Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Larniavc]

Instead of asking whether or not the presence or absence of evolutionary changes on a micro or macro scale determine whether or not something required an intelligent mind to give it meaning...why not ask who or what created such a complex function, and the materials with the ability to do either of those things, and whether or not the answer would give it 'meaning'?

That’s an interesting question. Why not start a thread about it?

 

[Speedwell]

That’s an interesting question. Why not start a thread about it?

And what you would get is pretty much the mainstream Christian answer, based on philosophical concepts which go all the way back to Aristotle, as refined by such worthies as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. Divine providence is supervision, not labor. Science will tell us as best it can what our material origins were, and a Christian need not trouble himself to dispute it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Speaking from a biological perspective, there's a huge difference between tweaking or removing a gene, versus changing the karyotype and jumping from one species to another.

Evolution doesn't involve 'jumping from one species to another'. Speciation occurs along a continuum of change of a population over time, at a point chosen according to some arbitrary criteria of 'significant difference' from the starting population (commonly involving viable interbreeding).

 

[DaveISBA]

Evolution doesn't involve 'jumping from one species to another'. Speciation occurs along a continuum of change of a population over time, at a point chosen according to some arbitrary criteria of 'significant difference' from the starting population (commonly involving viable interbreeding).

Then, according to Charles Darwin and repeated by others, "the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth [must] be truly enormous" Yes enormously more than the starting points of living organisms and that which is "fully formed"!

 

[Speedwell]

Then, according to Charles Darwin and repeated by others, "the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth [must] be truly enormous" Yes enormously more than the starting points of living organisms and that which is "fully formed"!

And that is pretty much what the fossil record shows us, fragmentary though it may be.

 

[pitabread]

Then, according to Charles Darwin and repeated by others, "the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth [must] be truly enormous" Yes enormously more than the starting points of living organisms and that which is "fully formed"!

All organisms are "fully formed", including transitional species. And there are numerous transitional fossils (transitional being fossils that have intermediary characteristics between two or more taxa).

 

[Ophiolite]

Then, according to Charles Darwin and repeated by others, "the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth [must] be truly enormous" Yes enormously more than the starting points of living organisms and that which is "fully formed"!

Your parents are intermediate varieties between you and your grandparents, and so on back to the last common ancestor. Thus all the organisms that ever existed between a currently extant organism and the last common ancestor is an intermediate variety. Thus the phrase "truly enormous" truly applies. And every one of them was "fully formed".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then, according to Charles Darwin and repeated by others, "the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth [must] be truly enormous" Yes enormously more than the starting points of living organisms and that which is "fully formed"!

Yes - each new generation is slightly different from its parent generation. Quite what was meant by 'varieties' isn't clear, but species (or sub-species) is generally taken to be the smallest useful evolutionary distinction we make between populations. It's estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed are extinct; it's worth pointing out that they were all 'fully formed'.

E.T.A. Oops! - looks like others got there first!

 

[DaveISBA]

Your parents are intermediate varieties between you and your grandparents, and so on back to the last common ancestor.

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!

Thus all the organisms that ever existed between a currently extant organism and the last common ancestor is an intermediate variety. Thus the phrase "truly enormous" truly applies. And every one of them was "fully formed".

The fossil record shows no such thing! What it does show is that living organisms appear abruptly, "fully formed", fitting the creation narrative with no apparent evolutionary history and then "stasis" remaining recognizably the same throughout their existence! "Truly enormous" only describes the absence of supposed intermediates in the so called fossil record which in reality is a record of mass burial of untold billions of living organisms!

 

[pitabread]

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!

They aren't technically the same though, since you will have genetic variations not present in your parents. You probably have at least a few dozen novel mutations.

We have to remember that homo sapiens is an artificial category we apply to our species for the purpose of categorization. It doesn't otherwise have any true biological meaning (insofar as homo sapiens being stamped on our undersides or something).

