Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Abraxos]

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.

Beneficial outcomes of mutations in specific environments do exist. It really depends on the context whether or not the mutation is a good or a bad thing. When the antibiotics are around the mutation it is a good thing. It helps it resist the antibiotic, sure. If you move it into an environment without antibiotics it becomes a bad thing. There are beneficial outcomes, but essentially no beneficial mutations in the sense that would warrant an increase in genetic information.
Just to make this point clear: observations of mutations only alter current genetic information. It never has been observed to add genetic information. Mutations only change what is already there and it essentially decreases the genetic information, that's not to say that can't be a good thing, but there is a trade-off.

If a single-celled organism is required to gradually grow a tail, you would need to add the genetic information there for it to grow a tail, which obtains an increase in its genetic makeup. Our genetic DNA contains the blueprint of what makes us as we are, to add a beneficial physical characteristic (like say wings) you would need to add the genetic information for wings, hence an increase in its complexity.

As of yet, the current theory is that random mutations are the mechanism for the changes of "simpler" organisms to more complex organisms, ie., macroevolution. But, if you ask me, molecular biology isn't benefiting the old theory.

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

I'm not familiar with this reference if it ever were one.

 

[pitabread]

Just to make this point clear: observations of mutations only alter current genetic information. It never has been observed to add genetic information. Mutations only change what is already there and it essentially decreases the genetic information, that's not to say that can't be a good thing, but there is a trade-off.

I'm all for a conversation about genetic information, but we we first need a common understanding of what that is. I ask again,

1) What is genetic information (as it pertains to genetics)?
2) How do you measure genetic information?

As of yet, the current theory is that random mutations are the mechanism for the changes of "simpler" organisms to more complex organisms, ie., macroevolution. But, if you ask me, molecular biology isn't benefiting the old theory.

We can talk about complexity, but first we need to have an understanding of what that is. Again,

1) How is complexity defined as it relates to biological organisms?
2) How is complexity measured in the context of biology?

If we can first agree on what these concepts are and how they are measured, we can then get into a discussion on how and whether they increase or decrease.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I agree that it cannot be repeated, but that's common to almost all scientific observations involving past events.

It certainly can be tested - by looking for evidence of the predictions that the theory makes. If the predictions are found to be borne out by the evidence they support the theory. If the predictions are not borne out by the evidence, they falsify the theory.

In the 160-odd years since Darwin & Wallace proposed the first rudimentary version, whole new fields of biology (and computer science) have developed, and all have provided new evidence in support of the theory, with no contradictions.

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 differences between micro and macro evolution are as arbitrary as the various definitions of species (i.e. speciation). You'll need to define what you mean by those terms before we can adequately argue the point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Interesting. Can I ask you what your sources are for this information?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just to make this point clear: observations of mutations only alter current genetic information. It never has been observed to add genetic information. Mutations only change what is already there and it essentially decreases the genetic information, that's not to say that can't be a good thing, but there is a trade-off.

So what about duplication mutations, such as gene duplications and chromosomal duplications? Don't they increase genetic information? If not, why not? What about when a mutation occurs in a duplicated section?

Our genetic DNA contains the blueprint of what makes us as we are, to add a beneficial physical characteristic (like say wings) you would need to add the genetic information for wings, hence an increase in its complexity.

The genome is more like a recipe than a blueprint. Evolution typically adds new features by modifying existing features.

What is your definition of 'genetic information'? - please be specific.

 

[pitabread]

So what about duplication mutations, such as gene duplications and chromosomal duplications? Don't they increase genetic information? If not, why not? What about when a mutation occurs in a duplicated section?

I also wonder about the question of reversal mutations. Are those not an increase in information?

If the claim is that a mutation from a particular state causes a decrease in information, then by logical necessity a reversal mutation restoring the previous state would be an increase of information.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I also wonder about the question of reversal mutations. Are those not an increase in information?

If the claim is that a mutation from a particular state causes a decrease in information, then by logical necessity a reversal mutation restoring the previous state would be an increase of information.

That's a good point! (and one I always seem to forget...)

Also, if a reversal mutation can increase information (as above), then why not other mutations?

And why, if all mutations cause a loss of information, don't species decay rapidly, since each generation adds new mutations to those it inherits?

How do viruses mutate to become more infectious?

 

[Job 33:6]

Deja vu anyone?

It really is embarrassing that nobody ever has any idea what information is. It always just turns into some abstract discussion about how there is information in a sandcastle because it's more than just sand (it's a castle), but then what that looks like with respect to mutations is simply unknown.

 

[pitabread]

It really is embarrassing that nobody ever has any idea what information is. It always just turns into some abstract discussion about how there is information in a sandcastle because it's more than just sand (it's a castle), but then what that looks like with respect to mutations is simply unknown.

I always like to at least give people the benefit of the doubt and we'll see where it goes. I keep hoping I'll be surprised one of these days.

 

[Abraxos]

Though I had no intention of discussing my definitions towards the OP, the loaded questions were expected as this tends to be how things go due to the vulnerability of the theory presented and those defending it because it's precious to them. While these loaded questions can be easily addressed, the real underlining issue here isn't of the scientific nature, but it is an obstruction of understanding the theory's discrepancies on a psychological level, a dissonance of the cognitive mind - which is understandable, you wouldn't be human otherwise.

Biologically, Micro + Time ≠ Macro, but psychologically, Mirco + Time = Macro. There is a theory what psychiatrists suggest is the Five Stages of Grief, and I think evolutionists here fluctuate between denial and bargaining. Give it time and it'll eventually conclude to acceptance.

:]

 

[pitabread]

Though I had no intention of discussing my definitions towards the OP, the loaded questions were expected as this tends to be how things go due to the vulnerability of the theory presented and those defending it because it's precious to them.

