Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[artybloke]

Adaptation does not produce new species.

Yes it does. Isolation, and other factors, eventually means that one adaptation becomes unable to breed with another adaptation. When that happens, you have evolution of a new species.

This has been shown to be the case time after time, but bibliolators like you refuse to believe it.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

The Pope has said that theory and conjecture is permissible for a Catholic, it's not a ringing endorsement.

In addition to saying that theory and conjecture are permissible, the Pope led a commision, and their published conclusion is a huge and detailed document in support of theistic evolution. You can read it, and download your own copy, here:

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

It includes:

Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
​

Pope Benedict has some kind of an Intelligent Design view and has always held to the core doctrine of God as Creator.

Papias knows this, he is just counting on you not knowing it.

All of that is consistent with theistic evolution. "Intelligent Design" is so elastic a term that it can mean anything including theistic evolution, so if that's what you meant, then OK. And of course the Pope holds to the core doctrine of God as Creator, as do all other theistic evolution supporters. That's what the "theistic" in "theistic evolution" means, after all.

Papias

 

[shernren]

mark, would an ID proponent believe in "a first organism"? Note the singular.

 

[Freedom63]

...

John Macarthur expressed it this way:

So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster Don’t Surrender the Ground!​

I concur.

Grace and peace,
Mark

When your concluding argument, your quote defining your position, is an outrageous attack on the moral character of those who disagree with you, how do you expect to be taken seriously??

 

[KerrMetric]

Adaptation does not produce new species.

a wild dog still a dog

a white finch ia still a finch,

they do not turn into different species.

one-lord.org

And this level of thinking is what you have to deal with.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

OK. But I don't see anything there that excludes evolution. Biological evolution doesn't refer to the origin of being or of the orderly governance of creation or the origin of life.

Biological evolution refers to the origination of species,which are,in reality,made up of living beings that are conceived into being. And organisms are characterized by functional order,animated by spirit.

It fits the definition of natural you give here: things that happen that usually happen. In fact, it fits into the order of existence.

The theory of evolution is a narrative of the history of organisms that makes claims that cannot be proven to have happened.

OK, so it's a personal belief and not something derived from either the study of creation or the precepts of theology.

My opinion is derived from my knowledge of organisms and analysis of the theory of evolution.

I do see reason to believe that God creates ---not individual creatures--but ongoing populations through a gradual development process.

Individual creatures obviously do exist,and so they are created as such by God. They are individual creations. And populations exist and begin with individual creatures.

No, nothing we know about species says they begin with an individual creature.

Species exist as individual creatures. You can't separate the concept of species from the reality of individual creatures.

That makes sense. I won't either. On the other hand, I will attribute to God what I do believe happened to bring the diversity of life as we know it into existence. And I am convinced that evolution happened.

And I am convinced that the narrative of the theory of evolution is false,because there is no way to know that all species are linked by reproductive connections to a single ancestral organism.

Should we not?

Then we should not attribute the incarnation of the Son to God, nor his resurrection, as well as a good many other events described in scripture.

The Incarnation,Resurrection and the truth of scripture are proven by the saints of the Catholic Church,whose lives testify to the truth of those things. The saints could only be what they became if they really were filled with the grace of Christ and if what the Church teaches and scripture says really is true.

On what basis do you say that? I think it is pretty obvious that the species we know evolved and have been evolving for quite some time. So to me, it seems God did work that way.

It is obvious that creatures are immediately created. With humans and other sexual creatures,it is called conception,which means "beginning". All living creatures have an immediate beginning.

What makes that evident to you?

Conception.

How do you account for the evidence cited in support of an evolutionary history?

I account for it as a misguided naturalistic,reductionist attempt to piece together the history of species according to their external and genetic commonalities,on the false assumption that these commonalities prove relatedness.

See post 294.

 

[gluadys]

Biological evolution refers to the origination of species,which are,in reality,made up of living beings that are conceived into being. And organisms are characterized by functional order,animated by spirit.

Yes, and as I said, that seems to fit the definition of "natural" which you posted: things that happen that usually happen. Evolution is something that usually happens to species (not organisms, though).

The theory of evolution is a narrative of the history of organismsthat makes claims that cannot be proven to have happened.

Actually that is not the case. The theory of evolution is not a narrative of history at all . It is an explanation of the factors which produce changes in the characteristics of species. i.e. it shows how things like chromosomal recombination, changes to DNA bases and sequences (i.e. mutations), genetic drift and natural selection modify species characteristics.

Of course, since evolution is a process in history, the history of any species is a history of the evolutionary changes it has accumulated. But the history itself is not part of the theory, nor can it be derived from the theory. The narrative of the history of evolution is called phylogeny.

Phylogeny depends on evolution, not the reverse. IOW if there was no evolution, there would be no phylogeny at all. So if the theory of evolution is wrong, all phylogenies are also wrong. But a phylogeny may have gaps and even errors without affecting the theory of evolution. We can know that evolution happens without being correct in all details of the history of evolution.

My opinion is derived from my knowledge of organisms and analysis of the theory of evolution.

Like, I said, personal opinion.

Individual creatures obviously do exist,and so they are created as such by God. They are individual creations. And populations exist and begin with individual creatures.

Sure, but that is a different issue. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were originally saying. What I intended to say is that species, even when they first begin, do not consist of a single individual. A species is always a population, (except for that moment in time just prior to extinction when only a single individual is left alive.)

But sure, the individual creatures are individually created. Again, no problem with evolution there.

Species exist as individual creatures. You can't separate the concept of species from the reality of individual creatures.

Species exist as populations of individual creatures. You may consider that change a quibble. Maybe it is.

And I am convinced that the narrative of the theory of evolution is false,because there is no way to know that all species are linked by reproductive connections to a single ancestral organism.

