Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Split Rock]

Way to pretend not to get the point. All fruit fly species are fruit flies.

That however is not what was said. If that was said I probably would have said something like DUHHH!!!! All roses are species of roses...yes its true A is A...

All fruit fly species are fruit flies. All fruit flies are flies. All flies are insects. All insects are arthopods, etc.
Yes, our classification system is man made. However, it does reflect the reality of nature... the nested hierarchy of life.

Can't you see by all you said that this in no wise indicates common descent? All pigmy humans species are pigmy humans, All pigmy's are humans. All humans are primates, all primates are mammals....and so on...all canines are canines all felines are felines....there is always places we can draw more lines...You see it all depends on ones perspective. Depending on one's lines some EBs say birds are dinosaurs (lol!)

So I would say humans are not apes, but we both are primates.Humans and apes have always been separate, one did not become the other over time.

So, humans are primates but not apes.. why do you say that? Does it make you feel better about being human?

Also, it is now the consensus opinion that birds are indeed descended from theropod dinosaurs. Why is this funny to you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Appearances are a good guide, but can be deceptive (e.g. convergent evolution). Since the mid-1960's, relationships have been determined by looking at gene sequences (phylogenetics). Genes allow you to trace ancestry and relatedness in great detail, and even give a rough guide to the timescales involved in the branching of new species.

The distinction can be dramatic - in 1977 examination of the genes of a group of prokaryotes showed them to be so different from any other bacteria that a whole new fundamental branch was added to the hierarchy of life - the Archaea, so there are now three main branches to the tree of life (known as 'Domains'), the Eukarya, the Bacteria, and the Archaea.

Gene sequencing shows that domestic dogs as a species diverged from an extinct Canid around 40,000 years ago. They have been bred for particular functional features, among which is the ability to interbreed to produce new varieties, so it's not surprising that they haven't diverged into separate species; if breeders focused on breeding a new species of dog (i.e. one that can't interbreed with other dog varieties), they could probably achieve it fairly quickly, perhaps within a few hundred generations, but why would they? Of course, if they did, the result would still be a Canid, but it would be a new species of Canid.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, humans are primates but not apes.. why do you say that? Does it make you feel better about being human?

In fact, it is true to say that, by the definition of species as being able to breed to produce fertile offspring, the Neanderthals were the same species as us, because gene sequencing shows humans and Neanderthals did interbreed. The Neanderthal population had not been isolated from other humans long enough to become a distinct species (by the interbreeding criterion), but long enough to be significantly different in morphology.

Equally disturbing for traditionalists of all sides, in modern taxonomy apes are in the Infraorder 'Simiformes' (monkeys), as are New & Old World monkeys, gibbons, etc.), so apes (including chimps and humans) can be legitimately called monkeys... although it's not a common usage, and I doubt it will be widely heard outside taxonomic circles! [see the BBC's Inside Science podcast of Weds 24th June].

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwin himself originally argued that a species was really great variety within a type of creature. When you look at apes and humans they look distinctly different.

When you look at Great Danes and Chihuahuas, they look distinctly different. Are they different kinds?

You can say a shark looks more like a dolphin that a human looks like an ape yet sharks and dolphins are not related.

Dolphins and sharks are related, as are all vertebrates.

Also, you could say that dolphins are more like sharks than they are other mammals, but you would be absolutely wrong. That's the problem. You think that saying something that is absolutely false makes it true. It doesn't.

Flies reproduce faster and have a greater capacity to share genetic info vertically and so will have a lot more access to the wide range of genetic info.

How does reproducing faster create more genetic info?

Bacteria are the best at reproducing quickly and sharing genetic info through HGT. So there is a greater capacity to tap into a wider range of genetic info. So we would expect to see a greater range of variety and therefore more species.

How do you determine what a species is among bacteria?

Cats look like cats and dogs look like dogs even though there is a great amount of variety within each.

Apes look like apes, primates look like primates, mammals look like mammals, amniotes look like amniotes, and vertebrates look like vertebrates. Are those "kinds"?

But there are natural limits to how far that variation can go. Dog breeders have found this and the further you get away from the natural state the more it affects the fitness in some way.

What they have found is the limits of current genetic variation. What you are ignoring is the creation of new genetic info over time through mutations. The cat and dog lineages diverged milllions of years ago. It took millions of years to accumulate the genetic differences that define each lineage. Why would you expect the same amount of divergence to occur in just a few thousand years, at best?

Test that have been done also show there are limits.

References?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can't you see by all you said that this in no wise indicates common descent? All pigmy humans species are pigmy humans, All pigmy's are humans. All humans are primates, all primates are mammals....and so on...all canines are canines all felines are felines....there is always places we can draw more lines...You see it all depends on ones perspective. Depending on one's lines some EBs say birds are dinosaurs (lol!)

