Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[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.

Funny isn't it, how scientists like Lemaitre & Planck were such a minority in academic institutions for their skepticism of atheism yet were able to make the greatest scientific breakthroughs...

Not a coincidence I don't think!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Since your response was nonsensical at best it appears that you did not understand. And no, you are making an error of focusing on one modern trait. You still do not understand the refutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny isn't it, how scientists like Lemaitre & Planck were such a minority in academic institutions for their skepticism of atheism yet were able to make the greatest scientific breakthroughs...

Not a coincidence I don't think!

LOL! They did not have "skepticism" of atheism. Your argument has gone off the rails. No one has said that Christians cannot do science. That is the mistaken false belief of creationists. What scientists do not appear to be able to do is to mix creationism and the scientific method.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial the Irreducible Complexity argument was thrashed. By a mousetrap. This crap was tried, this exact picture. They wailed, "How can something evolve if it has no purpose?"

One of the evolutionary scientists wore a mousetrap without the trigger as a tieclip. It is perfectly functional. Just not as a mousetrap. But it holds his tie in place just fine. Minus one of its parts. He sat there wearing it all day long. The flagella that they had been wailing and gnashing their teeth about seems to have started life not as a flagella at all. But rather as a venom injector.

The flagellum apparently predates the 'venom injector' as already covered, but the 'tieclip' question is worth an answer also as this is often also misconceived.

This is of course meant as an analogy for exaptation- the 'co-option' of a genetic trait for another purpose. This in itself is a concession to irreducible complexity- i.e. it is now recognized as unfeasible for certain biological forms to have developed in incremental stages as once believed unless - somewhere along the way- they could have performed different functions than the ones they do now.

So the scientist's tie clip can no longer catch mice, nor could it hold a tie without his applying his creativity to re-purpose and re-place the broken mousetrap. This is an important part of the analogy, because DNA is very particular about what genetic instructions are sent where and to do what, governed by things like the gene regulatory network and hox genes. Randomly corrupting these systems is not like merely altering control genes for eye color or hair length- they are the equivalent of taking a soldering iron to the mother board of your computer- the chances of improving it's performance are not great..

Or to put it another way, it would be like trying to lessen the odds against a guy winning the lottery twice in a row- if he only won it once, but then somebody else accidentally got lost & dropped the next winning ticket outside his door.- i.e you are shifting and multiplying the improbability in the larger picture, not lessening it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flagellum apparently predates the 'venom injector' as already covered, but the 'tieclip' question is worth an answer also as this is often also misconceived.

This is of course meant as an analogy for exaptation- the 'co-option' of a genetic trait for another purpose. This in itself is a concession to irreducible complexity- i.e. it is now recognized as unfeasible for certain biological forms to have developed in incremental stages as once believed unless - somewhere along the way- they could have performed different functions than the ones they do now.

So the scientist's tie clip can no longer catch mice, nor could it hold a tie without his applying his creativity to re-purpose and re-place the broken mousetrap. This is an important part of the analogy, because DNA is very particular about what genetic instructions are sent where and to do what, governed by things like the gene regulatory network and hox genes. Randomly corrupting these systems is not like merely altering control genes for eye color or hair length- they are the equivalent of taking a soldering iron to the mother board of your computer- the chances of improving it's performance are not great..

Or to put it another way, it would be like trying to lessen the odds against a guy winning the lottery twice in a row- if he only won it once, but then somebody else accidentally got lost & dropped the next winning ticket outside his door.- i.e you are shifting and multiplying the improbability in the larger picture, not lessening it.

It may predate that for modern bacteria. But that does appear to be the sort of pathway that was followed in the evolution of the flagellum.

Why is this so hard to understand? The tieclip refuted the first version of Behe's argument. That was all that it took to refute it. He refined it a bit and it still has been refuted. It was up to Behe to demonstrate that the evolution was impossible. That was his claim after all. Instead scientists are rather sure which steps were followed in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.

 

[Frank Robert]

The flagellum apparently predates the 'venom injector' as already covered, but the 'tieclip' question is worth an answer also as this is often also misconceived.