The fossil record shows no such thing! What it does show is that living organisms appear abruptly, "fully formed", fitting the creation narrative with no apparent evolutionary history and then "stasis" remaining recognizably the same throughout their existence! "Truly enormous" only describes the absence of supposed intermediates in the so called fossil record which in reality is a record of mass burial of untold billions of living organisms!

The fossil record shows change over time.

You can read up on some of that here: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

 

[Speedwell]

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!


The fossil record shows no such thing! What it does show is that living organisms appear abruptly, "fully formed", fitting the creation narrative with no apparent evolutionary history and then "stasis" remaining recognizably the same throughout their existence! "Truly enormous" only describes the absence of supposed intermediates in the so called fossil record which in reality is a record of mass burial of untold billions of living organisms!

Do you want to calm down and learn what the theory of evolution actually claims, or do you just want to rant?

 

[Ophiolite]

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!

Are you identical to your parents? No.
Were your parents identical to your grandparents? No.
You varied, one from the other; one variety from another. Precisely what you spoke of.

Part of your difficulty may be that you do not appreciate that the concept of species is an artificial convenience. If you require more explanation to understand the significance of that, just ask.

The fossil record shows no such thing!

I didn't say that it did.

I suggest that your hostility to evolutionary theory contains a strong emotional element. This is preventing you from objectively analysing the facts. We can achieve little meaningful discussion until that hostility is removed from the equation. That's up to you. All I can do is recommend.

 

[DaveISBA]

The fossil record shows change over time.

As Darwin wrote in his book On the Origin of Species and others looking for the evidence have acknowledged "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" as proposed by his theory! He goes on "and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"

You can read up on some of that here: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Written by an author who admits "I am not a paleontologist" and in her words had "to burrow into the primary literature and read a lot of fascinating textbooks"!
I prefer the bottom line...what paleontologists actually observe, first hand, in the fossil record and, though evolutionists, have to be honest about what they have observed!
Stephen Jay Gould, was a well known Paleontologist, Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University (The Richness of Life: The Essential): pg 263
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."'

 

[DaveISBA]

Are you identical to your parents? No.
Were your parents identical to your grandparents? No.

Did I suggest that I was identical to my parents? No. We are Homo Sapiens, the family of human, people, or what ever other classification you prefer that describes us, separate and distinct from all other life forms and as with other life forms, humans appear abruptly, fully formed as evidence indicates, from a single man and a single woman!
News this Week | Science
"researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time : Nature News & Comment
"all men except one possessed Y chromosomes that by now are extinct. All men living now, then, would have a Y chromosome descended from that one man — identified as Y-chromosome Adam."
Which begs the question how did all other men become extinct? A worldwide flood would accomplish that!

I suggest that your hostility to evolutionary theory contains a strong emotional element. This is preventing you from objectively analysing the facts. We can achieve little meaningful discussion until that hostility is removed from the equation. That's up to you. All I can do is recommend.

Hostility? I prefer to say that I am passionate! I have done an objective analysis of the facts! The facts indicate that Darwin's TOE has no basis in fact that even he had to admit in his book (On the Origin of Species): Chapter IX p 251
"through which new varieties continually take the place of and exterminate their parent-form has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

humans appear abruptly, fully formed as evidence indicates, from a single man and a single woman!
News this Week | Science
"researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time : Nature News & Comment
"all men except one possessed Y chromosomes that by now are extinct. All men living now, then, would have a Y chromosome descended from that one man — identified as Y-chromosome Adam."
Which begs the question how did all other men become extinct? A worldwide flood would accomplish that!

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not like the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't contemporaries, and everyone else wasn't wiped out in a flood; they're just the last identifiable common ancestors of today's humans on the maternal and paternal lines respectively. The other branches eventually petered out. In any branched tree of descent there will be a last common female ancestor and a last common male ancestor of those that persist.

 

[pitabread]

We are Homo Sapiens, the family of human, people, or what ever other classification you prefer that describes us, separate and distinct from all other life forms and as with other life forms, humans appear abruptly, fully formed as evidence indicates, from a single man and a single woman!

