Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

[ThatCanadianDude_88]

Hello Everyone

This thread is mostly directed to TEs. I have been studying evolution for years and learned a lot on the topic, I would simply like to raise some key issues and see what the pro-evolution community here thinks. I am not here to argue or prove a point, I just want to present some observations and possibly get some feedback. Feel free to pick and choose points if you find answering them all might be too much for you, I can understand things can get quickly comprehensive when discussing these kinds of topics.

Note that I intentionally use the term Darwinian evolution, I want to make it clear what it is I am discussing. I do not want to get lost in terminology or shifty definitions. Universal common descent through natural selection and random mutation.

Macro-evolution: The commonplace argument of evolutionists is that there is no distinction between large scale or small scale evolution, it's just all evolution. Yet the reason why macro-evolution was introduced in the first place was due to the observation that micro-variations are not enough to explain universal common descent (UCD), and that something distinct had to happen in order for species to become entirely new species - translating to complete overhauls of biological make-up. Is the macro-evolution argument not valid, and should it not be viewed and treated uniquely?

Evolution is a fact: Should we call evolution a fact? Is not the actual observed fact genetics? Is it not impossible to empirically verify evolution due to time scale? I would think earth's record of life, the geological column and fossil record, should be the most critical and central forms of evidence. My point: how can we consider evolution fact when, practically speaking, it hinges on our interpretation of the fossil record, emphasis on the word interpretation. The whole point of a scientific fact is that no interpretation is required for it to be demonstrated true. The issue I have is classifying Darwinian evolution as a fact.

Fossil record: Is not the fossil record incompatible with Darwinian evolution? Stasis dominates the trends, phyletic gradualism is not what the evidence suggests. I would think this is a very pertinent issue, considering the introduction of certain theories such as PE, which suggests that at least some scientists are objective enough to understand what the fossil record is saying, yet at the same time still hold to evolution. Is not PE ad hoc?

Cambrian explosion: Fundamental period in the biological narrative of life on earth. The claim is that this isn't a problem for DE, or is it? Namely, the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history. Wouldn't DE be an inconclusive theory at best?

Random mutations: My biggest qualm with DE. It seems DE requires a pseudo form of mutations that do not exist. We know that random mutations are contingencies in the genome, more than 99% of them being deleterious or benign and thus have no bearing on evolution. DE requires what I refer to as a "god" mechanism, considering all the work that is required for the remapping, revamping and readapting of entire genomes. Is modern science truly being honest in how it is using the random mutation clause...I have seen instances where it is not known or understood how something evolved, but the assumption is that it "evolved" with scientists making it a matter of X mutations over Y amount of time, an example of this is being...

The Human brain: Mutations in brain-related genes invariably produce reduced fitness and often to an astronomical degree. Consider the LUCA between the chimp and human, 5-7 million years, and the fact that it would have required a brain overhaul - thousands of mutations across thousands of brain related genes - in order for evolution to have produced the human brain, a revamping of the genetic underpinnings. Considering the time span and the complete lack of means via mutation, is it a viable position to deny that the human brain is a product of evolutionary processes?

 

[sfs]

Macro-evolution: The commonplace argument of evolutionists is that there is no distinction between large scale or small scale evolution, it's just all evolution. Yet the reason why macro-evolution was introduced in the first place was due to the observation that micro-variations are not enough to explain universal common descent (UCD), and that something distinct had to happen in order for species to become entirely new species - translating to complete overhauls of biological make-up.

No, that's completely wrong. Distinguishing micro- and macroevolution has nothing to do with speciation being a complete biological overhaul, since the latter is simply wrong. There is debate among biologists about whether the additional processes involved in macroevolution mean we should think about them differently. Most obviously, speciation and extinction are processes that don't occur within the evolution of a single specie, but there may be others as well. For example, do generalist species evolve differently than specialist species? Are there lineages that speciate more easily, and how does that difference change the way they evolve? Those are the kinds of things evolutionary biologists are thinking about -- what you describe has nothing whatever to do with real biology.

Evolution is a fact: Should we call evolution a fact?

Sure. That is, we should call common descent a fact. I do.

Is not the actual observed fact genetics? Is it not impossible to empirically verify evolution due to time scale? I would think earth's record of life, the geological column and fossil record, should be the most critical and central forms of evidence. My point: how can we consider evolution fact when, practically speaking, it hinges on our interpretation of the fossil record, emphasis on the word interpretation. The whole point of a scientific fact is that no interpretation is required for it to be demonstrated true.

You misunderstand the nature of facts. All facts, scientific or not, are the product of interpretation, excepting maybe raw sense impressions. Facts are models we build about the world around us that we have enough confidence in to treat as true descriptions. We don't directly observe genetics any more than we directly observe evolution; they're both built on complex webs of interpretation. The question is always how well supported the interpretations are -- and common descent is very well supported indeed, especially by genetics.

Fossil record: Is not the fossil record incompatible with Darwinian evolution? Stasis dominates the trends, phyletic gradualism is not what the evidence suggests. I would think this is a very pertinent issue, considering the introduction of certain theories such as PE, which suggests that at least some scientists are objective enough to understand what the fossil record is saying, yet at the same time still hold to evolution. Is not PE ad hoc?

