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

a reply to: Prezbo369

Those that deny evolution just pick and choose which facts or scientific theories to accept, usually depending on whether or not they think said facts and theories conflict with their particular set of superstitions.

Superstition you say? You mean like walking under a ladder,
breaking a mirror, opening an umbrella indoors and such?
Rabbits feet ?

originally posted by: jabrsa
Op,

I have another answer as to why we have no proof that evolution is valid.
Take the example of the many physicists that believe that consciousness has been proven to be a fundamental force in the universe based on the double slit experiment, you can deny this but you have to accept that people like the much acclaimed Penrose do hold this belief and so did Planck and so do the authors of the ARCH-OR theory like many others, well if consciousness is a fundamental force of which we are a part of then do you still believe that natural random forces created our bodies and one day we decided to inhabit them all?
So this is another reason to not feel like there is a need to believe the very flimsy evidence behind randomness and chance as an explanation for what we observe around us.
I am not sure evolutionists minds stretch so far though, your answer is probably that you don't believe my conclusions are true, it doesn't stop leading scientists believing exactly what I believe.
There are tons of examples as to why your premise is false, your evidence flimsy and inconsistent and therefore your question is pointless because you have provided no proof of complexity arising at any point in any kind of research whatsoever.
Also you deny purpose even though adaptability to an environment is observed all the time and as you stated above evolution seems to stop when environmental pressures disappear, you claim mutations don't stop but evolution does.
Evolutionists that study near death experiences believe they are caused by a mutation that helps make us happier before we disappear for ever, can you elaborate on your theory that accounts for our ability to have an experience that mimicks death and heaven so that we can feel relaxed about dying?
Are you able to say with a straight face that a near death experience has no purpose?
Why do people that are unaware that they are dying or are atheists still have these experiences?
Don't say a near death experience is a trick of the brain because I will then ask you whether you believe our brain has a separate consciousness that can develop mutations that serve the purpose of making us feel safe about dying once the process of death starts.
Its about applying logic, taking into consideration all options, stating the details of your assumptions and coming to conclusions.

You know, instead of coming up with illogical analogies like comparing evolution to consciousness, why don't you read some of the 500+ accredited scientific journals that publish ongoing research on evolution.

Your "logic" is skewed towards your fundamental opinion that evolution is a "theory" and not a fact - and it's very obvious from your posts. BTW, a "theory" in science is not the same as a theory in the common lingua franca. A theory in science already has hard evidence to back it up, even though all the details have not been worked out.

The science of evolution, like every branch of science, is a process - there is no "The End" to research.

If you studied mutational mechanics, you would understand how mutations work within a genome - insertions, deletions, expression, functionality.

Go do some homework then come back with questions that are relevant to the subject.

a reply to: randyvs

Yep, along with the belief in a magic creature in the sky, a super special place to go after you've died, talking animals, women being created from rib bones or an entire graveyard of zombies rising from the dead and walking on a town.

etc

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Let's make this simple.

So you have one species,

They are in two groups, isolated geographically.

Millions of years later, these two groups of the same species changes over time to adapt to their specific environment to the point these two groups can no longer breed with the other group. Also, those two groups along the line before becoming a 'separate species' could interbreed, and the offspring over time could be considered a new species.

Evolution is a complex mechanism, and is heavily dependent on luck.

Still no detail of how this incapability to breed comes about and I mean the detail.
How does it happen in real life not in theory, if you are unable to answer how the first individual became incompatible with other individuals and how that mutation got passed on then the logical conclusion is that it didn't happen unless you state that it happens simultaneously to multiple individuals who then manage to breed.
How did the original two ancestors that created the new species develop this mutation at the same time and find each other to breed?

It's called genetic drift. Look it up.

originally posted by: Barcs
Welp, just as I predicted, not a single denier has answered my question. Each response has been a dodge or finding some way to avoid answering it via denial of science. If you are here to deny rather than formulate a logical argument then you need to find somewhere else to troll. Off topic responses will now be ignored.

It's not denial of science nor a dodge. It's actually depicting science's shortcomings. Between the pretending of science's omnipotence/omniscience and the desire to believe rather than think, lies the deception between actual science (which is exploration) and scientism (which is a prohibition to question.

a reply to: chr0naut

For example, a blind organism could even be 'gifted' a naturally selected complete eye from another species (but this would be very rare).

