The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Bungle_Bear]

Show me the definition of Christian that allows him to start a war of extermination with other Christians?

"A person who has received baptism or follows Christianity"

Remember, it is by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Such as claiming no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge. The definition of Scotsman has been changed in an ad hoc way.

You are incorrect as usual.

No need for me to alter that definition in any way. But you certainly need to, ergo No True Scotsman.

Game, set and match. Just walk away quietly.

 

[stevevw]

According to you, what, if any, role do natural selection play?

I don't know for sure. That is the problem with evolution by natural selection. It was assumed in the past and still today that it was responsible for all life and behaviour we see. But as we have discovered more we are seeing that there are other ways life can change and develop. I think it plays a role but it is more a refiner of other processes that can vary in their ability to produce well suited and integrated change/adaptations. I do not deny natural selection happens just its role in how life can change and adapt to their enviroments.

 

[stevevw]

I don't, especially these days.

Maybe, but I still see many explanations for just about everything as being the result of natural selection ie survival of the fittest. I agree that more people are considering other influences nowadays especially with the rise of evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, ecology and genomics.

In the end - what difference does it make?

It makes a big difference to what is the driving force for change and adaptations. What may be assumed as being caused by random mutations and natural selection which is basically Neo-Darwinism may be caused by other processes. This can have implications for what role evolution plays in life changes as far as a blind and random naturalistic process being responsible for life or inbuilt, directed and self-organising processes driving change that may have been there from the beginning or at least from a very early stage in the history of life on earth.

Does that somehow vindicate the claim in the OP?

It does in the sense that it takes away from evolution being the cause of what we see in the fossil records and opens things up to other possible causes. The EES processes, for example, have better explanations for what we see such as the sudden appearance of well-defined organisms and complex creatures and the gaps in the fossil records. Because a process like plasticity can add variation through development that may not have anything to do with adaptations and survival what can be assumed as a transitional may just be variations of the ability of a creatures phenotypic plasticity within the same species.

The EES processes make better explanations for variations whereas the Standard theory has to come up with additional hard to verify reasons which are often based on assumptions to account for the anomalies and contradictions they find which is becoming more often such as convergent evolution to account for the increasing similarities being found in distantly related creatures right down to the molecular level even in different enviroments.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know for sure. That is the problem with evolution by natural selection. It was assumed in the past and still today that it was responsible for all life and behaviour we see.

Not without variation. That's what we're arguing about--the sources and nature of variation. Natural selection of variation is a given.

 

[stevevw]

Not without variation. That's what we're arguing about--the sources and nature of variation. Natural selection of variation is a given.

Yes the mechanism is a reality but how much are you assuming is a given. It is an assumption to say that all variation we see is the result of natural selection. For one selection does not produce variation itself. Even if natural selection was the only dominant force according to evolution most variation has not been sifted and therefore the benefit or harm has not been established. By the time it is circumstances may have changed.

As it is claimed that most complex life has gone extinct is natural selection only weeding out the bad. If so then it has no ability to account for how life comes about ie it is good at survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

Plus there are other mechanisms like drift which has a say in what variations end up or not in populations and in fact can work against the evolution of increased complexity which needs to be specific as well as maintain already finely tuned genetic networks. These influences minimize natural selections ability and role.

Add to this as mentioned because some variations are well suited and integrated so there is not much need for natural selection. Also living things have an ability to change their environments to suit the exact circumstances or changes needed and this can also bypass the need for natural selection.

In other words a creatures has inbuilt mechanisms to produce the exact changes it needs to adapt bypass the force of natural selection which can be assumed to be caused by natural selection. Natural selection will only work when there are beneficial and non-beneficial variations to sift. This makes much more sense in that there are already mechanism that produce well suited and integrated change rather than a hit and miss process through blind selection acting on random mutations which are often harmful and neutral.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes the mechanism is a reality but how much are you assuming is a given. It is an assumption to say that all variation we see is the result of natural selection. For one selection does not produce variation itself. Even if natural selection was the only dominant force according to evolution most variation has not been sifted and therefore the benefit or harm has not been established. By the time it is circumstances may have changed.

All variation is "sifted" in the generation in which it occurs.

As it is claimed that most complex life has gone extinct is natural selection only weeding out the bad. If so then it has no ability to account for how life comes about ie it is good at survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

Plus there are other mechanisms like drift which has a say in what variations end up or not in populations and in fact can work against the evolution of increased complexity which needs to be specific as well as maintain already finely tuned genetic networks. These influences minimize natural selections ability and role.