What we can know is that there is a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests that all species are linked by reproductive connections to a single ancestral population. (not organism). The likelihood of genes being distributed through populations the way they are without reproductive connections is rather remote.

The Incarnation,Resurrection and the truth of scripture are proven by the saints of the Catholic Church,whose lives testify to the truth of those things. The saints could only be what they became if they really were filled with the grace of Christ and if what the Church teaches and scripture says really is true.

By that criterion, all the great religions are true, for Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. can all point to saints whose lives testify to the truth of their respective teachings.

It is obvious that creatures are immediately created. With humans and other sexual creatures,it is called conception,which means "beginning". All living creatures have an immediate beginning.

Sure and that is a fact that co-exists easily with evolution. So you haven't really answered my question.

Conception.

Conception includes the phenomena of chromosomal recombination and various mutations, both of which contribute to the evolution of species.

I account for it as a misguided naturalistic,reductionist attempt to piece together the history of species according to their external and genetic commonalities,on the false assumption that these commonalities prove relatedness.

That is an opinion of the scientific way of accounting for the evidence. It is not an alternative accounting of the evidence.

As for commonalites and relatedness, I think you misperceive the direction. It is not so much that commonalities prove relatedness and that relatedness accounts for the commonalities. i.e. if we ask "why do these commonalities exist?" one plausible answer is "because these organisms are related to each other via a common ancestor from whom they inherited the same genetic material."

If you dispute this answer, what alternative explanation accounts for the commonalities?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Yes, and as I said, that seems to fit the definition of "natural" which you posted: things that happen that usually happen. Evolution is something that usually happens to species (not organisms, though).

You can't separate species from the fact that they exist as individual organisms that are immediately conceived. If you claim that a species has evolved from another species into existence,you are also saying in effect that organisms have evolved from other organisms into existence. Changes in form can only happen through reproduction of individual creatures.

Actually that is not the case. The theory of evolution is not a narrative of history at all. It is an explanation of the factors which produce changes in the characteristics of species. i.e. it shows how things like chromosomal recombination, changes to DNA bases and sequences (i.e. mutations), genetic drift and natural selection modify species characteristics.

That is not the theory of evolution itself,that is the supporting evidence for the theory. It is not just an explanation of descent with modification at the genetic level,it makes claims about the origins and lineages of all species,linking them all together by ancestry to a single hypothetical organism.

Of course, since evolution is a process in history, the history of any species is a history of the evolutionary changes it has accumulated.

The history of a species is a history of reproductive connections.
If reproductive connections cannot be known,neither can evolutionary changes from one species into another.

But the history itself is not part of the theory, nor can it be derived from the theory. The narrative of the history of evolution is called phylogeny.

The narrative of the history of organisms is the main part of the theory.
The theory of evolution is phylogeny. It is about the evolutionary history and development of species.

Phylogeny depends on evolution, not the reverse.

That's like saying the evolution of species depends upon the evolution of species.

IOW if there was no evolution, there would be no phylogeny at all. So if the theory of evolution is wrong, all phylogenies are also wrong. But a phylogeny may have gaps and even errors without affecting the theory of evolution. We can know that evolution happens without being correct in all details of the history of evolution.

Again,the theory of evolution is not just about explaining descent with modification,it is also a narrative of the history of species.

Like, I said, personal opinion.

All beliefs are personal at bottom,even theological and scientific ones.
What of it?

Sure, but that is a different issue.

It is a fact that must be remembered when speaking of species and populations and descent.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were originally saying. What I intended to say is that species, even when they first begin, do not consist of a single individual.

According to the Bible,the human race began with a single individual.
When I said that species begin with individuals,I was not saying that all species begin with a single individual. Whether they begin with one creature or more,the individual or individuals have immediate beginnings,just as
we did. At bottom,there is no evolution into existence of any species.
There is only individual creation - both as an act of God creating individual creatures and as species being created as individual creatures.

A species is always a population, (except for that moment in time just prior to extinction when only a single individual is left alive.)

The words species and population do not mean more than one creature.
Species and populations exist as individuals,sometimes even as one individual. If there was a single whooping crane left alive,it would be a population of one,and the species would still exist. If you own a bird and someone asks you what species it is,you will answer with the species-name. A species is first and foremost a kind of creature. That is what species means in Latin,and it still holds in science. Species are identified as such according to their distinguishing characteristics,even apart from whether they are or were reproductively isolated.

But sure, the individual creatures are individually created. Again, no problem with evolution there.

What kind of evolution do you mean? Evolution can refer to anything from
minor changes in a species that have been observed to macro-evolution and the claim that all species have descended from a common ancestor.
For the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty,don't just say "evolution"
and leave it as an unlimited concept or phenomenon.

Species exist as populations of individual creatures. You may consider that change a quibble. Maybe it is.

There's no real difference. It's true that species exist as populations of individuals,but a population exists as individuals,or even one individual.

 

[gluadys]

You can't separate species from the fact that they exist as individual organisms that are immediately conceived. If you claim that a species has evolved from another species into existence,you are also saying in effect that organisms have evolved from other organisms into existence.

No, I am not. The only thing that may distinguish an organism is a genetic feature it did not inherit from either parent, but is new in that organism. That genetic feature may or may not be expressed as a visible variation and/or as a change in fitness. Beyond those slight differences organisms do not evolve. Organisms are always the same species as their parents and as their children.

Changes in form can only happen through reproduction of individual creatures.

Obviously there cannot be evolution without reproduction. But reproduction is not sufficient to produce evolution. The production of individuals in a species which vary from one another in their characters is not sufficient to produce evolution.

To understand evolution, you have to go beyond the prerequisites that allow evolution to happen and focus on the factors that make evolution happen.

