Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Guy Threepwood]

What is with this fascination with "Darwinism"? Darwinian evolution hasn't been a thing for 150 years. The actual science of modern evolution has changed quite a bit since Darwin's time.

I never understood why creationists/ID proponents keep fixating on arguing against science that is 150+ years old.

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

^ Likewise I sometimes find it hard to understand why some people still do believe this- over 20% in the US according to Gallup!

As I agree- it is a throwback to a Victorian age reductionist model of reality that has long been superseded in other scientific fields.

 

[pitabread]

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

^ Likewise I sometimes find it hard to understand why some people still do believe this- over 20% in the US according to Gallup!

That doesn't follow, since "Darwinism" in that strict sense isn't being "believed in" any more since the modern theory of evolution has changed and developed since Darwin's time.

As I agree- it is a throwback to a Victorian age reductionist model of reality that has long been superseded in other scientific fields.

That's not strictly what I said though.

The point is that creationist/ID proponent usage of the term "Darwinism" is baffling in these discussions. If you're really trying to argue against Darwin's version of evolution, you're not arguing against anything remotely modern.

And if you're using "Darwinism" as a stand-in for modern evolutionary theory, then you're using the term wrong.

Either way, there isn't really a point in using that term.

 

[Phred]

You are the one who said "Life evolved. If you don't accept that it did we're pretty much at an impass."

That seems a lot more cemented than my position!

As I have said I acknowledge my beliefs as such, I may be wrong, I've changed my mind once on this already- and I could have a very heated debate with myself 20 years ago! So the only thing I can prove for certain is that my opinion is totally unreliable!

I made no decision that evolution is impossible, rather I acknowledge that there are real gaps in understanding how it happened - when you try to reconstruct events over 100's of millions of years it is simply not something we can repeat, observe and measure empirically. I don't trust any 'absolute certainty' there - blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

Other than that, my argument is not just from incredulity (though that's certainly part of it)- but also an argument in the affirmative. Biological form is instructed by DNA, digital code, quaternary (base 4) rather than binary (base 2), and is arranged in a hierarchical system with many striking similarities to our own software architecture.

It's not that we can't explain how such information systems can be produced, we can- we have lots of examples, we are using one right now- we just don't know how it could possibly have happened via unguided natural mechanisms.

Oh please. You can't reconstruct a murder either. The victim is dead. You're waffling.

Evolution is simple. It's not complex.

Do mutations happen? Yes, all the time.

Has there been a lot of time since life began on earth? Yes, billions of years.

Is there any reason that mutations can't combine and build up? No.

Does speciation happen? Yes.

Lastly, and most important. What happened to all the species that we've discovered as fossils that are no longer here? Stay with me... If evolution did NOT take place where are the fossils of the creatures we see today? Why are there no 65 million year old cows? Or 100 million year old possums? There are NO fossils of any creatures that we see today. In a world without evolution species do not change. Therefore we should see consistent creatures captured throughout the history of the fossil record.

Where are they?

If species do not change, either becoming different creatures or dying out then what is happening? Because the evidence does not support creation and a young earth. That is not possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That doesn't follow, since "Darwinism" in that strict sense isn't being "believed in" any more since the modern theory of evolution has changed and developed since Darwin's time.



That's not strictly what I said though.

The point is that creationist/ID proponent usage of the term "Darwinism" is baffling in these discussions. If you're really trying to argue against Darwin's version of evolution, you're not arguing against anything remotely modern.

And if you're using "Darwinism" as a stand-in for modern evolutionary theory, then you're using the term wrong.

Either way, there isn't really a point in using that term.

Dawkins explicitly identifies himself as a Darwinist-so you could argue these assertions with him,

but in fairness I believe the term carries different connotations in different regions.
Last time I drove in Canada the street signs were all written in some unintelligible gibberish- so I think there may be a language barrier here!

Actually I was disappointed when the stop signs in France were all changed to the same boring 'STOP'. 'ARRET' was one of the few words I'd actually learned- that and 'ENCORE!' some EU deal I guess

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh please. You can't reconstruct a murder either. The victim is dead. You're waffling.

Evolution is simple. It's not complex.

? I think you and Pitabread could debate this assertion

Do mutations happen? Yes, all the time.

Has there been a lot of time since life began on earth? Yes, billions of years.

Is there any reason that mutations can't combine and build up? No.

Does speciation happen? Yes.