Add to this as mentioned because some variations are well suited and integrated so there is not much need for natural selection. Also living things have an ability to change their environments to suit the exact circumstances or changes needed and this can also bypass the need for natural selection.

In other words a creatures has inbuilt mechanisms to produce the exact changes it needs to adapt bypass the force of natural selection which can be assumed to be caused by natural selection. Natural selection will only work when there are beneficial and non-beneficial variations to sift. This makes much more sense in that there are already mechanism that produce well suited and integrated change rather than a hit and miss process through blind selection acting on random mutations which are often harmful and neutral.

I'm not sure if you understand what natural selection is. All creatures are tested by natural selection. A creature is born into its immediate environment and either dies or survives to reproduce. No two creatures of a species are quite alike. Some are successful and some are not. If variations are planned out ahead of time to be successful by some magical means, why aren't they all successful? And even if they were, how do you tell? That they survive natural selection, that's how.

I'm not sure that you understand random variation, either. Do you know what a bell curve is?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"A person who has received baptism or follows Christianity"

Just because you receive baptism, doesn't mean you follow Christianity.

Lots of people have put on an outwardly show. Yet by their fruits will you know them. Last I checked the fruits of war against ones brothers was not part of Christianity.....

No need for me to alter that definition in any way. But you certainly need to, ergo No True Scotsman.

Game, set and match. Just walk away quietly.

Doubtful, since you need me to define Christianity for you, you don't seem to be aware of how the definition was changed, since it never was.......

Yes, people inflate their own worth in their own eyes, it's only too bad you haven't yet shown how I have changed the definition of Christian.

So speak up, how was it changed? If you can't show any such then just admit it. it's ok.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All variation is "sifted" in the generation in which it occurs.

I'm not sure if you understand what natural selection is. All creatures are tested by natural selection. A creature is born into its immediate environment and either dies or survives to reproduce. No two creatures of a species are quite alike. Some are successful and some are not. If variations are planned out ahead of time to be successful by some magical means, why aren't they all successful? And even if they were, how do you tell? That they survive natural selection, that's how.

I'm not sure that you understand random variation, either. Do you know what a bell curve is?

What natural selection? One either lives or dies. It is not selected for by nature. Nor did nature select conditions for it to meet.

This is where your magic begins. A mutation which takes millions of years to accumulate, must make the host fit for survival in conditions which are not the same as when the mutations are changing the creature slowly over time. The end result presupposes the condition for which it was needed for survival years into the future. Dumb luck does not explain the great diversity of creatures, nor fitness for conditions millions of years in the future.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not without variation. That's what we're arguing about--the sources and nature of variation. Natural selection of variation is a given.

The sources are common interbreeding and once in a blue moon mutation.

 

[Speedwell]

Just because you receive baptism, doesn't mean you follow Christianity.

Lots of people have put on an outwardly show. Yet by their fruits will you know them. Last I checked the fruits of war against ones brothers was not part of Christianity.....


Doubtful, since you need me to define Christianity for you, you don't seem to be aware of how the definition was changed, since it never was.......

Yes, people inflate their own worth in their own eyes, it's only too bad you haven't yet shown how I have changed the definition of Christian.

So speak up, how was it changed? If you can't show any such then just admit it. it's ok.

Why not settle, arguendo, for the definition provided by Christian Forums?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Just because you receive baptism, doesn't mean you follow Christianity.

Lots of people have put on an outwardly show. Yet by their fruits will you know them. Last I checked the fruits of war against ones brothers was not part of Christianity.....


Doubtful, since you need me to define Christianity for you, you don't seem to be aware of how the definition was changed, since it never was.......

Yes, people inflate their own worth in their own eyes, it's only too bad you haven't yet shown how I have changed the definition of Christian.

So speak up, how was it changed? If you can't show any such then just admit it. it's ok.

Enough now. You've been shown to be wrong multiple times and you're just being tiresome now. Let's stop derailing this thread any more. If you would like me to demolish your arguments further then start a new thread in an appropriate sub forum.

 

[stevevw]

All variation is "sifted" in the generation in which it occurs.

First some variation is not the result of gene change and natural selection is irrelevant because the variation has little or nothing to do with adaptation or survival. It is merely a result of development plasticity where for example a plant placed in a new environment it can change shape because of the composition of the soil. It will survive just find with the shape changes. Second how can natural selection sift something that is already best for the creature to adapt. It is like giving someone to sort out the black marbles from the white ones yet all the marbles are white. They will have nothing to do.