Some parts of the fossil record look like phyletic gradualism while some look like PE, and which are which is pretty subjective -- and that's when there's enough fine-grained evidence to be able to say anything at all. PE is only about stasis within individual species, after all, not about longer-term change like the evolution of primates or whales. Evolutionary biology doesn't really tell us a priori what to expect about how often different kinds of speciation occur; that's something we have to look at empirical evidence for.

Cambrian explosion: Fundamental period in the biological narrative of life on earth. The claim is that this isn't a problem for DE, or is it? Namely, the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history. Wouldn't DE be an inconclusive theory at best?

Not really my field, so I won't venture a detailed answer, but I don't see any contradiction in what you've written between observation and DE.

Random mutations: My biggest qualm with DE. It seems DE requires a pseudo form of mutations that do not exist. We know that random mutations are contingencies in the genome, more than 99% of them being deleterious or benign and thus have no bearing on evolution.

That's not exactly true. A lot of neutral mutations have no effect on fitness themselves, but they do open up lots of possible changes to be introduced by subsequent mutations. Check out Andreas Wagner's book, Arrival of the Fittest, for a good description.

DE requires what I refer to as a "god" mechanism, considering all the work that is required for the remapping, revamping and readapting of entire genomes.

Revamping of entire genomes happens very rarely in evolution. There is no revamping required between humans and chimpanzees, for example. In situations in which there has been substantial rewiring of regulatory networks, what evidence we have is that mutational processes were involved. For example, changes required for the development of the placenta are heavily dependent on a set of transposons, which are introduced to the genome as a kind of mutation.

The Human brain: Mutations in brain-related genes invariably produce reduced fitness

Where did you get that idea? I don't know of any evidence that that's the case.

 

[Uber Genius]

Hello Everyone

This thread is mostly directed to TEs. I have been studying evolution for years and learned a lot on the topic, I would simply like to raise some key issues and see what the pro-evolution community here thinks. I am not here to argue or prove a point, I just want to present some observations and possibly get some feedback. Feel free to pick and choose points if you find answering them all might be too much for you, I can understand things can get quickly comprehensive when discussing these kinds of topics.

Note that I intentionally use the term Darwinian evolution, I want to make it clear what it is I am discussing. I do not want to get lost in terminology or shifty definitions. Universal common descent through natural selection and random mutation.

Macro-evolution: The commonplace argument of evolutionists is that there is no distinction between large scale or small scale evolution, it's just all evolution. Yet the reason why macro-evolution was introduced in the first place was due to the observation that micro-variations are not enough to explain universal common descent (UCD), and that something distinct had to happen in order for species to become entirely new species - translating to complete overhauls of biological make-up. Is the macro-evolution argument not valid, and should it not be viewed and treated uniquely?

Evolution is a fact: Should we call evolution a fact? Is not the actual observed fact genetics? Is it not impossible to empirically verify evolution due to time scale? I would think earth's record of life, the geological column and fossil record, should be the most critical and central forms of evidence. My point: how can we consider evolution fact when, practically speaking, it hinges on our interpretation of the fossil record, emphasis on the word interpretation. The whole point of a scientific fact is that no interpretation is required for it to be demonstrated true. The issue I have is classifying Darwinian evolution as a fact.

Fossil record: Is not the fossil record incompatible with Darwinian evolution? Stasis dominates the trends, phyletic gradualism is not what the evidence suggests. I would think this is a very pertinent issue, considering the introduction of certain theories such as PE, which suggests that at least some scientists are objective enough to understand what the fossil record is saying, yet at the same time still hold to evolution. Is not PE ad hoc?

Cambrian explosion: Fundamental period in the biological narrative of life on earth. The claim is that this isn't a problem for DE, or is it? Namely, the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history. Wouldn't DE be an inconclusive theory at best?

Random mutations: My biggest qualm with DE. It seems DE requires a pseudo form of mutations that do not exist. We know that random mutations are contingencies in the genome, more than 99% of them being deleterious or benign and thus have no bearing on evolution. DE requires what I refer to as a "god" mechanism, considering all the work that is required for the remapping, revamping and readapting of entire genomes. Is modern science truly being honest in how it is using the random mutation clause...I have seen instances where it is not known or understood how something evolved, but the assumption is that it "evolved" with scientists making it a matter of X mutations over Y amount of time, an example of this is being...

The Human brain: Mutations in brain-related genes invariably produce reduced fitness and often to an astronomical degree. Consider the LUCA between the chimp and human, 5-7 million years, and the fact that it would have required a brain overhaul - thousands of mutations across thousands of brain related genes - in order for evolution to have produced the human brain, a revamping of the genetic underpinnings. Considering the time span and the complete lack of means via mutation, is it a viable position to deny that the human brain is a product of evolutionary processes?

So here is one of the challenges. What are the ground rules for discussing various competing explanatory inferences about things in our world?

The reason I don't aim my epistemology at just science is that all science can do is discuss cause and effect relationships within physical entities. So if we are to propose that say God was part of a causal relationship, a scientist could say what experiment could we devise that would demonstrate the truth or falsehood of such an inference.

We can pick apart aspects of NDE as disconfirming, such as the sudden arisal of all major animal phyla in a period of 40-50 million years in the precambrian explosion. We could highlight the problem of millions of generations of e coli in lab conditions not producing speciations (similar to 80+ years of drosophila experiments) but these just disconfirmations.