The theory of evolution is not a narrative of history at all. It is an explanation of the factors which produce changes in the characteristics of species. i.e. it shows how things like chromosomal recombination, changes to DNA bases and sequences (i.e. mutations), genetic drift and natural selection modify species characteristics.

That is not the theory of evolution itself,that is the supporting evidence for the theory.

Yes, it is the theory itself. The fact of evolution is that species change over time and multiply into more species. The theory of evolution is the explanation of what causes species to change and to divide into a plurality of species. The various items I named are such causes. They are not evidence for the theory; they are the explanatory causes of evolution. The theory explains how these different causes work together to produce species change and speciation.

It is not just an explanation of descent with modification at the genetic level,it makes claims about the origins and lineages of all species,linking them all together by ancestry to a single hypothetical organism.

The theory is the basis of descent with modification. But the theory does not predict specific lineages. Those have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. To illustrate, the theory of evolution would still be true if evidence showed that humanity was descended from bovines instead of primates.

So, on the one hand, since evolution is descent with modification, the theory of evolution tells us there will be lineages connecting species to each other. But the theory does not tell us specifically what those lineages will be. That has to be worked out apart from the theory. That is the work of those studying phylogeny.

We should not confuse the content of phylogeny with the process of evolutionary change.

The history of a species is a history of reproductive connections.
If reproductive connections cannot be known,neither can evolutionary changes from one species into another.

Since all living things reproduce, and since we know that species can multiply into more than one species (groups of species have common ancestors), the real issue is whether there is evidence anywhere that there are no reproductive connections between any pair of species.

The narrative of the history of organisms is the main part of the theory. The theory of evolution is phylogeny. It is about the evolutionary history and development of species.

Not really. In a broad sense the fact, theory and history of evolution can all be said to be part of evolution. That is--the evidence which shows that evolution is a fact; the evidence which shows the process by which evolution happens (theory in the narrower sense) and the evidence of common ancestors and the history of species--can all be subsumed under the umbrella of "evolution". The historical narrative is certainly an important piece of this, but it is not any more important than the others. To biologists, it is the mechanisms that explain how evolution happens that is the main part of the theory. The mechanisms are what produce the history.

Phylogeny is certainly part of what we call evolution and an important aspect of evolutionary studies. But to say it is the theory of evolution is to mistake the part for the whole.

Phylogeny depends on evolution, not the reverse.

That's like saying the evolution of species depends upon the evolution of species.

No, it is saying what I just said above: the mechanisms that produce the process of evolution also produce the history of evolutionary change.

Again,the theory of evolution is not just about explaining descent with modification,it is also a narrative of the history of species.

The important thing is to remember the word "also" and not take the part for the whole. The two are tied together. If we could not explain descent with modification we would not even look for indications of descent.

Further, it is also important to note that the historical narrative cannot be just any historical narrative: it has to conform to the rules governing descent with modification. But within that proviso, the theory of evolution does not tell us, by itself, what the history of evolution was. Nor does a failure to document every detail of the history mean that the explanation of descent with modification has failed. If we have enough evidence to figure out the main lines of history, and in some cases a more detailed history, we have enough to grant common ancestry as the rule.

All beliefs are personal at bottom,even theological and scientific ones.
What of it?

The question is whether you can make personal beliefs credible to others. In science that credibility depends on providing both logically coherent theory and empirical evidence. Evolution has enough of both to have convinced the majority of the world's biologists. So when you say that you have nothing but personal gut feeling that they are wrong, is it any wonder few find that credible?

It is a fact that must be remembered when speaking of species and populations and descent.

Nevertheless, it is still important to distinguish species and individuals. Far to often (and scientists can be as bad as their opponents) species are referred to as if each species is a single individual. In both scientific and anti-scientific literature, people speak of the genome of a species as if there were only one genome for a species. There is not. The number of genomes for any species is either N or 2N depending on whether the species is haploid or diploid . And while there will be great similarity among them, they will not all be identical. Every genome sequenced is actually the genome of an individual.

Another faux pas, (again as often among scientists as others) is to use "organism" and "species" interchangeably, again suggesting that a species is a single individual.

Obscuring the difference between species and individual member of the species' population leads to misunderstanding how evolution works. It puts too much emphasis on genetic changes that happen in individuals to the neglect of what happens in the population. But evolution is pre-eminently a change in a population, not changes that occur in some individuals.

According to the Bible,the human race began with a single individual.

So?

When I said that species begin with individuals,I was not saying that all species begin with a single individual.

Ok. I did misinterpret you then. My apologies.

Whether they begin with one creature or more,the individual or individuals have immediate beginnings,just as
we did.

Yes, of course. Each and every individual of every species has a specific individual beginning, whether it is the fissioning of a bacterial cell, the germination of a spore, or the fusion of gametes in conception.

I expect, however, that you will agree that whatever the nature of that beginning, there is also a genetic continuity from parent to offspring, and that continuity also reaches back into preceding generations and forward into subsequent generations.

Furthermore, over time, the species changes and diversifies into different species. The questions to be resolved are:
1. how do we know this happens?
2. how does this happen?
3. what are the historical consequences of this process?

At bottom,there is no evolution into existence of any species.

I don't know what you mean by this. What does "evolution into existence" mean?

There is only individual creation - both as an act of God creating individual creatures and as species being created as individual creatures.

Again, I am puzzled by your wording. Individual creatures are created as individual creatures. They are created as members of a species. The species is constituted of individual members, but how can it be "created as individual creatures"?

The words species and population do not mean more than one creature.

Yes, they do.

Species and populations exist as individuals,sometimes even as one individual.

Not really. A species or population of one individual is really the last remnant of a species which will be extinct when that individual dies.

The one exception I can think of to that is an individual which is capable of reproducing asexually. So a single plant could produce another via a cutting or (as many plants do) through a rhizome. A single yeast cell can produce more through budding.

