Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[pitabread]

She writes about supposed transitions but has no first hand knowledge about Paleontology where you would expect to see the evidence! She, not I, is the one who's commenting about her qualification in paleontology when she admitted? "I am not a paleontologist" What she has read in her literature is wrong about supposed transition because none are found!

The list is literally a series of fossil transitions. Are you suggesting those fossils don't exist?

If you want to just handwave the whole thing away, that's your choice, but you're not addressing any of the actual fossils in question.

Insofar as the various quotes you are posting, again, the subject is on the tempo of evolutionary changes over time and whether evolution occurs via phyletic gradualism at a constant pace. It's well known this isn't the case, but this certainly doesn't invalidate the existence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Fossils showing morphological changes over time do exist and that Transitional Fossil FAQ provides examples thereof.

From where I'm sitting, you appear to be denying the existence of the very fossils in question. I'm not sure what to do with that.

(I should also note that in the context of transitional or intermediary forms, I'm talking about fossils that show intermediary characteristics between earlier and derived taxa. What you appear to fixating on based on the quotes is specific species-to-species gradualism. It's worth pointing out these aren't exactly the same thing.)

 

[DaveISBA]

If humans appear abruptly and fully formed, then why can't creationists agree on which hominid fossils are humans or not?

The Comparison of skulls? Any person with any kind of perception can distinguish the fully ape skulls from the fully human skull and why only the skulls? Because any skeletal images would be a dead give away about who's ape and who's human!
There is no disagreement about what a 2019 the-scientist.com article thinks (Australopithecus sediba not likely humans' ancestor: study)
Australopithecus sediba Not Likely Humans’ Ancestor: Study

 

[pitabread]

Any person with any kind of perception can distinguish the fully ape skulls from the fully human skull and why only the skulls? Because any skeletal images would be a dead give away about who's ape and who's human!

That's the point. If it was that simple there should be no disagreement among creationists. So why do creationists disagree?

There is no disagreement about what a 2019 the-scientist.com article thinks (Australopithecus sediba not likely humans' ancestor: study)
Australopithecus sediba Not Likely Humans’ Ancestor: Study

Take it up to Todd Wood. He's the one who suggested that Australopithecus sediba is part of the human "kind".

 

[stevil]

Any person with any kind of perception can distinguish the fully ape skulls from the fully human skull and why only the skulls?

Which ape in particular are you talking about?

The great apes:

• Gorilla (Gorilla sp.)
• Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)
• Orangutan (Pongo sp.)
• Bonobo (Pan paniscus)
• Human (Homo sapiens)

Since humans are apes, it does not make any sense to say that a human skull can be distinguished from an ape skull.

It would be like saying a chicken skull can be distinguished from a bird skull.
Is it a chicken skull or is it a bird skull? Well actually, it is both
Is it a human skull or is it an ape skull? Well actually, it is both

 

[stevil]

My parents are the same as myself...Homo Sapiens! We are not intermediates changing into some other life form and to suggest that we will be anything other than Homo Sapiens is entering into pure imagination!

According to the theory of Evolution all offspring are of the same species as their parents.
So noone is ever suggesting that one species suddenly gives birth to a new species.

 

[DaveISBA]

The list is literally a series of fossil transitions. Are you suggesting those fossils don't exist?

I'm only agreeing with those who actually study fossils and the fossil record! Your argument is with them
David M. Raup was a University of Chicago paleontologist. Raup studied the fossil record and the diversity of life on Earth. In his book (Scientists Confront Creationism) p.156 he wrote: “Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail.”

Fossils showing morphological changes over time do exist and that Transitional Fossil FAQ provides examples thereof.

You mean like what evolutionists consider a prime example of a transitional fossil Archaeopteryx that is a total fraud, a clumsy one at best!

What you appear to fixating on based on the quotes is specific species-to-species gradualism

What is the alternative "Punctuated Equilibrium:"? Proposed by prominent paleontologists like Gould and others which is claimed to happen so rapidly, along with species-to-species gradualism, leaves no fossil evidence!

 

[pitabread]

I'm only agreeing with those who actually study fossils and the fossil record! Your argument is with them

I'm not arguing about the concept of phyletic gradualism. We seem to be talking past each other, because the quotes and references you keep bringing up have nothing to do with whether or not transitional fossils actually exist. Rather it simply has to do with the pattern of transitional fossils and what may be expected under different modes and tempos of evolution.