We do need to ask for evidence not ad hoc accounts that have made careers of Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, and are not possibly falsifiable. But on the ID, we must limit our expectations to the inference that the only way we have of accounting for such dramatic shifts in amount of specified and complex data is intelligence. Science will not be able to take us further, but rather, serve in support of a premise that the best explanation of such features being present and causally necessary for biological diversification is an intelligence that wanted to populate the earth with plants, animals, and rational beings.

Note: When someone mislabels a theory (hypothesis that has been proven repeatedly to be reliable), a fact, we know we have moved into the realm of both ignorance as well as propaganda. Just click the "ignore" option on their profile and you will have a much better chance of learning something reasonable moving forward.

 

[sfs]

Note: When someone mislabels a theory (hypothesis that has been proven repeatedly to be reliable), a fact, we know we have moved into the realm of both ignorance as well as propaganda. Just click the "ignore" option on their profile and you will have a much better chance of learning something reasonable moving forward.

Hmm. Presumably this is a not-very-subtle attempt to dismiss my response without actually engaging it. The accusation of ignorance is a nice touch, especially since I undoubtedly know far more about both evolutionary biology and the practice of science than you do. Style points for the display of bravado. (Zero points for content, though.)

 

[Uber Genius]

Hmm. Presumably this is a not-very-subtle attempt to dismiss my response without actually engaging it. The accusation of ignorance is a nice touch, especially since I undoubtedly know far more about both evolutionary biology and the practice of science than you do. Style points for the display of bravado. (Zero points for content, though.)

No. I actually had you on "ignored" previously and didn't see your point just the person's point to which I responded. I had a message in "watched posts" that ignored content was available. I clicked on it and voila, your fallacious claim about scientific knowledge appeared. More a logical dodge than fallacy as the topic was how one gains knowledge rather than science. Your comment was a non-sequitur. You proved you were unable to distinguish from philosophy of science, and science. You are making my point. Back to "ignored" with you.

 

[sfs]

No. I actually had you on "ignored" previously and didn't see your point just the person's point to which I responded. I had a message in "watched posts" that ignored content was available. I clicked on it and voila, your fallacious claim about scientific knowledge appeared. More a logical dodge than fallacy as the topic was how one gains knowledge rather than science. Your comment was a non-sequitur. You proved you were unable to distinguish from philosophy of science, and science. You are making my point. Back to "ignored" with you.

I guess it's easier to be convinced of your own genius if you ignore everyone who points out your errors.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hello Everyone
Cambrian explosion: Fundamental period in the biological narrative of life on earth. The claim is that this isn't a problem for DE, or is it? Namely, the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history. Wouldn't DE be an inconclusive theory at best?

Regarding the cambrian explosion, you made the statement "the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history".

But this is actually an incorrect statement and is a common misconception. Prior to the cambrian explosion, we actually have found fossil precursors such as: anabarites, arthropod trace fossils (things like trilobite tracks) archaeocyathans (proto-sponges), brachiopods (like shellfish/bivalves), invertebrate burrows. We also have things like microscopic shelled organisms and more...

The cambrian explosion isnt actually an anomolous event in which novel forms just appeared out of thin air, rather fossil precursors such as the ones identified above, predate the explosion in some cases by up to 50 million years. And of course there are the ediacaran biota as well, though these are not considered ancestral to organisms of the burgess shale and simply went extinct.

So, the question remains, if the cambrian explosion wasnt the initial appearance of life, then why does it exist in the fossil record?

And there are a number of possibilities. Some well supported. The most well known response to this question is that life developed shells for the first time. Soft bodied organisms of 600 million years in age, often went un-fossilized. We have rare laagerstaaten in which soft bodied organisms have fossilized, but these are rare and most life would not have become fossilized as they were soft and decay and degrade easily. Whereas shelled organisms...well, a shell is hard and dense and can last a very long time. So, when life evolved shells, all of a sudden we have the appearance of a vast plethora of organisms. Well, not just shells, but other hard parts too, like teeth, spines etc. And essentially what we have is an evolutionary arms race, where predators force natural selection to push prey toward developing shelled and horned defenses. Shelled and horned defenses push predators to develop weapons such as the hardened mouth and shrimp like claws of anomalocaris.


This unfolded, also in a time in which the supercontinent rodinia was rifting, which presumably would have produced a warm temperate environment for life to thrive, along side the ending of what evidence has depicted as a global ice age in prior times.

And some concepts are up for debate and discussion, but one thing is for sure, many complex forms of life/precursors existed some tens of millions of years prior to the cambrian explosion, which is far more than enough time for the diversification that is observed in the cambrian at large to be explained by a form of gradualistic evolution.

If you would like sources on any if the above information, feel free to ask.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hello Everyone

Fossil record: Is not the fossil record incompatible with Darwinian evolution? Stasis dominates the trends, phyletic gradualism is not what the evidence suggests. I would think this is a very pertinent issue, considering the introduction of certain theories such as PE, which suggests that at least some scientists are objective enough to understand what the fossil record is saying, yet at the same time still hold to evolution. Is not PE ad hoc?

