Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Hans Blaster]

Like I said, the primary issue in the U.S. is U.S. Constitutional law. In cases where ID has tried to be pushed in schools, they *have* to distance themselves from religion.

It's not about objectivity; it's a legal necessity.

THIS^^^^

ID is just "constitutionally washed" creation science (itself a pseudoscience based on biblical creationism). The courts (and the scientists) saw through this cloak.

 

[Job 33:6]

^ and this is what we generally see in 'short necked Giraffes' examples - they are similar but key evidence shows they were most likely NOT direct ancestors-

And lastly, millions of prehistoric giraffes existed. Just as millions of people exist today. It's not the objective of the fossil record to tell you which exact skeleton is your direct parent or grandparent in a few generations but rather the fossil record depicts trends of species over millions of years. To suggest otherwise is just a misunderstanding of paleontology.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

THIS^^^^

ID is just "constitutionally washed" creation science (itself a pseudoscience based on biblical creationism). The courts (and the scientists) saw through this cloak.

I've never claimed Creationism science. But we are still waiting for you "scientists" to give us an experimental example of macroevolution and describe the mathematical and physical process by which it operates. You can't because macroevolution doesn't exist. In fact, when are you scientists going to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of microevolution? Why don't you explain to us why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment? It really is a trivial probability problem.

 

[Job 33:6]

. G. jumae lived from 13 million years ago, during the Miocene, until about one million years ago, during the Cenozoic.

This is also poorly written, as the Miocene is within the cenozoic. It would be better written as "G. Jumae lived from roughly 13 mya to 1 mya during the Miocene epoch of the Cenozoic era".


But regardless, it's also worth considering that giraffes may also evolve to be smaller as well, in the sense that 50 million years ago they would be tiny (and really wouldn't even be giraffes), 20 million years ago they would be medium sized, 10 million years ago they would be large, some even being slightly larger than today, then in the last million, they downsized a bit to the size they are now. There's no reason giraffes couldn't evolve to be smaller in more recent times.


Just an observation. But ultimately when we go back in time, we find short necked giraffes, which is the bottom line.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Sure they do, there are lots of ancient alien theorists- I don't take them too seriously- but clearly non-human sources does not alter the evidence for intelligent design itself


not at all- forensic scientists and archeologists do not use equivocation to determine intelligent design, any more than scientists who conclude intelligence in biology do, they use known objective fingerprints.

There are some basic rules in the sciences for what is considered evidence. You probably are guilty of what you are being accused of because I am unaware of any scientific evidence for ID at all.

Are up blind? Guy is pointing out that evidence. How does an archeologist tell whether the dig has unearthed some ancient city or just some unusual rock formation?

In the sciences one must put ones money where one's mouth is, so to speak. To even have evidence the first thing one has to have is a testable scientific hypothesis. If you do not have a testable scientific hypothesis then by definition you do not have scientific evidence.

This comes from the mouth of someone who can't present experimental evidence of macroevolution. And are we supposed to believe that macroevolution is true because some biology professor name Ken Miller says it is true? Since when does taking a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course make you a scientist? Biologists can't even correctly describe the thermodynamics of biological evolution.

Here is the question that almost every creationist dodges, and tacitly admits that they have no evidence by dodging:

What test, based upon the merits of your hypothesis, could possibly refute it? If you cannot think of a way to properly test your ideas then you only have an ad hoc explanation, not a scientific hypothesis and you do not have any scientific evidence.

There is a difference between Creationism and ID. Creationism like abiogenesis has no scientific underpinnings. If you are going to claim something like, "chemical reactions" occur, so just the right kind of chemical reaction you can get a living replicator, give us the experiment that demonstrates this occurring because all the mathematics, chemistry, and physics says the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that it is 0. And your scientific explanation of biological evolution is done at the level of someone whose scientific training consists of a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course. But we shouldn't forget the scientific training you get in your fossil tea-leaf reading course. That's the course where you get the training to explain evolution which happens on the molecular level (DNA) using gross anatomy.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Well there goes abiogenesis and macroevolution for starters!

What makes you think that? Evolution has been tested countless times and has always passed. Whether small hypotheses ore even the theory over all. Abiogenesis on the other hand is not a theory, yet. It is a string of hypotheses dealing with different aspects of abiogenesis. And all of these were testable too. So to the contrary both evolution and the hypotheses of abiogenesis are well supported by scientific evidence.

Reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals has been tested and passed? You can't even explain why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment.

I can't speak for creationists, but as a programmer my assertion is that hierarchical digital information systems are only known to be produced through creative intelligence. So just show me how natural forces could possibly do the same, and that would be a pretty good start for the theory of naturalistic abiogenesis of DNA

But DNA is not "hierarchial digital information". It is more on the order of a recipe. And it is understood, demonstrably so, how new "information" arises. You fail here too.