This is of course meant as an analogy for exaptation- the 'co-option' of a genetic trait for another purpose. This in itself is a concession to irreducible complexity- i.e. it is now recognized as unfeasible for certain biological forms to have developed in incremental stages as once believed unless - somewhere along the way- they could have performed different functions than the ones they do now.

References needed.

So the scientist's tie clip can no longer catch mice, nor could it hold a tie without his applying his creativity to re-purpose and re-place the broken mousetrap. This is an important part of the analogy, because DNA is very particular about what genetic instructions are sent where and to do what, governed by things like the gene regulatory network and hox genes. Randomly corrupting these systems is not like merely altering control genes for eye color or hair length- they are the equivalent of taking a soldering iron to the mother board of your computer- the chances of improving it's performance are not great..

What's your point?

Or to put it another way, it would be like trying to lessen the odds against a guy winning the lottery twice in a row- if he only won it once, but then somebody else accidentally got lost & dropped the next winning ticket outside his door.- i.e you are shifting and multiplying the improbability in the larger picture, not lessening it.

Another argument from incredulity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

References needed.

• Evolution. As mentioned, the T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum.[21] There are three competing hypotheses:[22] first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS evolved first and the flagellum is derived from it, and third, that the two structures are derived from a common ancestor. There was some controversy about the different scenarios,[2][22] since they all explain protein homology between the two structures, as well as their functional diversity.[23] Yet, recent phylogenomic evidence favours the hypothesis that the T3SS derived from the flagellum

What's your point?

A. Exaptation concedes irreducible complexity within a specific function
B. it requires additional 'creativity' or 'lucky accidents' to relocate and repurpose genetic information for new functions

Another argument from incredulity.

it certainly is! coupled with an argument in the affirmative:

It's not that we don't know how hierarchical digital information systems can be originated
We just have no idea how they could be achieved by chance through natural mechanisms

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Evolution. As mentioned, the T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum.[21] There are three competing hypotheses:[22] first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS evolved first and the flagellum is derived from it, and third, that the two structures are derived from a common ancestor. There was some controversy about the different scenarios,[2][22] since they all explain protein homology between the two structures, as well as their functional diversity.[23] Yet, recent phylogenomic evidence favours the hypothesis that the T3SS derived from the flagellum

A. Exaptation concedes irreducible complexity within a specific function
B. it requires additional 'creativity' or 'lucky accidents' to relocate and repurpose genetic information for new functions




it certainly is! coupled with an argument in the affirmative:

It's not that we don't know how hierarchical digital information systems can be originated
We just have no idea how they could be achieved by chance through natural mechanisms

Sorry, it does not even come close to conceding irreducible complexity. How did you make that interpretation?

 

[pitabread]

It's not that we don't know how hierarchical digital information systems can be originated
We just have no idea how they could be achieved by chance through natural mechanisms

While it can be said that we don't have complete information about how things like DNA arose naturally, the preponderance of evidence we do have supports natural origins.

If ID proponents want to claim otherwise, they need to start by explaining the mechanisms by which DNA was designed and created by an intelligent designer.

 

[Frank Robert]

1. Evolution. As mentioned, the T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum.[21] There are three competing hypotheses:[22] first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS evolved first and the flagellum is derived from it, and third, that the two structures are derived from a common ancestor. There was some controversy about the different scenarios,[2][22] since they all explain protein homology between the two structures, as well as their functional diversity.[23] Yet, recent phylogenomic evidence favours the hypothesis that the T3SS derived from the flagellum

I was asking for a reference for your claim:

This in itself is a concession to irreducible complexity- i.e. it is now recognized as unfeasible for certain biological forms to have developed in incremental stages as once believed unless - somewhere along the way- they could have performed different functions than the ones they do now.

A. Exaptation concedes irreducible complexity within a specific function

B. it requires additional 'creativity' or 'lucky accidents' to relocate and repurpose genetic information for new functions

Is "lucky accident" a creationist code word for how evolution uses what's available?

It's not that we don't know how hierarchical digital information systems can be originated
We just have no idea how they could be achieved by chance through natural mechanisms

An argument from incredibility is not science, it is fallacy.

