Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Guy Threepwood]

That is not a remotely useful analogy. Evolution is constrained by the laws of physics, the limitations of biological tissue, and time. Increasing complexity and specialisation can narrow the breadth of options in some directions, but evolution does not necessarily increase complexity and specialisation - we are just more aware of the more complex and specialised results.

And it is also structured hierarchically- I agree it doesn't always increase complexity: in fact degradation I would argue is more directly apparent: we see clear examples of birds losing flight, fish losing sight, and I think we both agree on how this occurs: Entropy- in the sense of decay, chaos

How these are gained is a far more difficult question, and somehow we got from a single celled bacteria to the entire biosphere as we know it, so we can't really avoid the fact that vast new volumes of functional information has to be provided along the way somehow.

Fighting upstream against entropy with blind chance (random mutation)... is just supplying more entropy into the mix, accelerating your decent downstream

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

their geometry, described by mathematical values yes- the hieroglyphs are an example where we do not necessarily need to know what the information is specifying, to determine that it is specifying something.

How do you determine that? How do you determine that a particular pattern is a hieroglyph rather than an accidental or chance occurrence? Be specific.

If we found something resembling the tomb of Seti I on Mars, the incredibly profound implications would be totally overcome, that's how powerful the fingerprint is

Of course, if you find a complex structure that closely resembles the structure of something you already know to be the product of intelligence, you are likely to assume it is.

the lone hoofprint is just a hoofprint, if the medium is the hoofprint, then it specifies nothing beyond this no

It is information that specifically tells you that a particular animal passed that way. The medium is mud, not animal. So it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium'. Similarly, if you see a particular pattern of chewed leaves, you know a particular kind of caterpillar has been chewing them, and if you see a particular pattern of little craters in the mud you know it's been raining, and so-on; all specifying something beyond what inherently constitutes their medium. No requirement for intelligence or anticipation.

But if the hoofprints lead up to an apple tree and circle around it, now we have a pattern showing a fingerprint of intelligence. (an animal seeking food)

That's a very broad meaning of intelligence (broad to the point of uselessness) - pretty much all motile life seeks food, including single-cell creatures. Also, walking in a circle round an apple tree could also be due to any number of other reasons, not necessarily requiring intelligence.

But I'll run with that for the sake of argument. I notice that you don't require the intent to leave this 'specifying information', it can be accidental - as long as you already know it's made by something you consider to be intelligent...

The telltale fingerprint of specifying information is that it shows a capacity for anticipation, a phenomena unique to creative intelligence.

A characteristic feature of evolution is that the basic process itself doesn't involve anticipation; just heritable random variation and natural selection. That's a key point.

I don't see any reason to break this objective law, and make a special exception for biology- specifically genetic code, no matter how profound the implications might be

Relax - you don't have to break the 'objective law' you've invented - evolution is not an anticipatory process.

 

[Astrid]

And it is also structured hierarchically- I agree it doesn't always increase complexity: in fact degradation I would argue is more directly apparent: we see clear examples of birds losing flight, fish losing sight, and I think we both agree on how this occurs: Entropy- in the sense of decay, chaos

How these are gained is a far more difficult question, and somehow we got from a single celled bacteria to the entire biosphere as we know it, so we can't really avoid the fact that vast new volumes of functional information has to be provided along the way somehow.

Fighting upstream against entropy with blind chance (random mutation)... is just supplying more entropy into the mix, accelerating your decent downstream

Loss of function is just adaptation. Why would a cave fish need eyes?

Its really hard to see how an adaptive muststionis fighting
upstream when its function- say warmer fur- is making the
creature more energy efficient.
What adaptive mutation makes for less energy effeciency?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

almost any complex product includes a capacity for variation, in a dynamic environment- the fact that organisms display adaptability is practically a design constraint-

Many, if not most, complex human-made products have little or no capacity for variation, being built to do one thing and do it well in a static or controlled environment - although arguably, computers have a capacity for variation in the type of computation they do, if not the method of it.