Lastly, and most important. What happened to all the species that we've discovered as fossils that are no longer here? Stay with me... If evolution did NOT take place where are the fossils of the creatures we see today? Why are there no 65 million year old cows? Or 100 million year old possums? There are NO fossils of any creatures that we see today. In a world without evolution species do not change. Therefore we should see consistent creatures captured throughout the history of the fossil record.

Where are they?

If species do not change, either becoming different creatures or dying out then what is happening? Because the evidence does not support creation and a young earth. That is not possible.

I'm not a creationist, but from their point of view that would be circular reasoning..

We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."
David Raup

 

[Phred]

I can't speak for creationists, let alone young earth creationists, but as renowned paleontologist David Raup said- I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.

The Bible describes a beginning to the universe (dismissed and ridiculed by mainstream cosmology until fairly recently)- it describes a dark and fluid early state- also only recently verified- with light - pure photons, appearing later- life beginning in the ocean, developing in distinct stages and culminating later with mankind- even the earth existing as a great ocean with a single continent appearing later

All lucky coincidences perhaps- But I can understand how someone might come to see the Bible as a more reliable account of reality than the vagaries of academic fashion!

Other than that I agree with Ben Carson- if God wanted to create a 14 BY old universe 10,000 years ago- he can arrange that sort of thing, he's God!

All they have to do is prove God exists.

 

[Phred]

? I think you and Pitabread could debate this assertion



I'm not a creationist, but from their point of view that would be circular reasoning..

We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."
David Raup

Your appeals to authority are not nearly as convincing as you think they are.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All they have to do is prove God exists.

well that's impossible, because although the multiverse is, by necessity, an infinite probability machine capable of producing any and all realities ... there is apparently one thing it is strictly forbidden from producing- and that is anything that could be described as 'God'

 

[Phred]

well that's impossible, because although the multiverse is, by necessity, an infinite probability machine capable of producing any and all realities ... there is apparently one thing it is strictly forbidden from producing- and that is anything that could be described as 'God'

So one moment you agree with Ben Carson and the next you don't.

 

[pitabread]

Dawkins explicitly identifies himself as a Darwinist-so you could argue these assertions with him,

Dawkins doesn't speak for everyone and certainly not all biologists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a link to the study article- you could argue their findings with them- but we find ourselves in a familiar position, science shines an objective light on a subject, Darwinism must retreat into the shadows where the imagination can still propose 'maybe it could have happened'- 'prove it didn't!'- 'anything can happen in billions of years' etc etc

But of course this is not demanded by the evidence, quite the contrary- it is merely demanded by a theory still clinging to a Victorian age reductionist/simplistic view of reality

1. Abby SS, Rocha EP (September 2012). "The non-flagellar type III secretion system evolved from the bacterial flagellum and diversified into host-cell adapted systems". PLOS Genetics. 8 (9): e1002983. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002983. PMC 3459982. PMID 23028376.

LOL, you missed the point. It does not matter if the current It does not matter if the people in that article are right. Irreducible complexity has still been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't speak for creationists, let alone young earth creationists, but as renowned paleontologist David Raup said- I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.

The Bible describes a beginning to the universe (dismissed and ridiculed by mainstream cosmology until fairly recently)- it describes a dark and fluid early state- also only recently verified- with light - pure photons, appearing later- life beginning in the ocean, developing in distinct stages and culminating later with mankind- even the earth existing as a great ocean with a single continent appearing later

All lucky coincidences perhaps- But I can understand how someone might come to see the Bible as a more reliable account of reality than the vagaries of academic fashion!

Other than that I agree with Ben Carson- if God wanted to create a 14 BY old universe 10,000 years ago- he can arrange that sort of thing, he's God!

No, you are now cherry picking and creatively reinterpreting the Bible. In the world of the sciences practically no one takes the claims of the Bible seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Especially when there is NOT "a bacterial flagellum" - there are many different types, with diverse protein components. And then there are the non-bacterial ones.

When investigating Archaean flagellar structures, we see "These motors share homology to type IV pili and the homologous type II secretion system (T2SS), rather than the type III secretion system (T3SS), which shares homology with the BFM. The AFM differs from the BFM in the structure of the rotor and filament and, notably, in being powered by ATP hydrolysis rather than ion transit. "

So I guess this means deities sat around designing multiple yet similar flagellar motors and structures?

And the poster did not understand the refutation. Instead he thought that I was disagreeing with those that said this particular port may have evolved from the flagellum.

