Evidence for macro-evolution

[Hans Blaster]

Patterns refered to by analogy to other patterns are not proof. My main reason to accept microevolution is for the biblical reason that it was not possible to cram the variety of creatures we see today on the Ark so some development of the basic kinds clearly has occurred and on the basis of an historical argument relating to horse and dog breeders over time which are reasonably well documented.

If you are going to invoke evolution to diversify animal kinds post-flood, it is not "microevolution" you are speaking of, but rather "hyperevolution". It would require evolutionary development of new species far faster than any scientific scenario would normally propose and not just for one group of animals but dozens or hundreds branching explosively in to numerous species in a very short time (and extremely limited genetic diversity).

The emergence of DNA analysis and the existence of preserved historical tissue samples also allows interesting comparisons to be made between different creatures that appear to be linked through time, though the links between these becomes harder to prove the greater the deviance without a documented audit trail between samples.

What audit trail is needed that is so hard? If you want to demonstrate genetically the relationship between felines and canines that is demonstrated by the fossil record and the structural similarities of their bodies, all one need to is go to a local vet and get one blood sample labeled "CAT" and one labeled "DOG", sequence their genomes and compare them.

Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens seem to be both fully human. The emergence of DNA analysis is quite exciting but we are all beginners in this area and there are vast dimensions of unexplored coding yet to be included in comparisons. The biblical and historical arguments are the convincing ones for me here rather than the scientific one.

Neither of those "arguments" are particularly impactful to scientific examinations.

 

[sfs]

The emergence of DNA analysis is quite exciting but we are all beginners in this area

This strikes me as rather misleading. Some of us know a great deal about DNA analysis even though there is still much to learn, while those who attack evolution typically know next to nothing about it and wish to project their lack of knowledge onto those who do. The problem is that creationists can't explain the things we do know.

 

[Astrophile]

By what means can you demonstrate biological evolution without a time machine?

From analysis of the succession of fossils and from genetics. To give a specific example, the first fossil apes occur in Late Oligocene or Early Miocene rocks; there are no fossil apes in Eocene, Paleocene or Mesozoic rocks. However, a little thought should convince you that apes (living and fossil) must have had ancestors that lived during Eocene and earlier times. The absence of fossil apes dating from these times implies that Miocene and later apes must have evolved from non-simian Eocene and Mesozoic ancestors.

By the way, do you think that you need a time machine to demonstrate that you and I are descended from ancestors who lived at the time of Aristotle (384-322 BCE)?

 

[Astrophile]

Analogous patterns do not prove connections and especially when alternate explanations exist in a supernatural creation by the same God who designed all creatures and a flood with supernatural elements. I can gossip about how someone usually behaves in a certain way and then suggest on that basis that he did an action on the precise occasion in question and be utterly wrong. Patterns are the same as gossip when the sequence of actual events cannot be substantiated.

Do you think that the scientific data, by themselves, constitute evidence for a naturalistic process of evolution, which you reject only because you prefer to believe in a supernatural creation and a supernatural flood, or do you think that these data are not sufficient evidence for evolution and that they actually require some other explanation?

 

[mindlight]

Do you think that the scientific data, by themselves, constitute evidence for a naturalistic process of evolution, which you reject only because you prefer to believe in a supernatural creation and a supernatural flood, or do you think that these data are not sufficient evidence for evolution and that they actually require some other explanation?

That is an interesting question. Both really.

Christians believe that the creation event was ex nihilo which means that it cannot be explained using a naturalistic paradigm because there was no nature and therefore natural processes before God created. Given the uniqueness of the creation event and indeed the supernatural judgment of the flood also the question marks over origins science are always going to be insurmountable to me except where stuff can be proven.

The data and models about evolution are inconclusive and speculative to an extent that we would not allow in our normal lives as a basis for practical living.

 

[mindlight]

Sure. Anyone can just make up "alternate explanations" based on their imaginations, especially if they also imagine impossible, unprovable things happening like literal magic and deities.

Do you know how forensics works? Are you an advocate for people who have been accused of heinous crimes because no one can prove they did what they're accused of because police and prosecutors don't have time machines? Like, how do you think crimes are solved and criminals convicted? Do you think they have to be seen committing the crime by a review board? How do police solve crimes? Such a mystery!

