisfy you and let's end this silly merry go around of nonsense.

Why would I take my own challenge? I do not believe micro and macro evolution to utilize separate mechanisms, nor do I see any limits at all on the level of potential change that can be attained via genetic mutations and traits adding up over time in populations coupled with natural selection and other environmental factors. I don't disagree with macro evolution or claim it to be faith or separate from micro. These are claims made by deniers. I am not a denier, so asking me to take my own challenge is like asking a nuclear physicist to explain why nuclear physics is invalid. He won't, because it's not. I don't see any problems with the evolutionary model as it currently stands.

I set up this challenge to give folks a legitimate chance to explain their side, beyond religious faith. They can list the applicable facts involved and demonstrate that evolution denial has a even a tiny shred of validity to it. So far I haven't seen any evolution denier present valid info or show evidence for this phantom mechanism of macro evolution or the mechanism of micro that causes genetic mutations and traits to stop accumulating or limit how much change can occur. It's simple. If you think there is a limit to accumulation or a method in which accumulation stops naturally, then explain it logically and offer references. I'm trying to figure out why they believe what they believe about evolution, aside from religious reasons. Is there logic and critical thinking involved? I'm trying to challenge these folks to think outside of their box and comfort zone. I suppose it might be a lost cause, but I'm still hopeful that they have something more than blind faith to justify their slander and libel against evolution. Maybe I'm wrong.

An acceptable explanation would be something to the effect of explaining where exactly the limit is on the level of change, and a breakdown of this additional mechanism involved in "macro" evolution or other factors that would prevent this sort of thing. Explain logically why accumulation of traits OR mutations could stop or be limited. Explain logically why macro evolution is any different from micro as far as mechanisms go. Explain how millions of changes to the genome could happen but not affect morphology or gene compatibility in these cases.

All you can say is that I'm arguing semantics. Right, typical evasive tactics. I showed you your quotes of repeating the same lines about how evolution is mutations adding up. I compared them to the definitions. Only one of your uncited definitions in your above post says or suggests anything about mutations adding up. Then you lie and say you never said it was only mutations... How can anyone have a discussion here?

So you accuse me of evading, when not a single person has answered the question or even attempted to. That's rich, I gotta say. I have not ever once said that ONLY mutations are evolution, or that allopatric speciation is the ONLY way speciation can happen. You inserted all of that into my argument just because I didn't specifically say that there are other ways it can happen. How many times do I have to repeat this???

I've explained it and broken it down numerous times. Are you purposely trying to play devil's advocate or are you legitimately interested in trying this? I specifically said in the beginning that this thread was for the folks who agreed that micro evolution was factual but macro evolution is pure faith. Is this your viewpoint? Do you believe there are limits on the amount of change possible via mutation accumulation given enough time? If you do indeed believe these 2 things, then please explain these beliefs with logic and facts. I seriously don't understand what is so hard about this. Your arguments have been all nitpicking terminology (aka semantics) and red herrings (ie epigenetics).

originally posted by: Chronogoblin
a reply to: Answer

All that you posted has been answered in the past, it is your problem that you don't accept the answers given to you. This entire thread is just more anti-creationist baiting and back-slapping. Really, you people need to grow up and find something other to do, than to try to convince yourselves that there is no God. Because that's the only person your trying to convince in the end, yourself. When that little voice in the back of your mind asks you about the afterlife, I guess you'll just have to muddle along like the rest of the atheists and suck it up when the time comes. It's not God you doubt, but your own end.

You do realize that these "creationists" are the ones who constantly attack evolution, right? They drew the first blood in this conflict. This thread is in response to their numerous invalid attacks on science. Of course you dismiss it as anti-creationist baiting, rather than posting facts to support your side. How dare we ask them to back anything up or explain their position on evolution to show that it's not just blind faith.

I have already clearly said that I have no problem with anybody's faith and that faith and belief in god is compatible with evolution. This thread is about science and evolution. I would like to see facts and data posted by an evolution denier that explains their claims. It's not that complicated. It has nothing to do with proving god wrong or atheist power. I'm pro science. Anything else I could care less about in this thread. Instead of ranting about atheists questioning the after life, why not try to answer the question?

a reply to: Barcs

Right, I get all of that, but how do you expect someone who believes the creation story of the Bible to look beyond their religious beliefs? Did you honestly think that by creating this thread you were going to get some scientific alternative to evolution as a whole from folks who see the hand of God in everything?

If you are truly curious to understand what the so called "evolution denier" thinks of evolution, you don't have to search far beyond the phrase "evolution denier" to find your answer. Don't you think?

Is it any surprise you haven't gotten an answer then? This is why the entire thread has been an exercise of futility. You were never going to get an answer, and I think you knew that from the start. To make matters worse, you chose to focus in on one aspect of evolution – accumulation of mutations/traits – to define speciation by, and used it as a marker for this discussion. "Macro" speciation, that is taxa to taxa or family etc., doesn't happen in just this way, or at all (refer to the study of the 2.3 billion yr old bacteria that has never evolved). There are other mechanisms that are involved in speciation which you wanted nothing to do with. Red herrings and what not. I suspect it's because these things would highlight the issues with your premise.

In light of this, you're no better than the "evolution denier" in encouraging fruitless discussions like these which seem more designed to drive the wedge a bit deeper. To create and enable this false dichotomy. Like that one poster who keeps asking for evidence but ignores it all when presented to him. He/she has been posting threads left and right - "Show me evidence for this and that". But that's not what he or she really wants. It's become dogma vs dogma, and you're a protagonist for one side. For better or worse.

God has nothing to do with the process of evolution. That's the point. I find discussions about evolution by itself, without the need to inject the hand of God, much more interesting and stimulating. I think that while the process of evolution is a clear fact, the mechanisms by which it operates are not, and still up for debate.

It's a shame, these types of discussions will naturally inhibit meaningful dialogue about evolution. People like myself who have questions about evolution, are immediately ostracized for not adhering to the current viewpoint because of the propensity to argue with anyone who doesn't agree when having these discussions in the damn creationism forum. It's a shame that there isn't an forum for evolution and that all such discussions must take place in this forum - which is not evolution! It's a religious conspiracy, which there's already a forum for! ATS fosters this. It's a shame.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day. I'm sure I'll see you in another one these threads...

Peace.

a reply to: Barcs

This thread, and every other one like it, are NOT about science, they are about back-slapping, and atheist rants. IF you had an actual question, and you actually wanted a real answer, there are plenty of people on this site to give it to you. Virtually anything you could ask has invariably been asked before, and answered. Again, whether you accept the answers given, or not, is up to you.

a reply to: Chronogoblin

This thread, and every other one like it, are NOT about science, they are about back-slapping, and atheist rants. IF you had an actual question

What the heck are you talking about? This thread IS about science. He asked a valid question.

Why is 'microevolution' different from 'macroevolution'? What is the thing that "prevents" macroevolution?