It doesn't depend on perspective. The phylogenies are objective facts.

"The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Objective phylogenies are evidence for common ancestry since that is exactly what we should see if evolution produced biodiversity.

So I would say humans are not apes, but we both are primates.Humans and apes have always been separate, one did not become the other over time.

Then explain how chimps, an ape, share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans, two other apes. If humans and apes are two different kinds, then humans should be genetically equidistant from all the ape species. We aren't. We nest within the ape phylogeny.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09687.html

 

[The Cadet]

Darwin himself originally argued that a species was really great variety within a type of creature. When you look at apes and humans they look distinctly different. There is a lot of variation within human kind and there is a lot within the ape kind. But I would say they are part of the same type or kind of animal. You can say a shark looks more like a dolphin that a human looks like an ape yet sharks and dolphins are not related.

Flies reproduce faster and have a greater capacity to share genetic info vertically and so will have a lot more access to the wide range of genetic info. Bacteria are the best at reproducing quickly and sharing genetic info through HGT. So there is a greater capacity to tap into a wider range of genetic info. So we would expect to see a greater range of variety and therefore more species.

Cats look like cats and dogs look like dogs even though there is a great amount of variety within each. But there are natural limits to how far that variation can go. Dog breeders have found this and the further you get away from the natural state the more it affects the fitness in some way. Test that have been done also show there are limits. They can produce a lot of variation with the existing genetics but they cant change those creatures into anything else but the same organism they are.

Firstly, any chance of addressing post #236? I put probably at least an hour and a half into that rebuttal, and it would be nice if you addressed some of the points raised.

Secondly, you assert that apes and humans look distinctly different. Do you not think the same is true with flies? Or, to put it another way, if we found another group of humans who looked more or less the same but had an extra pair of arms, would you consider that "distinctly different"? Or a group where the women have four breasts?

Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy (the genetic mechanism for extra wings is by no means analogous to the genetic mechanism for our limbs), but there is no denying that "clearly distinct" is seen from a very human perspective. We can easily tell the difference between ourselves and our close ancestors because we belong to our own species, and because we, as humans, are wired to recognize each other. Babies are able to tell chimps apart; they later lose this ability. We are really good at determining differences among us, but among other species? Not so great. I don't know how you can make the claim that morphological differences among the many clades in Diptera are somehow less significant than morphological changes within the far smaller grouping of Primates.

Your example with the dolphin and the shark shows the clear lack of understanding at play here. Dolphins and Sharks look similar at first glimpse, but dissection reveals a phenomenally distinct morphology! By the same token, Chihuahuas and Great Danes may look like phenomenally different animals, but the underlying morphology is the same. And with humans and apes, it seems phenomenally different, but under the skin, the similarities are phenomenally pronounced.

Also, cite on the claim that they found "limits"?

 

[stevevw]

Tetrapods always look like tetrapods!
Vertebrates always look like vertebrates!

Really though, things do tend to look like what they actually are.

Thats the point. Didn't Darwin say that all animals should look like they blended into each other. Not well defined animals that look completely formed with their own separate shapes.

 

[stevevw]

Then explain how chimps, an ape, share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans, two other apes. If humans and apes are two different kinds, then humans should be genetically equidistant from all the ape species. We aren't. We nest within the ape phylogeny.

It may be that the chimp was the original kind that happened to be close to us in their genetics. All the other ape like creatures are variations of the chimp and have been isolated so become more distant to the chimp as time went by. That also makes them more distant to us as time went by. Because evolution assumes that we come from apes they then make all sorts of other assumptions about our relationships.

 

[stevevw]

Firstly, any chance of addressing post #236? I put probably at least an hour and a half into that rebuttal, and it would be nice if you addressed some of the points raised.

Ok I was away for a bit so I may have missed some posts. I will reply to this soon as it will take some time.

Secondly, you assert that apes and humans look distinctly different. Do you not think the same is true with flies? Or, to put it another way, if we found another group of humans who looked more or less the same but had an extra pair of arms, would you consider that "distinctly different"? Or a group where the women have four breasts?

Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy (the genetic mechanism for extra wings is by no means analogous to the genetic mechanism for our limbs), but there is no denying that "clearly distinct" is seen from a very human perspective. We can easily tell the difference between ourselves and our close ancestors because we belong to our own species, and because we, as humans, are wired to recognize each other. Babies are able to tell chimps apart; they later lose this ability. We are really good at determining differences among us, but among other species? Not so great. I don't know how you can make the claim that morphological differences among the many clades in Diptera are somehow less significant than morphological changes within the far smaller grouping of Primates.[/quote]This is where we begin to see the difficulty of trying to work out what is evolution and what is natural variation within an animal. If a human has 4 arms is that a part of the natural variation of humans or a step towards evolving into another different creature which will end up looking completely different to humans. The problem is the genetic info for the human arm is there already and gaining another set of arms is only using info which is already there. If a human type creature gained reptilian skin or fly antennas then that would be different as the genetics for this would need to be new info that humans havnt got and create new genes that are not using the existing info.

