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

a reply to: borntowatch

=the most elegant example that answers your question is :

" ring species "

each link in the ring is geneticallu identifiable as progeny of the previous link - but csannot breed with ancesctor or descendant links [ so theres speciation ]

and yes - new information does enter the genome as progeny links contain genetic markers not found in thier ancestors

QED

a reply to: borntowatch

Your typical BS. If you have nothing of value to say, please move on. Barcs asked a good question. Intelligent people responded. You're still asking the same stupid questions because your brain is stuck in the mud.

These are interesting topics to discuss. If you have nothing to add or have no answer to Barcs question, maybe you should find another venue with like-minded ignoramouses.

a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps diagram out how a population gets to the point where it can no longer breed with its ancestors

Here

I am saying that the mechanism by which it happens must be different than modern evolutionary theories propose.

Why would that be?

Yet to suggest [that horizontal gene transfer] is the number one mechanism in evolution is heresy against the Great Darwin (long may his beard be bushy).

Where are those horizontally transferred mutant genes coming from? How did they originate? How do mutant alleles, horizontally transferred, become taken up in genomes in preference to the earlier forms? How do they spread through the population?

The theory of evolution is not a religion to those who properly understand it.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

You will get nothing better from the person you are arguing with no matter how hard you try.

Resident Forum Troll. Don't waste your time.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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

The ball of ignorance in which it resides grows smaller by the day....

originally posted by: chr0naut
As I have posted previously, in every case I have looked at, where genetic change has been observed, the rate of change observed exceeds those expected from known mutation rates (they changed faster than expected). Either there is something else going on or many are falsifying data.

I won't link to each case or to databases of mutation rates or even to the equations for calculating expected change. I have done that before, its a lot of work and people tend to just shrug it off.

If my statement motivates you sufficiently, go and find out for yourself.

I'm trying to understand what you are describing here. Remember, the mutation rate and the rate of evolutionary change are not the same thing. Extinction level events are sudden, so when something drastic happens, like an asteroid or comet hitting the earth, a large portion of organisms die out, and the ones that had accumulated the best mutations over time for that circumstance become the survivors and pioneers for the new world. This would seem like a sudden change, however the mutations had already been happening for millions of years, they just were not dominant until NS wipes out the others.

That's why I said that natural selection was a bigger factor in the rate of change. Mutations can happen until the cows come home, but if the environment doesn't change, the creatures won't aside from genetic drift.

Speaking of that, I think we are slightly drifting away from the question I posed in the original post, which is why the mutations stop adding up after a certain point (according to deniers).

Known mutation rates are based upon individual genetic changes in DNA under controlled conditions and are a chemical or molecular assay.

Changes observed by evolutionists are in terms of whole cells at the bottom end of the spectrum and entire colonies at the top.

As you surmise, the numbers should be the same, verifying that our theories as to process are correct.

Can you give me some examples of the species you are talking about? The mutation rates do vary from species to species, but you seem to be also saying "rate of change." Which one are you referring to? They are both different. I am really referring to speciation events in populations here, not individuals. If hundreds to thousands of mutations can add up to such an event, why would they stop afterwards, or not add up any further to increase the diversity from the original? That's the heart of the matter, here.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Simpl answer is the models do not account for the will to be ones one self.

You didn't answer the question. You just made a random statement that has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Maybe try again? This is about mutations adding up, not philosophy.

originally posted by: borntowatch
So you want us to explain why something that doesnt happen doesnt happen.
This is unreasoned rubbish.

So explain WHY you believe it doesn't happen based on evidence. That's the purpose of this thread. I already stated that denial is not an accepted argument. Anybody can deny anything. That doesn't make you right. Please answer the question or kindly leave the thread. This is a science thread, not a preaching one.

You are all of the same mindset, we are right, well prove you are right. Explain your belief with evidence.
In your own words with a few references, dont use other peoples words and dont use links as your answer. By all means use links to support your answer but dont use a link as an answer.
There are a hundred fundy evolutionists who link hundreds of pages and I dont have the time.
Make your statement and then reference it.

