DNA: Mutations, Versatility and Probability

Buzzard3 said:

The question remains:
If someone cannot demonstrate that they know how and what evolutionary mechanisms produced the macro-transitions evident on the fossil record, can they honestly claim to know how evolution works?
I don't think so.
[

Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that major factors include mutations and natural selection. That's how we observe evolution unfolding today and thus is how we know it to work.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

It's pretty obvious that major factors include mutations and natural selection. That's how we observe evolution unfolding today and thus is how we know it to work.

Click to expand...

We know it works on a micro-evolutionary level. But it's impossible to know what process produced the macro-evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record.

Buzzard3 said:

We know it works on a micro-evolutionary level. But it's impossible to know what process produced the macro-evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record.

Click to expand...

This is like saying that we know how mountains are gradually forming today in Hawaii, but somehow we don't know what formed the emperor seamount chain just because we weren't there to witness it.

You need something more than just personal incredulity to make such an argument. You need an actual evidence based argument.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

This is like saying that we know how mountains are gradually forming today in Hawaii, but somehow we don't know what formed the emperor seamount chain just because we weren't there to witness it.

You need something more than just personal incredulity to make such an argument. You need an actual evidence based argument.

Click to expand...

More on this:


When we look at intermediates in the succession, such as dinosaurs (on left) and birds (on right), we find that the evidence indicates a series of countless small steps, much like we see in the evolution of a Chihuahua from a wolf.

And as noted earlier, arguing about pre-cambrian microscopic soft shelled species and a lack of transitionals preceeding them, really is just a dishonest approach given the following 600 million years of post-cambrian evolution. And I believe it was you and I that had been discussing that topic before.

Just as it would be unreasonable for me to take video footage of Michael Jordan shooting a basketball in first grade and missing a shot, to therefore argue that he was never good at basketball. Assuming you attempt to return to this topic.

And so, in reality, the fossil record actually reflects how things should look, if hypothetically the evolution observed today were the same as that which unfolded in the past. As do evidences from genetics, biostratigraphy, comparative anatomy and morphology, embryology and all that other good stuff.

It is logically the same argument as saying that the emporor seamount was a product of the same mechanisms that exist today, and nothing in the historical geologic record indicates otherwise, just as nothing in the fossil record indicates anything but small steps just as we see today.

And to propose otherwise, you need more than just personal incredulity. And scientifically, there is no case to be made against evolution. And so I would wonder if you have any theological arguments to share. Because presumably, I would have to guess that your theology is what is motivating your ideas (even if you wish to suggest otherwise).

Isaiah 41:10 said:

This is like saying that we know how mountains are gradually forming today in Hawaii, but somehow we don't know what formed the emperor seamount chain just because we weren't there to witness it.

You need something more than just personal incredulity to make such an argument. You need an actual evidence based argument.

Click to expand...

If I asked someone to describe the process involved in spliting an atom, and they couldn't describe even the first step, then I would logically conclude that that person doesn't know how to split an atom.

Similarly, if I asked someone to describe the process involved in the evolution of a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... an amphibian from a fish ... a reptile from an amphibian ... a bird from a reptile ... a whale from a land animal ... or any other macro-evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record, and they couldn't describe even the first step, then I would logically conclude that that person doesn't know how evolution works.

I've asked evolutionary scientists to describe the process involved in the evolution of a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... an amphibian from a fish ... a reptile from an amphibian ... a bird from a reptile ... a whale from a land animal ... or any other macro-evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record, and they couldn't describe even the first step involved in any of them.
I logically concluded that that scientists don't know how evolution works.

If there's a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

Buzzard3 said:

If I asked someone to describe the process involved in spliting an atom, and they couldn't describe even the first step, then I would logically conclude that that person doesn't know how to split an atom.

Similarly, if I asked someone to describe the process involved in the evolution of a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... an amphibian from a fish ... a reptile from an amphibian ... a bird from a reptile ... a whale from a land animal ... or any other macro-evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record, and they couldn't describe even the first step, then I would logically conclude that that person doesn't know how evolution works.

I've asked evolutionary scientists to describe the process involved in the evolution of a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... an amphibian from a fish ... a reptile from an amphibian ... a bird from a reptile ... a whale from a land animal ... or any other macro-evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record, and they couldn't describe even the first step involved in any of them.
I logically concluded that that scientists don't know how evolution works.

If there's a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

Click to expand...

The logical flaw is that you don't see a Chihuahua evolving from a wolf as a first step, but somehow, unjustifiably, you are suggesting that there is a difference between such an event caused by mutations and natural selection and the idea that birds could evolve from dinosaurs by the same means, despite bird-like dinosaurs already being nearly identical to dinosaur-like birds, even to the extent today that some chickens are born with reptilian teeth.