Once they have done so, the species/population is re-established.

If you own a bird and someone asks you what species it is,you will answer with the species-name.

Yes, but that implies there are other birds like it and the collectivity of all such birds constitutes the species. (or variety or genus, or whatever taxon is relevant.)

A species is first and foremost a kind of creature. That is what species means in Latin,and it still holds in science. Species are identified as such according to their distinguishing characteristics,even apart from whether they are or were reproductively isolated.

In species that reproduce sexually, reproductive isolation has become the criterion of species boundaries, as it is a boundary that can be objectively defined. (Though pragmatically, that is not always easy). With species that do or can reproduce asexually, reproductive isolation is not a factor in determining the bounds of a species.

The importance of distinguishing characteristics (at least morphological characteristics) is highly subjective and was one of the reasons for confusion of species identification in Darwin's time. The trend today is to supplement morphology with genetics --- or perhaps its the reverse by now.

Simply put, it has never been easy to define species, and, with closely related species, the boundaries are often fuzzy. Of course, this, as Darwin noted, is to be expected if species are related to each other. A population which is in the midst of a speciation doesn't have fixed boundaries between one species and the other yet.

But sure, the individual creatures are individually created. Again, no problem with evolution there.

What kind of evolution do you mean? Evolution can refer to anything from
minor changes in a species that have been observed to macro-evolution and the claim that all species have descended from a common ancestor.
For the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty,don't just say "evolution"
and leave it as an unlimited concept or phenomenon.

I mean biological evolution. That means I am not referring to those changes in stars that are called stellar evolution, nor to the phenomena of chemical evolution that permit the development of complex molecules. So, no, I am not referring to an unlimited concept.

Within biological evolution, I mean changes in species--whether the small scale changes one can observe in a few generations or the large scale ones that take millennia to complete. Since evolution includes the multiplication of species, that includes common ancestry too.

So, what I am saying is that there is no opposition to be made between the creation of each individual creature and the evolution of the species it is a part of. The two co-exist.

There's no real difference. It's true that species exist as populations of individuals,but a population exists as individuals,or even one individual.

Ok. But we still have to remember that it is the species/populations that evolve. Changes in individuals do not constitute evolution until a way is found to change the species through them.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

No, I am not. The only thing that may distinguish an organism is a genetic feature it did not inherit from either parent, but is new in that organism. That genetic feature may or may not be expressed as a visible variation and/or as a change in fitness. Beyond those slight differences organisms do not evolve. Organisms are always the same species as their parents and as their children.

Biological species exist as organisms. So if you deny that groups of organisms can become something different from their parents why would you believe that species evolve beyond the species level?
Any genetic changes in a species would have to happen from parents to offspring,irrespective of the extent and rate of change from generation to generation. Species are made up of parents and offspring.

Obviously there cannot be evolution without reproduction. But reproduction is not sufficient to produce evolution. The production of individuals in a species which vary from one another in their characters is not sufficient to produce evolution.

Do you mean speciation? That happens through the reproduction of individual creatures which vary from their parents. Whatever changes happen through changes in allele frequencies,or natural selection,happens firstly through reproduction. No matter which way you cut evolution,at the bottom of all descent with modification,whether real or supposed,is reproduction.

To understand evolution, you have to go beyond the prerequisites that allow evolution to happen and focus on the factors that make evolution happen.

There is no getting beyond reproduction. It is the only means of transmitting genetic changes.

Yes, it is the theory itself. The fact of evolution is that species change over time and multiply into more species.

To say that species change over time is ambiguous. It can mean any extent of change,from that which is observable to that which is unobservable and naturally impossible.

The expanation of descent with modification is not the theory itself,it is
the supporting evidence for the theory. No one has a problem with the
observable facts of descent with modification. If that was all the theory
was about,there would be no controversy.

The theory of evolution is the explanation of what causes species to change and to divide into a plurality of species. The various items I named are such causes. They are not evidence for the theory; they are the explanatory causes of evolution. The theory explains how these different causes work together to produce species change and speciation.

The theory of evolution is not primarily an explanation of what causes species to change,it is an explanation of the history of species and how they have originated and developed. When an evolutionist explains how the causes of evolution work together to produce species change is taking it as a given that they did change in the way described by the theory. I know that evolution scientists prefer to define the theory as an explanation of the causes of biological change,but when they explain natural selection working upon genetic mutations they do it to justify the historical narrative. They use it to lead up to the phylogenic claims of the theory. The idea of common descent of all species and its collorary,macro-evolution,is taken for granted.

The theory is the basis of descent with modification.

The reality of descent with modification is used as supporting evidence for the theory.

But the theory does not predict specific lineages. Those have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. To illustrate, the theory of evolution would still be true if evidence showed that humanity was descended from bovines instead of primates.

It would be a different theory of evolution than the one that is current.

So, on the one hand, since evolution is descent with modification, the theory of evolution tells us there will be lineages connecting species to each other. But the theory does not tell us specifically what those lineages will be. That has to be worked out apart from the theory. That is the work of those studying phylogeny.

Phylogenic research is done in the service of the theory,just as with evolutionary biology.

We should not confuse the content of phylogeny with the process of evolutionary change.

I don't.

Since all living things reproduce, and since we know that species can multiply into more than one species (groups of species have common ancestors), the real issue is whether there is evidence anywhere that there are no reproductive connections between any pair of species.

The fact that speciation happens does not justify the view that all species must be related by ancestry. That is to assume that there must have been only one original source for all species.

Different species that are seen to have descended from common ancestors may be considered sub-species of a broader,reproductively related group. That is why creationists are not swayed from their opinion when evolutionists show them observed instances of speciation. Speciation causes sub-species to emerge.