Living things can work with their enviromnments and other living things and have an inbuilt and self organising ability to adapt and change with new conditions. It is going to be difficult for Natural selection to control this as what happens to one living thing affects another and the changes are bigger than any individual. It is not a case that natural selection is controlling the direction of evolution but that these other processes are controlling what natural selection can and cannot do.

I'm not sure if you understand what natural selection is. All creatures are tested by natural selection. A creature is born into its immediate environment and either dies or survives to reproduce. No two creatures of a species are quite alike. Some are successful and some are not.

A creature just dying is not what natural selection is about. It works on populations and fixing traits. In this sense individual change can happen and it can have little affect.
I think you are placing too much importance on the different variations being something that determines survival or not. This is the point I am saying that for some everything is seen in adaptive and survival terms when there are changes that just happen as a result of development processes. Some do not influence survivability and therefore have no need to be selected in or out and some are well suited because the development processes responds to enviromental conditions and select themselves.

Other change are brought about through the efforts of the creatures themselves. They know what is best and needed. Take for example humans. If a person builds a hut in a cold climate they have determined their own survival. Natural selection has not determined this but the choices and actions of creatures to control their own evolutionary trajectory. The same for all living things from ants who will build nests and create their own ecosystem to beavers who will build dams where they build their homes and are protected.

Living things have a inbuilt knowledge and ability to control their enviroments. Their actions affect other creatures and organisms which in turn affects and changes the entire ecosystem. But all living things can work together and accommodate these changes. It is not all about predator and prey and survival or else. It is more like self organised selection rather than natural selection. These processes control the direction of evolution and what natural selection can and cannot do.

If variations are planned out ahead of time to be successful by some magical means, why aren't they all successful? And even if they were, how do you tell? That they survive natural selection, that's how.

They are mostly. Creatures we see mostly survive as a whole. There are no magical means. These processes are part of how living things can change through development or self organisation. We are just getting to understand this becuase it has been assumed that it was all because of evolution.

But saying that the only way to tell what causes these variations is because if they survive and therefore it must be natural selection is circular reasoning and the very assumptive view that supporters of the EES is trying to point out. As some have pointed out the focus on adaptive evolution and a genecentric view comes at the expense of other processes that may be the cause.

I'm not sure that you understand random variation, either. Do you know what a bell curve is?

I understand the principles of the Bell Curve but I am not sure how it applies to random mutations. As far as I understand a mutation can be either deleterous, neutral or beneficial. But they are mostly harmful or neutral. The randomness problem comes when multiple mutations are needed.

Considering the problem of mutating and fixing new specific functional changes in a population and the time problem and if anything this would skew any results away from mutations producing new functional features. Thats why it makes more sense that there is pre-existing genetic info and living things have an ability to produce the right typem of changes when needed. That is how they are built and programmed.

 

[VirOptimus]

First some variation is not the result of gene change and natural selection is irrelevant because the variation has little or nothing to do with adaptation or survival. It is merely a result of development plasticity where for example a plant placed in a new environment it can change shape because of the composition of the soil. It will survive just find with the shape changes. Second how can natural selection sift something that is already best for the creature to adapt. It is like giving someone to sort out the black marbles from the white ones yet all the marbles are white. They will have nothing to do.

Living things can work with their enviromnments and other living things and have an inbuilt and self organising ability to adapt and change with new conditions. It is going to be difficult for Natural selection to control this as what happens to one living thing affects another and the changes are bigger than any individual. It is not a case that natural selection is controlling the direction of evolution but that these other processes are controlling what natural selection can and cannot do.

A creature just dying is not what natural selection is about. It works on populations and fixing traits. In this sense individual change can happen and it can have little affect.
I think you are placing too much importance on the different variations being something that determines survival or not. This is the point I am saying that for some everything is seen in adaptive and survival terms when there are changes that just happen as a result of development processes. Some do not influence survivability and therefore have no need to be selected in or out and some are well suited because the development processes responds to enviromental conditions and select themselves.

Other change are brought about through the efforts of the creatures themselves. They know what is best and needed. Take for example humans. If a person builds a hut in a cold climate they have determined their own survival. Natural selection has not determined this but the choices and actions of creatures to control their own evolutionary trajectory. The same for all living things from ants who will build nests and create their own ecosystem to beavers who will build dams where they build their homes and are protected.