So DNA is a recipe, anyone wants slop for dinner? Do you want to show for us mathematically how new "information" arises in DNA? You can start with the Kishony experiment.

We are both using a testable, repeatable example of an intelligently designed digital information system right now- we have no such testable hypothesis for 'natural forces; achieving the same

But beyond this mere 'precedent' there are entirely objective identifiable mathematical limitations on natural forces which I would say provides the more conclusive evidence than mere precedent. Math is the most objective measure we have for anything

No, you are not using a testable hypothesis. At least not that I have ever seen. You need to name the hypothesis. Right now it sounds like your "hypothesis" could not even get off the ground since it is likely based upon false premises.

The challenge: Lay out your hypothesis clearly.

Tell us what possible test could refute it.

That mathematical limitation on the natural forces that might cause abiogenesis and limit biological evolution is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Abiogenesis and adaptive DNA evolution are both random processes and the joint probability of random events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. This is clearly demonstrated in both the Kishony and Lenski experiments. This is why abiogenesis didn't and doesn't occur and why adaptive DNA microevolution is limited.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are up blind? Guy is pointing out that evidence. How does an archeologist tell whether the dig has unearthed some ancient city or just some unusual rock formation?


This comes from the mouth of someone who can't present experimental evidence of macroevolution. And are we supposed to believe that macroevolution is true because some biology professor name Ken Miller says it is true? Since when does taking a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course make you a scientist? Biologists can't even correctly describe the thermodynamics of biological evolution.


There is a difference between Creationism and ID. Creationism like abiogenesis has no scientific underpinnings. If you are going to claim something like, "chemical reactions" occur, so just the right kind of chemical reaction you can get a living replicator, give us the experiment that demonstrates this occurring because all the mathematics, chemistry, and physics says the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that it is 0. And your scientific explanation of biological evolution is done at the level of someone whose scientific training consists of a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course. But we shouldn't forget the scientific training you get in your fossil tea-leaf reading course. That's the course where you get the training to explain evolution which happens on the molecular level (DNA) using gross anatomy.

No, Guy is merely hand waving. Like you he does not understand the.concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals has been tested and passed? You can't even explain why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment.


So DNA is a recipe, anyone wants slop for dinner? Do you want to show for us mathematically how new "information" arises in DNA? You can start with the Kishony experiment.



That mathematical limitation on the natural forces that might cause abiogenesis and limit biological evolution is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Abiogenesis and adaptive DNA evolution are both random processes and the joint probability of random events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. This is clearly demonstrated in both the Kishony and Lenski experiments. This is why abiogenesis didn't and doesn't occur and why adaptive DNA microevolution is limited.

Yes. It has been. Sadly, as your failed work demonstrates, you do not understand the nature of evidence. Nor do you understand how concepts are tested. Which is why you don't have evidence for your failed idea. Real scientists working in the field.pointed this out to you and tried to help you with that concept. You did not take advantage of those offers of assistance.

 

[Frank Robert]

but the point above goes beyond this- there are known limitations on nature, and specific fingerprints of intelligence in design, that transcend any particular precedent.

Throughout the ages we have believes that there limits to many things until we learned better with the accumulation of new knowledge. I am not claiming humans will figure everything out but we are only humans after all.

 

[Frank Robert]

This comes from the mouth of someone who can't present experimental evidence of macroevolution. And are we supposed to believe that macroevolution is true because some biology professor name Ken Miller says it is true? Since when does taking a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course make you a scientist? Biologists can't even correctly describe the thermodynamics of biological evolution.

Ken Miller provided a challenge for people who misrepresent evolution due to ignorance. You simply need to define macroevolution. Specifically, you need to tell us "what percentage of genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change." Your warmed-over creationist version "no one has ever seen it" may convince a 6 year old but you need to do better for adults.

I predict that Alan will fail to answer the challenge as he failed to respond to the Peaceful Science challenge.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No, Guy is merely hand waving. Like you he does not understand the.concept of evidence.

The Kishony and Lenski experiments are experimental evidence, but it takes more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics to understand it.

Yes. It has been. Sadly, as your failed work demonstrates, you do not understand the nature of evidence. Nor do you understand how concepts are tested. Which is why you don't have evidence for your failed idea. Real scientists working in the field.pointed this out to you and tried to help you with that concept. You did not take advantage of those offers of assistance.

Real scientists take more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics. It is you who fail to understand the thermodynamics and trivial mathematics of DNA evolution. It is worse than simple-mindedness to claim that DNA is "on the order of a recipe".

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Ken Miller provided a challenge for people who misrepresent evolution due to ignorance. You simply need to define macroevolution. Specifically, you need to tell us "what percentage of genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change." Your warmed-over creationist version "no one has ever seen it" may convince a 6 year old but you need to do better for adults.

