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

a reply to: Barcs

Hey Barcs can you help me understand this a little better please?

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.

What is the difference, if any, between the organisms with
numerous dominant traits adding up and the originals?
See what I'm getting at?

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs
I am looking for a well reasoned, evidence based answer to the following question:

Based on scientific experiments, evolution (speciation) can be observed in multiple species over dozens to hundreds of generations. Why does this process not continue for thousands to millions of generations, where the changes add up enough to be classified as a different species, genus or family? Why do the changes stop adding up past a certain point?

This basic point needs to be addressed. Every time I bring it up, it gets dodged and the subject gets changed.

I'll go with my car analogy again that I used in a different thread. It doesn't get simpler than this.

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

It's about accumulation, not acceleration, which makes your entire analogy is invalid . The mutations are observable. If you deny this, then link me your study that shows a genome comparison where no mutations happened from parent to off spring.

Or maybe answer the question in the OP instead of dodging it with invalid analogies. Thanks.

No OP, you don't understand what this analogy actually means.
He is asking you why do YOU think it would do such a think just like he would ask someone why they think a car would accelerate indefinitely.
I explained to you that I don't believe that the thickening of a cell that makes a bacteria resistant to antibiotics is not in my opinion an example of evolution. The thickening could happen for many reasons.
So, again, why do YOU think that it should happen?

The analogy was terrible. Cars cannot accelerate to the speed of light because they are machines that aren't capable of that for numerous reasons. What he did was use an absurd idea (car accelerating to the speed of light)to compare with a logical one (bucket filling up when it continues to rain). Acceleration and accumulation are 2 vastly different concepts. I think that it should happen because it has been observed by scientists to happen.

Since 1988, Michigan State University’s Richard Lenski has led the Escherichia coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project (LTEE)—12 flasks of bacteria that have been evolving in the lab for more than 58,000 generations. In the latest report from the project, Lenski and colleagues have shown that peak fitness—the point in an organism’s evolution when it is maximally adapted to its environment—does not seem to have an upper limit.

Ever Evolving E. Coli

Link to Lenski ecoli experiment

Even in peak fitness the evolution continues.

There is also Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment where 2 groups were isolated from one another with different environmental factors, which eventually led to one group becoming a different species of fly. This small speciation changes do happen, and that's a fact. The question is, why do they stop at a certain point? What would cause this to happen? Why wouldn't 1000 of these types of speciation events change an organism to the point where we classify it differently?

originally posted by: SoulReaper
a reply to: chr0naut

So according to you, if I take the source code for two completely different computer programs, break bits and pieces out of one and randomly insert them into the other.... I can expect that my computer program will remain functional?.... beyond that, what your telling me is that it can actually be expected to improve its functions or develop brand new functions that seamlessly integrate into the existing program? Do you understand how unlikely it would be for random jumbled biological information to ever self organize into useful and functional source code for a precision built biological organism?

Of course this is presuming the source code for both programs already magically appeared from other random processes.

You would have better luck getting me to believe that a tornado could rumble through a junk yard and in its wake leave a perfectly assembled and functional nuclear power plant.

I look at the world with my eyes wide open, not half closed. If you can present reasonable proposals, I'm all ears.

I have much more respect for those who acknowledge the truth, the more we learn, the less we know. We are primitive even now in our ability to observe what is really going on at the subatomic level. Much less understand what we are looking at.

Evolutionists are old news, they are well behind the curve of scientific advancement. Quantum physics is beginning to posit theories that the visible world is being manifested out from an invisible reality beneath the fabric of space and time which remains beyond our ability to measure or even begin to properly comprehend.

We are being carried along on this spinning rock in the middle of a vast universe, largely ignorant regarding the forces which provide the foundations for our existence.

100 years from now, people will look back on this generation and scoff at the nonsense it promoted. The wise among them will acknowledge even then what we should today, that we are barely able to perceive and grasp at the world around us.


Surely we will advance in our techniques and increase our knowledge base, but we will still just be scratching the surface.

Soul

In answer to the computer analogy, modular code. Exactly how computer virus writers inject code (but of course there is a brain behind it).

There are too many '... and then magic happens' moments in the actual processes of evolution, as currently theorized (which 'evolutionists' seem to simply refuse to see), for me to be comfortable with it.

