Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[AnotherAtheist]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

 

[Tolworth John]

Some unknow thing, chemical or a form of radiation damages the information in the creatures dna.
This is not repaired and is passed on to its offspring according to the ratio mendle developed.
As mutations mainly make a creature less fit to survive it dies, if it manages to breed its mutation is unlikely to be passed on to its offspring and even if it is passed on it is unlikely to be a characteristic of the desendants.

For evolution to work a benefical mutation has to be caused.
But shooting holes in letters is unlikely to generate a benifical change. eg a child scribbling on a pack of cards is not going to change standard playing cards into a pack of cards for the game uno.

In the same way random change to a set of dna instruction isn't going to change a legless creature into one with legs.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I did change my OP, so you may be replying to the previous version. Could you please look at the current version of my OP and respond to that?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

I don't understand what you are saying but you're wrong.

 

[Tolworth John]

I did change my OP, so you may be replying to the previous version. Could you please look at the current version of my OP and respond to that?

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution

My reply was aimed at these points.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

My reply was aimed at these points.

Your reply does not mention species or population. Hence, it isn't really a reply; it certainly isn't on topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

I'm not a YEC, but I like challenges.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

That's like asking what the roles of aircraft and 747s are in the modern theory of flight.

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

Well, I can't speak for lions and tigers and giraffes and such, but the role of mankind is to replenish the earth.

 

[pitabread]

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

Well, populations are collections of self-replicating cars that turn into different species of robots which are actually penguins in disguise that breed with Huskies and Chinooks to produce Asian-African hybrids which come from another world where life originates in the water. Also, science is myopic.

I think that about covers it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I note that no YEC has seriously taken on this challenge.

In my opinion, this is very interesting. The arguments that I see by YECs are frequently based on what I believe are deliberate (not just accidental) misunderstandings of evolution. One is that whole species evolve so that when a new species appears the previous species must be gone. Another is that individuals evolve. I never see YECs describing the role of populations (not whole species) in evolution. Interesting that when I challenge people to discuss this, they just dodge it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I note that no YEC has seriously taken on this challenge.

Why don't you reword your challenge so it can be understood?

One is that whole species evolve so that when a new species appears the previous species must be gone.

What does that even mean?

How can a "whole species evolve," then "a new species appear"?

If a new species appears, then the whole species hasn't evolved yet, has it?

Another is that individuals evolve. I never see YECs describing the role of populations (not whole species) in evolution.

Maybe you need to learn the difference between "species" and "genus"?

Interesting that when I challenge people to discuss this, they just dodge it.

Like you dodged Post #7?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Why don't you reword your challenge so it can be understood?What does that even mean?

How can a "whole species evolve," then "a new species appear"?

This is a paraphrase of creationist arguments. If you're criticising that language, then you're criticising a creationist argument, not me. It is a kind paraphrase of 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.'

If a new species appears, then the whole species hasn't evolved yet, has it?

I do not understand what you mean here. Could you please paraphrase that.

Maybe you need to learn the difference between "species" and "genus"?

I understand the difference between species and genus. I also understand the difference between species and population. Which is what this thread is about. To mention genus is off-topic and does not address the challenge.

Like you dodged Post #7?

I can see nothing in post #7 than can be addressed as post #7 does not address species versus population. If you feel you actually have an argument there, because I can't see one, then please rephrase your argument in a clearer manner that makes it clear how it addresses the challenge.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Right you claim that I dodged this post. I saw nothing of value in it, but since you claim I dodged it, I'll reply.

I'm not a YEC, but I like challenges.

Right, let's see if you actually can handle a challenge. You certainly like giving them out.

That's like asking what the roles of aircraft and 747s are in the modern theory of flight.

I don't see the point of this analogy. Generally if people introduce an analogy the next step is to explain how the analogy fits, and what it implies. You have done neither.

Aircraft and 747s do not evolve by any process of naturalistic evolution. There is, for example, no mechanism by which aircraft can mate and produce variant offspring. So, your analogy looks to be baseless.

Well, I can't speak for lions and tigers and giraffes and such, but the role of mankind is to replenish the earth.

What has this got to do with species and populations and their roles in evolution?

My challenge is for Creationists to show that they understand a basic and important part of the theory of evolution. So far, not a single one has done so. No-one has even come near.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand the difference between species and genus. I also understand the difference between species and population. Which is what this thread is about. To mention genus is off-topic and does not address the challenge.

If you want to limit this thread to just species that's your prerogative.

But what's up with accusing creationists with not understanding evolution in a thread limited to microevolution?

New species occur: I'm sure any creationist will agree with that.

As I understand it, bacteria create a new species every nine hours.

Do you have a specific question you'd like me* to address?

* "Me" is a creationist, not a YEC. Since you changed your focus from YECs to "creationist" ... after I admitted I wasn't a YEC ... may I assume you're opening this thread up to all creationists?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If you want to limit this thread to just species that's your prerogative.

But what's up with accusing creationists with not understanding evolution in a thread limited to microevolution?

New species occur: I'm sure any creationist will agree with that.

As I understand it, bacteria create a new species every nine hours.

Do you have a specific question you'd like me* to address?

* "Me" is a creationist, not a YEC. Since you changed your focus from YECs to "creationist" ... after I admitted I wasn't a YEC ... may I assume you're opening this thread up to all creationists?

It's a thread about whether or not Creationists understand the roles of populations and species in evolution. You've posted another post that doesn't mention populations. Then you say that if I want to limit this thread to 'species' then that's my prerogative. The whole thread is about whether or not creationists understand the roles of species and populations. How could it not be limited to species AND populations? Anything else is a diversion of the thread, and given that I haven't received a single valid answer yet, it's not yet time to let the thread drift away into something entirely different.

The thread works best with young earth creationists, as it's directed towards people who disbelieve in evolution. Whether or not it is reasonable for you to participate in the thread depends on your view of evolution.

Do I have a specific question that I'd like you to address?

Yes. As per the first post, can you please explain the roles of species and populations in evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

As per the first post, can you please explain the roles of species and populations in evolution?

To speciate and populate, I guess.

I think what you're asking is:

Explain the role of evolution in speciation and population: not the other way around.

I could be wrong though.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

To speciate and populate, I guess.

I think what you're asking is:

Explain the role of evolution in speciation and population: not the other way around.

I could be wrong though.

OK, I can clarify.

Here's a definition of species from a dictionary. It's a bit simplistic, but it will do for this discussion:

Species - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

As an example, the European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) is one species.

A population is one group of animals (here of a single species) that mixes with each other. E.g. the European hedgehogs living on the Isle of Man (an island) in the UK are a population. They don't mix with European hedgehogs on the mainland or on other islands because Hedgehogs don't swim quite that well.

So, given those definitions, what are the roles of species and populations in the evolution?

I'll consider this a back to the start clarification, and won't address other points until you've answered this.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, given those definitions, what are the roles of species and populations in the evolution?

I don't know.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I don't know.

That is of course an answer. I'll explain, but I want to leave it a bit longer before I do to see if anyone else answers the thread.

 

[mark kennedy]

Having read some posts here, and been very disappointed by the level of debate, I'd like to challenge the Young Earth Creationists here.

Can you tell us what the roles of population and species are in the modern theory of evolution?

I do this to see if those debating evolution actually understand evolution.

The actual definition of evolution in modern biology is taken from population genetics. the change of traits in populations over time.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The actual definition of evolution in modern biology is taken from population genetics. the change of traits in populations over time.

Yes. Can you take that further?