Your example with the dolphin and the shark shows the clear lack of understanding at play here. Dolphins and Sharks look similar at first glimpse, but dissection reveals a phenomenally distinct morphology! By the same token, Chihuahuas and Great Danes may look like phenomenally different animals, but the underlying morphology is the same. And with humans and apes, it seems phenomenally different, but under the skin, the similarities are phenomenally pronounced.

My example of the shark and dolphin probably wasn't the best one to show what I was talking about. But there are many animals that are not related and look very similar externally and internally. That is why evolutionists have come up with convergent evolution. In fact in some cases there are large sections of the same genetics as well between these unrelated creatures. If you look at the pig it is completely different to a human. Yet has many features internally and externally that are similar. But your example of the dogs is a good one for showing how great variation can happen within a species to the point where at first sight you would think they were two different species. So its not as straight forward as it seems.

Also, cite on the claim that they found "limits"?

I thought you would have heard of these limits from the artificial breeders that use artificial selection. The further they get away from the natural state of an animal or organisms genetics the more it can affect its fitness. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. Breeders can change certain colors for example but they cant go beyond a limited number of colors. The further they move away from the original creatures genetic state the slower and limited the changes become until things come to a stop. When things are left to nature again everything will return to their original state they began with.

This is seen with dog breeders when they have created all these different features of dog breeds. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. But as you said they are still dogs with basic external and internal dog features. They havnt added anything new that goes beyond a dogs features. Evolutionists say that macro evolution is when one creature can change into another. They say that the accumulation of micro evolution makes macro evolution and that micro evolution is evidence for this. But we see the evidence for micro evolution but not for macro evolution. All these micro changes are variations of existing genetics and features.

The fossil record doesn't show any transitionals. Whereas if evolution were true we would see millions of transitionals with creatures blending into one another as Darwin said. Fossils of insects and other creatures have been found that are millions of years old that show the same shapes as to what those creatures look like today. Micro evolution has been observed and everyone accepts this. Macro evolution has not been observed or proven in tests. Evolutionists take micro evolution and say that this can extend to not only vary existing genetics and features but also make morphological changes that turn one type of creature into another type. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed.

So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can take place, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2501
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
http://www.faithandevolution.org/debates/is-there-an-edge-to-evolution.php

 

[The Cadet]

Let's move this discussion here, as it was apparently off-topic in the other thread, and this one is a lot more generalized.

All right, how about Darwin's Finches - that sound like a good place to start?

Let's talk about birds that are interbreeding on such a massive scale they are merging several breeds into one. Go ahead, knowing you are wrong when you do, defend your stance that they are in actuality separate species. Go ahead, try to defend that speciation occurred in the first place - when they have been interbreeding since they first got to the island - which led in the first place to those new breeds - not species. Let's apply that to Finches instead of dogs then - shall we?

Bolded does not further discussion and just makes you sound incredibly unreasonable. As for Darwin's Finches, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. We have numerous species separated essentially by sexual interest. Your problems with the definition of "species" are noted, but playing with semantics does not help. There is actually some debate about whether or not they actually do constitute different species. They tend not to interbreed when not absolutely necessary (different birdsong and behavior), and as far as I can tell, it seems to be fairly rare. Then again, you never offered a source, and all I can find is Welles's book and the NCSE and Talkorigins debunking it, so...

And apparently you do not understand that duplication creates nothing that DID NOT ALREADY EXIST. The most one can hope and pray for is that a few strands be written in a different order (recessive or dominance). You have never once created something that did not already exist merely written in a different format.

This is ridiculous, I'm sorry. Let's say your sequence is CAB. Then, the gene is duplicated. CAB CAB. Then it mutates. CAB CAR. Huh, where did that new gene come from? That didn't exist before! OH MY GOD!

Seriously, dude, I am a complete layman and I still understand this. There are numerous examples in nature (see post #326) that point to this, and numerous lab experiments showing how this sort of duplication leads to new beneficial functions.

And isn't much to be making claims about anyways since most cases of known duplication naturally are cancerous and without treatment kill the host.

Yes, most mutations are deleterious. This is neither news nor unexpected. Ever heard of a fitness landscape? However, it doesn't matter if most are deleterious. Some are beneficial, and they tend to be conserved.

So post #32 is answered - are you happier now?

Not really. You arrogantly assert that everyone other than you is not only wrong, but knows they're wrong, and your post shows a phenomenal ignorance of the matter at hand. You also provide no sources. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the finches.

Ok I was away for a bit so I may have missed some posts. I will reply to this soon as it will take some time.

No worries, took me long enough.