Asking you to define words like genetic information or complexity aren't loaded questions. It's simply a way to try to get some understanding of how you are using the words so that we can have a discussion about it. Remember, you brought up these terms, not us.

But if you can't define what you mean, then we can't have that discussion.

While these loaded questions can be easily addressed

Then do it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

While these loaded questions can be easily addressed, the real underlining issue here isn't of the scientific nature, but it is an obstruction of understanding the theory's discrepancies on a psychological level, a dissonance of the cognitive mind - which is understandable, you wouldn't be human otherwise.

With respect, the underlying issue is one of a scientific nature. You have made claims that the mainstream consensus on evolutionary theory is mistaken, giving reasons that themselves appear mistaken or unclear; the burden is on you to clearly show how it is mistaken.

Whether or not cognitive dissonance is in play, it is we who are asking you to clarify and explain your arguments, so here's your chance to do so. Reluctance to define one's terms and clarify one's explanation would itself point to some cognitive dissonance...

 

[Ophiolite]

Though I had no intention of discussing my definitions towards the OP, the loaded questions were expected as this tends to be how things go due to the vulnerability of the theory presented and those defending it because it's precious to them. While these loaded questions can be easily addressed, the real underlining issue here isn't of the scientific nature, but it is an obstruction of understanding the theory's discrepancies on a psychological level, a dissonance of the cognitive mind - which is understandable, you wouldn't be human otherwise.

Biologically, Micro + Time ≠ Macro, but psychologically, Mirco + Time = Macro. There is a theory what psychiatrists suggest is the Five Stages of Grief, and I think evolutionists here fluctuate between denial and bargaining. Give it time and it'll eventually conclude to acceptance.

:]

That reads as "I do not have any evidence based logical arguments to offer, so I shall resort to a flimsy attack that implies weaknesses in my opponents psychology, without offering any justificaiton for this view." Do you have anything more substantial that addresses facts, rather than fancy?

 

[pitabread]

It really is embarrassing that nobody ever has any idea what information is. It always just turns into some abstract discussion about how there is information in a sandcastle because it's more than just sand (it's a castle), but then what that looks like with respect to mutations is simply unknown.

Unfortunately it looks like we won't even get to that point. Instead we've got posturing and an ejection switch.

Oh well.

 

[Gene2memE]

This paragraph from a 2020 BioLogos article would seem appropriate here:

When people claim that evolution cannot account for the development of new information, they usually have in mind the second definition of information: the kind that depends on humans (or other intelligent beings) assigning meaning to a symbolic code. We don’t know of natural processes that account for that. But that is not the kind of information in DNA. There we find an amazing string of biomolecules that can and does change with every generation. Each time it changes, there is new information in the sense that it causes physiological changes. Much of the time, these changes will be neutral or even harmful to an organism. But sometimes — especially when many changes accumulate over time — innovations arise and gradually even new species can come into being.
​

Source: Can evolution generate new information? - Common-questions

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Microevolution is what can be documented. Macro evolution is the gaps where the "mysterious" forces cause species to change so quickly that the fossil record has no information.
Officially I'm on both sides. God already caused every electron to follow the correct path He had in mind.

 

[Job 33:6]

Macro evolution is the gaps where the "mysterious" forces cause species to change so quickly that the fossil record has no information.

The geologic record typically doesn't record or contain thick bedding for every thousand years of earth history. So it's not feasible to believe that the fossil record, which exists in part as a product of the geological record, ought to contain fossils of every species throughout every generation.

For example, we may have two beds of rock. One bed from 5 million years ago, and right below, a bed from 10 million years ago.

It's not feasible to think that fossils from 7 million years ago ought to be present, if rock itself from 7 million years ago doesn't exist.

And if speciation occurs in the order of every 100-200 thousand years, but we only have rock representing time every 5 million years, then we wouldn't see fossils of 1 species evolving to another, but rather would more likely see something like species #1, and then we would have missing rock for 5 million years, then see species #50, then more missing rock for another 5 million years, then species #100 etc., rather than species 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. Along a perfect continuous series of rock.

 

[SkyWriting]

The geologic record typically doesn't record or contain thick bedding for every thousand years of earth history. So it's not feasible to believe that the fossil record, which exists in part as a product of the geological record, ought to contain fossils of every species throughout every generation.

For example, we may have two beds of rock. One bed from 5 million years ago, and right below, a bed from 10 million years ago.

It's not feasible to think that fossils from 7 million years ago ought to be present, if rock itself from 7 million years ago doesn't exist.

And if speciation occurs in the order of every 100-200 thousand years, but we only have rock representing time every 5 million years, then we wouldn't see fossils of 1 species evolving to another, but rather would more likely see something like species #1, and then we would have missing rock for 5 million years, then see species #50, then more missing rock for another 5 million years, then species #100 etc., rather than species 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. Along a perfect continuous series of rock.

I have no argument. God is a stunning engineer.

 

[pitabread]

Macro evolution is the gaps where the "mysterious" forces cause species to change so quickly that the fossil record has no information.

What do you mean by mysterious forces? What do you think is mysterious about them?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Deja vu anyone?

It really is embarrassing that nobody ever has any idea what information is. It always just turns into some abstract discussion about how there is information in a sandcastle because it's more than just sand (it's a castle), but then what that looks like with respect to mutations is simply unknown.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

^this represents information beyond a random sequence of letters

Oje eihje oerjf rtf jduyrh idee kdh kadft fos

^ this is what random mutation of that sequence looks like. It no longer represents information beyond a random sequence of letters.


In DNA this would be the difference between a healthy living creature and something not living at all