William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Mudhammam]

but mutations are almost exclusively neutral or negative, so this process simply isn't effective or common enough to support the idea that all life came from a single cell.

LOL. The geneticists, paleontologists, biologists, and zoologists have read all of the evidence wrong because clearly, as YGninja declares, no matter what we actually observe, it JUST CAN'T HAPPEN. Because these uncommon occurrences, ya know, can only happen over a span of 4 billion years.

.... besides, that would mean Genesis was wrong... and then so were mom and dad... *brain shuts down*

[Brakeman]

Lets ask Richard Dawkins.

I see you have no problem with dishonesty in your "lies for jesus."

Dawkins pause was not that he had been stumped at all but that he had been tricked into letting creationist hacks into his house.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

Why didn't you or your creationist website you took your video link from honestly explain the pause? It is because you use deceit to keep your uneducated sheep in line. If jesus is the truth, why would you ever need to lie and deceive to further his claims?

Again, tell us where is the magic foo-foo dust that your god used to "help" evolution along? Tell us about how his fairy dust makes the DNA strand. Scientists would love to know!

[robvalue]

Mutations are not simply good, bad or neutral. It depends on what kind of advantage or disadvantage it offers at that particular time, in those particular circumstances. To say they are mostly bad or neutral is to say that the mutations are somehow rebelling against their surroundings.

[YGninja]

---

Lets ask Richard Dawkins.

I see you have no problem with dishonesty in your "lies for jesus."

Dawkins pause was not that he had been stumped at all but that he had been tricked into letting creationist hacks into his house.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

Why didn't you or your creationist website you took your video link from honestly explain the pause? It is because you use deceit to keep your uneducated sheep in line. If jesus is the truth, why would you ever need to lie and deceive to further his claims?

Again, tell us where is the magic foo-foo dust that your god used to "help" evolution along? Tell us about how his fairy dust makes the DNA strand. Scientists would love to know!

---

There is no answer there, just a bunch of fluff from a grand high priest more engrossed in his dogma than a 6th century roman catholic chaplain.

[Esquilax]

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fanche...tation.htm
"most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product. Of those mutations which do make a difference, most have a negative effect."

Oh god, please, give me more references from fucking community colleges! Clearly they'd be at the cutting edge of scientific research.

I said "almost exclusively", not "exclusively", and hence your post doesn't refute anything.

You're overstressing your point, is the refutation. Irrespective of the eventual nature of mutations- and these things accumulate over time, so that even a negative or neutral one can pave the way for a positive one in future- they do happen with sufficient regularity to shape the diversity of species; natural selection selects against just as much as it selects for. Your point is a distinction without a difference.

Italian wall lizards didn't evolve anything, their DNA is identical to the original ones, the change was just a reversion to a previous type, utilising pre existing DNA which had merely been out of use.

Entirely new cecal valve systems, not present in others of the species. Bare assertion that it's not aside (read: the "nuh uh!" school of creationist debate), there's no rational way to argue that it's not a new feature. Whether it arose from pre-existing genetics or not- it did, but your inability to understand how mutations work is no problem of mine- it is a new type of genetic expression for them.

Nylonase isn't new information, a small amount of the original population held a mutation allowing them to digest nylon, when placed in the environment only the ones who could digest nylon survived, and only they reproduced, eventually becoming 100% of the population.

... Yes, and the initial population that held that mutation were in possession of the mutation, which is new information in the genome. This contention of yours isn't even relevant.

Rattlesnakes, if it were true, would be an example of losing something, not gaining something. You can't get from a single cell to a human only by losing things.

Yes, please do keep simplifying a complex topic to create a strawman based on a single example, that's super honest.

My original statement "The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral. Data is corrupted or deleted."

Perhaps to clear up confusion it would be better put "The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral - data is corrupted or deleted".

Again, distinction without a difference.

There are ways for a genome to acquire "new" information, Just the "new" information is just duplicated old information, which then has to mutate to become "new" information, but mutations are almost exclusively neutral or negative, so this process simply isn't effective or common enough to support the idea that all life came from a single cell.

Why do you think that only positive traits contribute to evolution? They don't; there are plenty of overtly negative mutations present even in the human body that we developed along the way to becoming what we are, and they're still here. So long as a mutation isn't outright lethal it doesn't disqualify the organism in question from the gene pool.