PE is more of a matter of interpretation. If I have two layers of rock, the lower layer being 300 million years old, and the upper being 310 million years old, i would not be able to perceive changes that occurred in the years 301-309 million years ago. In some cases this may be exaggerated. But from a geologic stance, when you begin looking at rocks that are say, <5 million years apart, we might have trouble seeing evolutionary change just because it becomes too short a period of time to differentiate.

For example, in the image above. We have a date for the Mobridge member of the pierre shale at 68.4 million years old, plus or minus .4 which is 400 thousand years, with a layer below it (the virgin creek member) dated at 70.7 plus or minus 400,000.

So, you could be looking at anywhere from 1.5 to 3.1 million years of time between those two particular members.

So if you have a fossil ancestor in the virgin creek member, and a fossil descendant in the mobridge member, you might see an abrupt jump, or you might see only a slight or small change. But even if you saw an abrupt jump, this wouldnt necessarily mean that the organisms evolved abruptly, because remember the layers are separated by perhaps 1.5-3.1 million years.

PE is a proposal made by people who look at fossils. And as people who look at fossils, we have the ability to interpret our data in different ways, simply because sometimes, the rates of evolution, cannot be understood strictly through observation of fossils on a micro scale.

But it should be noted that, even Gould, who was the one who published the first paper on PE, even he still accepted forms of gradualistic evolution as plausible mechanisms for forming what we see in the fossil record, such as allopatric speciation. Which is gradual in nature, just with an abrupt appearance when viewed on a geologic scale. Allopatric speciation is also what was described by Charles Darwin in the Galapagos finches which displayed various traits from Island to Island.

Gould simply has raised considerations on rates at which evolution can occur, but ultimately, even PE is somewhat gradualistic in nature. Its not like Gould ever proposed that a fish gave birth to an amphibian and then a reptile in successive generations.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_opus200.html

"
Punctuated equilibrium gains its rationale from the ideal also a standard component of the allopatric speciation theory, that most peripherally isolated populations are relatively small and undergo their characteristic changes at a rate that translates into geological time as an instant.

For a variety of reasons, small isolated populations have unusual potential for effective change: for example, favorable genes can quickly spread throughout the population, while the interaction of random change (rarely important in large populations) with natural selection provides another effective pathway for substantial evolution. Even with these possibilities for accelerated change, the formation of a new species from a peripherally isolated population would be glacially slow by the usual standard of our lifetimes. Suppose the process took five to ten thousand years. We might stand in the midst of this peripheral isolate for all our earthly days and see nothing in the way of major change.

But now we come to the nub of punctuated equilibrium. Five to ten thousand years may be an eternity in human time, but such an interval represents an earthly instant in almost any geological situation—a single bedding plane (not a gradual sequence through meters of strata). Moreover, peripheral isolates are small in geographic extent and not located in the larger area where parents are living, dying, and contributing their skeletons to the fossil record."

So really its just perception and fancy wording. But there isnt anything anomalous going on. I think some scientists are just bored and need something to talk about.

And of course, creationists have been distorting PE since day 1.

"Creationists, with their usual skill in the art of phony rhetoric, cynically distorted punctuated equilibrium for their own ends, claiming that we had virtually thrown in the towel and admitted that the fossil record contains no intermediate forms. (Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary trends—pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism, climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium.) Some of our colleagues, in an all too common and literally perverse reaction, blamed us for this mayhem upon our theory. At least we were able to fight back effectively. Most of my testimony at the Arkansas creationism trial in 1980 centered upon the creationists' distortion of punctuated equilibrium."

 

[Gottservant]

This might annoy you (its a short post), but basically I see Evolution of Design as being the most strategically sound way for a species to respond to multiple selection pressures.

Design means that the one organism can have multiple responses to multiple selection pressures, on the basis of the self-similarity of one aspect of design to another (if a rabbit is in transition to a dog, its selection pressure readiness is halved across the two designs; if a rabbit is in transition to a strong rabbit, responses to selection pressures on a rabbit can redouble the truer the rabbit is to being a rabbit).

Do you understand what I am saying "adaptation cannot increase unless design is able to function as a constant or close to it" (the rabbit free to be a rabbit, survives better than the rabbit expected to be a dog)?

 

[The Barbarian]

Hello Everyone

This thread is mostly directed to TEs. I have been studying evolution for years and learned a lot on the topic, I would simply like to raise some key issues and see what the pro-evolution community here thinks. I am not here to argue or prove a point, I just want to present some observations and possibly get some feedback. Feel free to pick and choose points if you find answering them all might be too much for you, I can understand things can get quickly comprehensive when discussing these kinds of topics.

Note that I intentionally use the term Darwinian evolution, I want to make it clear what it is I am discussing. I do not want to get lost in terminology or shifty definitions. Universal common descent through natural selection and random mutation.

You don't want to talk about evolution, then. Darwinian evolution is merely "descent with modification." That's directly obeserved. Modern evolutionary theory is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." That's also directly observed.

What you apparently want to talk about are some of the consequences of evolution, such as common descent, by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

Macro-evolution: The commonplace argument of evolutionists is that there is no distinction between large scale or small scale evolution, it's just all evolution.

Let's look at this. Leopard frogs in Louisiana cannot breed with Leopard frogs from Minnesota; they have a different developmental timing because of shorter warm periods that far north. However, there are populations between the two that can interbreed with either of them. So genes flow between the populations, and they are one species. When the glaciers retreated, frogs moved north and microevolutionary changes made them adapted there. It's still one species. Microevolution.