Living things have a inbuilt knowledge and ability to control their enviroments. Their actions affect other creatures and organisms which in turn affects and changes the entire ecosystem. But all living things can work together and accommodate these changes. It is not all about predator and prey and survival or else. It is more like self organised selection rather than natural selection. These processes control the direction of evolution and what natural selection can and cannot do.

They are mostly. Creatures we see mostly survive as a whole. There are no magical means. These processes are part of how living things can change through development or self organisation. We are just getting to understand this becuase it has been assumed that it was all because of evolution.

But saying that the only way to tell what causes these variations is because if they survive and therefore it must be natural selection is circular reasoning and the very assumptive view that supporters of the EES is trying to point out. As some have pointed out the focus on adaptive evolution and a genecentric view comes at the expense of other processes that may be the cause.


I understand the principles of the Bell Curve but I am not sure how it applies to random mutations. As far as I understand a mutation can be either deleterous, neutral or beneficial. But they are mostly harmful or neutral. The randomness problem comes when multiple mutations are needed.

Considering the problem of mutating and fixing new specific functional changes in a population and the time problem and if anything this would skew any results away from mutations producing new functional features. Thats why it makes more sense that there is pre-existing genetic info and living things have an ability to produce the right typem of changes when needed. That is how they are built and programmed.

Inbuilt info? Thus is just religion, no science present.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand the principles of the Bell Curve but I am not sure how it applies to random mutations. As far as I understand a mutation can be either deleterous, neutral or beneficial. But they are mostly harmful or neutral. The randomness problem comes when multiple mutations are needed.

It doesn't apply to "random mutations" it applies to random variation; it is random variation. on which natural selection works, not random mutations. Mutation affects the the genome, not the phenotype directly. and it is the phenotype, not the genome, which natural selection acts on.

Let me give you an example: Go out and find 100 adults and measure their height; plot the results and you will find that they form a bell curve; what is know as a random distribution. That's the "random" in "evolution by random variation and natural selection." It is from that random distribution of variants that natural selection selects. And that's how you know variation is random, because if it was non-random it wouldn't plot to a bell curve.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It still does not address my point that Behe's findings are supported by other papers from other mainstream journals like GENETICS, Protein Science and Molecular Biology and Evolution Journals.

If you have papers that support his paper's conclusion that aren't from fellow creationists, then I don't know why you wouldn't use them over Behe, since he is well known for his bias. He specifically is, there are a few creationist scientists that are honest, but he isn't one of them.

Even Behe's critics agreed with the finding that to get a specific new function that required sequence strings of 5 or more from multi mutations would take 100 million years in human populations.

-_- name the critics that agree with this, with unbiased sources confirming it.

-_- how specific are we getting? Does the study assume that the gene must form independently from existing sequences? Because most genes are mutated versions of duplicates of other genes, and being derived from such a gene doesn't mean that the protein produced ends up with similar properties. On the other hand, proteins packed with an abundance of a specific amino acid will almost always have extremely similar properties regardless of what the rest of the sequence is. You cannot assume that the entire sequence must be exact to get a given function. In fact, since it is impossible to quantify exactly how many different ways a protein with a given function could result, it is impossible to apply probability calculations to it.

Furthermore, what is a "multi mutation"? Are you just talking about multiple different mutations? Because quite frankly, a 5 nucleotide insertion is nothing special, so it could take just 1 generation. Remember, it doesn't matter how big the deck is, a 5 card hand is getting dealt. No matter how many cards you add, no hand will become impossible. You especially can't limit the number of potential winning hands when we have no idea about how many combinations can result in function.

The papers still need to be checked for scientific validity as far as their testing and analysis goes through the peer review process. The finding may disagree with other findings but so long as the methods and procedures for those findings meet proper scientific processes then that is fine. To say that becuase a finding disagree with what mainstream evolutionists believe is wrong by opinion is based on a bias against the person rather than the science.

No, I was pointing out that he published in a journal dedicated to papers that present concepts yet to be tested. Behe hasn't performed his experiment, really, his paper is purely hypothetical at best. It isn't a matter of "his results need to be confirmed independently", it is a matter of the fact that the guy has no experiment to speak of.

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy of association. According to your logic all the papers and scientists (including mainstream scientists) who have published in the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal work is suspect and that the scientists and process to check validity is suspect. That's despite the journal stating it adheres to rigorous procedures.