This is where we begin to see the difficulty of trying to work out what is evolution and what is natural variation within an animal. If a human has 4 arms is that a part of the natural variation of humans or a step towards evolving into another different creature which will end up looking completely different to humans. The problem is the genetic info for the human arm is there already and gaining another set of arms is only using info which is already there.

Here's a hint: finding a 6-limbed vertebrate (be it a pegasus or a Machamp or any other such creature) would be a huge problem for the modern evolutionary taxonomy. This is not necessarily the case with flies due to their segmented carapace, and as said, it's not a great analogy, but in the case of human arms, the amount of information you'd need to add is actually quite phenomenal - you'd need to significantly modify the skeleton and nervous system.

If a human type creature gained reptilian skin or fly antennas then that would be different as the genetics for this would need to be new info that humans havnt got and create new genes that are not using the existing info.

Question - do you know which genes are responsible for reptilian skin and fly antennas?

Look, again, we understand how new genetic information and new genes are produced. This is not news; it's been known for almost 50 years.

My example of the shark and dolphin probably wasn't the best one to show what I was talking about. But there are many animals that are not related and look very similar externally and internally. That is why evolutionists have come up with convergent evolution.

Internally? Convergent evolution is a fairly simple concept (if multiple different organisms all need to adapt to an environment, you will often find that they evolved into superficially similar structures). But it's usually trivial to find significant differences. Bat wings are nothing like bird wings; whale flippers are nothing like shark fins; et cetera. Do you have any examples of convergent evolution which are internally similar?

In fact in some cases there are large sections of the same genetics as well between these unrelated creatures. If you look at the pig it is completely different to a human. Yet has many features internally and externally that are similar.

...Well yeah. Pigs are vertebrates, tetrapods, and mammals. Just like us. We would expect them to share numerous similarities with us. The reason why there's such similar morphology is because these creatures are not unrelated!

But your example of the dogs is a good one for showing how great variation can happen within a species to the point where at first sight you would think they were two different species. So its not as straight forward as it seems.

If every breed of dog save for great danes and chihuahuas were to die out, I think it would be entirely reasonable to assume that we're looking at different species. They would be technically capable of producing viable offspring, but morphological differences would make actually breeding almost impossible without human intervention, and with time, they would almost certainly diverge further.

I thought you would have heard of these limits from the artificial breeders that use artificial selection. The further they get away from the natural state of an animal or organisms genetics the more it can affect its fitness. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. Breeders can change certain colors for example but they cant go beyond a limited number of colors. The further they move away from the original creatures genetic state the slower and limited the changes become until things come to a stop. When things are left to nature again everything will return to their original state they began with.

This is seen with dog breeders when they have created all these different features of dog breeds. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality.

This is because of aggressive inbreeding, though. It has nothing to do with "the limits of artificial selection". This inbreeding leads to a propagation of genetic defects (which would be selected against in nature) and an atypical lack of genetic variance. Direct inbreeding is not the norm in nature. Also, was the purpose of any of these selective breeding programs to push those limits? If so, this sort of incestuous inbreeding is not the right way to go about it. There's a reason such programs are most often done with flies or bacteria - you need a large enough population, and you need to be able to observe many generations.

Evolutionists say that macro evolution is when one creature can change into another. They say that the accumulation of micro evolution makes macro evolution and that micro evolution is evidence for this. But we see the evidence for micro evolution but not for macro evolution. All these micro changes are variations of existing genetics and features.

...You really need to read post 326. Anything I could add here would be repeating myself, save perhaps to note that your definition of "macroevolution" is really questionable.

The fossil record doesn't show any transitionals.

Off the top of my head, Australopithecus Afarensis, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and Ambulocetus are all beautiful examples of transitional fossils. Wikipedia and TalkOrigins both have long lists.

Whereas if evolution were true we would see millions of transitionals with creatures blending into one another as Darwin said.

...What? Dude, you're around 50 years behind the curve. Stephen Jay Gould solved this problem in the 60s. It's called punctuated equilibrium, and what it implies is that most significant changes would take place in relatively short timespans, while the population is smaller (so that mutations can propagate more effectively) and when something about the environment changes (after all, without any impetus, why would they leave their current fitness peak?). Transitional fossils are the rare exception, and this is entirely to be expected.

Fossils of insects and other creatures have been found that are millions of years old that show the same shapes as to what those creatures look like today.

And why would they change? The general morphology of crocodiles has been incredibly successful; why would any significant changes be selected for? Evolutionary stasis is entirely to be expected in many cases.

Evolutionists take micro evolution and say that this can extend to not only vary existing genetics and features but also make morphological changes that turn one type of creature into another type. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed.

No, it obviously isn't, because as I keep seeing here, people don't get how gene duplication works.

So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time.

Where in the world did you get this nonsense?

Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can take place, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.

Have any such experiments tried to get anything other than a fruit fly?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok I was away for a bit so I may have missed some posts. I will reply to this soon as it will take some time.

Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy (the genetic mechanism for extra wings is by no means analogous to the genetic mechanism for our limbs), but there is no denying that "clearly distinct" is seen from a very human perspective. We can easily tell the difference between ourselves and our close ancestors because we belong to our own species, and because we, as humans, are wired to recognize each other. Babies are able to tell chimps apart; they later lose this ability. We are really good at determining differences among us, but among other species? Not so great. I don't know how you can make the claim that morphological differences among the many clades in Diptera are somehow less significant than morphological changes within the far smaller grouping of Primates. This is where we begin to see the difficulty of trying to work out what is evolution and what is natural variation within an animal. If a human has 4 arms is that a part of the natural variation of humans or a step towards evolving into another different creature which will end up looking completely different to humans. The problem is the genetic info for the human arm is there already and gaining another set of arms is only using info which is already there. If a human type creature gained reptilian skin or fly antennas then that would be different as the genetics for this would need to be new info that humans havnt got and create new genes that are not using the existing info.

My example of the shark and dolphin probably wasn't the best one to show what I was talking about. But there are many animals that are not related and look very similar externally and internally. That is why evolutionists have come up with convergent evolution. In fact in some cases there are large sections of the same genetics as well between these unrelated creatures. If you look at the pig it is completely different to a human. Yet has many features internally and externally that are similar. But your example of the dogs is a good one for showing how great variation can happen within a species to the point where at first sight you would think they were two different species. So its not as straight forward as it seems.

I thought you would have heard of these limits from the artificial breeders that use artificial selection. The further they get away from the natural state of an animal or organisms genetics the more it can affect its fitness. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. Breeders can change certain colors for example but they cant go beyond a limited number of colors. The further they move away from the original creatures genetic state the slower and limited the changes become until things come to a stop. When things are left to nature again everything will return to their original state they began with.

This is seen with dog breeders when they have created all these different features of dog breeds. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. But as you said they are still dogs with basic external and internal dog features. They havnt added anything new that goes beyond a dogs features. Evolutionists say that macro evolution is when one creature can change into another. They say that the accumulation of micro evolution makes macro evolution and that micro evolution is evidence for this. But we see the evidence for micro evolution but not for macro evolution. All these micro changes are variations of existing genetics and features.

The fossil record doesn't show any transitionals. Whereas if evolution were true we would see millions of transitionals with creatures blending into one another as Darwin said. Fossils of insects and other creatures have been found that are millions of years old that show the same shapes as to what those creatures look like today. Micro evolution has been observed and everyone accepts this. Macro evolution has not been observed or proven in tests. Evolutionists take micro evolution and say that this can extend to not only vary existing genetics and features but also make morphological changes that turn one type of creature into another type. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed.

So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can take place, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2501
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
http://www.faithandevolution.org/debates/is-there-an-edge-to-evolution.php

About the only thing I have to say is I disagree with your term that we observe micro-evolution. A bad word to be using. Those breeds of dogs come about through the recombining of different genes into different recessive and dominant combinations - not from evolution through mutation. Mutations do occur and almost always it leads to those damaging traits you mentioned. Recombination is occurring - not evolution through mutation of one species into another. That "pair" of DNA is recombining to create a new breed through recessive and dominant traits, not mutating into novel information that didn't exist. The new breed gains nothing that did not already exist within the genome - it merely writes some portions into dominant sequences and some portions into recessive sequences.

E coli a prime example. E coli could always process citrus - just not as a lone source of sustenance. Genes that already existed were transcribed into dominant positions and now that E coli can process and live solely on citrus. It was given no new trait - just an existing trait was amplified - made dominant.

No, evolution with its implication to mutation of species changing into species is not a good word to use - since this is never observed. Those mutations that do occur and make it past the repair mechanism are almost always harmful and maybe one in a billion actually doesn't cause harm or do nothing, but may help the host.

As you rightly pointed out - this is why 200+ years of research into plant and animal husbandry has shown the futility of mutation as a viable mechanism.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Otherwise excellent job!

 

[The Cadet]

As you rightly pointed out - this is why 200+ years of research into plant and animal husbandry has shown the futility of mutation as a viable mechanism.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Otherwise excellent job!

It's perhaps worth noting that the only place that this "Law of Recurrent Variation" appears in the peer reviewed literature is in Lönnig's own work, and his paper on the subject has been cited 4 times, in each case by himself. This makes a pretty good case that Lönnig's "law" only exists in his head.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's move this discussion here, as it was apparently off-topic in the other thread, and this one is a lot more generalized.