As for the commonality of mutations, are you aware that each individual human being is born with at least sixty of them, and that we accumulate more as time goes on? It's plenty common, regardless of your inability to understand the topic you're discussing.

Lets ask Richard Dawkins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Yes, let's do watch Richard Dawkins express his shock that he'd been railroaded by deceptive creationist creeps, operating to further the very agenda you're trying to push. That'll... demonstrate how dishonest and ignorant your side tends to be on this issue.

Oh, and also? Don't care what Dawkins said. Dawkins can be wrong too, you're not going to sway anybody with an argument from authority.

Also see my above comment. Mutation is in no way sufficient. Imagine a book, and the more people who read and enjoy the book the more the book is "naturally selected", and widespread it becomes. Now imagine randomly deleting and changing the letters in the book. Maybe 1 in 1000 of those changes, will accidently add humour to the book, and make it more popular, but the other 999 will make it incomprehensible and actually shorten the length of the book. Whats going to happen if you repeat this process 10'000 times? You inevitably end up with a very short, defunct book of gibberish. You aren't going to end up with a better, bigger book, hence the same process in evolution is not going to create humans from single celled bacteria.

So, your position basically boils down to an argument from ignorance? "I don't understand how this could happen, therefore it couldn't"? That seem at all cogent to you?

But you're- I think purposefully- ignoring that natural selection is a thing, and that the pressure of that reduces the amount of total gibberish within the "book," and selects for intelligible "words" within it. That's where your argument falls down; for your comparison to be remotely valid we would only be allowed to count those books that people didn't throw away for being unintelligible.

Since you like Dawkins so much, he has a nice little thought experiment to demonstrate this concept, in the Weasel Program: factoring in natural selection, it takes relatively few generations to get from even a string of random letters, to an intelligible sentence. Now, obviously the analogy isn't perfect, as evolution isn't selecting for a goal nearly as specific as the program, but evolution also has millions of years and plentiful specimens. It works well enough as an example.

There is no mechanism which halts mutation, and hence humans are weaker and have smaller brains than our ancestors. In the last 100 years alone western IQ's atleast have dropped an average of 14 points. This is your 'evolution' in process, it is change over time, but its effect is only negative, deconstructing things rather than building them better, and hence this isn't a theory that supports all life emerging from a simple cell and growing more complex, rather, it supports all life being perfect at the time of creation, and then degrading.

So, you don't have any evidence for your position? You think just poking holes in established science makes whatever you believe right by default?

So it's nothing but an argument from ignorance, from you? Dunno that I'd want to hitch myself to that star.

[Angrboda]

I'm skipping ahead a bunch of pages, so forgive if this is out of context.

I found this article on "God and Time" (and timelessness) which I thought some might find useful.

This article traces the main contours of the contemporary debate. Several versions of the view that God is timeless are explained and the major arguments for timelessness are developed and criticized. Divine temporality is also explored and arguments in its favor are presented along with criticisms. In addition, some views that attempt to occupy a middle ground will be considered.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

[Chas]

That's because some people don't understand science, and others don't understand bullshit.

I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk.

Same thing. Read a book.

---

Are you saying that you think there is a side to evolution that does not correlate to gradual change over time?

You must have confused us with the christians, they are the ones who believe the magic "POOF" of life into mud statues and the creation of bovine DNA strands by the colored pole method.

For evolution to happen things must change over time, but change over time alone is not evolution, which is the process theorised to explain the arrival of complex life from the most simple.

Right. Differential reproductive success causes beneficial changes to be retained in the gene pool. That is what the definition of natural selection is.

That drives evolution.

---

Do you have any understanding at all of the mechanism of that change? Because if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.

I don't believe there is such a mechanism which could turn a single cell into a human being over the course of billions of years. Certainly not natural selection acting on mutation.

A single cell becomes a human being in nine months. What's that? Magic?

[YGninja]

Esqui really wants to lose another debate??

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fanche...tation.htm
"most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product. Of those mutations which do make a difference, most have a negative effect."

Oh god, please, give me more references from fucking community colleges! Clearly they'd be at the cutting edge of scientific research.

Just an ad hom against the source. Notice esq has offered absolutely nothing against the point but a brazen ad hominem.

I said "almost exclusively", not "exclusively", and hence your post doesn't refute anything.

You're overstressing your point, is the refutation. Irrespective of the eventual nature of mutations- and these things accumulate over time, so that even a negative or neutral one can pave the way for a positive one in future- they do happen with sufficient regularity to shape the diversity of species; natural selection selects against just as much as it selects for. Your point is a distinction without a difference.