However, genetic change and speciation (of sorts) have been observed.

As I said before, this does not remove the hand of God.

He rested on the seventh day, doesn't say He stopped for good. He is still creating today, hence we observe change and what looks like evolution.

Like the computer program, it requires a brain.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs
I am looking for a well reasoned, evidence based answer to the following question:

Based on scientific experiments, evolution (speciation) can be observed in multiple species over dozens to hundreds of generations. Why does this process not continue for thousands to millions of generations, where the changes add up enough to be classified as a different species, genus or family? Why do the changes stop adding up past a certain point?

This basic point needs to be addressed. Every time I bring it up, it gets dodged and the subject gets changed.

I'll go with my car analogy again that I used in a different thread. It doesn't get simpler than this.

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

It's about accumulation, not acceleration, which makes your entire analogy is invalid . The mutations are observable. If you deny this, then link me your study that shows a genome comparison where no mutations happened from parent to off spring.

Or maybe answer the question in the OP instead of dodging it with invalid analogies. Thanks.

No OP, you don't understand what this analogy actually means.
He is asking you why do YOU think it would do such a think just like he would ask someone why they think a car would accelerate indefinitely.
I explained to you that I don't believe that the thickening of a cell that makes a bacteria resistant to antibiotics is not in my opinion an example of evolution. The thickening could happen for many reasons.
So, again, why do YOU think that it should happen?

The analogy was terrible. Cars cannot accelerate to the speed of light because they are machines that aren't capable of that for numerous reasons. What he did was use an absurd idea (car accelerating to the speed of light)to compare with a logical one (bucket filling up when it continues to rain). Acceleration and accumulation are 2 vastly different concepts. I think that it should happen because it has been observed by scientists to happen.

Since 1988, Michigan State University’s Richard Lenski has led the Escherichia coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project (LTEE)—12 flasks of bacteria that have been evolving in the lab for more than 58,000 generations. In the latest report from the project, Lenski and colleagues have shown that peak fitness—the point in an organism’s evolution when it is maximally adapted to its environment—does not seem to have an upper limit.

Ever Evolving E. Coli

Link to Lenski ecoli experiment

Even in peak fitness the evolution continues.

There is also Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment where 2 groups were isolated from one another with different environmental factors, which eventually led to one group becoming a different species of fly. This small speciation changes do happen, and that's a fact. The question is, why do they stop at a certain point? What would cause this to happen? Why wouldn't 1000 of these types of speciation events change an organism to the point where we classify it differently?

In reply to your answer I don't agree that the analogy was incorrect at all, I believe it is valid.
With regards to the fruit flies, even dogs that are quite capable of breeding don't breed naturally but are the same species.
What evolutionists have to do to prove speciation is prove that they cant breed not that they wont breed.

With regards top the e. coli experiment I see an adption but no real change, it looks like there was a loss of information which allowed the bacteria to eat something different. It seems like another example of a gene being turned off, not an complex addition.
Why cant you explain in words what you are thinking and elaborate on what you mean with your links?

a reply to: Barcs


Your question is based on some rather large and unproven assumptions.

Let me posit something similar the other direction.

It has been proven through multitudes of studies and thousands of years of human experience that all systems tend to deteriorate over time and proceed from greater order and energy potential toward equilibrium and chaos.

The most likely source in our experience for halting or reversing this process, or creating new order or information is for work to be done by a conscious intelligent entity. Nobody who finds a book in the middle of a forest assumes that the forest randomly produced such a thing through "natural" causes. Similarly, nobody who really understands what they are looking at when they study human genetics, animal or plant genetics, thinks that this was the product of random natural processes. No reasonable person does anyways.

Since it is the MOST LIKELY conclusion that intelligence gave order to the vast information found in every cell of every biological organism. we don't even need to discuss this anymore. Only people without common sense who look at the world with their eyes closed deny all the vast evidence produced from human experience and studies. So we are not going to allow anyone to challenge my position that intelligence was the source of biological genetic information.

In light of this, I want all those who deny that some intelligent entity was the source for biological genetic code to explain to me why this intelligent entity limited each species, genus, or kind to a finite number of possible genetic variations or potential breeding mates. Explain to me your theory for why or how this intelligent entity caused this reality.

Of course you can't and what does that prove? NOTHING

You don't agree with some of my basic assumptions. Thus my question is meaningless to your world view. The same is true of your question.