Bolded does not further discussion and just makes you sound incredibly unreasonable. As for Darwin's Finches, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. We have numerous species separated essentially by sexual interest. Your problems with the definition of "species" are noted, but playing with semantics does not help. There is actually some debate about whether or not they actually do constitute different species. They tend not to interbreed when not absolutely necessary (different birdsong and behavior), and as far as I can tell, it seems to be fairly rare. Then again, you never offered a source, and all I can find is Welles's book and the NCSE and Talkorigins debunking it, so...

So now you want to play semantics? You know they are the same species because they interbreed - why you simply wont admit that they made an initial classification error before they had even studied them is beyond me? It doesn't matter if they "tend" not to interbreed - especially when the last DNA study is showing they interbreed so often they are all related.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448743?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html

Next you'll be arguing Chinese people are different species than African people - because they "tend" not to interbreed often.

This is ridiculous, I'm sorry. Let's say your sequence is CAB. Then, the gene is duplicated. CAB CAB. Then it mutates. CAB CAR. Huh, where did that new gene come from? That didn't exist before! OH MY GOD!

Except you have never seen CAR from CAB. You might see CBA or ABC or BCA, but you NEVER get an R unless an R is present to begin with. You and I both know this - so why are you even attempting to imply otherwise????? As you put it, OH MY GOD!

Bolded irrelevant to the discussion.

Seriously, dude, I am a complete layman and I still understand this. There are numerous examples in nature (see post #326) that point to this, and numerous lab experiments showing how this sort of duplication leads to new beneficial functions.

And those existing combinations simply rewritten in a new combination is not the creation of something new - just dominance and recessive traits.

Yes, most mutations are deleterious. This is neither news nor unexpected. Ever heard of a fitness landscape? However, it doesn't matter if most are deleterious. Some are beneficial, and they tend to be conserved

No one is arguing that one in a billion that make it through the repair mechanism might not harm the host. But all it did was rewrite what already existed into a new combination - nothing was added that did not already exist. TCGTA was simply rewritten into a more dominant strand such as TGCTA. Nothing but recessive and dominance at work.

Not really. You arrogantly assert that everyone other than you is not only wrong, but knows they're wrong, and your post shows a phenomenal ignorance of the matter at hand. You also provide no sources. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the finches.

You know exactly what I am talking about with the finches and you also know you are wrong. I make that claim boldly! You know they are interbreeding - have been interbreeding from the start - your own DNA tests have shown this fact. Yet you deny that they are the same species - even if they are debating that very thing right now. Instead they continue to preach it is speciation at work - when you never had separate species to begin with. Your not stupid so quit playing dumb - it does you no service.

Just admit they were wrong in their hasty classifications in their desire to prove speciation before thay had even bothered to study them, and we can get back to real science.

Here's a hint: finding a 6-limbed vertebrate (be it a pegasus or a Machamp or any other such creature) would be a huge problem for the modern evolutionary taxonomy. This is not necessarily the case with flies due to their segmented carapace, and as said, it's not a great analogy, but in the case of human arms, the amount of information you'd need to add is actually quite phenomenal - you'd need to significantly modify the skeleton and nervous system.

I thought that would be your first claim to show evolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Polydactyly

So I guess evolution has a huge problem, even if you won't admit to it, even if you just did.

Question - do you know which genes are responsible for reptilian skin and fly antennas?

Which is relevant how since the respective gene never gives reptiles fly antennas nor fly's reptile skin?

Look, again, we understand how new genetic information and new genes are produced. This is not news; it's been known for almost 50 years.

Yes we do, it's called recessive and dominance. It's called transcription - i.e., rewriting what already existed into a new format - not creating a new gene.

Internally? Convergent evolution is a fairly simple concept (if multiple different organisms all need to adapt to an environment, you will often find that they evolved into superficially similar structures). But it's usually trivial to find significant differences. Bat wings are nothing like bird wings; whale flippers are nothing like shark fins; et cetera. Do you have any examples of convergent evolution which are internally similar?

Of course not - because evolution is not real. All you observe is variation within the species - infraspecific taxa - never divergent evolution. Because bats are not the same Kind as birds, because sharks are not the same Kind as whales, et cetera....

...Well yeah. Pigs are vertebrates, tetrapods, and mammals. Just like us. We would expect them to share numerous similarities with us. The reason why there's such similar morphology is because these creatures are not unrelated!

The reason is that they are all based upon the same design - the same protons and electrons (dust). Pigs have no relation to humans except in your mythology. And all those mammals are dissimilar from reptiles - from which they supposedly evolved from and before that from those fish that are even more dissimilar. So you will have to excuse me if I refuse to accept what your claims of similarity mean - and then claim dissimilarity also proves evolution from the same stock.