Now, suppose that the intermediate populations go extinct. Then the two populations can no longer exchange genes. They are completely isolated reproductively. Now, the very same changes are macroevolution. So there you are.

Yet the reason why macro-evolution was introduced in the first place was due to the observation that micro-variations are not enough to explain universal common descent (UCD)

See above. You've been misled.

and that something distinct had to happen in order for species to become entirely new species - translating to complete overhauls of biological make-up.

Nope. We've observed speciation directly. Even many professional creationists admit that it's a fact.

Is the macro-evolution argument not valid

Reality beats anyone's denial.

Evolution is a fact: Should we call evolution a fact? Is not the actual observed fact genetics? Is it not impossible to empirically verify evolution due to time scale?

As you just learned, it's directly observed.

I would think earth's record of life, the geological column and fossil record, should be the most critical and central forms of evidence. My point: how can we consider evolution fact when, practically speaking, it hinges on our interpretation of the fossil record, emphasis on the word interpretation.

You're confusing common descent with evolution. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, just as the Cascade Mountains are a consequence of plat tectonics.

The whole point of a scientific fact is that no interpretation is required for it to be demonstrated true.

No. A scientific fact is something observed. It is a scientific fact that evolution is occurring in living things. It is a theory that explains why it works as it does. Theories are ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence.

The issue I have is classifying Darwinian evolution as a fact.

Evolution is a fact. Darwinian theory is the way it was explained. The Modern Synthesis, incorporating the discoveries of genetics, is the way it's explained today.

Fossil record: Is not the fossil record incompatible with Darwinian evolution?

Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise says it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Would you like to learn how he knows this?

Stasis dominates the trends, phyletic gradualism is not what the evidence suggests.

Gradualism is the exception in the fossil record. For reasons Darwin pointed out. However, if creationism were true, we'd see neither gradualism nor punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, and we see both. Would you like to know how Darwin explained stasis before it was discovered?

I would think this is a very pertinent issue, considering the introduction of certain theories such as PE, which suggests that at least some scientists are objective enough to understand what the fossil record is saying, yet at the same time still hold to evolution. Is not PE ad hoc?

As you might know, one of the founders of PE, Stephen Gould, described himself as an "orthodox Darwinian" for the reason I mentioned above.

Cambrian explosion: Fundamental period in the biological narrative of life on earth. The claim is that this isn't a problem for DE, or is it?[/quote]

Not a problem. Turns out, we now know that complex metazoans, including many with the same body designs as later organisms, existed long before the Cambrian. Would you like to learn about those?

Random mutations: My biggest qualm with DE. It seems DE requires a pseudo form of mutations that do not exist.

You've been misled. The evolution of new features by random mutation and natural selection has been documented. Would you like to learn about that?

We know that random mutations are contingencies in the genome, more than 99% of them being deleterious or benign and thus have no bearing on evolution.

We all have a dozen or so mutations not present in either parent. So, supposing 1% are useful, that means in a population of say a million organisms, that would be 10,000 useful mutations per generation. In a hundred generations, that would be 1,000,000 useful mutations. However, "useful" depends on the environment. A very well-fitted population would have fewer (hence stasis) and a not-so-well fitted population would have more. (hence evolutionary change)

DE requires what I refer to as a "god" mechanism, considering all the work that is required for the remapping, revamping and readapting of entire genomes.

Nope. You're merely attributing divine nature to natural selection. Unnecessary. He made natural selection; it's not God.

Is modern science truly being honest in how it is using the random mutation clause..

See above. Learn from it.

I have seen instances where it is not known or understood how something evolved, but the assumption is that it "evolved" with scientists making it a matter of X mutations over Y amount of time, an example of this is being...

It's like finding a pile of rocks at the bottom of a mountain, with the same composition of the mountain. The theory is that they broke off and fell to the bottom. Precisely where they came off and how they fell isn't known, in most cases. Is it unreasonable to think the theory is correct?

The Human brain: Mutations in brain-related genes invariably produce reduced fitness and often to an astronomical degree. Consider the LUCA between the chimp and human, 5-7 million years, and the fact that it would have required a brain overhaul - thousands of mutations across thousands of brain related genes - in order for evolution to have produced the human brain, a revamping of the genetic underpinnings.

Show us your data on that. Mostly, it's been a matter of brain enlargement, which would require at the minimum, one mutation. Read D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form, to learn how neotony explains most of the differences between humans and chimpanzees.

Considering the time span and the complete lack of means via mutation

See above. The numbers aren't what you assumed they are.

is it a viable position to deny that the human brain is a product of evolutionary processes?

That's what the evidence indicates. If you'd like more information on any of those topics, start a new thread. You shotgunned so many misconceptions, we'd best make a thread for each of them.

 

[ThatCanadianDude_88]

You don't want to talk about evolution, then. Darwinian evolution is merely "descent with modification." That's directly obeserved. Modern evolutionary theory is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." That's also directly observed.

Hello

Here are some points to your points.