But for living organisms dynamic environments provide powerful selection pressure; those that that are not sufficiently adaptable to their environment and its vagaries go extinct, like 99.99 percent of all species - being adaptable enough to survive into the 21st century is a rare exception to the general rule of extinction.

control genes control specific traits within viable ranges, just as text parameters can be tweaked without crashing the software here- they cannot be used to author new software- two distinct and necessarily separated mechanisms

Not really, there is no 'software' like computer software; gene regulators control the expression of particular genes via transcription factors and may themselves be regulated by other factors. So they control and regulate the production of proteins - which may or may not be involved in trait development depending the context and the scale you're considering.

The whole setup is more like a flexible automated modular factory producing self-assembling components with feedback control. There's no separate program or software because it evolved as an increasingly complex interacting system, not as something designed or specified at the outset.

Much of physical trait development & regulation involves hormonal grandients and cell to cell interactions in which gene regulation is just one part. Changes in these complex interactions can produce anything from supernumerary digits or limbs to thick, scaly skin; there is an enormous potential for variation, including the reactivation of defunct regulatory networks to produce atavistic traits.

As I said previously, the more complex and specialised the creature, the less scope there is for major phenotypic developments, but even in those cases small changes, such as lactose tolerance, immunity to HIV, altitude tolerance, protection against alcoholism, or dementia, or heart disease, or osteoporosis, or malaria, or increases in endurance running performance, or tolerating very low levels of sleep without sleep deprivation, to name a few human mutations, can have significant advantages in appropriate environments.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, how is the question.

That is explained via observable evolutionary processes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And it is also structured hierarchically- I agree it doesn't always increase complexity: in fact degradation I would argue is more directly apparent: we see clear examples of birds losing flight, fish losing sight, and I think we both agree on how this occurs: Entropy- in the sense of decay, chaos

Losing features that are no longer advantageous is an adaptive evolutionary change. When there's no longer a selection pressure for maintaining them, detrimental mutations will erode their function - but such features are also disadvantageous, an unnecessary drain resources that could be better used on more adaptive traits, so there is a selection pressure against them. When you consider marine mammals, from pinnipeds to cetaceans, you can see how the loss or modification of limbs has resulted in more adaptive traits.

How these are gained is a far more difficult question, and somehow we got from a single celled bacteria to the entire biosphere as we know it, so we can't really avoid the fact that vast new volumes of functional information has to be provided along the way somehow.

It's not the problem you think it is - in extant life we have examples of every major stage of evolution necessary for that 3.5 billion year journey. From the first stages of multicellular cooperation in bacterial quorum-sensing, producing films & mats, through sponges and Cnidaria (jellies, jellyfish, etc), right up to vertebrates, insects, etc.

Fighting upstream against entropy with blind chance (random mutation)... is just supplying more entropy into the mix, accelerating your decent downstream

It's true that by increasing complexity, you accelerate the increase in entropy, but it's not the problem you think. When entropy gradients are at their steepest, e.g. shortly after the big bang, the energy flows are too energetic for complexity to appear - as the gradients begin to reduce, atoms can form, then molecules, and eventually it's calm enough for them to begin to clump together into dust clouds and form stars and planets.

Stars are low-entropy energy concentrations that, in increasing the entropy of their surroundings provide a steady stream of energy to them. Planets receive this steady stream of low entropy energy and dissipate it as heat, increasing the entropy of their surroundings. This 'free energy' supply drives chemical reactions in gas clouds, on asteroids, and on planets, that dissipate energy even more effectively. On planets with suitable conditions, this free energy will drive reactions of increasing complexity, which dissipate energy and increase the entropy of their surroundings even more effectively.

So it is a medium entropy gradient, as found in our current epoch of the universe, when the free energy can drive the development of complexity. As the overall entropy increases and the energy sources begin to expire, there is not sufficient free energy to maintain complexity against the increase in entropy. As thermodynamic equilibrium approaches, free energy has been dissipated, and complexity is unsustainable.

A simple analogy is in the flow of water; where the gradient is very high, e.g. a waterfall, the flow is so turbulent that no organisation or complexity can develop or persist. when the flow is fast but not turbulent, eddies and whirlpools can form, taking enough energy from the flow to produce movement courter to the direction of flow, and maintaining themselves using the steady force of the flow. When the flow becomes very slow or ceases, the eddies and vortices reduce and eventually die out, there is not enough energy in the flow to sustain them.