 

[Phred]

It's not that we don't know how hierarchical digital information systems can be originated
We just have no idea how they could be achieved by chance through natural mechanisms

So instead it's replaced by an eternal (no way of deducing this) omnipotent (no way of deducing this) all-knowning, all-seeing being who just so happens to have left no evidence that it exists other than a badly written text. DNA exists. Life exists. Life evolves. We have yet to find that any of these things just "poofed" into existence via some sort of creation event.

If there isn't a creator and there is no evidence of a creation event then... tell me what happened? Your disbelief isn't evidence of anything.

 

[tas8831]

I can't speak for creationists, let alone young earth creationists, but as renowned paleontologist David Raup said-

You mean that out of context quote that creationists enjoy spreading around with reckless abandon?

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.

And vice versa, yet we see creationists of all stripes on this very forum doing just that. Or at least trying to.

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-

I must have missed this verification of "water" in the early universe.

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

A bit of extrapolation, I see. And maybe some confirmation bias?

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!

Yes, 'academic fashion', in contrast to largely unoriginal ancient middle eastern tales. OK...

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!

Great post! Agreeing with Ben "the pyramids were made by a bible character to store grain' Johnson? Amazing![/quote]

 

[tas8831]

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.

That, and I believe that there is another dimension to it. I have noticed that conservatives, and in particular religious conservatives (at least on these sorts of forums) seem to have a distinct tendency to align/ascribe/associate social/cultural/scientific phenomena with specific individuals. IMO, this is at least in part to extrapolate their own values/ideas/idiosyncracies onto others. That is, in this case, their tendency to adore/worship/follow individuals (e.g., Jesus, Trump, Ben Carson). THEY tend to cling to individuals, and defend them and their claims and positions, no matter what, and find fellowship with others that do the same.
Therefore, the 'enemies' of Jesus and His followers - themselves - must be followers of individuals. Thus, it cannot be the scientific phenomenon we call evolution, it is DARWINISM! DARWIN's theory. And if they can attack DARWIN, then they are, de facto, attacking a concept that they don't understand, fear, and hate. Just like the individual they follow wants them to.

Just a thought.

 

[Ophiolite]

That, and I believe that there is another dimension to it. I have noticed that conservatives, and in particular religious conservatives (at least on these sorts of forums) seem to have a distinct tendency to align/ascribe/associate social/cultural/scientific phenomena with specific individuals. IMO, this is at least in part to extrapolate their own values/ideas/idiosyncracies onto others. That is, in this case, their tendency to adore/worship/follow individuals (e.g., Jesus, Trump, Ben Carson). THEY tend to cling to individuals, and defend them and their claims and positions, no matter what, and find fellowship with others that do the same.
Therefore, the 'enemies' of Jesus and His followers - themselves - must be followers of individuals. Thus, it cannot be the scientific phenomenon we call evolution, it is DARWINISM! DARWIN's theory. And if they can attack DARWIN, then they are, de facto, attacking a concept that they don't understand, fear, and hate. Just like the individual they follow wants them to.

Just a thought.

I suspect that your idea applies to some, but I would argue that the pathology of self delusion is more complex and more diverse.

 

[tas8831]

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

Not quite sure how whether the flagellum evolved from the T3SS system or vice versa presents evidence that Johnson-Dembskiism has merit, or what this has to do with strict adaptationism. Explain?

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

And Johnson-Dembskiism is clinging to bronze-age tales. But as best I can tell, Johnson-Dembskiism is done. The Biologic Institute is shuttered, its last "publication" consisting of 4 anti-evolution screeds of no substance. Meyer has been reduced to giving religious lectures. Demsbki - the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" - was so (not) sought after and recruited for his amazing (and repeatedly refuted) work on IC that he now... teaches math and theology at some podunk bible college in Texas. And Mr. Dover - well, he just keeps saying the same things over and over.
Funny that as has pretty much always been the case, rather than present real ID-inspired research, all that can be mustered is supposed problems with evolution presented in false dichotomy fallacies.