You mean like what evolutionists consider a prime example of a transitional fossil Archaeopteryx that is a total fraud, a clumsy one at best!

This is just another hand waving dismissal and a bizarre one at that, since Archaeopteryx is in no way a fraud. The fossil specimens are real.

Again, if you want to see what some transitional fossils consist of, I refer you again to the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

If you want keep ignoring those fossils, that's your choice. But those fossils still exist.

What is the alternative "Punctuated Equilibrium:"? Proposed by prominent paleontologists like Gould and others which is claimed to happen so rapidly, along with species-to-species gradualism, leaves no fossil evidence!

He never said that and I already quoted from Gould who explicitly said that there are transitional fossils. Again, the key is to understand the context of the quotes which is re: phyletic gradualism and modes and tempo of evolution.

Once again:

The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographical extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy. - Steven J. Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory (A Response to Locke’s, “The Scientific Case Against Evolution”)
​

So are you interested in looking at the fossils themselves or are you just interested in posting random quotes and ignoring the fossils altogether?

 

[DaveISBA]

These quote mines are downright nostalgic! I haven't seen them used sincerely in quite a while! Thanks for dusting them off and reminding me to what dubious lengths creationists will go to deny scientific reality.

Isn't it interesting that it's perfectly alright for news paper, scientific sites, books, magazines, etc. yes even evolutionists to drive home a given point on a subject by quoting from an expert but when it comes to creationists it becomes quote mining? Dusted off or not, call it what you may but the quotes are accurate and represents a thought about a subject, then it is what it is!
"deny scientific reality"? You just said I was using quotes if you disagree with them your argument is with the authors not me!

 

[SelfSim]

Isn't it interesting that it's perfectly alright for news paper, scientific sites, books, magazines, etc. yes even evolutionists to drive home a given point on a subject by quoting from an expert but when it comes to creationists it becomes quote mining? Dusted off or not, call it what you may but the quotes are accurate and represents a thought about a subject, then it is what it is!
"deny scientific reality"?

The difference is usually that 'Evolution experts' are condensing the objective data and speaking about the consequences of that .. which then gives others scope for reaching those same conclusions.

Creationists however, are merely speaking from their personal beliefs, which leaves little room for reaching the same conclusions (because we all believe in slightly different things).

You just said I was using quotes if you disagree with them your argument is with the authors not me!

The problem lies with the process you're using by quoting authors. In a scientific arena, quotes are being used to clarify the consistency with the data supporting them .. with no real attempts at trying to sway others towards their personal beliefs.

 

[DaveISBA]

It's surprising to see quote mines still being used given the existence of the Quote Mine Project.

I've read all of the talkorigins "Quote Mine Project" years ago and actually use, copy and past, their quotes that they can't de-legitimize like Gould, Eldredge and Richard Dawkins! The funny thing is while they're bashing creationists for quote mining they do what they accuse creationists of doing...by quote mining!

 

[pitabread]

Donald Ross Prothero is an American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. (Evolution) Auction Design in Markets with Complex Constraints, 2007 pg 81
“The oldest truth of paleontology proclaimed that the vast majority of species appear fully formed in the fossil record and do not change substantially during the long period of their later existence” “Stasis, or nonchartge, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological life span was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but alrnost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. . . . The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record. Best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is nonevolution)” “This stasis, in turn, is now causing discomfort among many evolutionary biologists, because there is not yet any good mechanism in Neo-Darwinian theory for it,”

I looked up this particular quote and it's a bit of a mess. Some of what is being quoted is actually a quote from Gould that Prothero is using; it is not Prothero's words directly.

It's also ironic, because literally the very next paragraph, Prothero talks about creationists quote mining people like Gould to try to claim that no transitional forms:

Through all this intense debate within evolutionary biology, the creationists are constantly on the lookout for some tidbit they can quote of out context to save just the opposite of the author's meaning. Sure enough, many of the quotations about punctuated equilibria are misconstrued to indicate that Gould and Eldredge claim there are no transitional forms or that the fossil record doesn't show evidence of evolution! Typically, these "quote miners" pull a single short section out of a longer quotation that gives the exact opposite impression of what the other really said.
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (Prothero, 2007)​

 

[pitabread]

I've read all of the talkorigins "Quote Mine Project" years ago and actually use, copy and past, their quotes that they can't de-legitimize like Gould, Eldredge and Richard Dawkins! The funny thing is while they're bashing creationists for quote mining they do what they accuse creationists of doing...by quote mining!

