A biologist challenges evolution

[doubtingmerle]

In a thread that will not die, evolution has been thrown into the mix. That topic deserves a thread of its own.

I am talking to a biologist. I mentioned the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent (talkorigins.org) . He responded:

I don't have time to go thru all 29, pick the three you think are the best evidences and I will respond.

OK, I will start with two.

First, let's look at Transitional forms. (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)) This was the deciding factor for me. I had been arguing on the Internet that evolution was impossible, but when I saw the evidence that the mammalian ear evolved from the reptilian ear, I knew I could not refute it. And soon I found myself believing it. And once a creationist believes that mammals evolved from reptiles, the whole Creationist argument crashes down all around him, like a big house of cards.

Next lets hit nested heirarchies. (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org) ) You tell me you are a professional biologist, and that you believe there were many acts of Creation at approximately the genus level. You say micro-evolution proceeded from there. If this is true, it should be easy to tell where the splits between created kinds occur. Take for instance, the Asian black bear. Is it related by blood to the American black bear? The sun bear? The polar bear? The sloth bear? The Giant Panda? The Red Panda? Lions? Where do you put the split, and how do you know this is where the split belongs? What is related to the Asian black bear?

Actually recent research has shown the famous horse series to be false.

Flapdoodle. See Horse Evolution (talkorigins.org)

Miohippus' ancestor was supposedly Mesohippus but actually Miohippus is now found in the fossil record before Mesohippus therefore eliminating Mesohippus as its ancestor

My understanding is that Mesohippus and Miohippus are cousins that lived at the same time. The common ancestor was thought to be closer to the Mesohippus. What is your source that that Miohippus was first? And why does it matter?

and some of the fossils are not even related at all to modern horses such as Protohippus.

Absolutely. That is what evolution does. It branches out in many ways. Not all branches survive.

But also some of it may be microevolution of the horse kind or genus or family.

We have identified multiple genera in the horse family. It is not simply change within a genus.

There is a pattern leading from eohippus to modern horses. Why does the fossil record look so much like evolution?

I didnt say it was always done from scratch, some organisms in a family may have just had their genes tweaked by God. But of course, God does not violate His laws, He just suspends them temporarily on rare occasions.

Ah, the concept of God popping a new specimen into existence every time there is a new genus is hard to swallow, huh?

Did a card just fall from your creation house of cards?

So now you think God could have taken a previous genera that was close to what he wanted, and tweaked it to get a new genera?

Can I propose that the process of tweaking is known as mutation and natural selection?

No, that is not my argument. According to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, life can only come from life. This was established by the great Louis Pasteur.

Uh, Pasteur found that, in the timeframe of making beer, yeast comes only from previous yeast. He never tested if, given many millions of years, a primordial soup could yield yeast.

And language and love have only been empirically observed coming from personal beings.

False. A non-personal batch of chemicals can become a person.

I know, I was once two batches of chemicals, a sperm and an egg. And observe. I became a person.

I dont deny that there is some evidence for evolution, just not enough to convince me.

How many evidences would it take to convince you? (I got 29.)

Maybe God used evolution to create us but as I said logic strongly points to the ultimate cause being personal.

I have seen your logic, such as The Argument from Cat Vomit. I am not convinced.

Genetic entropy is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy.

Is it the same as anything? What is genetic entropy?

It appears your argument is nothing more than an argument from analogy. You make up genetic entropy, which is analogous to thermodynamic entropy. Thermodynamic entropy can decrease in an open system, but conveniently, your made-up genetic entropy has no analogy to heat and mass transfer. So it can go downhill only.

That's not very convincing.

Scientific studies.

You are responding to the question, "How do you know that 4.5 billion years is not enough time for evolution?" And you have studies to verify this? OK, I have a follow up question: What studies?

 

[pitabread]

I am talking to a biologist.

Are you sure about that?

I mean, they said this: "According to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, life can only come from life."

That's not something I would expect an actual biologist to say.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is what he claims. Yes, I have my doubts, but I certainly owe it to him to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[pitabread]

Is it the same as anything? What is genetic entropy?

I just responded in the other thread. He's referring to something John Sanford made up. Basically, Sanford came up with a model based on a misinterpretation of Kimura's model of neutral evolution, whereby Sanford believes that accumulation of detrimental mutations over time will lead to eventual extinction of the population in question.