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or more experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound
https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/about

-_- yup, it sure states that it is rigorous. Do you think an unreliable journal would admit to its own unreliability? Plus, again, a journal for concepts, not things which have actually been tested. I don't know why you feel the need to defend this journal so hard. Are your religious beliefs so fragile that you need Behe to publish in reliable journals to retain your faith?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710265/
The important thing to consider about this journal is what it is for, and that is for ideas. It's a place for people to publish ideas that, if later validated, could significantly impact the field of biology. It's not like Nature, where these ideas have been rigorously tested first.

Despite doing a search for comments on this journal I have not found any negative ones.

If you recognize it for what it is, it isn't terrible, it just isn't a source for stuff that has actually been tested. However, how many people do you think are going to bother reviewing this scientific journal that don't have some sort of relationship with it (as a person that works for it or has published in it)? In all honesty, I can't even find that many reviews for it. For example, do you think just 2 reviews would make this "excellent" rating on this site relevant? https://scirev.org/reviews/theoretical-biology-and-medical-modelling/

In fact, it is all positive and the journal is seen as part of the new emerging frontier of work in theoretical and mathematical biology.

So positive that you decided to post NONE of them. Did you think I wouldn't try looking up reviews for myself? The internet is apparently a barren wasteland for being able to find reviews of it in the first place. Most of these "reviews" just repeat what the journal's main website says about it. -_- and you have to be kidding me if you think that anything on Springer about it is going to be unbiased, or any other portion of the same organization.

Consider this: journals are defined by what they publish. People usually don't review the journals as a whole, but rather, prominent papers published by them. This journal is so insignificant that I hardly even find those.

That is perhaps why these papers are not submitted in other journals like Nature as they do not have a category for this sector of publishing. What does stand out to me though is the length you want to go to undermine these findings by discrediting the scientists, papers and journals associated with them.

They don't fit with Nature not because their topics don't fit, but because they are hypothetical. It isn't a journal that specializes in stuff that is actually tested.

Within a short space of time, we have founded a state-of-the-art electronic journal freely accessible to all in a much sort-after interdisciplinary field that will be of benefit to the thinking life scientist, which must include medically qualified doctors as well as scientists who prefer to build their new hypotheses on basic principles and sound concepts underpinning biology. At the same time, these principles are not sacrosanct and require critical analysis. The journal http://www.tbiomed.com promises to deliver many exciting ideas in the future.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1156957/

XD did you not notice that this was originally published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling? Hahahahahahahaha. So is the one I posted earlier from NCBI, as it were. NCBI is a database of papers published elsewhere, I don't think it actually reviews anything on it. Good luck finding any depth about this journal that doesn't come from it, because I sure didn't find much to go on.

 

[stevevw]

Inbuilt info? Thus is just religion, no science present.

I use the word inbuilt to describe an internal system in this case a development program that can produce phenotypic variations. This is backed by the science. I have posted a lot of information that is directly citing scientific articles and papers and you pick out one word because you personally relate it to religious rhetoric. I suppose your going to say program, also has religious connotations, yet it is a word mainstream scientists use all the time.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't apply to "random mutations" it applies to random variation; it is random variation. on which natural selection works, not random mutations. Mutation affects the the genome, not the phenotype directly. and it is the phenotype, not the genome, which natural selection acts on.

Let me give you an example: Go out and find 100 adults and measure their height; plot the results and you will find that they form a bell curve; what is know as a random distribution. That's the "random" in "evolution by random variation and natural selection." It is from that random distribution of variants that natural selection selects. And that's how you know variation is random, because if it was non-random it wouldn't plot to a bell curve.

It still does not change the fact that Neo-Darwinism uses mutations to produce random variations as the main source for all the life we see including its complexity which stems from the molecular to the physical traits that are displayed. That variation also includes a lot of dysfunctional outcomes. Along with natural selection which is blind to know which of those variations or slight alterations in sequences are the best to build those variations it is hard to believe that this could be the source of everything we see regardless of selections said ability to filter things out. It still requires faith and assumption.

That is why processes like the EES and other processes are much better at accounting for variation and behaviour because it does not rely on a process that has so many ? as to how this could happen. It makes much more sense and can explain most of the anomalies found in the Standard theory. IE phenotypic variation is not just the result of mutations and gene change, variation can stem from a range of sources such as with development programs, plasticity, niche construction, epigenetics, HGT, symbiosis and Inclusive inheritance which can include socialization, behavioural interactions and parental modification of the biotic and abiotic environment and inheritance of symbionts directly through the mother's germ cells.

Some of these influences do not need to be selected as they produce well suited and integrated changes which is the way living things were originally equipped to adapt to environments.

