Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

Wait, I thought you wanted me to go out an do my own work on protein decay, now you beating your old, dead horse again on you math about genetics. Pick a lane.

Pick your experimental evidence, since you won't do your own work on understanding proteolysis, I'll have to post an example again, I'll even give you a quote from the link.
Proteolysis - Wikipedia

The hydrolysis of a protein (red) by the nucleophilic attack of water (blue). The uncatalysed half-life is several hundred years.

There are lots of dead horses discussed in this thread, macroevolution, multi-million-year-old soft tissue on dinosaur fossils, junk DNA (do I have to post the links where that is wrong and deserves to be dead), and abiogenesis.

 

[Frank Robert]

How about a peer-reviewed and published model of how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work? We haven't seen any papers like this from the macroevolutionist clique.

Notwidstanding your claims, you appear to the only person who believes K & L has a bearing on macroevolution.

 

[pitabread]

There are lots of dead horses discussed in this thread, macroevolution, multi-million-year-old soft tissue on dinosaur fossils, junk DNA (do I have to post the links where that is wrong and deserves to be dead), and abiogenesis.

Anyone have bingo yet?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Present the tests performed to test your macroevolutionary model.

Pretty much every discovery and experiment done since Darwin has tested and confirmed it - the results could have been different and not conformed to the model, but they all did (I say all, but there were a few that showed the model needed refinement, particularly regarding neutral mutations and genetic drift).

One interesting test was the use of a phylogenetic tree to predict the 'whale's ankle'; another was the prediction by Neil Shubin of a 'fishapod' transitional around 380 million years ago and a consequent expedition to the Canadian Arctic where strata of that period were known to be exposed, leading to the eventual discovery of Tiktaalik. Then there are all those fascinating and unexpected feathered dinosaurs and the discovery of a lineage leading to modern birds.

There are more predictions listed here (somewhat dated, there have been many more since).

The only evidence you have for common descent is the misinterpretation of the fossil record. You cannot explain using gross anatomy what happens on a molecular level.

No, not really. The fossil record provides ongoing confirmation of the theory that made very little use of it at the outset. Molecular biology supports and confirms the theory; its greater precision has meant the rearrangement of some relationships, but that's not unusual in science, better tools give greater clarity & confidence.

You have to cherry-pick tiny pieces of the genome between different taxonomic groups to find these genetic similarities and ignore all the genetic differences which are much larger than the similarities. That is a statistical mathematical blunder. If you want to determine the relatedness of different taxonomic groups, you have to sample randomly from the different genomes to see if there is any kind of match.

I note that you didn't attempt to explain the matching ERVs in the human and chimp genomes from my earlier post, but the biochemical similarities are also notable; for example, compare human and chimp haemoglobin...

But I'm sure you have heard all this before and rejected it all before, so I'll leave you to your probably futile efforts - although I would suggest that Christian Forums is not likely to be much help in changing evolutionary science.

 

[pitabread]

You have to cherry-pick tiny pieces of the genome between different taxonomic groups to find these genetic similarities and ignore all the genetic differences which are much larger than the similarities.

Let's take human and chimp genomes as an example. How similar do you think they are?

(Note, I'm looking for a straight answer so, if you're going to deflect the question and start babbling on about mathematics and Lenski and Kishony, etc., don't bother replying.)

 

[Frank Robert]

There are lots of dead horses discussed in this thread, macroevolution, multi-million-year-old soft tissue on dinosaur fossils, junk DNA (do I have to post the links where that is wrong and deserves to be dead), and abiogenesis.

The biggest dead horse is Alan's denial of the phenomenal amount of evidence for marcoevolution. If fact that horse was dead on arrival.

There is no sense in

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Feathers are just the beginning of the genetic transformational problem for the reptiles to birds story. Check out the differences in the circulatory and respiratory systems between birds and reptiles.

There are more striking similarities between the early birds and the coelurosaurian dinosaurs suggested as their ancestors than there are striking differences - see Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Pretty much every discovery and experiment done since Darwin has tested and confirmed it - the results could have been different and not conformed to the model, but they all did (I say all, but there were a few that showed the model needed refinement, particularly regarding neutral mutations and genetic drift).

Give us one experiment, just one, that you claim confirms macroevolution, and let's discuss that experiment.

One interesting test was the use of a phylogenetic tree to predict the 'whale's ankle'; another was the prediction by Neil Shubin of a 'fishapod' transitional around 380 million years ago and a consequent expedition to the Canadian Arctic where strata of that period were known to be exposed, leading to the eventual discovery of Tiktaalik. Then there are all those fascinating and unexpected feathered dinosaurs and the discovery of a lineage leading to modern birds.

Fossil tea-leaf readers construct phylogenetic trees to fit their theory. The only correct way to construct a phylogenetic tree is using genetics, actual genetic sequences. Do you have any idea how that is done? Macroevolutionists can't even do that correctly.