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.

Propulsive nanomachines: the convergent evolution of archaella, flagella and cilia
Propulsive nanomachines: the convergent evolution of archaella, flagella and cilia
Published: 09 March 2020

ABSTRACT
Echoing the repeated convergent evolution of flight and vision in large eukaryotes, propulsive swimming motility has evolved independently in microbes in each of the three domains of life. Filamentous appendages – archaella in Archaea, flagella in Bacteria and cilia in Eukaryotes – wave, whip or rotate to propel microbes, overcoming diffusion and enabling colonization of new environments. The implementations of the three propulsive nanomachines are distinct, however: archaella and flagella rotate, while cilia beat or wave; flagella and cilia assemble at their tips, while archaella assemble at their base; archaella and cilia use ATP for motility, while flagella use ion-motive force. These underlying differences reflect the tinkering required to evolve a molecular machine, in which pre-existing machines in the appropriate contexts were iteratively co-opted for new functions and whose origins are reflected in their resultant mechanisms. Contemporary homologies suggest that archaella evolved from a non-rotary pilus, flagella from a non-rotary appendage or secretion system, and cilia from a passive sensory structure. Here, we review the structure, assembly, mechanism and homologies of the three distinct solutions as a foundation to better understand how propulsive nanomachines evolved three times independently and to highlight principles of molecular evolution.

 

[tas8831]

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

And Paul Nelson admits he is a creationist despite hawking IDC nonsense for a decade.

What is it with anti-science folks and their insistence that scientific phenomena be 'reduced' to the person that originally espoused it, AS that person originally espoused it? Do you think that helps you score points?

 

[tas8831]

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

You need a new schtick - this shopworn gunk is getting old.

David Raup - RationalWiki

Religious creationists are known for quote mining the work of Raup. Creationists usually quote mine Raup's paper titled Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology (1979).[1] The quote the creationists take out of context is:

“”We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
What Raup really said in context was:

“”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.[2]

The paper is a discussion about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

“”Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. 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.

Raup later expanded on the ideas in his paper and published a book Extinction. Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (1991) which does not deny that some species go extinct by natural selection but has written that the majority of extinctions especially mass extinctions are caused by physical factors such as comets, climatic changes and catastrophes. Raup is not challenging natural selection as a cause of modification of species he just claimed that gradual change by natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution as non-gradual extinction events also have a role. Creationists however usually misrepresent Raup to make out he is denying common descent or natural selection.​

 

[tas8831]

We agree there, he didn't speak for me when I was a Darwinist either-

Sure you were...

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!

Funny - I have the same view of most of the Johnson=Dembskiists/YECs I come across.

 

[tas8831]

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

Found this, too:

Dr. David M. Raup
Dean of Science, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; "punctuationalist" whose writings, along with those of Gould and Eldredge, are among the most influential contributions to that theory and among those cited by creationists in an attempt to bolster their case.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the current creation-evolution debate is that many of the creationists equate Darwinian theory with evolution. They are saying, in effect, that if Darwin's theory falls, then so does evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. To me, there are two basic questions: Has evolution occurred (in the sense of change in the biological composition of the earth over millions of years)? By what mechanisms has evolution occurred? Darwin's contribution was to the second question. He proposed a biological mechanism: natural selection. Whether Darwin was right or wrong has no bearing on the question of whether evolution did or did not occur.

On the question of whether or not evolution has occurred, I would say that there are few things in the natural sciences about which we can be more confident. The geologic time scale has been checked and rechecked by many independent methods. Although individual dates may be subject to error, the overall chronology stands firm. It is used every day in petroleum and mineral exploration, and, if there were basic problems with it, I am sure that industrial geologists would have blown the whistle. The fossil record is intimately tied in with this chronology and shows a record of change in organisms through time. What we are not sure about is just how the biological changes took place. Natural selection surely played a part, but there may be other biological processes that have operated. One of the challenges of biology and paleontology is to find out what other processes were involved.​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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(?)

Sure - and it's a fact that this occurs in the world. Populations evolve. All populations of living things are evolving, including humans.