I don't believe that natural causes are the source of all genetic information, thus I don't think that a natural cause is the source of the limits that we see on the genetic variation and breeding potential for each species(ie what you call a stop to the mutating changes). You asking me to produce a response according to your world view is ridiculous. Pull your head out of the sand and open your eyes.

Soul

a reply to: vasaga

You didn't say X amount of miles, you said accelerate to the speed of light. Accelerate means to increase your speed, not to maintain your speed. To make your analogy comparable to mine, you'd have to say this:

If you can observe a car going 100 miles and see it accurately reflected on the odometer, then logic would state that if the car kept driving the odometer would continue to increase. That would be valid in relation to the question of mutations.

The question of mutations was only addressed by Chr0naut thus far, and I will be addressing that one shortly.

People have gotten upset over this topic, but I'm not sure why this is the case. If you don't want to acknowledge and address the OP, that makes you off topic by definition. The backtracking was amusing though, Vasaga. I still love you man.

originally posted by: jabrsa
With regards to the fruit flies, even dogs that are quite capable of breeding don't breed naturally but are the same species.
What evolutionists have to do to prove speciation is prove that they cant breed not that they wont breed.

Speciation has happened in a lab where the new species could NOT breed with the other isolated populations. Dog breeds are not the same as the species classification, they are subspecies and are capable of breeding. I have explained myself thoroughly and provided evidence of speciation. Now that you understand the proposition better, can you please address why mutations stop accumulating past a certain level?

With regards top the e. coli experiment I see an adption but no real change, it looks like there was a loss of information which allowed the bacteria to eat something different. It seems like another example of a gene being turned off, not an complex addition.
Why cant you explain in words what you are thinking and elaborate on what you mean with your links?

You doubted the validity of speciation so I referenced 2 experiments for you. You are just giving your personal opinion, you aren't disputing anything I've said with evidence, as requested in the OP. I have very clearly, concisely and respectfully explained my position and asked a question in regards to mutations and speciation events. I would really appreciate this question to be answered or at least attempted. Do you deny that the fruit flies in the experiment became new species? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the scientific terminology involved with evolution and classifications of organisms, because you aren't making a heck of a lot of sense.

originally posted by: SoulReaper
a reply to: Barcs
Your question is based on some rather large and unproven assumptions.

Did you not read the speciation experiments that I referenced? Did you miss the part where I said that this thread is for folks that believe in micro evolution?

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.

originally posted by: randyvs
What is the difference, if any, between the organisms with
numerous dominant traits adding up and the originals?

The difference is that they have the traits and the originals did not. As a result, their genetics become less similar and less and less compatible to breed with over time.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

You didn't say X amount of miles, you said accelerate to the speed of light. Accelerate means to increase your speed, not to maintain your speed. To make your analogy comparable to mine, you'd have to say this:

If you can observe a car going 100 miles and see it accurately reflected on the odometer, then logic would state that if the car kept driving the odometer would continue to increase. That would be valid in relation to the question of mutations.

The question of mutations was only addressed by Chr0naut thus far, and I will be addressing that one shortly.

People have gotten upset over this topic, but I'm not sure why this is the case. If you don't want to acknowledge and address the OP, that makes you off topic by definition. The backtracking was amusing though, Vasaga. I still love you man.

You think people are derailing your thread when I have showed you that I was on topic.
You seem to think only Chr0naut is addressing the issue but if that was the case then why cant you not politely reply to peoples questions and engage people in a conversation?
The question of mutations was addressed by many people including myself.
If we have been unable thus far to find any reason why we should assume that minor changes eventually lead to major changes then just explain why you think it might be so.
If speciation happens as you claim it does then how does it happen?
Does the mutation occur in one individual only or multiple and if in only one how does it reproduce?
If you cant answer the above question then my answer to your question is simply that speciation does not occur and therefore you have your answer...that's how a conversation works, not by dodging questions and accusing others of doging questions.
Why is that difficult?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: jabrsa
With regards to the fruit flies, even dogs that are quite capable of breeding don't breed naturally but are the same species.
What evolutionists have to do to prove speciation is prove that they cant breed not that they wont breed.