 

[FlamingZword]

A simple experiment could help.

Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.

It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.

If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars

one-lord.org

 

[gluadys]

A simple experiment could help.

Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.

It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.

If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars

one-lord.org

The scientist would not need your thousand dollars. He or she would get much more from the Nobel Prize won by disproving evolution. Because that is what changing a fruit fly into a bee would do.

 

[gluadys]

Biological species exist as organisms. So if you deny that groups of organisms can become something different from their parents why would you believe that species evolve beyond the species level?

You are making some subtle modifications in my statement that change the meaning. I said organisms are always the same species as their parents. I also said an organism may have unique traits due to genetic changes which are not found in either parent: not enough change to make it a different species, but still a difference.

I did not say anything about groups of organisms never becoming different from their ancestors. A group of organisms is either a species or a potential species and yes, that is where evolution happens: in the group.

I don't know what you mean by "evolve beyond the species level".

But suppose you do have a group of organisms of species A. Through evolution, this group becomes marked off as a sub-species. The group is differentiated from the rest of the species by some unique feature not found in other members of the species. It is not a different species at this point, because if it comes in contact with organisms outside the group, successful mating can still take place.

But eventually a time comes when successful matings between most members of species A and its sub-species no longer happen. Now we must call the sub-species a species.

And we have to call the remaining segment of species A a species as well.

So what now, do we call the original species A (both sub-groups taken together?) Now we call that a genus.

Is that what you mean by "evolving beyond the species level"?

Any genetic changes in a species would have to happen from parents to offspring,irrespective of the extent and rate of change from generation to generation. Species are made up of parents and offspring.

If you are thinking in terms of what happens to the individual genes that are inherited, that's right. But that's not what evolution is.

Evolution is a measure of the frequency at which a gene appears in the population. More precisely it measures the changes in the frequency at which a gene appears in the population over generations.

When it comes to organisms, there is a fixed number of the copies of a gene that can appear at any locus. 1 or 2 depending on whether the organism is haploid or diploid. So there is no change in the frequency of the gene.

Only in a population can the number of copies of a gene change frequency. That is why it is only populations that can evolve.

Do you mean speciation? That happens through the reproduction of individual creatures which vary from their parents. Whatever changes happen through changes in allele frequencies,or natural selection,happens firstly through reproduction. No matter which way you cut evolution,at the bottom of all descent with modification,whether real or supposed,is reproduction.

No, I mean evolution, irrespective of whether speciation also occurs. Reproduction of offspring who vary from their parents is necessary for evolution to take place, but it is not sufficient in itself to trigger evolutionary change. Something more is needed in addition to reproduction with variation.

Changes happen in organisms --- or rather in their genes, with those changes sometimes being expressed phenotypically. But organisms cannot change the frequency of alleles just by reproducing. In fact, Mendel showed that reproduction alone maintained a fairly constant frequency of alleles in the population. So changes in organisms, the changes that are passed from parent to child, are not what makes evolution happen.

What you get at this level is a population with a lot of variation. But not one that has evolved.

There is no getting beyond reproduction. It is the only means of transmitting genetic changes.

True, and since evolution depends on inheritable changes, reproduction is absolutely essential. But not sufficient to generate evolution.

To say that species change over time is ambiguous. It can mean any extent of change,from that which is observable to that which is unobservable and naturally impossible.

The only way to determine what is naturally impossible is to explore what is possible until we find an empirical limit. There are various limitations which are recognized in evolutionary theory. There are physical, developmental and historical constraints on evolutionary change.

I have never seen an anti-evolutionist who either proposed an empirically testable limit or who understood the actual limits of evolutionary change.

The expanation of descent with modification is not the theory itself,it is
the supporting evidence for the theory. No one has a problem with the
observable facts of descent with modification. If that was all the theory
was about,there would be no controversy.

Yes, the controversy comes because people don't understand that is what the theory is about. So they actually focus on red herrings like abiogenesis or geology or mathematical improbabilities instead.

Descent with modification through natural selection is the theory in a nutshell. Common ancestry is a given of speciation. That, after all, is what speciation means: that a population divides into two different species, and then those into different species, and those into different species--continually multiplying the number of species. So if you have descent with modification--which you consider non-controversial--and speciation--which has been observed and even produced in lab conditions, then you necessarily have a common ancestor. And if you have repeated speciations over time, you necessarily have common ancestors at different levels: common generic ancestors, common familial ancestors, common ancestors of an order or class or kingdom.

The theory of evolution is not primarily an explanation of what causes species to change,it is an explanation of the history of species and how they have originated and developed.

You have just summarized the basic difference between a scientist's and a layperson's understanding of "theory of evolution". To most biologists, evolution is primarily an explanation of what causes species to change.

The theory doesn't explain the history. But of course, tracing the history of evolutionary changes is an important part of evolutionary studies which helps scientists understand better how evolution works.

To the layperson, the history of evolution, the tracing of species to common ancestors is much more important than understanding how evolution works. So they think that is what the theory is all about.

When an evolutionist explains how the causes of evolution work together to produce species change is taking it as a given that they did change in the way described by the theory.

It is not exactly taken as a given. There is a history of verifying that these causes produce the effect of changing species. With that history of verification already in place, scientists can move on to more detailed examination of specific instances of evolution without worrying about re-establishing again what has already been verified multiple times.

I know that evolution scientists prefer to define the theory as an explanation of the causes of biological change,but when they explain natural selection working upon genetic mutations they do it to justify the historical narrative. They use it to lead up to the phylogenic claims of the theory. The idea of common descent of all species and its collorary,macro-evolution,is taken for granted.

Science focuses on facts, not motivations. It doesn't matter what their motivations are so long as their theories are based on fact, can be tested against facts, accurately predict as yet undiscovered facts, etc.