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

For example: Comparison of all skulls
And: Australopithecus Sediba, Statistical Baraminology, and Challenges to Identifying the Human Holobaramin

The fact that creationists are having trouble agreeing on which fossils are human or not is exactly what you'd expect of transitional forms. There is no clear dividing line between them.

 

[pitabread]

As Darwin wrote in his book On the Origin of Species and others looking for the evidence have acknowledged "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" as proposed by his theory! He goes on "and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"

If you read the full quote in context, what Darwin was lamenting was the spottiness of the geological record:

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. ​

It's also worth noting that 150+ years have passed since Darwin wrote this. Millions of fossils have been discovered since that time.

Written by an author who admits "I am not a paleontologist" and in her words had "to burrow into the primary literature and read a lot of fascinating textbooks"!

Burrowing in primary literature and textbooks is often how one does research.

If you're suggesting she's not qualified to put together such a list, I'd offer the full quote to (again) put things in context:

I'm a zoologist, currently working on my Ph.D. thesis in endocrinology and behavior at the Department of Zoology, University of Washington. I am not a paleontologist; rather, I am a vertebrate biologist who primarily studies living animals (not extinct ones). Most of my own research is on birds. I have a broad training in physiology, anatomy, behavior, and conservation biology, and I have taught or TA'd vertebrate anatomy, vertebrate natural history, vertebrate evolution, and general evolution. The history of vertebrate evolution is a pet side interest of mine.​

I prefer the bottom line...what paleontologists actually observe, first hand, in the fossil record and, though evolutionists, have to be honest about what they have observed!

Then you should look through that list because it's got a plethora of references to just that.

Stephen Jay Gould, was a well known Paleontologist, Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University (The Richness of Life: The Essential): pg 263
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."'

The context of this quote is a discussion related to phyletic gradualism, which concerns the tempo of evolutionary changes over time. However, in no way is Gould actually advocating that there are no transitional fossils.

Per Gould:

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”)
​

And again, these are older references (1980 and 1984 respectively) and there have been even more fossils and intermediary forms described since the time of those writings.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

As Darwin wrote in his book On the Origin of Species and others looking for the evidence have acknowledged "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" as proposed by his theory! He goes on "and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"



Written by an author who admits "I am not a paleontologist" and in her words had "to burrow into the primary literature and read a lot of fascinating textbooks"!
I prefer the bottom line...what paleontologists actually observe, first hand, in the fossil record and, though evolutionists, have to be honest about what they have observed!
Stephen Jay Gould, was a well known Paleontologist, Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University (The Richness of Life: The Essential): pg 263
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."'

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

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

 

[DaveISBA]

If you read the full quote in context, what Darwin was lamenting was the spottiness of the geological record:

I did read the full quote and what he was lamenting was that "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" he blamed it on the "imperfection of the geological record" This excuse means nothing in light of recent observations!
Niles Eldredge well known American biologist and paleontologist, who is still alive (Myths of human evolution) p. 45-46) "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis-that evolutionary change gradual and progressive would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

It's also worth noting that 150+ years have passed since Darwin wrote this. Millions of fossils have been discovered since that time.

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,”

If you're suggesting she's not qualified to put together such a list, I'd offer the full quote to (again) put things in context:

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 context of this quote is a discussion related to phyletic gradualism, which concerns the tempo of evolutionary changes over time. However, in no way is Gould actually advocating that there are no transitional fossils.

Ernst Walter Mayr was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. (One Long Argument): Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought p. 138
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but (no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty). Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."
My Emphasis!

And again, these are older references (1980 and 1984 respectively) and there have been even more fossils and intermediary forms described since the time of those writings.

Then perhaps this published in 2013 is a bit more up to date!
From Phys.org a science, research and technology news service (not a creationist site) who's readership include 1.75 mil scientists. An article dated Feb 19, 2013:
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-species-sudden.html
” Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. (They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist).” My emphsis!