Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Frank Robert]

Is that y-Adam and mtDNA Eve?

I have no idea. I just thought you might appreciate something that makes room for common space.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Those who believe in the Flash, believe he made it from Boston to L.A. in a second, as he said he did.

Those who don't believe in the Flash are doomed to have to believe he walked it; and so they have to start making up things to fit their theory:

Add five months to the pot, add wear and tear on his sartorial equipment, interpret debris along his trail as belonging to him, and the list can go on and on.

Gotta love the DC universe. Cities like Metropolis, Central City, and Gotham. Makes it easier to put the stories into perspective.
Marvel uses real places, which makes for a more interesting discussion.
Spiderman lives in New York. I can find New York on a map.
The Flash lives in Central City. Which is somewhere near Metropolis.
Try as I might, I can't find it on any map.
No need to interpret debris. Just open an atlas.

 

[renniks]

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. The public accepts the ToE because it is a scientific fact.

No, it isn't. In fact you are contradicting yourself by saying it is.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it isn't. In fact you are contradicting yourself by saying it is.

You make a very important point. It has to be kept in mind that while evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is not, strictly speaking, a fact. Scientific theories are not, in themselves, facts. They are explanations of facts. Unfortunately, that distinction is sometimes lost in the popular media and in lower-level teaching. the only thing about the theory of evolution which is a fact, is that it is a fact that it is so far the only well-evidenced and explanatory theory for the fact of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gotta love the DC universe.

WHOOSH!

Right over your head.

 

[Mr Laurier]

WHOOSH!

Right over your head.

huh?
So you were being obscure again... as usual?
Please do make clear what point you are tapdancing around then.

 

[SelfSim]

You make a very important point. It has to be kept in mind that while evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is not, strictly speaking, a fact. Scientific theories are not, in themselves, facts. They are explanations of facts. Unfortunately, that distinction is sometimes lost in the popular media and in lower-level teaching. the only thing about the theory of evolution which is a fact, is that it is a fact that it is so far the only well-evidenced and explanatory theory for the fact of evolution.

I think one could argue that the core principle(s) of evolution might be a fact(s):
Ie: any place where there is an error prone self replicator with access to free energy and constraints imposed by its environment, will evolve(?)

 

[Speedwell]

I think one could argue that the core principle(s) of evolution might be a fact(s):
Ie: any place where there is an error prone self replicator with access to free energy and constraints imposed by its environment, will evolve(?)

That seems reasonable. The process can be modeled mathematically and has practical applications in industry. It has been observed in living creatures up to and including speciation, which growing numbers of creationists are beginning to admit. The main question remaining for them is, can the "tree (or bush) of life" be traced back to a single trunk or is it a forest of "kind" trees?

 

[SelfSim]

The main question remaining for them is, can the "tree (or bush) of life" be traced back to a single trunk or is it a forest of "kind" trees?

I'd agree that might be a question for them .. meanwhile science moves on (with crystal clarity ..)

 

[driewerf]

T

You're definitely not a creationist.

hat's okay. But neither am I an evolutionist. I'm fine with evading classification.

So we finally found a transitional!

 

[AV1611VET]

So we finally found a transitional!

Yup.

 

[Mr Laurier]

That seems reasonable. The process can be modeled mathematically and has practical applications in industry. It has been observed in living creatures up to and including speciation, which growing numbers of creationists are beginning to admit. The main question remaining for them is, can the "tree (or bush) of life" be traced back to a single trunk or is it a forest of "kind" trees?

Aron Ra made a series of amazing videos about this.
The Phylogeny Project is the title, I think.
No. Its Systemic Classification of Life
Here's the first video

They are all very short, and easy to understand

 

[FredVB]

I think that there are gene pools, distinct from one another. Maybe genetic defects happen that contribute to some further variation but not enough that would permit such drift that would exclude all the original gene pool without all the genetic defects that would be involved killing off the gene pool for that possibility, which then could not happen. So it would allow speciation, from adequate variation possible already in the gene pool, and may be a little further variation, but not much further than that.