It's not a question of deligitimizing Gould et al.; it's a question of understanding the context of the discussions.

Spamming random quotes from various sources doesn't speak to the context. And in context, the discussions are clearly around the notion of phyletic gradualism and the pace of change in evolutionary forms; NOT that the fossil record is explicitly devoid of transitional fossils.

It's also odd that you defer to Gould as an authority. But do you agree with Gould when he says the following:

But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.​

If you want to claim that Gould is an authority on the subject, then surely you must agree with Gould when he states the above. And therefore you must agree that transitional forms and sequences do in fact exist.

 

[Abraxos]

In these discussions it's quite common for creationists to claim they accept microevolution, but don't accept macroevolution. What is less clear is precisely what creationists think those two things are.

To clear the air, this thread is for the purpose of creationists explaining their respective understanding of each. If you're a creationist, what do you think microevolution and macroevolution are exactly?

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is problematic as it ignores the specifics and key differences between micro and macro, and I see evolutionists here do it often to support Darwinism.

 

[pitabread]

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is problematic as it ignores the specifics and key differences between micro and macro, and I see evolutionists here do it often to support Darwinism.

I don't entirely agree that the latter cannot be observed or tested. But leaving that aside for the moment, what would you suggest is the dividing line between these two? IOW, if the former is possible, why is the latter not? What are the actual differences in question?

 

[Speedwell]

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is problematic as it ignores the specifics and key differences between micro and macro, and I see evolutionists here do it often to support Darwinism.

The tendency is a natural one, as the same basic evolutionary process underlies both "micro" and "macro" evolution.

 

[Abraxos]

I don't entirely agree that the latter cannot be observed or tested. But leaving that aside for the moment, what would you suggest is the dividing line between these two? IOW, if the former is possible, why is the latter not?

Microevolution is observed to only involve in the changes through colouring, size and shape, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. These observable changes never involve an increase in complexity as 'macroevolution' relies on. Macroevolution requires thousands if not millions of "successful" mutations through countless trials and errors.

The key differences here is that microevolution can be thought of as a "horizontal" (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution if it were ever observed, would involve an "upward" beneficial change in complexity.

 

[pitabread]

Microevolution is observed to only involve in the changes through colouring, size and shape, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. These observable changes never involve an increase in complexity as the molecules-to-man theory (macroevolution) relies on. Macroevolution requires thousands if not millions of "successful" mutations through countless trials and errors.

The key differences here is that microevolution can be thought of as a "horizontal" (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution if it were ever observed, would involve an "upward" beneficial change in complexity.

So is macroevolution strictly about increasing complexity then? If we could demonstrate an increase in complexity via mutations, would that constitute macroevolution?

 

[Abraxos]

So is macroevolution strictly about increasing complexity then? If we could demonstrate an increase in complexity via mutations, would that constitute macroevolution?

Absolutely. You would need to increase the genetic information (via random mutations) to increase in the complexity of say... a single living cell to a tadpole. However, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

Basically, no examples of beneficial mutations have ever been observed.

 

[pitabread]

Absolutely. You would need to increase the genetic information (via random mutations) to increase in the complexity of say... a single living cell to a tadpole. However, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

Basically, no examples of beneficial mutations have ever been observed.

I'd dispute that last point there are no beneficial mutations. If beneficial mutations didn't exist, antibiotic resistant bacteria wouldn't exist.

But leaving that aside for the moment, let me ask the following:

1) How do you define genetic information? How do you quantify genetic information? (And no analogies please; please define it as it relates specifically to genetics).

2) How do you define complexity? How do you quantify complexity? (Again, no analogies. This needs to be specific to biological organisms.)

If we want to talk about increasing either of these things, we first need a definition of each and some corresponding metrics to work with.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Basically, no examples of beneficial mutations have ever been observed.

"That's a bold [statement], Cotton. Let's see if it pays of for [him]."