This is -imagination- not science. YOu complain about my sources from colleges, but assume that you don't need any sources for you to be believed. All hail esqui!

Italian wall lizards didn't evolve anything, their DNA is identical to the original ones, the change was just a reversion to a previous type, utilising pre existing DNA which had merely been out of use.

Entirely new cecal valve systems, not present in others of the species. Bare assertion that it's not aside (read: the "nuh uh!" school of creationist debate), there's no rational way to argue that it's not a new feature. Whether it arose from pre-existing genetics or not- it did, but your inability to understand how mutations work is no problem of mine- it is a new type of genetic expression for them.

You do understand the basic contention of evolution, don't you? You need new information, not reactivation of old information. Why is your evidence so weak? No surprise to hear the "YOu just don't understand", typical response of the hilariously arrogant yet diabolically ignorant.

Nylonase isn't new information, a small amount of the original population held a mutation allowing them to digest nylon, when placed in the environment only the ones who could digest nylon survived, and only they reproduced, eventually becoming 100% of the population.

... Yes, and the initial population that held that mutation were in possession of the mutation, which is new information in the genome. This contention of yours isn't even relevant.

Its a mutation, no-one is arguing whether or not mutations occur. Mutation isn't evolution. How, using that exact same process, could a bacteria develop into man?

Rattlesnakes, if it were true, would be an example of losing something, not gaining something. You can't get from a single cell to a human only by losing things.

Yes, please do keep simplifying a complex topic to create a strawman based on a single example, that's super honest.

Im creating the straw men?
My point remains unrefuted, losing things doesn't prove we all gained so much stuff that we became humans from bacteria.

My original statement "The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral. Data is corrupted or deleted."

Perhaps to clear up confusion it would be better put "The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral - data is corrupted or deleted".

Again, distinction without a difference.

Again "im going to write this because i think it makes me look like i have a clue".

There are ways for a genome to acquire "new" information, Just the "new" information is just duplicated old information, which then has to mutate to become "new" information, but mutations are almost exclusively neutral or negative, so this process simply isn't effective or common enough to support the idea that all life came from a single cell.

Why do you think that only positive traits contribute to evolution? They don't; there are plenty of overtly negative mutations present even in the human body that we developed along the way to becoming what we are, and they're still here. So long as a mutation isn't outright lethal it doesn't disqualify the organism in question from the gene pool.

As for the commonality of mutations, are you aware that each individual human being is born with at least sixty of them, and that we accumulate more as time goes on? It's plenty common, regardless of your inability to understand the topic you're discussing.

1: You are missing the point. Its simple maths; You have a bicycle, it contains 50 parts. You can change any part randomly for a part from a scrap heap. If you want to add a part, you need to delete 5 first. Now, "evolve" that bicycle into a jumbo jet, please.

2: Again the "You are just too stupid" defense. Yes i am aware that each person is born with new mutations, like i am aware that a photocopy of an original painting will not be perfect, and the copy of the copy less so, and the copy of the copy of the copy, even less so, until we end up in a forum listening to some bright spark repeatedly use the "Youre too stupid" defense while thinking hes smart.

Lets ask Richard Dawkins.

Yes, let's do watch Richard Dawkins express his shock that he'd been railroaded by deceptive creationist creeps, operating to further the very agenda you're trying to push. That'll... demonstrate how dishonest and ignorant your side tends to be on this issue.

Oh, and also? Don't care what Dawkins said. Dawkins can be wrong too, you're not going to sway anybody with an argument from authority.

Seems to me he was trying to answer the question, and couldn't, then got embarrassed about it so wrote a stinging blog on his webpage to save face infront of his congregation. Yet again you offered nothing but your own word to support your claims.

Also see my above comment. Mutation is in no way sufficient. Imagine a book, and the more people who read and enjoy the book the more the book is "naturally selected", and widespread it becomes. Now imagine randomly deleting and changing the letters in the book. Maybe 1 in 1000 of those changes, will accidently add humour to the book, and make it more popular, but the other 999 will make it incomprehensible and actually shorten the length of the book. Whats going to happen if you repeat this process 10'000 times? You inevitably end up with a very short, defunct book of gibberish. You aren't going to end up with a better, bigger book, hence the same process in evolution is not going to create humans from single celled bacteria.