AFAIK, there is no empirical basis for this and it's contradicted by empirical evidence. For example: Evolution at a High Imposed Mutation Rate: Adaptation Obscures the Load in Phage T7

Evolution at high mutation rates is expected to reduce population fitness deterministically by the accumulation of deleterious mutations. A high enough rate should even cause extinction (lethal mutagenesis), a principle motivating the clinical use of mutagenic drugs to treat viral infections. The impact of a high mutation rate on long-term viral fitness was tested here. A large population of the DNA bacteriophage T7 was grown with a mutagen, producing a genomic rate of 4 nonlethal mutations per generation, two to three orders of magnitude above the baseline rate. Fitness—viral growth rate in the mutagenic environment—was predicted to decline substantially; after 200 generations, fitness had increased, rejecting the model.
​

The interesting thing is that if Sanford was correct, such a claim would have direct application in antibiotics and antiviral drug development (e.g. cause the respective organisms to mutate into extinction). Yet it appears that is simply not the case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

some organisms in a family may have just had their genes tweaked by God. But of course, God does not violate His laws, He just suspends them temporarily on rare occasions.

"Any time my description doesn't fit the evidence, God-did-it." As soon as this is asserted, it makes the whole evidential argument moot.

It's special pleading.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you sure about that?

I mean, they said this: "According to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, life can only come from life."

That's not something I would expect an actual biologist to say.

The 'Law of Biogenesis' was intended as a refutation of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis, and it's not really scientific law - Pasteur showed that sterile meat broth sealed from the air didn't grow any life, but sterile meat broth exposed to air did.

That wasn't really a test of spontaneous generation; it just showed that air contains living things that could cause mistaken attribution to spontaneous generation. I suppose it was 'folk-science'.

 

[pitabread]

The 'Law of Biogenesis' was intended as a refutation of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis, and it's not really scientific law - Pasteur showed that sterile meat broth sealed from the air didn't grow any life, but sterile meat broth exposed to air did.

That wasn't really a test of spontaneous generation; it just showed that air contains living things that could cause mistaken attribution to spontaneous generation. I suppose it was 'folk-science'.

Which is doubly why I find it odd that someone claiming to be a biologist would invoke it in a discussion without an apparent appreciation for the context thereof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which is doubly why I find it odd that someone claiming to be a biologist would invoke it in a discussion without an apparent appreciation for the context thereof.

Yes; the most charitable explanation that occurs to me is the Dunning-Kruger effect...

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes; the most charitable explanation that occurs to me is the Dunning-Kruger effect...

That doesn't account for the decision to self identify as a biologist...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That doesn't account for the decision to self identify as a biologist...

I was thinking it might be that he calls himself a biologist because he doesn't realise quite what that entails.

But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Astrid]

That doesn't account for the decision to self identify as a biologist...

We are reminded of a grade school teacher chirping
" You are all little scientists" after having her class
conduct some simple experiment.

 

[BobRyan]

First, let's look at Transitional forms. (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)) This was the deciding factor for me. I had been arguing on the Internet that evolution was impossible, but when I saw the evidence that the mammalian ear evolved from the reptilian ear, I knew I could not refute it. And soon I found myself believing it.

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.

Maybe to get the right context you should have started by seeing if you could "believe" the smooth orthogenic transition sequence for the horse hoof still on display at the Smithsonian demonstrating fraud that lasted well over 50 years.

 

[Astrid]

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.

Maybe to get the right context you should have started by seeing if you could "believe" the smooth orthogenic transition sequence for the horse hoof still on display at the Smithsonian demonstrating fraud that lasted well over 50 years.

"Fraud" is quite a charge. Can you demonstrate that there
is or was fraud?
Are you aware of any creationist frauds?

 

[doubtingmerle]

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.

Why do you put "believe" in scare quotes?

I started to believe that mammals evolved from reptiles because that is what the evidence showed. It had nothing to do with choosing to believe something. It had everything to do with getting new evidence, and evaluating that evidence.

Maybe to get the right context you should have started by seeing if you could "believe" the smooth orthogenic transition sequence for the horse hoof still on display at the Smithsonian demonstrating fraud that lasted well over 50 years.

What are you talking about? I tried searching for this alleged fraud on google and can't even find it.

Regardless, there is clear evidence that the modern horse evolved from something like the eohippus over many millions of years. Do you agree? If not, why do we find all the horse family transitional fossils that indicate this happened?