It's true that without the development of complex structures entropy would increase more slowly, but the action is towards maximising the increase in overall entropy - developing and maintaining complexity does this most efficiently (e.g. forest fires and global warming!).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you determine that? How do you determine that a particular pattern is a hieroglyph rather than an accidental or chance occurrence? Be specific.

That would be a good question for an archeologist or 'Egyptologist' perhaps in this case

But again, however you choose to define the distinction between artifact and natural object, the distinction clearly exists and can be described by information:

certain symbols refer to Gods, people, places, -i.e. once again, they specify something beyond their own medium of carvings in stone

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You present an example of the problem with the title:
"Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'

Huh?

the bottle neck reduces the variation, it turns the Darwinian tree upside down, the resistant strain of bacteria, like the dark peppered moth, always existed- you just removed it's competition, reducing the diversity of life..

A bottleneck reduces genetic diversity of the population, but magnifies the effects of genetic drift and mutations that occur. Obviously if the bottleneck is too narrow, it's hard to sustain a breeding population, but many speciation events are thought to be due to the 'founder effect' of groups that become isolated from the main population. If they survive and do well, genetic diversity will increase in the long term due to novel mutations.

By that definition, if I fill a room with black cats and white cats, dim the lights, and shoot anything I see moving, this is a demonstration of accelerated Darwinian evolution at work..

What definition? What has shooting cats in a dark room to do with Darwinian evolution? - what on Earth are you talking about?

You see the problem here: we are trying to account for sudden explosive radiations of NEW life forms, a vast biodiversity branching out from allegedly a single celled bacteria-like organism by most accounts.. not merely the sudden extinction of pre-existing life, we all understand how you destroy life (and information), creating it is the tricky part

The use of terms like, 'sudden' and 'explosive' need some context - the Cambrian lasted for 500 million years; it's only 66 years since the dinosaurs went extinct. In Darwin's time, the sudden appearance of flowering plants around 135 million years ago was, as he put it, an "abominable mystery". Since then we've discovered numerous precursors and links to ancestral species; the mystery is largely solved. Similarly, the proliferation of late Precambrian and early Cambrian discoveries in recent years have suggested that there wasn't a single 'explosion' of evolution, but a series of rapid diversifications, with strong clues as to the drivers; e.g. more sophisticated eyes, leading to a predator-prey 'arms race'.

These are not strictly 'NEW' life forms, but modifications of what came before. When enough relatively small changes have accumulated over a sufficient length of time, the comparison can be startling; e.g. new-born human baby to mature adult, or tadpole to mature frog.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course, if you find a complex structure that closely resembles the structure of something you already know to be the product of intelligence, you are likely to assume it is.

to clarify I was referring to the hieroglyphs not the structure- of course you might find a familiar structure, and some point to the 5 sided- 'pyramids' in Cydonia on Mars as evidence for Martian intelligence- but of course this is far less conclusive than hieroglyphs as found in Seti's tomb - becasue far less specifying information is included

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is information that specifically tells you that a particular animal passed that way. The medium is mud, not animal. So it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium'. Similarly, if you see a particular pattern of chewed leaves, you know a particular kind of caterpillar has been chewing them, and if you see a particular pattern of little craters in the mud you know it's been raining, and so-on; all specifying something beyond what inherently constitutes their medium. No requirement for intelligence or anticipation.

well in this case, water droplets on mud would be the medium medium, as paint on canvas, or chisel on stone

And if the water droplets spell 'hello' you know someone probably did it on purpose, signal v noise

random droplets is simply noise v signal

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's a very broad meaning of intelligence (broad to the point of uselessness) - pretty much all motile life seeks food, including single-cell creatures. Also, walking in a circle round an apple tree could also be due to any number of other reasons, not necessarily requiring intelligence.

But I'll run with that for the sake of argument. I notice that you don't require the intent to leave this 'specifying information', it can be accidental - as long as you already know it's made by something you consider to be intelligent...

Sure, once again; the quality and quantity of information can vary.

the hieroglyphs in the tomb clearly show a higher quality and hence greater confirmation of higher intelligence than hoofprints.

archeologists and forensic scientists can be torn between artifact or accident depending on the quality of the evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

meaning the intentional introduction of new specifying information, (not random mutation) this is the only proven means by which macro evolution can occur.