Speciation has happened in a lab where the new species could NOT breed with the other isolated populations. Dog breeds are not the same as the species classification, they are subspecies and are capable of breeding. I have explained myself thoroughly and provided evidence of speciation. Now that you understand the proposition better, can you please address why mutations stop accumulating past a certain level?

With regards top the e. coli experiment I see an adption but no real change, it looks like there was a loss of information which allowed the bacteria to eat something different. It seems like another example of a gene being turned off, not an complex addition.
Why cant you explain in words what you are thinking and elaborate on what you mean with your links?

You doubted the validity of speciation so I referenced 2 experiments for you. You are just giving your personal opinion, you aren't disputing anything I've said with evidence, as requested in the OP. I have very clearly, concisely and respectfully explained my position and asked a question in regards to mutations and speciation events. I would really appreciate this question to be answered or at least attempted. Do you deny that the fruit flies in the experiment became new species? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the scientific terminology involved with evolution and classifications of organisms, because you aren't making a heck of a lot of sense.

This is getting boring. No there is a difference between not wanting to breed and not being able to breed. Did the experiment that you mention attempt artificial insemination to prove that they cant breed a
As opposed to wont breed like dogs?
This is a simple concept to understand.
So yes I am denying that its a new species all you are observing is what we observe with dogs and that is why some evolutionists want to reclassify some dogs as being a new species, so that they can claim that the experiments that you mention are proof of speciation when they are not.
Get it?
So I am answering your question by questioning your premise.
My answer to your question in the OP is simply that you don't have the evidence that what you claim happens so why should I believe it does?

originally posted by: Barcs
The analogy was terrible. Cars cannot accelerate to the speed of light because they are machines that aren't capable of that for numerous reasons. What he did was use an absurd idea (car accelerating to the speed of light)to compare with a logical one (bucket filling up when it continues to rain). Acceleration and accumulation are 2 vastly different concepts. I think that it should happen because it has been observed by scientists to happen.

Acceleration and accumulation is irrelevant to the discussion. If I try to explain to someone how a chemical reaction takes place by using marbles, it doesn't make the explanation of the chemical reaction itself invalid just because atoms/molecules are not solid round balls. To say that it's invalid is deceptive, dishonest and disgusting.

And yes. Like you said, cars cannot accelerate to the speed of light for numerous reasons. But in order to explain that, you must know first what the speed of light is. Not only that, you must know the difference between acceleration from 0 mph and acceleration near the speed of light. You must know that the car must become mass-less and friction-less to reach the speed of light, you must know that the car has friction and mass, you must know the RPM limit of the engine, you must know the transmission box limit, you must know the maximum gasoline input and so on. So you must know a lot before you can say that it can or cannot.

In order to claim that mutations can add up to a different species, genus or family, first we must know a species, genus or family is. There's a species problem right now, so there is the first limit we run into already, which inherently disallows us to claim what you're claiming. That alone can throw your whole thread out the window. But let's continue.

Just like the speed of light, we must know the difference between a modern species (speed of light) and a first cell (0 mph). We must know the difference between mutation in an individual and mutation in a population. Other differences include method of reproduction, singular cells surviving alone vs trillions of cells working together to survive, and the most important one... Cognitive function.
Until it has been shown that natural selection can increase cognitive function, there is no reason at all to believe that some first 'stupid' cell eventually evolved into any of the species we see today.

And the real pickle is that in evolutionary science, they ignore the part of cognition completely. It's all about the genes. Kind of ironic when you think about it, since cognition is the most valuable aspect of life. It's the main thing that lets us understand the world around us in the first place. In fact, we see ourselves as important because of our cognitive abilities compared to animals. It's that ability that gave rise to the scientific method. Without it, none of these arguments would be relevant, if at all existent. And yet, that quality is treated as some type of illusion. And in evolutionary biology, it's pretended that all that exists is genes, mutation and the environment. Throw enough time in the mix of genes, mutation and environment, and poof, we have everything from frogs to ponies, fish to electric eels, venom spitting cobras to rhinos, birds to tongue eating louse, HIV to ebola and urethra to colon.

originally posted by: jabrsa
You think people are derailing your thread when I have showed you that I was on topic.

You have done no such thing and haven't offered any evidence whatsoever for your claims. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but you simply have not explained anything about the mutations. You have only claimed you agreed with his faulty analogy and denied speciation. Denial is not an argument. Speciation has been done in a lab, end of story.