 

[VirOptimus]

I use the word inbuilt to describe an internal system in this case a development program that can produce phenotypic variations. This is backed by the science. I have posted a lot of information that is directly citing scientific articles and papers and you pick out one word because you personally relate it to religious rhetoric. I suppose your going to say program, also has religious connotations, yet it is a word mainstream scientists use all the time.

No, its the way you use the terms. Its religion and not backed by science. Its your misrepresentation of it.

There is no doubt in science that natural selection is the dominating force in the ToE. Your articles do not even say otherwise.

I also bet that you have found your argument and articles on some creationist source.

 

[stevevw]

If you have papers that support his paper's conclusion that isn't from fellow creationists, then I don't know why you wouldn't use them over Behe, since he is well known for his bias. He specifically is, there are a few creationist scientists that are honest, but he isn't one of them.

-_- name the critics that agree with this, with unbiased sources confirming it.

I didn't take your position that all of Behe's work is invalid because of his associations in the first place and therefore did not feel the need to find others with the same conclusions. That is a logical fallacy. Also if you noticed Behe was quoted by another paper and scientists which you tried to discredit as well. In turn, that paper also cites other papers that support Behe if you were willing to follow that up.

But it seems you had already made up your mind and pre-judged Behe which then influence all further views. The thing is you were not only willing to discredit Behe but an entire journal and several other scientists and the scientists who do the peer review. If anything that is the same sort of bias you are accusing Behe of in that you are willing to disprove what is being said by using associations and perhaps a biased opinion from others rather than their actual research and results.

First Behe is a qualified scientist in Biochemistry and genetics so he does have qualifications and is not just an ID supporter. He is not presenting a religious paper but a scientific one with scientific support. Second if Behe is as dishonest as you say the why was his work also quoted and posted in mainstream journals which use the peer review process so if he was dishonest then this would be picked up and be classed as unscientific. If you want to discredit them as well then you are beginning to cast a wide net of dishonesty.

Third as mentioned the point of using Behe was for when multiple mutations are required to change an existing function into a new and specific function will take too much time and this is supported by other scientists in mainstream journals which I already posted for you. The links within the section below [15–17, 25] are for mainstream papers directly associated with biology and genetics and they all support the time problem as identified by Behe. So I did post other critics that agree with Behe on this, with unbiased sources confirming it. You just didn't see it because you had already decided he was dishonest.

Virtually all of the papers subsequent to the work of Behe and Snoke have confirmed that waiting times can be prohibitive – depending upon the exact circumstances. Some of the subsequent papers have been critical [15–17, 25]. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

 

[stevevw]

Furthermore, what is a "multi mutation"? Are you just talking about multiple different mutations? Because quite frankly, a 5 nucleotide insertion is nothing special, so it could take just 1 generation. Remember, it doesn't matter how big the deck is, a 5 card hand is getting dealt. No matter how many cards you add, no hand will become impossible. You especially can't limit the number of potential winning hands when we have no idea about how many combinations can result in function.

Yes more than one mutation that is needed to evolve a new specific function. In this case five specific nucleotide changes on the same short stretch of that specific DNA molecule. According to the tests, a string of 5 nucleotide changes is something special and very hard to achieve. In fact so hard that just adding one more nucleotide it would take longer than the earth has been in existence. For strings of 8 nucleotides, it would take longer than the universe has been in existence. Considering apes to humans only takes 6 million years this is a massive time problem.

Comparing this to a card game is completely different. There are many other factors involved if you read the paper. For one there are influences like drift working against the fixation of a single mutation in the first place and even encouraging harmful mutation to undermine any specific sequence needed let alone the right ones at the right time and in the right place.

To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameters settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive.

When there were as many as six nucleotides in the string, the average waiting time (4.24 billion years) approached the estimated age of the earth. When there were eight nucleotides in the string, the average waiting time (18.5 billion years), exceeded the estimated age of the universe.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

Even larger population won't resolve the waiting time problem and this is also supported by mainstream non-religious and non-biased support from scientists like Michael Lynch who is a top populations geneticist.

When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. When we extrapolate our data to a population size of ten million we still get a waiting time of 202 million years. Even when we extrapolate to a population size of one billion we still have a waiting time of 40 million years. This is consistent with Fig. 3 of Lynch [15], which for a string of just two specific mutations (when n = 2), suggests extremely long waiting times in smaller populations, and suggests significant waiting times even in a population of 1 billion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15