Can you provide even one example of lateral gene transference that resulted in a complete eye?

Meanwhile, an answer to the actual questions would be appreciated.

originally posted by: vasaga
Between the pretending of science's omnipotence/omniscience and the desire to believe rather than think, lies the deception between actual science (which is exploration) and scientism (which is a prohibition to question.

The frequency of comments like this from religious posters makes me think they're completely unaware of projection....

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yep, along with the belief in a magic creature in the sky, a super special place to go after you've died, talking animals, women being created from rib bones or an entire graveyard of zombies rising from the dead and walking on a town.

So you don't see any difference in the abilities of
God that are 100% required of God in order to be God
and what you call superstition? The fact that a book records
all Gods past interactions with man. Written in those times by
scribes and scholars who recorded every letter with tremendous care.
And handed it down to us that we may know the truth of a perfectly
preserved piece of ancient literature. And you would just toss it in
with some old wives tales?

Then you sir are no man science, because men of science seek and
preserve information. A real man of science appreciates anything that
has come from our deep past.

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by Astyanax
Show us the numbers, and why they don't add up.

originally posted by chr0naut
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't really tell you why they don't add up.

However, the source in your link offers an explanation: good old natural selection. Speaking of which,

Some splicings would be 'beneficial' for the recipient, most would be death - exactly like with mutations.

And what is that, then, if not natural selection?

it could be explained by the existence of Transposons (doubtful) or by the effect of other factors of evolution such as the selection.
Linked source

You don't want to accept that, so you pretend there's no explanation? Is that it?

Again, clear answers to the questions asked earlier would be appreciated.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Prezbo369
So you don't see any difference in the abilities of
God that are 100% required of God in order to be God
and what you call superstition?

So the god character featured in the stories about stories of the bible says......but Zeus and many other myths had such power. I'm not sure why the above would show how your superstitions are not superstitions.

The fact that a book records
all Gods past interactions with man. Written in those times by
scribes and scholars who recorded every letter with tremendous care.
And handed it down to us that we may know the truth of a perfectly
preserved piece of ancient literature. And you would just toss it in
with some old wives tales?

Sure! that someone once wrote these superstitions down X number of years ago says nothing whatsoever about the authenticity of them. And 'old wives tales' is quite fitting btw.

Then you sir are no man science, because men of science seek and
preserve information. A real man of science appreciates anything that
has come from our deep past.

Ah this explains part of your position quite well, you confuse history with science. Your chosen collection of superstitions has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Just because evolutionists say that they use science doesn't mean that debunkers of evolution don't use science too.

Those that deny evolution just pick and choose which facts or scientific theories to accept, usually depending on whether or not they think said facts and theories conflict with their particular set of superstitions.

No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

a reply to: vasaga

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?

Acceleration ceases when resistance to motion — friction, essentially — equals the motive force.

Could you please explain what, in your analogy, equates to 'resistance to motion' when it comes to mutation?

a reply to: jabrsa

What evolutionists have to do to prove speciation is prove that they cant breed not that they wont breed.

Here's a horsefly. Here's a horse.

>shakes head in wonder

a reply to: Prezbo369

Ah this explains part of your position quite well, you confuse history with science. Your chosen collection of superstitions has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method.

Nor does your closed minded know it all attitude.

a reply to: jabrsa

OP So you are saying that the rate of evolutionary changes is dependant on the environment as it isn't the same as the mutation rate?

Given a constant rate of mutation, yes.

Dependence on the environment, as you put is, is a basic tenet of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Always has been. It is the environment that selects. Sorry if you're late to the party, but this has been part of the theory ever since Darwin.

originally posted by: jabrsa
No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

You sound like you understand science, so please list just a few of the scientific theories you do accept and then the ones you don't along with your reasons as to why.