Forensics is used to identify a person so long as they have a sample from the crime scene and a sample from the actual person. This has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, in your view science cannot make valid inferences about past events merely from the evidence left behind by those events. I get that. What I don't get is how theology is supposed to do that, especially as theology does not rule out the possibility that the inferences drawn by science are reasonable and perhaps even correct.

The creation event was not a natural event and is therefore out of the scope of the methodology of science. We all have favorite tools but you do not use a screwdriver to read a witness statement. We have a primary eyewitness to the creation event in God Himself. Theology is the only way we can talk about creation. Theology also supports the activity of legitimate science because it posits a rule-based universe.

 

[mindlight]

What are these alternative explanations? That's all we ask (and ask often here). And, how does the evidence match these explanations?

Mankind has lived with uncertainty for most of its existence. What we cannot know we will not know whatever stories we fill the cloud of unknowing with. God did it, is an explanation that works but requires trust/faith.

 

[mindlight]

If you are going to invoke evolution to diversify animal kinds post-flood, it is not "microevolution" you are speaking of, but rather "hyperevolution". It would require evolutionary development of new species far faster than any scientific scenario would normally propose and not just for one group of animals but dozens or hundreds branching explosively in to numerous species in a very short time (and extremely limited genetic diversity).

What audit trail is needed that is so hard? If you want to demonstrate genetically the relationship between felines and canines that is demonstrated by the fossil record and the structural similarities of their bodies, all one need to is go to a local vet and get one blood sample labeled "CAT" and one labeled "DOG", sequence their genomes and compare them.

Neither of those "arguments" are particularly impactful to scientific examinations.

I agree the development was incredibly rapid but this is not without historically observable precedence. For example the "Victorian Explosion" in dog breeding

From Wolves to Pugs & Great Danes - the Evolution of Man's Best Friend

March 19, 2020 – Learn about the evolution of dogs and how they went from wolves to the loving pets we keep in our homes.

www.morrisanimalfoundation.org

Experts suggest that it only takes three generations to breed an entirely new breed of dog.

Establishing links between identified samples is the basic problem with fossils and DNA. We can see similarities in patterns but the links between the two are more questionable the greater the deviance. Because there is no documented historical path between one fossil and another the modeling of these into a common theory of ancestry and path of evolution is always going to be speculative.

The historical and theological arguments are more conclusive regarding microevolution because there is no scientifically verifiable argument here.

 

[mindlight]

This strikes me as rather misleading. Some of us know a great deal about DNA analysis even though there is still much to learn, while those who attack evolution typically know next to nothing about it and wish to project their lack of knowledge onto those who do. The problem is that creationists can't explain the things we do know.

How does your expertise in DNA analysis lead you to believe in macro-evolution? Is your model speculative or could you demonstrate the links and pathways you suggest?

 

[SelfSim]

Theology also supports the activity of legitimate science because it posits a rule-based universe.

.. and science doesn't posit any notions .. especially the existence of a 'rule-based universe'.
Science commences with no assumptions.
Science infers physical laws after reviewing observational data.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is your model speculative or could you demonstrate the links and pathways you suggest?

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[mindlight]

From analysis of the succession of fossils and from genetics. To give a specific example, the first fossil apes occur in Late Oligocene or Early Miocene rocks; there are no fossil apes in Eocene, Paleocene or Mesozoic rocks. However, a little thought should convince you that apes (living and fossil) must have had ancestors that lived during Eocene and earlier times. The absence of fossil apes dating from these times implies that Miocene and later apes must have evolved from non-simian Eocene and Mesozoic ancestors.

By the way, do you think that you need a time machine to demonstrate that you and I are descended from ancestors who lived at the time of Aristotle (384-322 BCE)?

Creationists mainly explain the geological layers in terms of a single catastrophic event which seems also contain supernatural elements. So the positioning of fossils in those layers does not provide a billion-year calendar and order of succession. You have no way of demonstrating that it does.

No Aristotle's DNA and my own are unlikely to show much deviance though everyone has their unique genomes. But I think I would reach further back to Moses and Abraham, Noah and Adam for my true ancestry - spiritual and physical. Again the difference between establishing identity of type and positing pathways between kinds is the main issue here.