You seem to think only Chr0naut is addressing the issue but if that was the case then why cant you not politely reply to peoples questions and engage people in a conversation?

I replied to virtually every response, but nobody is actually addressing the topic and answering the question. They are only doubting something that has already been backed up by evidence.

The question of mutations was addressed by many people including myself.

Please quote me the exact part of ANY response in this thread where my exact question was answered based on the parameters in the OP. Go ahead. I'll be waiting. It has only been denied and dismissed.

If we have been unable thus far to find any reason why we should assume that minor changes eventually lead to major changes then just explain why you think it might be so.

Because it has been observed to happen and continues to be observed happening. I'm asking why this known established process would stop or have limits as to how many mutations can happen? I keep asking you numerous questions and they keep getting ignored.

If speciation happens as you claim it does then how does it happen?

Via genetic mutation and natural selection as shown in the experiments I referenced. Beneficial traits become dominant in a species over time. I thought that I already stated this many times.

Does the mutation occur in one individual only or multiple and if in only one how does it reproduce?

No, and this is why I used the water in the bucket analogy. It 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. This is where scientists try to draw the species lines. It isn't always exact, but it is based on the ability to breed and doesn't happen in one individual in one generation. It happens as mutations accumulate to the point where the genes are no longer compatible. It's thousands of generations.

If you ask how a trait first emerges, it is a result of a mutation where the individual in question, has a slightly different feature than the rest. For example, it's skin is slightly darker. If the darker skin is favorable over lighter for that respective environment, the darker skin organism will survive and pass down more genes. This is how a new trait becomes dominant in a species.

Another good example is the male peacock and his huge feathery pretty tail. The reason for this is because the females are attracted to the bigger flashier tails, so when a male has a mutation that makes his tail alter it's color or become slightly longer, the females are attracted to him and therefor he passes down way more genes than the other males. This is sexual selection, a big part of natural selection.

Now that I have given you an evolution 101 course, can you please address the question in the OP? I don't mind explaining things to folks that don't understand, but it's only taking us away from the heart of the matter, which is the question of why people think the mutations stop accumulating. That's all. This should be more than sufficient to answer your questions, now will you please show me the same respect and answer mine?

originally posted by: Barcs
I am looking for a well reasoned, evidence based answer

Based on scientific experiments, evolution (speciation) can be observed in multiple species over dozens to hundreds of generations. Why does this process not continue for thousands to millions of generations, where the changes add up enough to be classified as a different species, genus or family? Why do the changes stop adding up past a certain point?

If you wish to claim this is wrong, then you must find a scientific source that conflicts with this.

If you are going to dismiss the experiments as faith, or deny macro evolution without evidence then you are in the wrong thread.

If you are not answering the primary question in this thread about mutations adding up, then you should not respond.

This is all from the OP. I'm sorry if you disagree with that, or if it makes you feel uneasy about your world view, but these are the parameters I set forth for the thread. If you can't have the common courtesy and respect to follow this, then I humbly request that you debate evolution in another thread. If you deny micro evolution, then you are in the wrong thread.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: jabrsa
You think people are derailing your thread when I have showed you that I was on topic.

You have done no such thing. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but you simply have not explained anything about the mutations. You have only claimed you agreed with his faulty analogy and denied speciation.

You seem to think only Chr0naut is addressing the issue but if that was the case then why cant you not politely reply to peoples questions and engage people in a conversation?

I replied to virtually every response, but nobody is actually addressing the topic and answering the question. They are only doubting something that has already been backed up by evidence.

The question of mutations was addressed by many people including myself.

Please quote me the exact part of ANY response in this thread where my exact question was answered based on the parameters in the OP. Go ahead. I'll be waiting. It has only been denied and dismissed.

If we have been unable thus far to find any reason why we should assume that minor changes eventually lead to major changes then just explain why you think it might be so.

Because it has been observed to happen and continues to be observed happening. I'm asking why this known established process would stop or have limits as to how many mutations can happen? I keep asking you numerous questions and they keep getting ignored.

If speciation happens as you claim it does then how does it happen?

Via genetic mutation and natural selection as shown in the experiments I referenced. Beneficial traits become dominant in a species over time. I thought that I already stated this many times.

Does the mutation occur in one individual only or multiple and if in only one how does it reproduce?