Darwinian evolution is not directly observed nor can it be said that the varying of allele frequencies over time can produce the kind of biological change required for the evolutionary narrative of universal common descent. To claim that Darwinian evolution is observed is to either shift the meaning of DE or to simply not understand what DE is to begin with. This is why I use the term Darwinian evolution - to get straight to the issue of universal common descent and evaluate it against the mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory, rather than wrangle with modern definitions. Either way you slice it, it all falls under the heading of evolution. The distinction is intentional, and you demonstrate the very reason why I make the distinction - all the ambiguity and equivocation that comes with modern use of the word "evolution".

What you apparently want to talk about are some of the consequences of evolution, such as common descent, by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

So, I don't really want to talk about evolution, but I want to talk about evolution? =0)

Let's look at this. Leopard frogs in Louisiana cannot breed with Leopard frogs from Minnesota; they have a different developmental timing because of shorter warm periods that far north. However, there are populations between the two that can interbreed with either of them. So genes flow between the populations, and they are one species. When the glaciers retreated, frogs moved north and microevolutionary changes made them adapted there. It's still one species. Microevolution.

Now, suppose that the intermediate populations go extinct. Then the two populations can no longer exchange genes. They are completely isolated reproductively. Now, the very same changes are macroevolution. So there you are.

See above. You've been misled.

Nope. We've observed speciation directly. Even many professional creationists admit that it's a fact.

At best, we can only say that speciation is the first step. That's about it. If you are planning a road trip, you do not pronounce your arrival when you have just sat in the car and turned on the ignition.

Speciation is reproductive isolation. You are equating speciation with macro-evolution. Speciation is simply a part, an astronomically small part in the process - literally the starting line. Ultimately, the frogs are still frogs. What kind of macro-scale processes have taken place? Just because populations become reproductively isolated and diverge genetically, that doesn't mean they will "evolve" into entirely new species given enough time. What kind of evidence do we have to support this, what are the mechanisms that are involved? Among those, I did make mention of random mutations - and how it appears to me that universal common descent via the currently known evolutionary mechanisms is genetically impossible. To simply make the claim is to hinge the argument on an inference divorced from evidentiary support.

Reality beats anyone's denial.

Well, I agree.

You're confusing common descent with evolution. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, just as the Cascade Mountains are a consequence of plat tectonics.

I do believe you may have it backwards. Common descent is not a consequence of evolution, I believe this to be a common misconception. What we are able to study and observe is the genetic hierarchy of all biological life, and from that common descent comes into view. The way that common descent took place in time, as in the biological processes, is what is in question - of which Darwinian evolution is "a", and not "the" explanation.

No. A scientific fact is something observed. It is a scientific fact that evolution is occurring in living things. It is a theory that explains why it works as it does. Theories are ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence.

What is evolution? As for observing evolution, see above. If frogs becoming reproductively isolated proves evolution, then sure - evolution is a fact. Do you catch my drift? Two skips and a hop just got me over a small pond, this must therefore mean that two billion skips and a hop will get me over the pacific ocean. Let me go try.

Evolution is a fact.

Just stop and think on what exactly you are referring to when you use the word "evolution" in this statement.

You've been misled. The evolution of new features by random mutation and natural selection has been documented. Would you like to learn about that?

Think of the bigger picture. Any idea what is required, genetically, to evolve a universal common ancestor the size of a bacteria into modern day biodiversity?

We all have a dozen or so mutations not present in either parent. So, supposing 1% are useful, that means in a population of say a million organisms, that would be 10,000 useful mutations per generation. In a hundred generations, that would be 1,000,000 useful mutations. However, "useful" depends on the environment. A very well-fitted population would have fewer (hence stasis) and a not-so-well fitted population would have more. (hence evolutionary change)

Show me one mutation in a brain related gene that is proven to be beneficial. We know of plenty mutations that cause all kinds of disorders, disease, and even death. Would you rather believe that, at odds against the evidence, the master-piece of the human brain is thanks to mutation processes? There's a certain pride that comes with believing we've figured God out.

Nope. You're merely attributing divine nature to natural selection. Unnecessary. He made natural selection; it's not God.

It is God, always was God - I just think that there are no material explanations currently in academia that get anywhere close to explaining the how. Nothing more, nothing less.

Show us your data on that. Mostly, it's been a matter of brain enlargement, which would require at the minimum, one mutation. Read D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form, to learn how neotony explains most of the differences between humans and chimpanzees.

It is my strong opinion that evolutionary theory collapses in on itself when it comes to the human brain. I"ll get back to you on those references, but this is a really interesting topic.

 

[ThatCanadianDude_88]

To everyone else who took the time to post, thank you. I do hope to respond.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hello

Here are some points to your points.

O.K.

Darwinian evolution is not directly observed

You've been misled about that. For example, Hall observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a culture of bacteria by natural selection and random mutation. Speciation has been directly observed. Would you like to learn more about it?

nor can it be said that the varying of allele frequencies over time can produce the kind of biological change required for the evolutionary narrative of universal common descent.

So what step between say, reptiles and mammals do you suppose could not have come about by gradual change? Let's see what you have to show us.

To claim that Darwinian evolution is observed is to either shift the meaning of DE or to simply not understand what DE is to begin with.

I'm thinking it's that you don't know what Darwinian evolution is. You should know, BTW, that the evolutionary theory accepted today is modified by the findings of genetics. Interestingly, Mendel's discovery of genes cleared up a real problem for Darwinian evolution. Would you like to learn about that?