Then maybe you can demonstrate how and why I'm wrong about your position.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: jabrsa
Op,

I have another answer as to why we have no proof that evolution is valid.
Take the example of the many physicists that believe that consciousness has been proven to be a fundamental force in the universe based on the double slit experiment, you can deny this but you have to accept that people like the much acclaimed Penrose do hold this belief and so did Planck and so do the authors of the ARCH-OR theory like many others, well if consciousness is a fundamental force of which we are a part of then do you still believe that natural random forces created our bodies and one day we decided to inhabit them all?
So this is another reason to not feel like there is a need to believe the very flimsy evidence behind randomness and chance as an explanation for what we observe around us.
I am not sure evolutionists minds stretch so far though, your answer is probably that you don't believe my conclusions are true, it doesn't stop leading scientists believing exactly what I believe.
There are tons of examples as to why your premise is false, your evidence flimsy and inconsistent and therefore your question is pointless because you have provided no proof of complexity arising at any point in any kind of research whatsoever.
Also you deny purpose even though adaptability to an environment is observed all the time and as you stated above evolution seems to stop when environmental pressures disappear, you claim mutations don't stop but evolution does.
Evolutionists that study near death experiences believe they are caused by a mutation that helps make us happier before we disappear for ever, can you elaborate on your theory that accounts for our ability to have an experience that mimicks death and heaven so that we can feel relaxed about dying?
Are you able to say with a straight face that a near death experience has no purpose?
Why do people that are unaware that they are dying or are atheists still have these experiences?
Don't say a near death experience is a trick of the brain because I will then ask you whether you believe our brain has a separate consciousness that can develop mutations that serve the purpose of making us feel safe about dying once the process of death starts.
Its about applying logic, taking into consideration all options, stating the details of your assumptions and coming to conclusions.

You know, instead of coming up with illogical analogies like comparing evolution to consciousness, why don't you read some of the 500+ accredited scientific journals that publish ongoing research on evolution.

Your "logic" is skewed towards your fundamental opinion that evolution is a "theory" and not a fact - and it's very obvious from your posts. BTW, a "theory" in science is not the same as a theory in the common lingua franca. A theory in science already has hard evidence to back it up, even though all the details have not been worked out.

The science of evolution, like every branch of science, is a process - there is no "The End" to research.

If you studied mutational mechanics, you would understand how mutations work within a genome - insertions, deletions, expression, functionality.

Go do some homework then come back with questions that are relevant to the subject.

I have quoted several scientific theories that are not compatible with the theory of evolution.
You just stated that a scientific theory is fact.
Now reply to my questions as to how evolutionary theory can encompass the theories of consciousness into its fold.
You just stated again that scientific theories are fact, now explain how you reconcile ARCH-OR theory with evolution theory, impress us with your superior intelligence.
Why don't you explain the evidence that mutational mechanics provides instead of just throwing statements without elaborating what your point is?
I am only interested in detail not opinions.
I have asked several questions and nobody wants to answer for fear that their religious affiliation with evolution might become compromised!
I don't understand if you are so sure about your theories why are you unable to explain what you mean, your evidence, examples etcc..
If evolutionists were open to science and data then you could have an interesting discussion with them but for some reason evolutionists have decided that they owe no explanation whatsoever, just insults.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Prezbo369

Ah this explains part of your position quite well, you confuse history with science. Your chosen collection of superstitions has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method.

Nor does your closed minded know it all attitude.

Says the person that no doubt claims to have a personal and loving relationship with the master of the universe....

But yeah great response.

originally posted by: jabrsa

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Just because evolutionists say that they use science doesn't mean that debunkers of evolution don't use science too.

Those that deny evolution just pick and choose which facts or scientific theories to accept, usually depending on whether or not they think said facts and theories conflict with their particular set of superstitions.

No evolutionists think that only evolutionary theory is fact and all other theories are junk if they don't fit into their paradigm.
I am open to all theories, data and facts and am perfectly capable of answering questions, justifying my reasoning and having an open discussion.
If you really believed what you just said you would have provided reasons not sound bites.

Well why don't you post your "theories" then?? You haven't done it here and you haven't done it in your other "personna". The problem with you is that you have no foundation upon which to express your theories. It's all pie-in-the-sky whereas real science can present evidence. If an intelligent person disagrees with the evidence, they have every opportunity to challenge it - with hard data that is - not BS that has no logic behind it.

So let's have it. Where's your "science" and hypotheses???

In fact, how about answering the question the OP originally posed? That would be a first.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: randyvs

Yep, along with the belief in a magic creature in the sky, a super special place to go after you've died, talking animals, women being created from rib bones or an entire graveyard of zombies rising from the dead and walking on a town.

etc

You keep thinking that we are all Christians that are going to use the bible to debate evolution.
Nobody so far has done this, so what was the purpose of your comment?