Once again for @Guy Threepwood , IC says that there are steps that evolution cannot get past. Even if a particular bacteria lost some function the concept is still refuted since the step that is being discussed is a small and simple one and could go either way. It is possible for it to have gone forward from this point. It was probably a different, but closely related, step. The flagellum is likely billions of years old. It appears to have evolved independently several times. The ancient bacteria that did not have it have likely been replaced with more modern more efficient bacteria.

I think that one of the downfalls of creationist thinking is excessive literalism. Not just in the Bible. But in the sciences too. They want things to be exactly as in hypotheses, when hypotheses are often general models. If they are not they tend to think that the hypotheses are false. All it takes is one example of how life could have evolved to refute the foolish Irreducible Complexity claim. Life does not have to have followed those steps. There are usually multiple ways that as particular trait evolved and we may never know exactly how it happened. Nor do we need to know how it evolved to understand that those traits are a product of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dawkins doesn't speak for everyone and certainly not all biologists.

We agree there, he didn't speak for me when I was a Darwinist either-
He's a bit like the Al Gore of Darwinism, you sometimes wonder if he's a plant just to make the theory look bad!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, you are now cherry picking and creatively reinterpreting the Bible. In the world of the sciences practically no one takes the claims of the Bible seriously.

Quite the opposite, which is exactly why the Big Bang was dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' by people like Hoyle- because it 'resembled' arguments for a creator rather than the 'preferred' arguments for a materialistic model.

As I always say- I don't think we should let the 'implications' of a theory cloud it's investigation either way- always easier said than done of course

 

[Guy Threepwood]

LOL, you missed the point. It does not matter if the current It does not matter if the people in that article are right. Irreducible complexity has still been refuted.

lots of love to you too!

try removing components from your computer and see how long you can keep posting. everything has a state at which it's complexity cannot be reduced further without destroying it's function- that's all it means

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite the opposite, which is exactly why the Big Bang was dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' by people like Hoyle- because it 'resembled' arguments for a creator rather than the 'preferred' arguments for a materialistic model.

As I always say- I don't think we should let the 'implications' of a theory cloud its investigation either way- always easier said than done of course

This is a claim that is made by creationists but rarely supported. Of course some rejected the Big Bang when it was first presented. But that is about as far as it goes. It is creationists that put the false interpretation on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lots of love to you too!

try removing components from your computer and see how long you can keep posting. everything has a state at which it's complexity cannot be reduced further without destroying it's function- that's all it means

Oh my! You still don't get it.

Sorry, but you failed. I can't keep explaining it to you.

Your analogy fails too since that it is not what is being proposed at all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And the poster did not understand the refutation. Instead he thought that I was disagreeing with those that said this particular port may have evolved from the flagellum.

Once again for @Guy Threepwood , IC says that there are steps that evolution cannot get past. Even if a particular bacteria lost some function the concept is still refuted since the step that is being discussed is a small and simple one and could go either way. It is possible for it to have gone forward from this point. It was probably a different, but closely related, step. The flagellum is likely billions of years old. It appears to have evolved independently several times. The ancient bacteria that did not have it have likely been replaced with more modern more efficient bacteria.

I think that one of the downfalls of creationist thinking is excessive literalism. Not just in the Bible. But in the sciences too. They want things to be exactly as in hypotheses, when hypotheses are often general models. If they are not they tend to think that the hypotheses are false. All it takes is one example of how life could have evolved to refute the foolish Irreducible Complexity claim. Life does not have to have followed those steps. There are usually multiple ways that as particular trait evolved and we may never know exactly how it happened. Nor do we need to know how it evolved to understand that those traits are a product of evolution.

I understood your point-

I was pointing out that it was one of many examples of going from scientific evidence to philosophical speculation to find a corner for Darwinism to retreat into-

As we see in this thread; the notion that the flagellum- not 'could have' but did develop from the T3SS somehow spread as a clear refutation of the point Behe was making. But when the truth is pointed out from mainstream scientific sources- it's 'heads we win.... tails? doesn't count! flip again!'

Just as the topic of this thread. We can observe, test, measure, natural variation
extrapolating this mechanism into macro-evolution can only be speculated upon.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is a claim that is made by creationists but rarely supported. Of course some rejected the Big Bang when it was first presented. But that is about as far as it goes. It is creationists that put the false interpretation on it.

I had no idea Wikipedia was a 'creationist' site!

(Fred Hoyle)
Hoyle [] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

(Big Bang)

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.[56] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[57]