Evolutionary Inevitability

Evolutionary Inevitability

Through careful study of evolution and creationist theories and doctrines, one must ask an important question towards the creationist theories

A problem of creationist argument lies at the term 'micro'-evolution. As it stands, creationism as a scientific theory agrees that 'micro'-evolutionary variations are possible. However, it is argued by creationists that macroevolution is impossible on multiple levels. However, from a purely scientific standpoint, I wonder how it can be assumed that micro-evolution, laced well with enviromental pressures, can not bring about 'macro'-evolution. We can not directly observe macroevolution, but, we can easily deduce (based on observations and other evidences), that it is possible for macro-evolution to occur, provided that micro-evolution does occur.

My question towards creationists:

Is it biologically impossible, given complex enviromental changes, aided with natural selection (on the part of the species in question), to diverge and become different species. Not necessarily to the degree that a fish becomes a bird (in which case I would be thinking in very very long time periods), but more of a variation in a species which eventually makes it different enough that it can no longer mate with its parent species. So long as the conditions forced upon the species a series of conditions which made some traits favorable. For example, multiple species of finches, and what-not.

Take for example the rough-skinned newt. As it is continiously hunted by snakes, only those who possess strong posionous content (and other traits which give them an advantage) have survived. The others have been eaten or have dropped dead. As a result, the rough-skinned newt is now more posionous.

We can agree that that is micro-evolution in the works. What is to stop a divergent evolutionary pattern from occuring so long as there are enviromental pressures which favor some traits (that may or may not be a mutation in its essence) over others.

True, these changes can not occur quickly, but can they not logically occur?

The main differance between micro and macro evolution is that micro doesn't need mutations adding up over long time periods to produce change.

The changes allowed by micro-evolution is already stored in the genetic code.
The changes for macro-evolution requires mutations to change the genetic code.

I hope this helps.

The main differance between micro and macro evolution is that micro doesn't need mutations adding up over long time periods to produce change.

The changes allowed by micro-evolution is already stored in the genetic code.
The changes for macro-evolution requires mutations to change the genetic code.

I hope this helps.

Thank you very much for the reply, I did not expect a response ( ).


However, something still puzzles me:

Natural Selection would mean that the enviroment would play a role on the species itself in addition to the mutations. Mutations provide variation, for better or for worse in our terms. Thus, natural selection makes the choices and those who do or do not possess this advantageous trait perish or at least become less likely to mate (thus reducing the overall number of the 'inferior' species).

I am aware that massive change in genetic mutations would indeed cause death and havoc upon a species (as you stated in an earlier thread). However, given a large amount of continual micro-evolutionary processes and some forced conditions (not to mention time), is macro-evolution not possible?

For example, we share a direct link to creatures such as the ape due to the similarities in cytochrome C (not to mention countless others, making us roughly 98% similar in genetic terms). However, we can not be counted as the same species. Is it not possible that variations in a species ages ago led to a diversion which ultimately made us so seperate that we are no longer the same species? Unlike our relation to other species, which is random in variation respectively, our fellow primates share many of our own characteristics. As a side question, how would this not be evidence of common descent (when coupled with other evidences and whatnot).

Because it's evidence of a common creator.

The problem with the common creator arguement is that no creator can be readily made apparent or tested for. We have no way of knowing what this creator is, and any IDist (theological or otherwise) must make broad assumptions about the creator in question in order to create a theory that covers all of the little quirks we find in species today.

__________________
Bushido216

The test of a common creator...is commonality.

But that could equally be a test for descent with modification and a common ancestor. The difference is that the evolutionary theory has things like transitional fossils and the like to back it up, while ID has smoke and mirrors.

__________________
Bushido216

Transitionan fossils???? Where???

This would be fascinating if it were true, but I think the plastic-eating bacteria show that it isn't.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex1

__________________
Bushido216