But first, just so we know you know, how about telling us Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory? Which of them do you think are not observed?

This is why I use the term Darwinian evolution

While Darwin's four points remain as solid as ever, genetics has changed the theory significantly. If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, you should at least know what it is.

to get straight to the issue of universal common descent and evaluate it against the mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory

As you might be starting to suspect, common descent isn't part of evolutionary theory. It's a consequence of evolution. But remember, modern evolutionary theory is not classic Darwinian theory.

rather than wrangle with modern definitions.

That's the hard part for creationists. If you want to talk about "modern evolutionary theory", you have to know what it is.

Darwin's main points are still firmly established, but the modern theory includes Mendel's discovery of the mechanism of heredity. Creationism's conflation of the two is intentional, and you demonstrate the very reason why I make the distinction - all the ambiguity and equivocation that comes with creationist's use of the word "evolution".

So, I don't really want to talk about evolution, but I want to talk about evolution? =0)

That's pretty much your position, so far. So do you want to talk about Darwinian theory, or the Modern Synthesis, that includes genetics?

At best, we can only say that speciation is the first step.

And the second step, and the third, and the fourth... Speciation doesn't stop. Populations continue to evolve and sometimes, give rise to even more different new species.

That's about it.

If you are planning a road trip, you do not pronounce your arrival when you have just sat in the car and turned on the ignition.

The creationist argument is like the man who says that it's possible for a human to walk one hundred yards, but it's impossible to walk 50 miles.

Speciation is reproductive isolation. You are equating speciation with macro-evolution.

That's what it is. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa.

Speciation is simply a part, an astronomically small part in the process

Much like driving to the edge of your town is an astronomically small part in the process of driving across the country. The key is in understanding that the process works the same way, no matter how far you drive.

Ultimately, the frogs are still frogs.

Turns out that you're wrong...

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The discovery of a “frogamander,” a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-frogamander-fossil-idUSN2134298920080522

What kind of macro-scale processes have taken place? Just because populations become reproductively isolated and diverge genetically, that doesn't mean they will "evolve" into entirely new species given enough time.

Actually, that's what we've observed to happen. New species. That's what macroevolution is.

What kind of evidence do we have to support this, what are the mechanisms that are involved?

Random mutation and natural selection. Usually. There can be speciation by random change in small populations, but it usually leads to nothing new.

Among those, I did make mention of random mutations - and how it appears to me that universal common descent via the currently known evolutionary mechanisms is genetically impossible.

As you now realize, the evidence shows that is how it happens.

I do believe you may have it backwards. Common descent is not a consequence of evolution, I believe this to be a common misconception.

Sorry, that idea won't work. Without evolution, as we see it happening, common descent would not be possible. If you find that difficult to understand, we can talk about it further. But I think if you thought about it for a while, you'd see shy.

What we are able to study and observe is the genetic hierarchy of all biological life,

Which fits nicely into a family tree, as Linnaeus first noted. (he didn't have any idea why) Later, when we learned about genetics, scientists predicted that genes would show us the same family tree. Turns out it does to a very high level of precision. And we know it demonstrates common descent, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

What is evolution?

A change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Or more simply, "descent with modification." The former, as I explained earlier, includes the modern theory which includes genetics.

As for observing evolution, see above. If frogs becoming reproductively isolated proves evolution, then sure - evolution is a fact.

Of course. And as the process continues, populations diverge and become more and more different. Most professional creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families. If they retreat just a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

Do you catch my drift? Two skips and a hop just got me over a small pond, this must therefore mean that two billion skips and a hop will get me over the pacific ocean.

If you can walk on water, then I suppose so. It's like arguing that giant redwood trees can't grow to adulthood from a seed, because no one has ever seen it happen. Such arguments contain their own seeds of failure. Pointless to even bring them up.

Let me go try.

Just stop and think on what exactly you are referring to when you use the word "evolution" in this statement.

Change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Think of the bigger picture. Any idea what is required, genetically, to evolve a universal common ancestor the size of a bacteria into modern day biodiversity?

Yep. I've been considering that for over half a century now. The biggest obstacle was from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Must have been a real challenge. Took about a billion years, given the fossil record. The likely process was endosymbiosis. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that? Or any other step in the process, if you like. What would you like to talk about?

Show me one mutation in a brain related gene that is proven to be beneficial.

How about a mutation that allows the brain to be more resistant to cancer during radiation therapy?

Radiation Oncology 2012 Oct 30;7:181
EGFR mutations are associated with favorable intracranial response and progression-free survival following brain irradiation in non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases.
Lee HL1, Chung TS, Ting LL, Tsai JT, Chen SW, Chiou JF, Leung HW, Liu HE.

Neuro-oncology
Volume 12
November 2010

Nineteen (20%) patients had solitary BM with no sites of extracranial metastatic disease at the time of brain involvement; this was significantly more common in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors (31% vs 7%, P = .03). In EGFR-mutant patients, active systemic disease was very common at the time of BM, with 83% of patients having either new or progressive disease outside of the brain within 1 month of BM diagnosis. In EGFR wild-type patients, this proportion was significantly lower (62%, P = .001).
April F. Eichler Kristopher T. Kahle Daphne L. Wang Victoria A. Joshi Henning Willers Jeffrey A. Engelman Thomas J. Lynch Lecia V. Sequist

Tetrachromats. A very few humans have a mutation that wires eyes and brain to have four primary colors, rather than three. In vertebrates, the retina is part of the brain.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/313c/ebb88197fba22a2ec96fdcea9171395268da.pdf

We know of plenty mutations that cause all kinds of disorders, disease, and even death.