Whatever agenda a scientist might have, the only real question is whether his hypothesis makes sense of the facts and can be empirically demonstrated.

The reality of descent with modification is used as supporting evidence for the theory.

Well, of course.

It would be a different theory of evolution than the one that is current.

Tell me one thing in the theory of evolution that would have to change if our ancestors were bovines instead of primates. And I mean theory, not history. Of course the history would be different. But it would be explained by the same theory.

Phylogenic research is done in the service of the theory,just as with evolutionary biology.

I would say phylogentic research is done on the basis of the theory of evolution. Without evolution, there would be no phylogeny to research in the first place.

The fact that speciation happens does not justify the view that all species must be related by ancestry.

On its own, no. But there is a great deal of evidence from a variety of independent sources that does justify that view.

That is to assume that there must have been only one original source for all species.

In view of the evidence, it is not an assumption. It is a logical conclusion.

Different species that are seen to have descended from common ancestors may be considered sub-species of a broader,reproductively related group. That is why creationists are not swayed from their opinion when evolutionists show them observed instances of speciation. Speciation causes sub-species to emerge.

Of course. This is what Darwin meant when he said that varieties are incipient species and a genus is related to its species as a species is to its varieties or sub-species. So, this is just playing semantics.

After all, when a new reproductively isolated group emerges from the sub-species, what do you have then? You could, of course, simply keep adding sub-sub-sub-sub- as many times as you want before saying "species". Linneaus found it more convenient to give different names to different levels of sub-species, sub-sub-species, sub-sub-sub-etc-species. So we use terms like "genus" to refer to a "species" that has at least two levels of "sub-species" and "family" to refer to a "species" that has sub-species at the level of genus, and so on up the taxonomic scale.

 

[Willtor]

A simple experiment could help.

Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.

It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.

If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars

one-lord.org

I imagine the creationist would be the one who wanted to change a fruit fly into a bee. After all, it would disprove evolution.

 

[Greg1234]

I imagine the creationist would be the one who wanted to change a fruit fly into a bee. After all, it would disprove evolution.

Given that adaptation is guided by an intelligent process, a fruit fly should be able to turn into a bee if it could turn into a bee. This should happen with a few days to a few weeks of pressure since there is no wait for random mutations.

Transposable elements 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

Epigenetics and Darwinism Epigenetics and Darwin

 

[Greg1234]

A simple experiment could help.

Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.

It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.

If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars

one-lord.org

An 80yr experiment on fruit flies was conducted with radiation. In the end, fruit flies. There were limits and also reversions when the deformed organism was allowed to survive the admission of radiation.FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

"And when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.

"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution.​

It looks like the loss of eyes persisting in a generation is not the result of external stochastic agents acting on the organism but is induced and allowed by the organism when the environment is adequate. Any change that comes without its consent is disregarded. This was seen in the case of flax which defied Medel's laws of inheritance

Evidence for these genetic alterations in flax have existed for nearly three decades but has received relatively no attention, wrote Steven Henikoff, epigeneticist and Howard Hughes Medical Investigator at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, in Plant Cell in November 2005.12 "The evidence for some kind of massive programmed rearrangement upon environmental induction in flax is unequivocal," he writes, "but inheritance of acquired changes has been an anathema to evolutionary biologists ever since Darwin's time."

Read more: Mendel upended? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/54194/;jsessionid=54690AF28558DAC36A7EFAFA3E0B3760​

 

[Willtor]

Given that adaptation is guided by an intelligent process, a fruit fly should be able to turn into a bee if it could turn into a bee. This should happen with a few days to a few weeks of pressure since there is no wait for random mutations.

Transposable elements 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

Epigenetics and Darwinism Epigenetics and Darwin

I'm doubtful that even with a guided process a fruit fly could ever become compatible with a bee. The common ancestor is too many generations ago. If it did, through a guided process, I would be extremely surprised. It would certainly undermine a lot of what I think I know about biology.

But the short of it is: the success of such an experiment would not be a victory for the theory of evolution.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

You are making some subtle modifications in my statement that change the meaning. I said organisms are always the same species as their parents. I also said an organism may have unique traits due to genetic changes which are not found in either parent: not enough change to make it a different species, but still a difference.

I did not say anything about groups of organisms never becoming different from their ancestors. A group of organisms is either a species or a potential species and yes, that is where evolution happens: in the group.

Groups consist of individuals with specific beginnings at conception. What appears as evolution of a species consists of organisms that are conceived with new traits. If a species gradually evolves into a new species,the new species nevertheless begins immediately with the reproduction of individuals with new traits. It is individual creatures that make a species,regardless of the number.

I don't know what you mean by "evolve beyond the species level".

Macro-evolution. As in dinosaurs evolving into birds,or indohyus into whales,or a simian species evolving into humans.

But suppose you do have a group of organisms of species A. Through evolution, this group becomes marked off as a sub-species. The group is differentiated from the rest of the species by some unique feature not found in other members of the species. It is not a different species at this point, because if it comes in contact with organisms outside the group, successful mating can still take place.

But eventually a time comes when successful matings between most members of species A and its sub-species no longer happen. Now we must call the sub-species a species.

And we have to call the remaining segment of species A a species as well.

Scientists do not,in practice,stick with the biological definition of species. They will call a group of creatures a species based upon its distinguishing physical characteristics,even if the group is known to be genetically compatible with another group,and even if it is not known to be genetically isolated (as with dinosaurs). Species and sub-species alike are identified as such according to their physical characteristics.

So what now, do we call the original species A (both sub-groups taken together?) Now we call that a genus.

The genus classification is not defined as an original species,it is above the species level. Like the other taxonomic classifications above the species level,it is arbitrary,as it places together different species based upon their physical similarities rather than upon known reproductive relatedness.