I predict that Alan will fail to answer the challenge as he failed to respond to the Peaceful Science challenge.

I've had one communication with Ken Miller, the author of "The Flagellum Unspun". I asked him a question, "What was the purpose of helicase and gyrase before DNA existed?". His answer was "That's a good question". If you think that this biology professor who has taken a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics can explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of macroevolution (which doesn't exist), tell him to explain it here. He won't. In fact, he can't and won't explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of microevolution that actually exists. If you understand the thermodynamics of microevolution, you can predict and explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment and you can correctly explain the mathematics of the Lenski experiment. The difficult part of this is explaining this subject to people that take a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics and think they have mastered the subject of thermodynamics. You have lost contact with reality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The only strong opposition to the Big Bang theory was by the person that gave it that name. You are aware who came up with that, aren't you? Oddly enough he also opposed abiogenesis. Fred Hoyle was a very confused scientist at times. And he has a terrible record when it comes to denying new ideas.

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.[56] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[57]

 

[Frank Robert]

I've had one communication with Ken Miller, the author of "The Flagellum Unspun". I asked him a question, "What was the purpose of helicase and gyrase before DNA existed?". His answer was "That's a good question". If you think that this biology professor who has taken a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics can explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of macroevolution (which doesn't exist), tell him to explain it here. He won't. In fact, he can't and won't explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of microevolution that actually exists. If you understand the thermodynamics of microevolution, you can predict and explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment and you can correctly explain the mathematics of the Lenski experiment. The difficult part of this is explaining this subject to people that take a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics and think they have mastered the subject of thermodynamics. You have lost contact with reality.

You claim many things. Yet when the experts offer you reasonable challenges that will verify your claims all you are able to do is hemorrhage insults, and go on ad nauseam about thermodynamics and Kishony and Lenski. You can convince a 6 year old but you have yet to convince knowledgeable adults. When it come to macroevolution you have thus far been incapable of defining the very thing you say does not exist.

The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Kenneth R. Miller

You can shut all of us up by taking the Peaceful Science and Miller challenges. I already predicted you won't and so fare you have not disappointed us.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.[56] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[57]

Guy, welcome to the discussion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wow! You did not understand the discussion.

First off interstellar travel may be impossible in practice. So saying that one alien race could have populated the galaxy is far from justified. Second the point was that we can only search a very small part of the galaxy using SETI That is why it was overly ambitious. This is improper statistics, but let's use the Earth as an average case in a planet where life arose. For only a very very small fraction of our history has there been intelligent life here. If we apply that to the galaxy as a whole intelligent life would be very rare. Perhaps nonexistent. By no means is that saying that life would not exist elsewhere. Life may be common. Intelligent life probably is not. Star Trek and Star Wars are science fiction.

I have visited the gravesite of the Wright brothers near where some of my family grew up- it struck me that my own father-in-law is old enough, that he may well have passed the inventor of powered flight walking down the street in his home town..

After such a miniscule period of time in human history, far less geological history, we have gone from a few feet of the ground, to space probes leaving the solar system, and orbiting telescopes powerful enough to examine other solar systems for suitability of habitation. What could be achieved in another 100 years, 1000, 100,000?

I'd say the observation fits the math, we are probably alone - belief in ET seems to rely on a fairly narrow assumption; where it is rare enough that not a single race would ever colonize the galaxy, yet still plentiful enough in other galaxies to render humanity gratifyingly 'insignificant'

As a hypothetical, if it could be proven that we are in fact alone- would this shake your atheist beliefs? Or could you write this off as yet one more staggering 'coincidence'?

 

[Frank Robert]

I've never claimed Creationism science. But we are still waiting for you "scientists" to give us an experimental example of macroevolution and describe the mathematical and physical process by which it operates. You can't because macroevolution doesn't exist. In fact, when are you scientists going to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of microevolution? Why don't you explain to us why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment? It really is a trivial probability problem.

The Miller Challange: Define macroevolution. Specifically, you need to tell us "what percentage of genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not even from my link. My link is of an ancestral genus giraffe that was not as tall which consists of 5 different species.

S. africanum Churcher, 1970
S. boissieri Forsyth-Major, 1889 (type)
S. major Bohlin, 1926
S. neumayri Rodler and Weithofer, 1890
S. sinense Bohlin, 1926

The question is whether or not these prehistoric giraffes have more basal features than modern ones, such as having a shorter neck (in lay terms), and in fact, they do have shorter necks.

If prehistoric giraffes only had longer necks, that would be problematic for evolution and would arguably disprove it (if we based our understanding of the theory only in fossils), but because there are short-necked giraffes in the fossil record, this simply supports the theory.

If evolution were hypothetically true, short necked giraffes is exactly what we would expect to find, and so it is. No necked giraffes? No. Longer necked giraffes? No. Short necked giraffes? Yes.