No, and this is why I used the water in the bucket analogy. It 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. This is where scientists try to draw the species lines. It isn't always exact, but it is based on the ability to breed and doesn't happen in one individual in one generation. It happens as mutations accumulate to the point where the genes are no longer compatible. It's thousands of generations.

If you ask how a trait first emerges, it is a result of a mutation where the individual in question, has a slightly different feature than the rest. For example, it's skin is slightly darker. If the darker skin is favorable over lighter for that respective environment, the darker skin organism will survive and pass down more genes. This is how a new trait becomes dominant in a species.

Another good example is the male peacock and his huge feathery pretty tail. The reason for this is because the females are attracted to the bigger flashier tails, so when a male has a mutation that makes his tail alter it's color or become slightly longer, the females are attracted to him and therefor he passes down way more genes than the other males. This is sexual selection, a big part of natural selection.

Now that I have given you an evolution 101 course, can you please address the question in the OP? I don't mind explaining things to folks that don't understand, but it's only taking us away from the heart of the matter, which is the question of why people think the mutations stop accumulating. That's all. This should be more than sufficient to answer your questions, now will you please show me the same respect and answer mine?

OP I have answered your question twice.
Speciation has not been proven. Consensus isn't science.
For it to have been proven then you need to be able to say that different dog breeds are different species and that is what some evolutionists are trying to do.
I would support your assumptions better if you replied that different dog breeds are different species too, but you didn't.
With regards to my question as to how one group of individuals splits and cant breed with the other group, you have just given an explanation of how it works on the group level of how a trait is passed down but you haven't explained to me at the moment there is a mutation in an individual whereby it wont be able to breed with the rest of the group then who will that individual breed with to pass on its new mutation to allow for speciation to occur?
I need specific answers not a 101 on evolution that doesn't address the details.
Detail is important in evaluating if a concept is feasible, don't you think?

originally posted by: chr0naut
The European Peppered Moth, annual life cycle, phylum Lepidoptera, one heritable (non-speciating) change expected once every 300-600 generations. Two (biologist confirmed) speciation changes observed over 200 years. That's one change per 100 generations observed, compared to one change per 300-600 generations calculated.

Similar problems observed in Drosophila Flies, Yeasts, Vinyl eating Bacteria & etc.

Observed time-frames are shorter in all cases.

Sorry about the delayed response, I wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings with the OP before addressing this. This answers my question as to whether you are talking about rate of change or rate of mutation. You are talking about evolutionary speciation changes. The problem is that speciation changes are determined mostly by the environment eliminating the weaker. So unless we can predict exactly what environmental change will happen and when, it is impossible to calculate any reliable rate of change. You can calculate the rate of mutations, however, and your link refers to this, rather than speciation it seems.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
The European Peppered Moth, annual life cycle, phylum Lepidoptera, one heritable (non-speciating) change expected once every 300-600 generations. Two (biologist confirmed) speciation changes observed over 200 years. That's one change per 100 generations observed, compared to one change per 300-600 generations calculated.

Similar problems observed in Drosophila Flies, Yeasts, Vinyl eating Bacteria & etc.

Observed time-frames are shorter in all cases.

Sorry about the delayed response, I wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings with the OP before addressing this. This answers my question as to whether you are talking about rate of change or rate of mutation. You are talking about evolutionary speciation changes. The problem is that speciation changes are determined by the environment. So unless we can predict exactly what environmental change will happen and when, it is impossible to calculate any reliable rate of change. You can calculate the rate of mutations, however.

OP in a response above you claimed that evolution was proved to be ongoing and not dependant on environment. Now you are saying that speciation changes are determined by the environment.
Are you talking about the same thing here or different things?
You seem to contradict yourself, remember what you said regarding the e coli experiment?
Anyway if speciation is dependant on the environment or if any evolutionary changes are dependant on the environment then purpose and need enter into the equation and evolution becomes something completely different and I suspect someone like you wouldn't want to go there but you might just have in the above post.

originally posted by: jabrsa
OP I have answered your question twice.
Speciation has not been proven. Consensus isn't science.
For it to have been proven then you need to be able to say that different dog breeds are different species and that is what some evolutionists are trying to do.
I would support your assumptions better if you replied that different dog breeds are different species too, but you didn't.