Is that what you mean by "evolving beyond the species level"?

No.

If you are thinking in terms of what happens to the individual genes that are inherited, that's right. But that's not what evolution is.

Evolution is a measure of the frequency at which a gene appears in the population. More precisely it measures the changes in the frequency at which a gene appears in the population over generations.

That isn't the proper definition of evolution. Evolution is change and development of the physical form of species. Changes of allele frequencies are a cause for evolution,not evolution itself.

When it comes to organisms, there is a fixed number of the copies of a gene that can appear at any locus. 1 or 2 depending on whether the organism is haploid or diploid. So there is no change in the frequency of the gene.

I did not suggest there was. I was making the point that genetic changes in a species or population cannot be separated from genetic changes that appear in individuals.

Only in a population can the number of copies of a gene change frequency. That is why it is only populations that can evolve.

But populations exist as individuals,perhaps even one.

No, I mean evolution, irrespective of whether speciation also occurs. Reproduction of offspring who vary from their parents is necessary for evolution to take place, but it is not sufficient in itself to trigger evolutionary change. Something more is needed in addition to reproduction with variation.

Evolution is defined by evolutionists as descent with modification,that is,reproduction with variation.

Changes happen in organisms --- or rather in their genes, with those changes sometimes being expressed phenotypically. But organisms cannot change the frequency of alleles just by reproducing. In fact, Mendel showed that reproduction alone maintained a fairly constant frequency of alleles in the population. So changes in organisms, the changes that are passed from parent to child, are not what makes evolution happen.

If you are getting at natural selection,that comes down to reproduction as well.

What you get at this level is a population with a lot of variation. But not one that has evolved.

Is there an exact point at which a population has evolved? Are variation in a group and evolution separate things?

 

[gluadys]

Groups consist of individuals with specific beginnings at conception. What appears as evolution of a species consists of organisms that are conceived with new traits.

Individuals being conceived with new traits make evolution possible. They do not make evolution happen.

Scientists do not,in practice,stick with the biological definition of species.

The scientific definition of species is the biological definition of species. You seem to want to depart from that. That is a typical way of avoiding the biological facts of speciation.

So what now, do we call the original species A (both sub-groups taken together?) Now we call that a genus.

The genus classification is not defined as an original species,it is above the species level. Like the other taxonomic classifications above the species level,it is arbitrary,as it places together different species based upon their physical similarities rather than upon known reproductive relatedness.

Yes, the genus classification is above the species level. And now the population A is also above the species level since it now consists of two species. That is why it is now called a genus.

It is true that when biologists were limited to using only morphological traits, the genus classification was based on physical similarities alone and therefore arbitrary. Today, genetic characteristics are used as well, and that removes a lot of the arbitrariness of the genus and other higher-level taxa. Finding out what the reproductive relatedness of various populations are is a major portion of phylogenetic research.

Is that what you mean by "evolving beyond the species level"?

No.

Well, it should be. That is how a population evolves from the species level to the genus level, and subsequently to the family, order, etc levels. That is the basic process of macro-evolution.

What you named earlier was not the process of macroevolution, but the results: dinosaurs to birds, indohyus to whale, simians to humans.

If you want to know how these results were obtained, you have to begin with speciation: the splitting of a breeding population into separated populations.

Evolution is a measure of the frequency at which a gene appears in the population. More precisely it measures the changes in the frequency at which a gene appears in the population over generations.

That isn't the proper definition of evolution. Evolution is change and development of the physical form of species. Changes of allele frequencies are a cause for evolution,not evolution itself.

Yes, it is the proper definition of evolution. Changes in allele frequences is the definition of evolution, not the cause of evolution.

I think again, you are looking at the result rather than the process. We see that over time, species change in physical form. The cause of that change is evolution. But what then is evolution? It is the process by which the genes (the carriers of information which determine inherited form) become more or less frequent in the population.

Changes in allele frequency over generations is the basic process of micro-evolution.

So, in a sense we are both right. Evolution is change. Microevolution is change within a breeding population (a species) and is seen through its results: the typical characteristics of the population change (colour, size, shape, behaviour, etc.). Macroevolution is change on a larger scale giving us new genera, families, classes, etc.

We can call the observed change itself "evolution" as you are doing.

But that observed change doesn't help us understand what produces the change. There is an underlying process in both cases.
For microevolution, that process is the changing frequency of alleles in a gene pool over generations. For macroevolution, that process is primarily cladistic speciation i.e. one species or population is divided into two or more populations which no longer successfully breed with each other.

We can call those processes which drive the observed change "evolution" as I have been doing.

These are not antithetical ideas. The processes bring about the changes. So if we ask "what is evolution?" we can say either "the observed changes in species and higher taxa" [result-focus] or "the processes which produce the observed changes in species and generate new species" [process-focus] and either answer is correct.

When it comes to organisms, there is a fixed number of the copies of a gene that can appear at any locus. 1 or 2 depending on whether the organism is haploid or diploid. So there is no change in the frequency of the gene.

I did not suggest there was. I was making the point that genetic changes in a species or population cannot be separated from genetic changes that appear in individuals.

True, but neither can evolution be limited to genetic changes that appear in individuals. Genetic changes appearing in individuals don't cause the species to change without additional factors in play. Evolution is a matter of how common changes become in the population. A genetic change in an individual, even a hundred genetic changes in one individual have no effect on the species--especially if that individual never reproduces. Nor do a hundred genetic changes in one hundred different individuals.

Only when those genetic changes become frequent in the population does one see evolution. And that means the frequency of the alleles in the population has to change.

But populations exist as individuals,perhaps even one.

And since gene frequencies in an individual are fixed, a population of one cannot evolve. Hence, an evolving population must consist of at least two individuals. The more individuals in the population, the more different alleles for any trait can exist in the population and the greater the potential for evolution.

