Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it does not clearly exist as a bright line
distinction, a yes / no.
Archeologists, eso those working in the Paleolithic
often have a very difficult time, if ut us possible at
all, to determine what is man made, what marks
might have coded meaning, what might not.

Paleontologists and archeologists dread pot hunters and
commercial diggers because as they put it, "information
is lost."
There is information in a stone area. Where the stone
came from, the applied skill of the maker, a range of
possible uses, what cultural style it is, etc.

A fossil arrives a wealth of info.

A hunk of granite out in a wheatfield has info.
It may be a glacial erratic.
A raindrop has so much info that if you
learned all there is to know about it, you would
know most of what there is to learn aboutvtge universe.
(Feynman)

I think we agree

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Seriously? you want to say that information varies in quality?

?
Of course... are you saying it does not? again ask any archeologist or forensic scientist
Information can range from utterly ambiguous to utterly unambiguous re. evidence for intelligent agency
remember it all depends on how much specification the information contains

a few scratches on a cave wall to an entire wall of well preserved hieroglyphs

& the latter I would say is selling the human genome a little short!

 

[Astrid]

I think we agree

I doubt that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

gimme your best one!

I don't have a 'best' example of speciation - it is what it is. But there's one that gives two for the price of one - the two new species of American goatsbeards (salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that hybridized from the three species introduced to the US from Europe in the early 1900's - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius).

Then there's Welsh groundsel, a 20th century allopolyploid descendent of a cross between groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and Oxford ragwort (Senecio squalidus).

There are others (it's easier to observe in plants, as they don't move around so much).

superior and inferior with regards to reproductive success.....

So how can superior reproductive success result in reproductive dysfunction, as you suggest?

I fear we are slipping away from substance and into semantics again here..

We should get the semantics right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

?
Of course... again ask any archeologist or forensic scientist
Information can range from utterly ambiguous to utterly unambiguous re. evidence for intelligent agency
remember it all depends on how much specification the information contains

a few scratches on a cave wall to an entire wall of well preserved hieroglyphs

& the latter I would say is selling the human genome a little short!

You didn't answer the question - what definition of information are you using now?

 

[pitabread]

The most common argument is that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. This is a mathematical blunder. Do you understand why?

If you're arguing that there is a limit to biological evolution, then by all means present it. Though I would suggest that couching in the framework of "microevolution vs macroevolution" is a red herring. Those terms are somewhat nebulous to begin with.

 

[Speedwell]

Random chance is certainly the key characteristic of Darwinian theory

to claim Darwinism proves Darwinism is obviously a circular argument!

Random (bell curve) distribution of heritable variation is the key concept, along with natural selection of variants from that distribution.

 

[pitabread]

we cannot observe a single celled bacteria like organism morphing into a human being through random mutation.

Right, obviously we can't observe ~4 billion years of evolution that has already happened.

However, we do observe the process by which it happens. And that process is directly observable within human timeframes.

 

[Speedwell]

The most common argument is that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. This is a mathematical blunder. Do you understand why?

The only mathematical blunder I have seen are the bogus "probability" calculations you have posted.

 

[Astrid]

You didn't answer the question - what definition of information are you using now?

The beauty part of "information" is the lack of info in the
word.
As far as I can see its only function is to
enable a creationist to keep it up until he multiplies
the limits of exasperation beyond human endurance,
whereupon the creationist can say he argued a whole
roomful of evos into the ground.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't have a 'best' example of speciation - it is what it is. But there's one that gives two for the price of one - the two new species of American goatsbeards (salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that hybridized from the three species introduced to the US from Europe in the early 1900's - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius).

meaning the intentional introduction of new specifying information, (not random mutation) this is the only proven means by which macro evolution can occur.

^ in response to this you gave me an example of polyploidy, where no new specifying information is introduced, just yet another example of a reproductive error causing a problem; an inability to breed with it's ancestors in this case.

Once again, the degradation of genetic information is not in question, and the above example does nothing to explain macro evolution, transforming a single celled bacteria like organism into the diverse biosphere we see today.

So how can superior reproductive success result in reproductive dysfunction, as you suggest?

in many cases the largest/ strongest in a gene pool might have the reproductive advantage ...up to a point, because of course with increased size comes an increased demand for food, likelihood of injury etc- one reason species remain range-bound

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The beauty part of "information" is the lack of info in the
word.
As far as I can see its only function is to
enable a creationist to keep it up until he multiplies
the limits of exasperation beyond human endurance,
whereupon the creationist can say he argued a whole
roomful of evos into the ground.

"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense"

"Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."

:Richard Dawkins

I didn't know he was a creationist!

 

[Astrid]

"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense"

"Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."

:Richard Dawkins

I didn't know he was a creationist!

Did I not describe exactly how the word is used by creationists?

 

[Astrid]

^ in response to this you gave me an example of polyploidy, where no new specifying information is introduced, just yet another example of a reproductive error causing a problem; an inability to breed with it's ancestors in this case.

Once again, the degradation of genetic information is not in question, and the above example does nothing to explain macro evolution, transforming a single celled bacteria like organism into the diverse biosphere we see today.




in many cases the largest/ strongest in a gene pool might have the reproductive advantage ...up to a point, because of course with increased size comes an increased demand for food, likelihood of injury etc- one reason species remain range-bound

Are you aware of organisms that can live as single
cells, or as part of a colony?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right, obviously we can't observe ~4 billion years of evolution that has already happened.

However, we do observe the process by which it happens. And that process is directly observable within human timeframes.

apples still fall from trees
and genetic apples fall not far from theirs...

Extrapolating these superficial observations into comprehensive explanations for all physical and biological form is extremely tempting- but still just speculative extrapolation

As we found out post-classical physics, things DO work very differently at different scales, they have to.

All we observe is natural variation, which in a dynamic world is essentially a design constraint- it says nothing in itself about the method by which these adaptable forms were created

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you're arguing that there is a limit to biological evolution, then by all means present it. Though I would suggest that couching in the framework of "microevolution vs macroevolution" is a red herring. Those terms are somewhat nebulous to begin with.

microevolution is scientifically observed - to the point of range bound natural variation

macroevolution remains entirely speculative

that's a pretty clear distinction I would say, but I agree we can't get too hung up on any particular labels as the semantics distract from the substance

But we can surely agree that a bacteria becoming a human.. involves some fundamentally different processes than we can observe in dog breeding or polyploidy

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you aware of organisms that can live as single
cells, or as part of a colony?

sure we agree again, but what fun is that?

Must run but appreciate the thoughtful debate as always

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

to claim Darwinism proves Darwinism is obviously a circular argument!

It would be if someone claimed that - unless that's your way of asserting that random variation and natural selection implies anticipation...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That would be a good question for an archeologist or 'Egyptologist' perhaps in this case

But again, however you choose to define the distinction between artifact and natural object, the distinction clearly exists and can be described by information:

certain symbols refer to Gods, people, places, -i.e. once again, they specify something beyond their own medium of carvings in stone

OK, never mind. I see no prospect of these vague and evasive responses improving.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The beauty part of "information" is the lack of info in the
word.
As far as I can see its only function is to
enable a creationist to keep it up until he multiplies
the limits of exasperation beyond human endurance,
whereupon the creationist can say he argued a whole
roomful of evos into the ground.

Yep; equivocation is the name of the game.