If every breed of dog save for great danes and chihuahuas were to die out, I think it would be entirely reasonable to assume that we're looking at different species. They would be technically capable of producing viable offspring, but morphological differences would make actually breeding almost impossible without human intervention, and with time, they would almost certainly diverge further

Except you know they are the same species, so know such an interpretation of the fossil record would be the wrong conclusion. And then want to apply that exact same incorrect reasoning to other fossils where you have no knowledge of their lives or even a clue if they interbred or not.

This is because of aggressive inbreeding, though. It has nothing to do with "the limits of artificial selection". This inbreeding leads to a propagation of genetic defects (which would be selected against in nature) and an atypical lack of genetic variance. Direct inbreeding is not the norm in nature. Also, was the purpose of any of these selective breeding programs to push those limits? If so, this sort of incestuous inbreeding is not the right way to go about it. There's a reason such programs are most often done with flies or bacteria - you need a large enough population, and you need to be able to observe many generations.

Not the norm???? Those finches are doing it on a daily basis.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/05/pizzly_bears.html
http://www.taxidermy.net/forums/LifesizeArticles/09b/992D38C473.html

They just tend to mate within their own breed for survival reasons - just as the majority of Chinese choose to mate with Chinese - and African with African. Are you implying Chinese and African are seperate species of the human race because overall they "tend" to breed amongst their own race?

...You really need to read post 326. Anything I could add here would be repeating myself, save perhaps to note that your definition of "macroevolution" is really questionable.

Questionable, or just not what you want to believe? Even if that is all that has ever been observed.

Off the top of my head, Australopithecus Afarensis, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and Ambulocetus are all beautiful examples of transitional fossils. Wikipedia and TalkOrigins both have long lists.

Australopithecus Afarensis is just a breed of ape. Tiktaalik is just a breed of salamander. And Ambulocetus is another species altogether and with the scant fossil evidence no claim can be made to anything.

Might as well claim it's the ancestor to crocodiles or dogs.

...What? Dude, you're around 50 years behind the curve. Stephen Jay Gould solved this problem in the 60s. It's called punctuated equilibrium, and what it implies is that most significant changes would take place in relatively short timespans, while the population is smaller (so that mutations can propagate more effectively) and when something about the environment changes (after all, without any impetus, why would they leave their current fitness peak?). Transitional fossils are the rare exception, and this is entirely to be expected.

Why accept that when we see breed mating with breed and producing a new breed in a relatively short time span, with no evolution through mutation of one species into another? So you want me to accept what has never been observed while ignoring what is observed and not apply that to the fossil record? I fail to see any solution to your proposition, since it has never been observed. While if you apply the FACT that breed mates with breed and produces a new breed - the problem is solved using what we observe in real life.

And why would they change? The general morphology of crocodiles has been incredibly successful; why would any significant changes be selected for? Evolutionary stasis is entirely to be expected in many cases.

In many cases? try in every single case there is. All T-Rex remain T-Rex from the first one found to the last one found. This applies to every single fossil there is. All Husky remain Husky until it mates with another breed. So if the Husky after mating with the Mastiff and producing the Chinook were to go extinct - you would claim the Husky in the fossil record as a transitional species - even if you know in real life they are the same species. The Chinook merely brought about by the recombination of genes in new recessive and dominant traits.

Have any such experiments tried to get anything other than a fruit fly?

Because they know it is impossible, even if they also make claims that it happens all the time long - long ago. Just like those experiments with E coli ended up with nothing but E coli.

It seems everything is in stasis and always has been - until breed mates with breed and produces a new breed in that relatively short period of time.

 

[The Cadet]

So now you want to play semantics? You know they are the same species because they interbreed - why you simply wont admit that they made an initial classification error before they had even studied them is beyond me?

Um, dude? I even linked you to an article where experts pointed out that they were probably not different species, and other experts disagreed, and said, and I quote: "There is actually some debate about whether or not they actually do constitute different species." If you're going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, it would behoove you to find an actual example of intellectual dishonesty.

I don't know that they are different species. I'm not sure of the definition of the term, and this is a problem throughout most of science. The term comes from the victorian age, and runs into the problem that we need to have discreet boxes, when nature just does not have those. The main issue is that the entire concept of species has some significant flaws, and saying "it's the same species as long as they can produce viable offspring" is a nice simple concept until you remember that things like ring species exist. Nature tends not to fit nicely into neat boxes like that.

It doesn't matter if they "tend" not to interbreed - especially when the last DNA study is showing they interbreed so often they are all related.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448743?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I feel the need to point out that the Grants are among the scientists who very firmly hold that the Finches are, in fact, separate species.

Except you have never seen CAR from CAB. You might see CBA or ABC or BCA, but you NEVER get an R unless an R is present to begin with. You and I both know this - so why are you even attempting to imply otherwise????? As you put it, OH MY GOD!