 

[Astrid]

Why do you put "believe" in scare quotes?

I started to believe that mammals evolved from reptiles because that is what the evidence showed. It had nothing to do with choosing to believe something. It had everything to do with getting new evidence, and evaluating that evidence.

What are you talking about? I tried searching for this alleged fraud on google and can't even find it.

Regardless, there is clear evidence that the modern horse evolved from something like the eohippus over many millions of years. Do you agree? If not, why do we find all the horse family transitional fossils that indicate this happened?

That fraud-claim is nothing compared to the one about
discovering a secret museum room where people busy
carving (more) fake fossil bones.

 

[BobRyan]

First, let's look at Transitional forms. (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)) This was the deciding factor for me. I had been arguing on the Internet that evolution was impossible, but when I saw the evidence that the mammalian ear evolved from the reptilian ear, I knew I could not refute it. And soon I found myself believing it.

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.

Why do you put "believe" in scare quotes?
I started to believe that mammals evolved from reptiles because that is what the evidence showed. I

quotes for emphasis -- you view as "scary"?? seriously?

Maybe to get the right context you should have started by seeing if you could "believe" the smooth orthogenic transition sequence for the horse hoof still on display at the Smithsonian demonstrating fraud that lasted well over 50 years.

What are you talking about? I tried searching for this alleged fraud on google and can't even find it.

Othaniel Marsh came up with that fraud 50 years before it got put in as a Smithsonian exhibit, a purely fabricated fossil sequence showing smooth orthogenic transitions from eohippus to modern horse , which was shortly after Simpson included it in his book.

from: 18.5E: The Fossil Record and the Evolution of the Modern Horse

"The original sequence of species believed to have evolved into the horse was based on fossils discovered in North America in the 1870s by paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The sequence, from Eohippus to the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely known examples of a clear evolutionary progression. The sequence of transitional fossils was assembled by the American Museum of Natural History into an exhibit that emphasized the gradual, “straight-line” evolution of the horse."

The Fact Of Creation: The evolution of the horse series is a fraud

Are you familiar with atheist evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould and "Punctuated Equilibrium"

 

[Speedwell]

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.



quotes for emphasis -- you view as "scary"?? seriously?

They're called scare quotes. In this forum they are assumed to denigrated the term they surround and using them that way is a reportable offense.

 

[BobRyan]

That fraud-claim is nothing compared to the one about
discovering a secret museum room where people busy
carving (more) fake fossil bones.

Did that claim also get installed in the Smithsonian as an exhibit just like Othaniel Marsh's?

 

[Astrid]

you have free will and are free to "believe" anything you wish - of course.



quotes for emphasis -- you view as "scary"?? seriously?

Maybe to get the right context you should have started by seeing if you could "believe" the smooth orthogenic transition sequence for the horse hoof still on display at the Smithsonian demonstrating fraud that lasted well over 50 years.



Othaniel Marsh came up with that fraud 50 years before it got put in as a Smithsonian exhibit, a purely fabricated fossil sequence showing smooth orthogenic transitions from eohippus to modern horse , which was shortly after Simpson included it in his book.

from: 18.5E: The Fossil Record and the Evolution of the Modern Horse

"The original sequence of species believed to have evolved into the horse was based on fossils discovered in North America in the 1870s by paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The sequence, from Eohippus to the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely known examples of a clear evolutionary progression. The sequence of transitional fossils was assembled by the American Museum of Natural History into an exhibit that emphasized the gradual, “straight-line” evolution of the horse."

The Fact Of Creation: The evolution of the horse series is a fraud

Are you familiar with atheist evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould and "Punctuated Equilibrium"

The claim of fraud is itsself the only fake there.
If there were a real issue with ToE, phony
claims from woo woo sources would be unnecessary.

An actual resesrcher would be the one to find the
disproof.
As long as no disproof is found, all the attempts to
snipe such as that one are just silly.
You nor anyone has an actual fact contrary to ToE.

The are lots of real ( and silly ) creo-frauds.
For a balanced presentation, wouldst care
to name some?

 

[BobRyan]

The claim of fraud is itsself the only fake there.

Is it your claim that anyone who admits that Othaniel Marsh created a fraudulent sequence -- is then engaged in a fake?

That would be almost all the world-class atheist evolutionists that you are condemning in that case as they all admit to the fact that Marsh's work was fraudulent.