If by macro-evolution you mean speciation, there have been numerous observations of speciation occurring without genetic manipulation, and vastly more where it is known to have occurred without genetic manipulation - unless you want to claim that your favourite deity manipulates the genome while no-one is looking, so as to exactly mimic evolution.

And by superior/inferior i think we agree- better suited for reproductive success

So why say, "both superior and inferior departures from average will result in reproductive dysfunction."?
<my bolding>

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is explained via observable evolutionary processes.

we cannot observe a single celled bacteria like organism morphing into a human being through random mutation. We can observe bacteria becoming more bacteria- that leaves quite a gap for the imagination!
we can only observe genetic apples falling not far from their trees

Likewise we can also observe a literal apple falling from a literal tree, but it would be (and was) a mistake to extrapolate such superficial observations into comprehensive explanations for realty


-

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If by macro-evolution you mean speciation, there have been numerous observations of speciation occurring without genetic manipulation,

gimme your best one!

So why say, "both superior and inferior departures from average will result in reproductive dysfunction."?
<my bolding>

superior and inferior with regards to reproductive success.....

I fear we are slipping away from substance and into semantics again here..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

well in this case, water droplets on mud would be the medium medium, as paint on canvas, or chisel on stone

Dry mud is not rain or water of any kind, so the impression left by water droplets on that medium, 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium'.

If you want to refine your definition, feel free to do so. While you're at it, you might also provide an argument justifying your assertion that it is necessarily the product of intelligence.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

In these discussions it's quite common for creationists to claim they accept microevolution, but don't accept macroevolution. What is less clear is precisely what creationists think those two things are.

To clear the air, this thread is for the purpose of creationists explaining their respective understanding of each. If you're a creationist, what do you think microevolution and macroevolution are exactly?

The most common argument is that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. This is a mathematical blunder. Do you understand why?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A characteristic feature of evolution is that the basic process itself doesn't involve anticipation; just heritable random variation and natural selection. That's a key point.

Random chance is certainly the key characteristic of Darwinian theory

to claim Darwinism proves Darwinism is obviously a circular argument!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the quality and quantity of information can vary.

Seriously? you want to say that information varies in quality?
What definition of information are you using now?

the hieroglyphs in the tomb clearly show a higher quality and hence greater confirmation of higher intelligence than hoofprints.

What do you mean by 'higher quality'? be specific (let's assume that the hoofprint is a superbly detailed imprint and the hieroglyphs are somewhat rough and ready).

 

[Astrid]

That would be a good question for an archeologist or 'Egyptologist' perhaps in this case

But again, however you choose to define the distinction between artifact and natural object, the distinction clearly exists and can be described by information:

certain symbols refer to Gods, people, places, -i.e. once again, they specify something beyond their own medium of carvings in stone

No, it does not clearly exist as a bright line
distinction, a yes / no.
Nor, "define as you choose".
Archeologists, esp those working in the Paleolithic
often have a very difficult time, if it is possible at
all, to determine what is man made, what marks
might have coded meaning, what might not.

Paleontologists and archeologists dread pot hunters and
commercial diggers because as they put it, "information
is lost."
There is information in a stone axe. Where the stone
came from, the applied skill of the maker, a range of
possible uses, what cultural style it is, etc.

A fossil carries a wealth of info.

A hunk of granite out in a wheatfield has info.
It may be a glacial erratic.
A raindrop has so much info that if you
learned all there is to know about it, you would
know most of what there is to learn aboutvtge universe.
(Feynman)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dry mud is not rain or water of any kind, so the impression left by water droplets on that medium, 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium'.

If you want to refine your definition, by all means, do so. While you're at it, you might also provide an argument justifying your assertion that it is necessarily the product of intelligence.

you can choose any medium you like, mud alone, mud and rain, or alphabet soup- literally anything you can imagine- that's the whole point of focusing on an objective measure of intelligence (information) rather than just familiar forms/ medium etc- and this is what archeologists, forensic scientists and SETI do

So once again, if all you see is random droplets in the mud or jumbled letters in the soup or static noise in the interstellar radio waves, you have a vey poor quality of information- it would offer little evidence of intelligence

if you see 'hello' spelled (specified) in any of these medium, you can recognize a fingerprint of intelligence- you see?