So, your position basically boils down to an argument from ignorance? "I don't understand how this could happen, therefore it couldn't"? That seem at all cogent to you?

Yawn, yet again an erroneous scream of "FALLACY!11". Argument from ignorance? No-where did i say i don't understand or i don't know, my argument is grounded in what i DO understand, and you've responded again with with what amounts to an ad hominem.

But you're- I think purposefully- ignoring that natural selection is a thing, and that the pressure of that reduces the amount of total gibberish within the "book," and selects for intelligible "words" within it. That's where your argument falls down; for your comparison to be remotely valid we would only be allowed to count those books that people didn't throw away for being unintelligible.

The book will inevitably become gibberish with or without natural selection. YOu need a mechanism which can grow "ajojkfeofkok", into a thesaurus, and you've given us nothing

Since you like Dawkins so much, he has a nice little thought experiment to demonstrate this concept, in the Weasel Program: factoring in natural selection, it takes relatively few generations to get from even a string of random letters, to an intelligible sentence. Now, obviously the analogy isn't perfect, as evolution isn't selecting for a goal nearly as specific as the program, but evolution also has millions of years and plentiful specimens. It works well enough as an example.

Even if natural selection were that precise and influential, which it isn't... How'd you get more letters?
I think this is a side point, but you are overplaying the role of natural selection. No minor mutation is going to make any difference either way, in 99.999% of cases. Take a lizard which can change its colour to blend in with a rock, its not gonna take 1 mutation, but hundreds or thousands, each useless by themselves, and even then theres a million ways that original colour-changing lizard could be killed and all that extremely unlikely "evolution" would be thrown away.

There is no mechanism which halts mutation, and hence humans are weaker and have smaller brains than our ancestors. In the last 100 years alone western IQ's atleast have dropped an average of 14 points. This is your 'evolution' in process, it is change over time, but its effect is only negative, deconstructing things rather than building them better, and hence this isn't a theory that supports all life emerging from a simple cell and growing more complex, rather, it supports all life being perfect at the time of creation, and then degrading.

So, you don't have any evidence for your position? You think just poking holes in established science makes whatever you believe right by default?

Yawn, that there is a mechanism which halts mutation isn't my position, never has been. That actually IS a straw man, just so you know...

If evolution were true, we'd be able to model it in a computer like we can for all other, actual scientific theories. It would be very simple, as simple as simulating a single cell with reproductive abilities and mutations etc, coupled with a synthetic environment. We could turn up the speed of the program, and watch intelligent life evolve as we eat pizza. Needless to say, we have no such program because all attempts have failed.

[KevinM1]

I see Ninja's grasp of genetics and evolution is as solid as his grasp of American history.

[Esquilax]

Esqui really wants to lose another debate??

Oh, that's cute.

Just an ad hom against the source. Notice esq has offered absolutely nothing against the point but a brazen ad hominem.

Mostly because your point is largely irrelevant, and the source below par for academic standards. The fact that you choose to selectively interpret a broadly sketched description of mutation doesn't obligate me to refute you as though you'd provided something substantive.

This is -imagination- not science. YOu complain about my sources from colleges, but assume that you don't need any sources for you to be believed. All hail esqui!

I'm sorry you don't understand basic concepts in evolutionary theory, like the idea that natural selection selects against harmful mutations, or that mutations happen, but again, this isn't my problem. Do I really need to go this basic with you? Are you questioning the existence of natural selection or mutations?

You do understand the basic contention of evolution, don't you? You need new information, not reactivation of old information.

And you're just asserting that it's old information, based on nothing but personal opinion, when factually speaking it is a new set of cecal valves that aren't present in the original populations of lizards. You bitched about my lack of sources a moment ago, and now you expect us to just trust a bare assertion from you?

Why is your evidence so weak?

It's not, and a bare assertion like the rebuttal you gave is not actually an argument.

No surprise to hear the "YOu just don't understand", typical response of the hilariously arrogant yet diabolically ignorant.

Says the person who still won't even consider the possibility that he really doesn't understand.

Its a mutation, no-one is arguing whether or not mutations occur. Mutation isn't evolution. How, using that exact same process, could a bacteria develop into man?

Mutation is the driving force of evolution; small changes in the genome, introduced to the population via natural selection. So you bray that I shouldn't accuse you of not understanding evolution, and then promptly demonstrate that you don't understand evolution.