No, I mean evolution, irrespective of whether speciation also occurs. Reproduction of offspring who vary from their parents is necessary for evolution to take place, but it is not sufficient in itself to trigger evolutionary change. Something more is needed in addition to reproduction with variation.

Evolution is defined by evolutionists as descent with modification,that is,reproduction with variation.

Changes happen in organisms --- or rather in their genes, with those changes sometimes being expressed phenotypically. But organisms cannot change the frequency of alleles just by reproducing. In fact, Mendel showed that reproduction alone maintained a fairly constant frequency of alleles in the population. So changes in organisms, the changes that are passed from parent to child, are not what makes evolution happen.

If you are getting at natural selection,that comes down to reproduction as well.

Yes, of course, I am getting to natural selection. Natural selection seems to be much undervalued in comparison to genetic changes among evolution skeptics. But evolution takes more than coming up with genetic changes.

Yes, natural selection does come down to reproduction as well. Natural selection is the non-random reproduction of certain alleles disproportionately to others. Natural selection is the violation of Mendelian genetic stability over generations. Without natural selection there could not be any significant change in the frequencies at which different alleles appear in a population. IOW without natural selection there is no evolution. Not at a species level, much less beyond the species level.

IOW one might well say that evolution is a pattern of reproduction in a population that leads to changing the characteristics of a species over generations. That pattern is established by natural selection.

Is there an exact point at which a population has evolved?

Not usually. It is better to consider that a population is always in the process of evolving. There is not even an exact point at which a population speciates. The isolation of one part of a population from the other is normally a gradual process and one can only establish speciation in hindsight.

Are variation in a group and evolution separate things?

Yes, very definitely. A great deal of variation has no importance in evolution.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Individuals being conceived with new traits make evolution possible. They do not make evolution happen.

The reproduction of individuals is the means by which genetic modifications are transmitted and spread in a population.

The scientific definition of species is the biological definition of species.

I know.

You seem to want to depart from that. That is a typical way of avoiding the biological facts of speciation.

I was pointing out the fact that scientists do not stick with the biological definition in practice. It would be unreasonable to do so. There are many species that are capable of breeding with other species.

Yes, the genus classification is above the species level. And now the population A is also above the species level since it now consists of two species. That is why it is now called a genus.

In the taxonomic system,a genus is a group of species that are structurally similar,even if they have not been seen to be related.

It is true that when biologists were limited to using only morphological traits, the genus classification was based on physical similarities alone and therefore arbitrary. Today, genetic characteristics are used as well, and that removes a lot of the arbitrariness of the genus and other higher-level taxa. Finding out what the reproductive relatedness of various populations are is a major portion of phylogenetic research.

Phylogenetic research cannot show that there was ever reproductive relatedness between species. We cannot know if there was common descent between species unless they have been seen to be reproductively compatible or if one group has been seen to emerge from another.

Well, it should be. That is how a population evolves from the species level to the genus level, and subsequently to the family, order, etc levels. That is the basic process of macro-evolution.

I said no because you did not describe macro-evolution. Your definition of genus was wrong anyway.

What you named earlier was not the process of macroevolution, but the results: dinosaurs to birds, indohyus to whale, simians to humans.

I know that it is not the process. I don't believe macro-evolution happened so I do not call it results either.

If you want to know how these results were obtained, you have to begin with speciation: the splitting of a breeding population into separated populations.

Speciation only results in sub-species with less genetic variability than the original population had. Macro-evolution cannot happen with groups that continually sub-divide into groups with diminished potential for variation.
That process is the inverse of macro-evolution. It leads toward a genetic bottleneck.

Yes, it is the proper definition of evolution. Changes in allele frequences is the definition of evolution, not the cause of evolution.

Evolution is explained with reference to changes of allele frequencies,but that is not the proper definition. Evolution refers to changes in physical form,not statistical changes of DNA.

I think again, you are looking at the result rather than the process.

I look at the supposed causes,as well as the supposed results. That is why I do not believe that macro-evolution happened. The supposed causes - natural selection and genetic mutation - cannot possibly lead to macro-evolution.

We see that over time, species change in physical form. The cause of that change is evolution. But what then is evolution? It is the process by which the genes (the carriers of information which determine inherited form) become more or less frequent in the population.

The only evolution that can be shown to have happened is the emergence of
species that are of the same general kind of creature as the species from which they descended.

Changes in allele frequency over generations is the basic process of micro-evolution.

So, in a sense we are both right. Evolution is change. Microevolution is change within a breeding population (a species) and is seen through its results: the typical characteristics of the population change (colour, size, shape, behaviour, etc.). Macroevolution is change on a larger scale giving us new genera, families, classes, etc.

We can call the observed change itself "evolution" as you are doing.

But that observed change doesn't help us understand what produces the change. There is an underlying process in both cases. For microevolution, that process is the changing frequency of alleles in a gene pool over generations. For macroevolution, that process is primarily cladistic speciation i.e. one species or population is divided into two or more populations which no longer successfully breed with each other.

We can call those processes which drive the observed change "evolution" as I have been doing.

These are not antithetical ideas. The processes bring about the changes. So if we ask "what is evolution?" we can say either "the observed changes in species and higher taxa" [result-focus] or "the processes which produce the observed changes in species and generate new species" [process-focus] and either answer is correct.

Macro-evolution cannot be shown to have happened,and it does not logically or biologically follow that populations will develop beyond the species level because of genetic isolation. It just does not happen that way. It is wrong to extrapolate macro-evolution from the observed instances of speciation.
Macro-evolution is not a testable prediction. So it is deceptively vague to describe evolution modestly as a process of descent with modification or changes of allele frequencies,for the purpose of leading up to the far-fetched historical claims of evolution theory.