Surely if you have evolved a bit of common sense its not hard to work out why I ask this

Sorry, this is my thread, not yours. You don't get to come in here and tell me what matters I want to discuss and how to discuss them. I outlined everything in the original post. If you don' have a logical reasoned answer to my question, that is supported by evidence, then you are in the wrong thread.

Guys, please try not to respond to this guy, he's just going to take us way off topic with the same ol' stuff he posts everywhere.

a reply to: borntowatch

You just can't resist adding your nonsense to any thread about evolution, can you?

You have your own thread with over 50 pages worth of responses but that's not enough for you.

You are the online evolution debate's equivalent of "I know you are but what am I !?!?"

a reply to: Barcs

Good plan.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Simpl answer is the models do not account for the will to be ones one self.

You didn't answer the question. You just made a random statement that has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Maybe try again? This is about mutations adding up, not philosophy.

it is not a random statment but a summation for the effects we see in how the world around us came to be.

perhaps to understand what i am getting at just imagine what everything might look like if changes in design happened from not adaptation but from wants.

you can not accuratly answer such topics you bring up without looking at the fundementals of design.

to say changes happen from great need overtime and not by moment to moment wants or desires is what many ignore.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: deadeyedick



I'll take "completely off-topic pseudo-intellectual bullcrap" for $500, Alex.

you would be wrong and ignoring the world around you

needs vs desire vs will

perhaps you fail to see how dna can interact with emotions

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps diagram out how a population gets to the point where it can no longer breed with its ancestors

Here

I am saying that the mechanism by which it happens must be different than modern evolutionary theories propose.

Why would that be?

Yet to suggest [that horizontal gene transfer] is the number one mechanism in evolution is heresy against the Great Darwin (long may his beard be bushy).

Where are those horizontally transferred mutant genes coming from? How did they originate? How do mutant alleles, horizontally transferred, become taken up in genomes in preference to the earlier forms? How do they spread through the population?

The theory of evolution is not a religion to those who properly understand it.

It is believed that our chromosome 6 has about 100 genes that uniquely code us as human. Compared to the approximately 2,000 genes in that chromosome, that is a significantly small number. Definitely, changes to any single one of those genes confer bio-incompatibility of some type with organisms with the unaltered genes.

This means that the speciating step can be down to a single mutation. I doesn't have to happen as a stack of gradual changes as this is the less likely path.

Regardless of the possibility of accumulated change being the way speciation occurs, at some stage the accumulated changes still reach a 'tipping point' and that individual with that final mutation cannot breed with any of its 'peers'.

To have your accumulative speciation changes requires a 'tween' or link species that can breed with both the old and new species. This would confer a selection advantage over both the other species (a greater range of breeding partners, i.e; the previous species, the new species and itself, and also most of the favorable genes of the new species). It is fairly obvious that the 'tween' would soon become dominant. I think we'd see that if it were happening.

a reply to: Astyanax

The reason I am saying that the mechanism/s described in modern evolutionary theory don't work is that the numbers don't add up. The equations don't balance. There is something we are missing.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
it is not a random statment but a summation for the effects we see in how the world around us came to be.

perhaps to understand what i am getting at just imagine what everything might look like if changes in design happened from not adaptation but from wants.

you can not accuratly answer such topics you bring up without looking at the fundementals of design.

to say changes happen from great need overtime and not by moment to moment wants or desires is what many ignore.

Again, this thread is about mutations adding up. It's not about god or religion or imagination. It's about the science behind genetic mutations becoming dominant in a species leading to speciation. Please re-read the OP, and if you'd like to attempt to answer the actual question, feel free. If not, this thread is probably not for you.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Answer
Great, another person who likes to use the "it's only a theory" line.

You know how some forums have swear filters? Like, if I were to type the word "sh#t" it would autocorrect to something like "poop"? Wouldn't it be hilarious if a swear filter was put in place to autocorrect the phrase "only a theory" to "only a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation"?

