For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[hellothere]

You're going to have to move your goal posts. Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Those fruit-fly experimenters weren't attempting to produce new species.

They were aiming to go as far as they could get, but probably didn't expect to produce a new species. All died far before they produced a new species which should tell you something. Speciation has not been observed in the animal kingdom. What are the studies? What species of animals was observed transforming into what species?

 

[Ophiolite]

They were aiming to go as far as they could get, but probably didn't expect to produce a new species. All died far before they produced a new species which should tell you something. Speciation has not been observed in the animal kingdom. What are the studies? What species of animals was observed transforming into what species?

Do you understand that speciation is a gradual process?
Do you understand that it takes many generations to occur?
Do you understand that we have had insufficient time, in most cases, for a speciation event to be osberved?

If you have answered 'yes' to each of these questions, why did you make such a foolish post?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Speciation has not been observed in the animal kingdom. What are the studies? What species of animals was observed transforming into what species?

I'm wondering whether you've even done a simple Google search on this.

To save you the hassle of educating yourself, here are some examples:
Evidence From Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

 

[SLP]

. It's been proven that mutations have limits.

Show me this proof.

When constantly mutating fruit flies, scientists found that the flies would at best get different color eyes or longer or shorter legs. After generations of mutating, the flies would eventually become so deformed that they are unable to reproduce or just die. So all subjects die long before becoming a new species. No study conducted has proven macromutation within the animal kingdom.

You think macromutations are relevant to macroevolution. How sweet!

 

[SLP]

...to the question in the OP, I'm not a biologist either-

Obviously - maybe that is why you didn't even try to address the OP?

 

[SLP]

I'm not a 'YEC' and I've no idea who that is, I used to live near the Field museum in Chicago and visited it frequently, Sue the T Rex etc.

A relative of mine is a conspiracy nut. She constantly posts nonsense to social media. I called her on it once, asking why she thought Alex Jones was a reliable source. She insisted that she had no idea who Alex Jones was, and that she did the research all on her own.

Then I looked back into her older posts, and was able to find that she had plagiarized material right from Jones' page on several occasions.

 

[SLP]

I take your point, but I agree with Raup on this

You say you are not a biologist, here you say you agree with one.
Why do you, a non-biologist,. agree with this fellow on this one topic? I do wonder....

 

[SLP]

Let us see some real examples of this evidence pointing to 'predetermination, information, instructions specifying how life develops.'
No essays, please - actual research demonstrating 'predetermination' in DNA.

Huh...

Amazed to note that this evidence is not forthcoming.....

 

[Lobster Johnson]

All died far before they produced a new species which should tell you something.

Fruit fly experiments are ubiquitous - there wasn't just the one.

The instance you're talking about where they all died was probably a test case where scientists were specifically breeding only flies who had harmful mutations. In the wild these mutations would have caused the afflicted flies to be eaten by predators or starve or be unable to mate, but in the lab the scientists could ensure that they would survive and breed.

It was an experiment in artificial selection for harmful mutations - in the wild it doesn't work that way, it's natural selection for beneficial or non-harmful mutations.

Fruit flies are used because they breed fast and they're cheap to maintain and it's easy to track mutations and such. But it's not like they evolve faster in captivity. 15 years of fly evolution in the lab is the same as 15 years of fly evolution in the wild. If they don't speciate in the wild that fast, no one would expect it to happen in the lab.

 

[SLP]

It's been proven that mutations have limits.

So I guess you have no proof or evidence of this and are just spewing nonsense.

Typical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So I guess you have no proof or evidence of this and are just spewing nonsense.

Typical.

I think he's referring to lab experiments where continuously induced mutations in a small population in a spatially restricted clean environment would eventually result in unsupportable damage, as might be expected. Not representative of what happens in natural environments.

 

[Speedwell]

I think he's referring to lab experiments where continuously induced mutations in a small population in a spatially restricted clean environment would eventually result in unsupportable damage, as might be expected. Not representative of what happens in natural environments.

There's that, and the general tendency of creationists to believe that evolutionary biologists see themselves in combat against the absolute truth of the Bible, and must "prove" speciation to win. Consequently, any genetic experiment--with fruit flies, say--which does not result in demonstrable speciation must be a failure.

 

[SLP]

What is your evidence that the structure of the eye was pre-programmed?

Dozens of posts made after this, no response from spammer @Guy Threepwood ...
Shocking? Nope.

 

[xianghua]

Worms don't even have that. But if you think about it an eye is basically cells for detecting light, and worms have that.

Annelid Vision - Photoreceptor Cells as Visual Sensors.

but a cell that is able to detect design isnt that simple. even if you want to make a minimal system that can detect design you will need at least several parts. so it cant evolve stepwise.

 

[pitabread]

even if you want to make a minimal system that can detect design you will need at least several parts. so it cant evolve stepwise.

You've been repeatedly shown how multi-part systems can evolve, but you keep ignoring or otherwise dismissing those examples.

Why is that?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You've been repeatedly shown how multi-part systems can evolve, but you keep ignoring or otherwise dismissing those examples.

Why is that?

Pseudologia phantastica?

 

[SLP]

but a cell that is able to detect design isnt that simple. even if you want to make a minimal system that can detect design you will need at least several parts. so it cant evolve stepwise.

Evidence please.

 

[xianghua]

Evidence please.

here is one:

Dissecting Darwinism

"However, biochemists have shown that even a simple light-sensitive spot requires a complex array of enzyme systems."

 

[SLP]

here is one:

Dissecting Darwinism

"However, biochemists have shown that even a simple light-sensitive spot requires a complex array of enzyme systems."

Enzymes are "parts"?

Did you just deviate from your own claims? Again? Silly boy!

But sure, cool. A creationist published a creationist paper in the Baylor (Christian) medical school's journal.
Weird that he just made assertions.

Creationist paper in a medical journal

The doctor is Joseph Kuhn, a surgeon at the Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and he’s just published an article in the Proceedings of that center, which I presume is a respectable, peer-reviewed journal. Well, it isn’t respectable any more, for Kuhn’s article, “Dissecting Darwinism” (free at the link), is merely a cobbled-together list of canards from the Discovery Institute (DI). It’s poorly written, dreadful, full of scientific errors, and the journal should not only be ashamed of it, but retract it.

What does the good Dr. Kuhn have to say about evolution? First he parades his qualifications to dissect Darwinism, which consist entirely of being in the lineage of one of his predecessors, the eighteenth-century surgeon John Hunter, who supposedly anticipated Darwin’s theories...

... That’s a dumb argument if I ever heard one. And, sure enough, Kuhn proceeds to embarrass both himself and the journal.

He makes three criticisms, all taken from the Discovery Institute playbook...

...This paper is rife with mistakes, misguided appropriations from the creationist literature, and simple ignorance of the evidence for evolution. It’s an embarrassment to the author, to the journal, and to the field of medicine as a whole. I call on the journal to retract this paper, for if it doesn’t, then the Proceedings of the Baylor University Medical Center will be forever tarred as a vehicle for creationist nonsense.​

Pretty sad, even by your robot penguin standards.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

here is one:

Dissecting Darwinism

"However, biochemists have shown that even a simple light-sensitive spot requires a complex array of enzyme systems."

Among other errors, the article makes the traditional creationist mistake of thinking that systems that are the product of ~3 billion years of evolution are representative of early life, thereby invalidating the entire argument.