Sorry, but you are wrong and have not only ignored the question of mutations, but denied it without evidence. You have also ignored virtually every point I have made to you in this thread. Read the OP, denial isn't an argument. If you claim the experiments are wrong, you need conflicting evidence.

Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, which are all of the subspecies, Canis lupus familiaris

en.wikipedia.org...

It says it right there. They are all part of the same subspecies, which can breed.

you haven't explained to me at the moment there is a mutation in an individual whereby it wont be able to breed with the rest of the group then who will that individual breed with to pass on its new mutation to allow for speciation to occur?

You have not read my posts if this is your claim. I've stated numerous times that there is no "one moment" when an individual suddenly speciates from the rest. If that happens, the individual dies. 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.

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. No worries if you misunderstood. That's what I'm here for.

Can you answer the question now?

originally posted by: jabrsa
OP in a response above you claimed that evolution was proved to be ongoing and not dependant on environment. Now you are saying that speciation changes are determined by the environment.

You aren't paying attention. The rate of mutation is ongoing and not fully dependent on the environment. The rate of mutation is not the same as the rate of evolutionary change. I did not ever claim that evolution was not dependent on the environment, but by all means keep dragging us further and further off topic.

Anyway if speciation is dependant on the environment or if any evolutionary changes are dependant on the environment then purpose and need enter into the equation and evolution becomes something completely different and I suspect someone like you wouldn't want to go there but you might just have in the above post.

No, purpose and need DO NOT enter the equation. Remember, mutations happen first. Traits can emerge via sexual selection to make these traits dominant, but sometimes the trait is very rare, and an environmental change causes the others to die, while the rare ones now dominate the gene pool and are no longer rare.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: jabrsa
OP I have answered your question twice.
Speciation has not been proven. Consensus isn't science.
For it to have been proven then you need to be able to say that different dog breeds are different species and that is what some evolutionists are trying to do.
I would support your assumptions better if you replied that different dog breeds are different species too, but you didn't.

Sorry, but you are wrong and have not only ignored the question of mutations, but denied it without evidence. You have also ignored virtually every point I have made to you in this thread. Read the OP, denial isn't an argument. If you claim the experiments are wrong, you need conflicting evidence.

Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, which are all of the subspecies

en.wikipedia.org...

Dog breeds are different SUBSPECIES, NOT SPECIES. Please stop spreading falsehoods.

you haven't explained to me at the moment there is a mutation in an individual whereby it wont be able to breed with the rest of the group then who will that individual breed with to pass on its new mutation to allow for speciation to occur?

You have not read my posts if this is your claim. I've stated numerous times that there is no "one moment" when an individual suddenly speciates from the rest. If that happens, the individual dies. 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.

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. No worries if you misunderstood. That's what I'm here for.

Can you answer the question now?

Sorry but what answers have you given me?
Are dog different species yes or no?
If you don't consider that dogs are different species then you cant consider YOUR examples of speciation as proof.
Its quite simple really.
And no you have not explained the detail of how an individual mutates and is unable to breed.
Unless you are saying that the mutation that stops the breeding happens simultaneously in many individuals who then happen to successfully breed and create the new species, its one or the other and that was my question.
Sorry if I am picky but as I said I think the devil is always in the detail an nowhere on the internet or in books do I find the detail of how these processes can occur in real life, its the detail that just isn't there.
Seeing that your evolution genius then explain the detail of how it might happen.
For example if speciation happens in a group does it happen first to only one individual or to many at the same time, and by that I mean the moment that the individuals/individuals become unable to breed with the others, there must be a first time right?
The first time one species develops the mutation that stops them from being able to breed, does it happen for the first time to one individual or to several at the same time?
IF you sincerely answer to these questions then I think the question in the OP has been settled in my opinion.

a reply to: jabrsa

Sorry pal, I'm done wasting time with you. My link clearly said that dog breeds were the same subspecies, so your insistence on ignoring the facts is on you completely. Can you please form coherent paragraphs and back up your claims? Can you stop posting one liners and ignoring any and all points I make? If you have an argument and can answer my question, then be out with it. You are just plugging your ears and denying everything I say. Give me proof. I clearly explained how traits become dominant in a population yet you still keep referring to single individual's speciation. That's not how it works. Educate yourself. If you don't understand evolution, you shouldn't be trying to debate it.