There are more predictions listed here (somewhat dated, there have been many more since).

I'm not arguing whether evolution or occurs or not, I'm arguing the correct physics and mathematics of the evolutionary process. You will not present a single experimental example demonstrating that the model I"m presenting of microevolution is incorrect. And then your clique claims that macroevolution is simply the addition of a series of microevolutionary events. They obviously didn't cover introductory probability theory in the dumbbell math courses biologists take. If they did you would understand that you don't compute joint probabilities of random events by adding the individual probabilities of each of these events, you have to multiply those probabilities.

No, not really. The fossil record provides ongoing confirmation of the theory that made very little use of it at the outset. Molecular biology supports and confirms the theory; its greater precision has meant the rearrangement of some relationships, but that's not unusual in science, better tools give greater clarity & confidence.

If the fossil record explains so much about evolution, take that understanding you get from reading the fossil record and explain the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You can't because the fossil record is a (mis)interpretation of a phenomenon based on incorrect assumptions. You start with the belief that common descent is true and then look for fossils that justify that assumption.

I note that you didn't attempt to explain the matching ERVs in the human and chimp genomes from my earlier post, but the biochemical similarities are also notable; for example, compare human and chimp haemoglobin...

You can search through 3 billion base sequences and find matches here and there. It's the differences in the genomes that you ignore and these differences are the way you determine whether replicators are related or not.

But I'm sure you have heard all this before and rejected it all before, so I'll leave you to your probably futile efforts - although I would suggest that Christian Forums is not likely to be much help in changing evolutionary science.

There are very specific scientific and mathematical reasons why I reject these claims. That's why I try to pin you down to what you think your best claim is so we can discuss that claim in detail so that you can understand why I reject the claim. That's the way I challenge your reasoning. I present a model of microevolution that even Frank can understand. Your clique argues back that it only models 2 evolutionary experiments, I argue, present an experimental example that contradicts this math, you don't do it.

So present what you think is the best argument you have for macroevolution and let's discuss it. This forum is as good as anywhere elese.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There are more striking similarities between the early birds and the coelurosaurian dinosaurs suggested as their ancestors than there are striking differences - see Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

You do know that reptiles don't have a loop of Henle and birds do? If you don't know what a loop of Henle is, look it up.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Give us one experiment, just one, that you claim confirms macroevolution, and let's discuss that experiment.

Real question: why do you need an experiment for this?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pick your experimental evidence, since you won't do your own work on understanding proteolysis, I'll have to post an example again, I'll even give you a quote from the link.
Proteolysis - Wikipedia

You said I should do my own work on seeing how proteins decayed and the clear implication was experiment. I'm not going to do any chemistry experiments. Sorry.

Your link was directly about biological breakdown of proteins. It wasn't about non-biological decay and potential preservatives. But this is all just cover for your unwillingness to accept ancient ages for bones and your use of the protein residues in old fossils as an excuse to avoid your problematic dating choices, isn't it?

There are lots of dead horses discussed in this thread, macroevolution, multi-million-year-old soft tissue on dinosaur fossils, junk DNA (do I have to post the links where that is wrong and deserves to be dead), and abiogenesis.

No one has discussed abiogenesis in this thread. You mentioned junk DNA (for no apparent reason), etc. I don't know why you mentioned RBCs originally, which lead to this pointless discussion about soft "tissues" in ancient dino. It seems like *you* are the generator of most of the distracting sub-topics in this thread.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Real question: why do you need an experiment for this?

Because experiments give a repeatable way to observe a physical phenomenon and correlate any theory you might have of that phenomenon with reality.

In your case, for example, you were not aware that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process. The Lenski experiment demonstrates this very clearly and once you understand this, it becomes clear why competition slows microevolutionary adaptation. But to recognize this pattern, you also need to understand the physics of microevolutionary adaptation as well. The possibility of an microevolutionary adaptation step occurring does so when a replication occurs.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because experiments give a repeatable way to observe a physical phenomenon and correlate any theory you might have of that phenomenon with reality.

In your case, for example, you were not aware that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process. The Lenski experiment demonstrates this very clearly and once you understand this, it becomes clear why competition slows microevolutionary adaptation. But to recognize this pattern, you also need to understand the physics of microevolutionary adaptation as well. The possibility of an microevolutionary adaptation step occurring does so when a replication occurs.

So why isn't it that multiple microevolutionary steps can become a single macroevolutionary step?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You said I should do my own work on seeing how proteins decayed and the clear implication was experiment. I'm not going to do any chemistry experiments. Sorry.

Your link was directly about biological breakdown of proteins. It wasn't about non-biological decay and potential preservatives. But this is all just cover for your unwillingness to accept ancient ages for bones and your use of the protein residues in old fossils as an excuse to avoid your problematic dating choices, isn't it?