There are four nucleotides we can work with: A, G, C, and T. What, exactly, are you asking for? That DNA somehow implement a different nucleobase? Or what? To put it another way:

CAT -> CATCAT -> GATCAT

Are you claiming that that is never observed? Because this kind of duplication with mutation is exactly what we find in the venom of the platypus.

You know exactly what I am talking about with the finches and you also know you are wrong. I make that claim boldly! You know they are interbreeding - have been interbreeding from the start - your own DNA tests have shown this fact.

I am a computer science dropout with a casual interest in evolution and a chip on my shoulder. I am not Peter or Rosemary Grant. I am not Richard Dawkins. I am not an expert, in other words. I faintly remember having a discussion about Finches, but I'm not quite sure what the outcome was; in any case it would be nice to refresh it.

Yet you deny that they are the same species - even if they are debating that very thing right now. Instead they continue to preach it is speciation at work - when you never had separate species to begin with. Your not stupid so quit playing dumb - it does you no service.

I have no idea if they're the same species, and given that there is real dispute among actual biologists, I feel like offering my own opinion (they aren't) is not particularly productive.

I thought that would be your first claim to show evolution"

Do you honestly not understand the difference between a tetrapod species with an abnormal number of functional limbs and this sort of well-understood deformity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Polydactyly

So I guess evolution has a huge problem, even if you won't admit to it, even if you just did.

Fingers != limbs.

And then there's a bunch of meaningless, baseless claims, at times completely unsupportable even in principle.

Except you know they are the same species,

Are they, though? Again, what deliniates a "species" is hard to determine. I mean, are wolves the same species as the chihuahua? Because they can crossbreed with some dog breeds, but can they crossbreed with purse rats? Again, we run into the significant problem that "species" is a term that predates our entire understanding of modern biology and our understanding of evolution.

They just tend to mate within their own breed for survival reasons - just as the majority of Chinese choose to mate with Chinese - and African with African. Are you implying Chinese and African are seperate species of the human race because overall they "tend" to breed amongst their own race?

There is no such tendency beyond geographic separation. What's more, examination of haplogroups show that this entire concept of "African" or "Chinese" is completely superficial and ignores the actual genetics at play.

Australopithecus Afarensis is just a breed of ape. Tiktaalik is just a breed of salamander. And Ambulocetus is another species altogether and with the scant fossil evidence no claim can be made to anything.

Might as well claim it's the ancestor to crocodiles or dogs.

See, what I wonder is, can you find a single paleontologist or other relevant expert who agrees with you? Australopithecus Afarensis shows traits of both apes and hominids. Tiktaalik looks like a fish but has clear tetrapod qualities; the idea that it's some sort of "salamander" is ridiculous. The fact that you claim that it's impossible to make any claim about Ambulocetus from the skeleton discovered does not provide a whole lot of confidence in your understanding of paleozoology and paleontology.

In many cases? try in every single case there is. All T-Rex remain T-Rex from the first one found to the last one found.

The main issue here is that you seem to be willing to expand what you mean by "kind" to whatever is necessary to claim we don't have any transitions. Sure, we have a fairly extensive fossil record of numerous dinosaur clades, often separated by long stretches of time and distance indicating that they could not really be the same kind... But never mind, every T-Rex is a T-Rex. Do you not get how silly this argument is?

 

[[serious]]

Thats the point. Didn't Darwin say that all animals should look like they blended into each other. Not well defined animals that look completely formed with their own separate shapes.

Darwin was unaware of Mendelian genetics

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...No, it obviously isn't, because as I keep seeing here, people don't get how gene duplication works.

Quite; nor do they seem to be aware of the various other ways new genetic information can be generated, like substitutions, insertions, deletions, and frame-shifts, in both protein-coding genes and regulatory code. It's a jungle in there...

 

[Smidlee]

And why would they change? The general morphology of crocodiles has been incredibly successful; why would any significant changes be selected for? Evolutionary stasis is entirely to be expected in many cases.

Stasis is exactly what you expect if they are created. Darwin was hoping stasis would not be the case.

 

[pshun2404]

So, humans are primates but not apes.. why do you say that? Does it make you feel better about being human?

No but it does let me know you really did not listen to your hero Chuck Darwin...for him we both share a common ancestor (not that I agree with that either) but at least he knew the difference and did not confuse the two. Ape is not man's ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin was unaware of Mendelian genetics

Science is myopic.

 

[pshun2404]

Seriously, dude, I am a complete layman and I still understand this. There are numerous examples in nature (see post #326) that point to this, and numerous lab experiments showing how this sort of duplication leads to new beneficial functions.

Don't you realize that ALL experiments and all lab work creating scenarios by tweaking the chemicals, conditions, etc. (like the Miller Urey experiment), that get ANY results are designed by outside intelligent forces? "Duplication" doe not address mutation....by definition it means repetition of the same...duplicating: the action of duplicating something, in DNA makng an exact copy...