Huh

It is funny, to me, that it is frequently that among those responding to posts from creationist believers, there are the responses to show they don't understand the communication, as if they don't. It would be rather ironic. Gene pools are really very separate. Variations from genetic drift, which can result from mutations, can happen. But the overwhelming number of mutations is not consisting of anything beneficial to those of a gene pool. To have enough mutations to produce enough useful variations for coming to any new forms distinct from what was possible in the original gene pool, there would be a huge number of harmful mutations that could overwhelm the gene pool instead, which would be far too likely. This is an objection to effective evolution depending on mutations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is funny, to me, that it is frequently that among those responding to posts from creationist believers, there are the responses to show they don't understand the communication, as if they don't. It would be rather ironic. Gene pools are really very separate. Variations from genetic drift, which can result from mutations, can happen. But the overwhelming number of mutations is not consisting of anything beneficial to those of a gene pool. To have enough mutations to produce enough useful variations for coming to any new forms distinct from what was possible in the original gene pool, there would be a huge number of harmful mutations that could overwhelm the gene pool instead, which would be far too likely. This is an objection to effective evolution depending on mutations.

That gets to the heart of the problem. The limitations of natural variation were already observed and known about in Darwin's time- by those who had been conducting the empirical scientific experiments for centuries; farmers.

The theory then as now, has always relied on the untestable proposition; that 'billions of years' could overcome any and all improbabilities encountered- a classic 'prove the negative' argument. - but even this runs afoul of the math today as science has progressed.
It has been calculated that multiplying the number of nanoseconds since the beginning of the universe by the number of individual organisms that ever existed, & then by the number of elementary particles that make up the universe- would still not give you a large enough number of attempts, to randomly create a new modest sized functional protein, by chance arrangement of it's amino acids.

The problem intensifies when you get into origins of life, because time is not on your side. You don't have billions of years to wait for the next developmental stage, you have a matter of hours in some cases before unstable intermediate microbiological structures decay.

 

[Phred]

Watching people who can't manage to grasp what evolution is trying to find a way to undermine it is... pathetic.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Watching people who can't manage to grasp what evolution is trying to find a way to undermine it is... pathetic.

sticks and stones... 'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'

Any attempt at a substantive argument for Darwinian evolution... not as common, but always much appreciated.

 

[pitabread]

The limitations of natural variation were already observed and known about in Darwin's time- by those who had been conducting the empirical scientific experiments for centuries; farmers.

Apples and oranges though. Farmers aren't necessarily going to be breeding crops or livestock and subjecting to the same selective pressures as might otherwise occur in nature.

It has been calculated that multiplying the number of nanoseconds since the beginning of the universe by the number of individual organisms that ever existed, & then by the number of elementary particles that make up the universe- would still not give you a large enough number of attempts, to randomly create a new modest sized functional protein, by chance arrangement of it's amino acids.

Except that proteins don't form by pure randomization, so any arguments on this basis are completely irrelevant.

Attempting to use probability arguments to argue against biological evolution and/or abiogenesis is a fool's errand.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Apples and oranges though. Farmers aren't necessarily going to be breeding crops or livestock and subjecting to the same selective pressures as might otherwise occur in nature.

Of course, artificial selection has the advantage of working towards a goal v random chaos that can readily select inferior genetic lines

Except that proteins don't form by pure randomization, so any arguments on this basis are completely irrelevant.

The sequences are coded for in DNA, the 4 characters of your quaternary code must be grouped into the proper syntax to instruct the sequencing of the 20 main amino acids

so creating them via randomly mutating DNA (as the theory goes) only adds an additional layer of difficulty for chance to succeed

Attempting to use probability arguments to argue against biological evolution and/or abiogenesis is a fool's errand.

It used to be, when the cell was an indistinct blob of protoplasm- we had nothing to base it on

As we learned more about the structure and information systems in the cell, the staggering improbability of life occurring by chance became an explicit rationale for the 'infinite improbability generator ' aka multiverse, that given enough rolls of the dice, a universe like ours has to be created eventually- as Hawking himself put it

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Of course, artificial selection has the advantage of working towards a goal v random chaos that can readily select inferior genetic lines



The sequences are coded for in DNA, the 4 characters of your quaternary code must be grouped into the proper syntax to instruct the sequencing of the 20 main amino acids

so creating them via randomly mutating DNA (as the theory goes) only adds an additional layer of difficulty for chance to succeed



It used to be, when the cell was an indistinct blob of protoplasm- we had nothing to base it on

As we learned more about the structure and information systems in the cell, the staggering improbability of life occurring by chance became an explicit rationale for the 'infinite improbability generator ' aka multiverse, that given enough rolls of the dice, a universe like ours has to be created eventually- as Hawking himself put it

Careful. One more post and you'll be in league with The Beast!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well for some reason I just suddenly feel the need to say; that evolution is the devil's work! you will find no such demonic influences lurking anywhere in my posts!!!