Yep. The bad ones tend to be removed, and only the good ones tend to increase in a population. That's the point. Random mutation and natural selection. How else would it work?

Would you rather believe that, at odds against the evidence, the master-piece of the human brain is thanks to mutation processes?

As you just learned, it requires random mutations and natural selection.

There's a certain pride that comes with believing we've figured God out.

If you'd set your pride aside, for a bit, you might be more successful. Most scientists who are believers are more humble than you seem to be.

It is God, always was God

Of course. Biologists just know a little more about the details than you do.

It is my strong opinion that evolutionary theory collapses in on itself when it comes to the human brain.

It's worth pointing out that Huxley won a debate with Owen, by showing him that a chimpanzee has the same brain structures as a human, only differing in size and somewhat in shape.

So it's more subtle than you seem to think it is.

 

[sfs]

Show me one mutation in a brain related gene that is proven to be beneficial.

Your previous claim was that all brain-related mutations were harmful. Have you abandoned that claim? As for proving that any mutation is beneficial, do you have any idea how hard it is to "prove" that any mutation is beneficial in a organism like humans? What we do know is that there is lots of genetic variation -- the product of mutations -- in brain-related genes and that many of these genetic variants are associated with subtle variation in intelligence. That's strong evidence that the human brain is some monolithic product of genetic perfection that cannot tolerate change. This kind of variation is the raw material that natural selection acts upon.

 

[sfs]

What we are able to study and observe is the genetic hierarchy of all biological life, and from that common descent comes into view. The way that common descent took place in time, as in the biological processes, is what is in question - of which Darwinian evolution is "a", and not "the" explanation.

We have abundant evidence that the genetic differences between species are the result of the same random mutational processes that we see occurring in existing populations. Now we certainly can't rule out the possibility that some set of miraculous changes are hidden among all of those naturally occurring mutations, but we have no evidence that they are, and I can't think of any reason for thinking they're there.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens
Science 09 Sep 2005:
Vol. 309, Issue 5741, pp. 1720-1722

1. Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov
2. Sandra L. Gilbert
3. Patrick D. Evans
4. Eric J. Vallender
5. Jeffrey R. Anderson

The gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size'
Jianzhi Zhang
Genetics December 1, 2003 vol. 165 no. 4 2063-2070

The size of human brain tripled over a period of ∼2 million years (MY) that ended 0.2–0.4 MY ago. This evolutionary expansion is believed to be important to the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions, yet its genetic basis remains unknown. An evolutionary analysis of genes controlling brain development may shed light on it. ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is one of such genes, as nonsense mutations lead to primary microcephaly, a human disease characterized by a 70% reduction in brain size. Here I provide evidence suggesting that human ASPM went through an episode of accelerated sequence evolution by positive Darwinian selection after the split of humans and chimpanzees but before the separation of modern non-Africans from Africans. Because positive selection acts on a gene only when the gene function is altered and the organismal fitness is increased, my results suggest that adaptive functional modifications occurred in human ASPM and that it may be a major genetic component underlying the evolution of the human brain.

 

[sfs]

Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens
Science 09 Sep 2005:

The other ASPM paper is fine, but this one has major problems. See this paper:
Comment on "Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens"

1. Fuli Yu1,2,
2. R. Sean Hill2,3,4,
3. Stephen F. Schaffner2,
4. Pardis C. Sabeti2,
5. Eric T. Wang5,6,
6. Andre A. Mignault1,
7. Russell J. Ferland3,4,
8. Robert K. Moyzis5,6,
9. Christopher A. Walsh2,3,4,
10. David Reich1,2,*

Science 20 Apr 2007:
Vol. 316, Issue 5823, pp. 370
DOI: 10.1126/science.1137568

• Abstract

Mekel-Bobrov et al. (Reports, 9 September 2005, p. 1720) suggested that ASPM, a gene associated with microcephaly, underwent natural selection within the last 500 to 14,100 years. Their analyses based on comparison with computer simulations indicated that ASPM had an unusual pattern of variation. However, when we compare ASPM empirically to a large number of other loci, its variation is not unusual and does not support selection.

 

[Sanoy]

Sure. That is, we should call common descent a fact. I do.

You are a biologist though. You have to see it as a fact because your job predicates using it as a fact to determine more facts about biology. But outside of your job, common ancestry is an inference, it's not a deduction. Without the imperative we should all see it as an inference because that is what it is, an inference based on facts.

 

[sfs]

You are a biologist though. You have to see it as a fact because your job predicates using it as a fact to determine more facts about biology. But outside of your job, common ancestry is an inference, it's not a deduction. Without the imperative we should all see it as an inference because that is what it is, an inference based on facts.

Why should non-biologists ignore the certainty we have about common descent? Sure, it's an inference, but so are facts in general. It's an inference by biologists that influenza virus causes a respiratory disease, but's it's also a fact, and one that people in general can rely on.