Same with elephants. There are bigger elephants in the fossil record, such as whooly mammoths. But prior to mammoths, there were small elephants going back to paleomastodon. If no tiny elephants existed, the theory would be in trouble. But tiny prehistoric elephants exist just as expected.

South African National Parks - SANParks - Official Website - Accommodation, Activities, Prices, Reservations

Another example, turtles. What would an ancestor turtle look like? Well, maybe a turtle with a partial shell? We ought to expect this logically, and so it is with discovery of prehistoric turtles that only have half shells.

Odontochelys - Wikipedia

If we only ever found turtles with full shells, we might be in trouble. And yet, here we are with fossil turtles that only have half a shell.

But the theory goes much deeper than these simply lay-observations. Cladistics is much more detailed and paints a much more precise picture.

It was from your first link:

Hm, a short necked giraffe:
Fossils of ancient giraffes discovered in Spain show some unexpected features

which clearly points out "the animal was closely related to the common ancestor of sivatherium and samotherium, but it evolved in another direction."

Of course there are other Giraffe-like animals, of course we see similarity in design- what is much more difficult to identify is a record of gradual development occurring as Darwin predicted.

What we generally see are sudden appearances in the record, followed by large periods of virtual stasis- and often decline in size/ sophistication as with the Giraffa Jumae, which was about a meter taller than it's modern decedents and predates your non-ancestor by 4 millions years!

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You claim many things. Yet when the experts offer you reasonable challenges that will verify your claims all you are able to do is hemorrhage insults, and go on ad nauseam about thermodynamics and Kishony and Lenski. You can convince a 6 year old but you have yet to convince knowledgeable adults. When it come to macroevolution you have thus far been incapable of defining the very thing you say does not exist.

You can shut all of us up by taking the Peaceful Science and Miller challenges. I already predicted you won't and so fare you have not disappointed us.

Nothing will shut up mathematically incompetent dogmatists. But if you want an explanation of macroevolution, it is the misguided belief that there is some mechanism for large genetic transformation. There is no experimental evidence for this, there is only experimental evidence of microevolution where DNA microevolutionary adaptation to a single selection pressure requires about 1/(mutation rate) replications for each adaptive evolutionary step on that evolutionary trajectory. The number of replications for each adaptive step for more than a single simultaneous selection pressure goes up exponentially if improvement in fitness requires more than 2 (adaptive) mutations on an evolutionary trajectory. This is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. And you better learn to live with your nausea because the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments give well-measured evidence of this. If biologists took more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math (and breath a big sigh of relief when they barely pass those courses and say "I hope I never see that again) and a survey course in physics where they certainly don't master the laws of thermodynamic, these biologists and you might understand these mathematical and physical facts of life. And of course, this is why biologists can't explain the evolution of drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and why cancer treatments fail. They are too busy living in this fantasy world of macroevolution. No wonder biology is referred to as a soft science, really, soft pseudo-science is a better description of what biologists have made of their field of study.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not even from my link. My link is of an ancestral genus giraffe that was not as tall which consists of 5 different species.

S. africanum Churcher, 1970
S. boissieri Forsyth-Major, 1889 (type)
S. major Bohlin, 1926
S. neumayri Rodler and Weithofer, 1890
S. sinense Bohlin, 1926

The question is whether or not these prehistoric giraffes have more basal features than modern ones, such as having a shorter neck (in lay terms), and in fact, they do have shorter necks.

If prehistoric giraffes only had longer necks, that would be problematic for evolution and would arguably disprove it (if we based our understanding of the theory only in fossils), but because there are short-necked giraffes in the fossil record, this simply supports the theory.

If evolution were hypothetically true, short necked giraffes is exactly what we would expect to find, and so it is. No necked giraffes? No. Longer necked giraffes? No. Short necked giraffes? Yes.

Same with elephants. There are bigger elephants in the fossil record, such as whooly mammoths. But prior to mammoths, there were small elephants going back to paleomastodon. If no tiny elephants existed, the theory would be in trouble. But tiny prehistoric elephants exist just as expected.

South African National Parks - SANParks - Official Website - Accommodation, Activities, Prices, Reservations

Another example, turtles. What would an ancestor turtle look like? Well, maybe a turtle with a partial shell? We ought to expect this logically, and so it is with discovery of prehistoric turtles that only have half shells.

Odontochelys - Wikipedia

If we only ever found turtles with full shells, we might be in trouble. And yet, here we are with fossil turtles that only have half a shell.

But the theory goes much deeper than these simply lay-observations. Cladistics is much more detailed and paints a much more precise picture.

So if we dig through history and see sudden appearances, similarities- some gaps, jumps, redundant features and even some dead ends, but a general trend towards greater sophistication over time- what does this pattern tell you about how these different forms came into existence?