Here is my challenge. Go back and actually read the source on that "Theory" of insect metamorphosis evolution and tell me one thing in there that has been

well-substantiated, repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation

. That theory, not all theories, is entirely speculative. Just one thing is all I ask.

I am not some ignoramus who doesn't understand the scientific method, but an electro-mechanical engineer with a prior education in botany. Please answer the specific question I asked about that specific theory and what was tested and confirmed aside from a speculative narrative.

I don't agree with the fact that you choose to not involve people in the discussion with the excuse that they will derail the thread, I am talking about borntowatch here.
He had a legitimate question and once he receives an answer you can discuss the subject further.
Anyway, from my perspective, having had experiences with entities, I don't see reality how humans see it anymore.
I don't believe in evolution and don't really care about the bits of evidence they claim to have, once you see what amounts to magic performed before your eyes....you realize that we don't have the means to really understand what we observe.
For example now they are saying that quantum equations say that the universe always egsisted...do we still have to believe in the big bang or be abused because we don't believe it...?
For example bacteria thickening the of the outer cell is not an example of evolution that strikes me as definite, yet it is one of the hallmarks of evolution.
I haven't looked at all the evidence of speciation so I would have appreciated a response to borntowatch.
But as a poster above said just because something changes doesn't mean it did it on its own.
Evolution doesn't interfere with my overall philosophy but still I have not been convinced because when challenged evolutionists start attacking people instead of explaining in a way that even a dummy understand what they want to say, I don't trust people that react in a religious manner to science.
If you spent a few years experiencing entities you will realize that reality can be changed instantly in front of your eyes, its hard to explain but I just believe that if these entities have these powers god only knows what else there is that we don't understand.....anyway evolutionists are just another religion to me and I base my opinion on the way they debate with other people.
I am interested in this topic but it seems that everytime this topic is approached evolutionists get very very intolerant.....I don't trust the ability for someone with those reactions to be able to think rationally.
And no I don't even necessarily believe in god, so no religious nutter here.
OP why don't you tell us why you think that changes add up and create more complex organisms.
What I would really like is a simple step by step process where by a new organ is created or a new trait or something and not just a thickening of a cell that helps fight of antibiotics.

a reply to: Barcs

Since you first mention god and religion then i assume you are trying to derail your own thread?

To answer the question of how or if mutations add up you first have to explain how or why mutations happen in the first place or else everything remains as being speculation.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Astyanax

The reason I am saying that the mechanism/s described in modern evolutionary theory don't work is that the numbers don't add up. The equations don't balance. There is something we are missing.

May I please request a reference to these equations?

This means that the speciating step can be down to a single mutation. I doesn't have to happen as a stack of gradual changes as this is the less likely path.

It starts with a single mutation, but it's never just 1 mutation, and it's never in 1 single individual. Speciation is generally a combination of numerous mutations. Many remain neutral until combined with others. Speciation boils down to a noticeable trait becoming dominant.

at some stage the accumulated changes still reach a 'tipping point' and that individual with that final mutation cannot breed with any of its 'peers'.

When a species "tips the balance" it is in reference to breeding with the original species, not the other individuals in the same group. You don't suddenly have one animal that can no longer reproduce with everyone else around him because there isn't as much difference between him and the others. If that were to happen, the individual would die. The difference is between him and his ancestors from thousands of generations ago. You seem to be confusing mutations in individuals with speciation events that affect entire populations.

a reply to: Barcs

Why is it so difficult to understand that evolution is a response, not a force?

Evolution isn't a force that requires species to change. Species change in response to environment. Epigenetic markers are responsible for short term change (one generation to the next....like response to overpopulation, for example). Genetic markers, the actual genes, are responsible for long term changes, the things that actually define a species.

Evolution can stop in any species, so long as the environment it is in does not induce change. And then some environmental pressures can create dramatic changes. The dinosaur that first gained winged flight....opened up a whole new world of possibilities for genetic expression. The first animal that could survive on land...created an explosion of genetic diversity for the same reason.

To sum it up: evolution is not a force. It is a response. That is why the thesis of the OP is flawed.