 

[mindlight]

.. and science doesn't posit any notions .. especially the existence of a 'rule-based universe'.
Science commences with no assumptions.
Science infers physical laws after reviewing observational data.

In other words, you find what theologians have already told you is there.

 

[Shemjaza]

Patterns refered to by analogy to other patterns are not proof.

In any reasonable colloquial sense like you've been using they absolutely are.

Just like you don't need to be an eye witness to find proof of the guilt of a murderer.

My main reason to accept microevolution is for the biblical reason that it was not possible to cram the variety of creatures we see today on the Ark so some development of the basic kinds clearly has occurred and on the basis of an historical argument relating to horse and dog breeders over time which are reasonably well documented.

You accept it because it lines up with your interpretation of a story that is completely impossible according to all presented evidence.

The emergence of DNA analysis and the existence of preserved historical tissue samples also allows interesting comparisons to be made between different creatures that appear to be linked through time, though the links between these becomes harder to prove the greater the deviance without a documented audit trail between samples.

Why is it harder to prove? The same system works to demonstrate if someone is a sibling, cousin or from a common family in the animal kingdom.

Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens seem to be both fully human.

What does that mean?

How does one measure the "humanity" of a fossil?

Homo erectus and Homo habilis are tool crafters but would never be able to pass for any modern human or chimp.

The emergence of DNA analysis is quite exciting but we are all beginners in this area and there are vast dimensions of unexplored coding yet to be included in comparisons.

Yes, and the evidence has been comprehensive in its support for evolutionary theory.

The biblical and historical arguments are the convincing ones for me here rather than the scientific one.

Why?

 

[mindlight]

Are you aware of any data that demonstrates
that there was no biblical flood?

Nothing conclusive.

 

[Shemjaza]

Regarding the orbit of Pluto that is not the same as substantiating evolution. We know that the inner planets orbit the sun, not least because we inhabit one of these and can check the angles and distances with trigonometry. We also know that gravity has a relationship with mass such that the smaller moon goes around the earth and the smaller earth goes round the sun. The smaller moons go round the larger Jupiter etc. If we doubt the math we can send spaceships to directly confirm this and take pictures here and now.

We know that Pluto exists because we have seen it and we can measure its trajectory, by observing its path across the sky also. It behaves exactly like all the other planets and planetoids with variations in its path explicable in terms of the tug of gravity by alternate known bodies on its orbit.

So much of this analysis can be directly confirmed by anyone with a basic understanding of trigonometry, a good enough telescope or indeed a spaceship. There are enough competing actors now to confirm that one person with the tools is not making up the story as there are now multiple people with the tools to demonstrate this.

You cannot do this with evolution, the timespans do not allow it. It would be the same as suggesting we could observe an unilluminated 1 billion year orbit of a planetoid at a great distance from the sun and where the presence of alternate gravitational influences could only be guessed upon. Purely speculative in other words.

Can you explain the maths of your reasoning?

Because we have the exact same process directly observable micro evolution and inference of gross scale macro evolution. Also unlike your hypothetical distant planetoid we have a trail to follow in modern genetics and fossil remnants.

 

[SelfSim]

In other words, you find what theologians have already told you is there.

No .. they aren't rules .. they're empirical laws .. go look it up!

 

[NxNW]

Then it is not science.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You only get actual proof in math.

You can prove the Earth goes round the sun and is broadly spherical.

No, you only have evidence, but not proof. However, the evidence is very strong, just as it is for evolution.

Evolution does not have the same level of certainty at all.

A few years ago I sat in the same room with a whole panel of Nobel Prize winners. They unanimously agreed that Darwin is the greatest scientist of all time, and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the greatest scientific achievement of all time.

 

[Shemjaza]

Nothing conclusive.

No genetic evidence of a recent bottleneck in humans or animals.

No sedimentary evidence of a global flood.

Global examples of sedimentary structures that would be destroyed by the pressures of a global flood.

Population dynamics that make the survival of animals impossible with the proportions of Ark survivors.

Archaeological evidence of human civilisation covering the span of time apparently including total devastation.

Geological evidence for millions and millions of years of events inconsistent with Creation/Flood narrative.


The global flood narrative is completely impossible unless we assume direct and deliberately deceptive miraculous intervention.