Im creating the straw men?
My point remains unrefuted, losing things doesn't prove we all gained so much stuff that we became humans from bacteria.

But when I provide evidence of genetic gain you just go "nuh uh! Is old information!" and we're supposed to believe you presumably because you said so?

1: You are missing the point. Its simple maths; You have a bicycle, it contains 50 parts. You can change any part randomly for a part from a scrap heap. If you want to add a part, you need to delete 5 first. Now, "evolve" that bicycle into a jumbo jet, please.

Give me millions of years, a big enough junkyard, and remove this arbitrary "delete five parts" rule, and I've no doubt that I could. Yet again, this is an argument from ignorance mixed with an argument from analogy: you don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't. Nonsense.

2: Again the "You are just too stupid" defense. Yes i am aware that each person is born with new mutations, like i am aware that a photocopy of an original painting will not be perfect, and the copy of the copy less so, and the copy of the copy of the copy, even less so, until we end up in a forum listening to some bright spark repeatedly use the "Youre too stupid" defense while thinking hes smart.

So how on earth can you be claiming that mutations aren't plentiful enough, knowing that?

Seems to me he was trying to answer the question, and couldn't, then got embarrassed about it so wrote a stinging blog on his webpage to save face infront of his congregation. Yet again you offered nothing but your own word to support your claims.

I've offered nothing but my own words? Dawkins' response has already been posted, and you are the one gainsaying the man's response, claiming to know more about what someone else was thinking, at an event you weren't present at, than the man himself. Do you think if you just say the most arrogant, presumptuous thing possible, the burden of proof suddenly reverses?

Yawn, yet again an erroneous scream of "FALLACY!11". Argument from ignorance? No-where did i say i don't understand or i don't know, my argument is grounded in what i DO understand, and you've responded again with with what amounts to an ad hominem.

You posted an analogy for the sole purpose of demonstrating that we don't know how that analogy would work, as an argument against evolution. That is the argument from ignorance: if your position is "you can't make X analogy work, therefore evolution can't be true," that is the argument from ignorance. And if that wasn't what you were saying, then you weren't saying anything at all, as it robs the purpose from the analogy.

The book will inevitably become gibberish with or without natural selection. YOu need a mechanism which can grow "ajojkfeofkok", into a thesaurus, and you've given us nothing

I just supplied natural selection as a mechanism, and your response was just "natural selection isn't a mechanism." You're relying on "nuh uh!" an awful lot, here.

Even if natural selection were that precise and influential, which it isn't... How'd you get more letters?

Gene duplication is one method, just off the top of my head. Oh, didn't know that could happen? How fucking surprising.

I think this is a side point, but you are overplaying the role of natural selection. No minor mutation is going to make any difference either way, in 99.999% of cases. Take a lizard which can change its colour to blend in with a rock, its not gonna take 1 mutation, but hundreds or thousands, each useless by themselves, and even then theres a million ways that original colour-changing lizard could be killed and all that extremely unlikely "evolution" would be thrown away.

But if that color changing lizard's genes enter the gene pool when it survives to propagate more freely, then so does the mutation, which if it's a successful enough survival trait- again by natural selection- will spread through the population in subsequent generations, giving you many more chances for subsequent mutations to extrapolate on that. That's how natural selection works.

Yawn, that there is a mechanism which halts mutation isn't my position, never has been. That actually IS a straw man, just so you know...

If there's not a mechanism, then mutations will add up over time, accumulating to the point where we can no longer classify the resultant organism as a part of the species it came from. A- let's say- dog with thousands upon thousands of small changes will not look the same as the dog it first came from, it will be too morphologically different to be classified as a dog.

We know small changes occur. We know they accumulate. You're claiming that somehow, those changes will stop accumulating before they result in a morphologically different organism, and for that to happen, you would need a mechanism for that. It's kinda like any other inexorable force: if gravity is making an object fall, and your claim is that it's impossible for that object to continue falling, then you'd need a mechanism to stop the fall, as what we know about gravity shows that the fall will continue. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's how rationality works.

If evolution were true, we'd be able to model it in a computer like we can for all other, actual scientific theories. It would be very simple, as simple as simulating a single cell with reproductive abilities and mutations etc, coupled with a synthetic environment. We could turn up the speed of the program, and watch intelligent life evolve as we eat pizza. Needless to say, we have no such program because all attempts have failed.

Oh, we've failed at that? So, I couldn't find an example on literally the first result of a google search for "evolution simulation"?