Read the quote from that link carefully, it says "uncatalyzed half-life".

No one has discussed abiogenesis in this thread. You mentioned junk DNA (for no apparent reason), etc. I don't know why you mentioned RBCs originally, which lead to this pointless discussion about soft "tissues" in ancient dino. It seems like *you* are the generator of most of the distracting sub-topics in this thread.

Are you claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the biologist dogma? And I mention junk DNA (which is also part of the biologist dogma) because one of the posters mentioned that both reptiles and birds can have a gene that produces keratin and therefore they must be related. That neglects the major part of the function of DNA which is to control where and when that gene is turned on and off. This is the kind of arguments simpletons make when they have no idea of the fact that stem cells differentiate as the creature grows and developed. I guess this is the kind of trivial idea that fits your level of training and experience.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So why isn't it that multiple microevolutionary steps can become a single macroevolutionary step?

In theory, they can, but the microevolutionary steps don't add up. Adaptive microevolutionary steps are random occurrences and you compute the joint probability of random events occurring by multiplying their individual probabilities of occurring. You don't add these probabilities. That's why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. For each adaptive step, the variant has to do large numbers of replications to improve the probability of the next adaptive mutation occurring. And if it takes more than a single mutation for adaptation, the number of replications increases exponentially to give a reasonable probability of the two particular mutations occurring. The limitations on adaptive microevolution are seen with HIV when 3 selection pressures targeting just 2 genetic loci are sufficient to stifle the adaptation process. Even with HIV's high mutation rate, it takes about 1e15 replications for each adaptive step.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In theory, they can, but the microevolutionary steps don't add up. Adaptive microevolutionary steps are random occurrences and you compute the joint probability of random events occurring by multiplying their individual probabilities of occurring. You don't add these probabilities. That's why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. For each adaptive step, the variant has to do large numbers of replications to improve the probability of the next adaptive mutation occurring. And if it takes more than a single mutation for adaptation, the number of replications increases exponentially to give a reasonable probability of the two particular mutations occurring. The limitations on adaptive microevolution are seen with HIV when 3 selection pressures targeting just 2 genetic loci are sufficient to stifle the adaptation process. Even with HIV's high mutation rate, it takes about 1e15 replications for each adaptive step.

Okay then, that's your answer.
So can you explain the massive diversity of species in both the fossil record of extinct animals and the populations of extant animals that we have today with just microevolution?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Okay then, that's your answer.
So can you explain the massive diversity of species in both the fossil record of extinct animals and the populations of extant animals that we have today with just microevolution?

I can give you a scientific explanation of the way biological evolution works and it demonstrates both mathematically and empirically that diversity of species cannot occur by this process. There is no scientific explanation for the massive diversity of species and to cling to a mathematically irrational process as an explanation is not scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can give you a scientific explanation of the way biological evolution works and it demonstrates both mathematically and empirically that diversity of species cannot occur by this process. There is no scientific explanation for the massive diversity of species and to cling to a mathematically irrational process as an explanation is not scientific.

So, if species cannot occur by microevolution, a thing that you claim is factual, and then also that macroevolution, the part of evolution that explicitly allows new species to form, isn't factual either (according to you), how do new species form then?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So, if species cannot occur by microevolution, a thing that you claim is factual, and then also that macroevolution, the part of evolution that explicitly allows new species to form, isn't factual either (according to you), how do new species form then?

I'm not saying that a mutation can't create a variant that can't interbreed with the parent species. But that new variant may have difficulty finding a mate. You might get a situation where two different variants might not be able to physically breed because of some limitation. For example, Great Danes and Chihuahuas are both canines with homologous genomes but because of size disparity are unable to breed.

And I have all the experimental and empirical data supporting my claims about microevolution. Besides your biology instructors failing to explain the correct physics and mathematics of biological competition, I'm sure they failed to teach you the correct physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation. If they had given you the correct explanation, you could explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not saying that a mutation can't create a variant that can't interbreed with the parent species. But that new variant may have difficulty finding a mate. You might get a situation where two different variants might not be able to physically breed because of some limitation. For example, Great Danes and Chihuahuas are both canines with homologous genomes but because of size disparity are unable to breed.

And I have all the experimental and empirical data supporting my claims about microevolution. Besides your biology instructors failing to explain the correct physics and mathematics of biological competition, I'm sure they failed to teach you the correct physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation. If they had given you the correct explanation, you could explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Your comment about mating and dog breeds is a bit worrying for someone claiming to know something that mainstream science doesn't know.

And you also didn't actually answer my question, so I'll repeat:

So, if species cannot occur by microevolution, a thing that you claim is factual, and then also that macroevolution, the part of evolution that explicitly allows new species to form, isn't factual either (according to you), how do new species form then?