By what logic do you think one micro event (dogs from wolves) could occur, but somehow not another micro event (dinosaur-like birds from bird-like dinosaurs)?

Isaiah 41:10 said:

The logical flaw is that you don't see a Chihuahua evolving from a wolf as a first step, but somehow, unjustifiably, you are suggesting that there is a difference between such an event caused by mutations and natural selection and the idea that birds could evolve from dinosaurs by the same means, despite bird-like dinosaurs already being nearly identical to dinosaur-like birds, even to the extent today that some chickens are born with reptilian teeth.

By what logic do you think one micro event (dogs from wolves) could occur, but somehow not another micro event (dinosaur-like birds from bird-like dinosaurs)?

View attachment 316295

Click to expand...

By what logic, could anyone look at this image, and suggest anything but a series of micro evolutionary steps adding up over time, just as we see in the world today? A Chihuahua could evolve from a wolf, but somehow this image just takes the topic too far?

Isaiah 41:10 said:

The logical flaw is that you don't see a Chihuahua evolving from a wolf as a first step, but somehow, unjustifiably, you are suggesting that there is a difference between such an event caused by mutations and natural selection and the idea that birds could evolve from dinosaurs by the same means, despite bird-like dinosaurs already being nearly identical to dinosaur-like birds, even to the extent today that some chickens are born with reptilian teeth.

By what logic do you think one micro event (dogs from wolves) could occur, but somehow not another micro event (dinosaur-like birds from bird-like dinosaurs)?

View attachment 316295

Click to expand...

If all we had in the fossil record was a T Rex and then chickens today, i would be a bit more convinced by your idea that small steps were not responsible, collectively over time, for macro scale events. But that's just not the case.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

If all we had in the fossil record was a T Rex and then chickens today, i would be a bit more convinced by your idea that small steps were not responsible, collectively over time, for macro scale events. But that's just not the case.

View attachment 316297

Click to expand...

Ken Miller once said something along the lines of, one side argues with and from authentic evidence. The other side, the critics, they kind of just shrug their shoulders, express personal incredulity, offer no clear justification for their feelings, and continue to ask for more transitionals despite the record ever increasing in their number indefinitely, year by year.

Beyond scientists inventing a time machine, what more could you want? Regarding the fossil record, instead of a thousand transitionals, do you want 2 thousand?

Isaiah 41:10 said:

If all we had in the fossil record was a T Rex and then chickens today, i would be a bit more convinced by your idea that small steps were not responsible, collectively over time, for macro scale events. But that's just not the case.

View attachment 316297

Click to expand...

When did I say "small steps were not responsible"? I simply said the process cannot be known.

How do you know God didn't perform miracles to produce the macro-transitions evident in the fossil record?

Buzzard3 said:

When did I say "small steps were not responsible"? I simply said the process cannot be known.

How do you know God didn't perform miracles to produce the macro-transitions evident in the fossil record?

Click to expand...

This is like asking how I know that God didn't make a pair of socks appear at the clothing store one day. Or more commonly: how do we know that we all aren't just brains in jars and that we don't actually exist as people? It's true that God can do anything and is operating in the universe, presumably, as is described in scripture. But that doesn't mean that, because of this reality, that we ought to enter a state where we suggest that we don't know anything about anything. How do we know that it was gravity that made that apple fall on newtons head and that it wasn't just God making an apple break from the tree by supernatural means?

We won't ever truly know where God may or may not intervene without clear evidence of the supernatural, but that doesn't mean, for practical purposes, that, as many feel uncomfortable with, that we didn't evolve from more primitive apes. At some point you just have to let reality be reality. Trust that God is active and loving, and work with what you have.

How do I know that it was smoking that gave that person lung cancer and not God? We could ask that question for any fathomable topic. But to prevent ourselves from sinking into this infinite philosophical hole of "unknowing", we kind of just have to take axioms of science and reality as they present themselves in order to maintain some level of sanity.

Isaiah 41:10 said:

This is like asking how I know that God didn't make a pair of socks appear at the clothing store one day. Or more commonly: how do we know that we all aren't just brains in jars and that we don't actually exist as people? It's true that God can do anything and is operating in the universe, presumably, as is described in scripture. But that doesn't mean that, because of this reality, that we ought to enter a state where we suggest that we don't know anything about anything. How do we know that it was gravity that made that apple fall on newtons head and that it wasn't just God making an apple break from the tree by supernatural means?

We won't ever truly know where God may or may not intervene without clear evidence of the supernatural, but that doesn't mean, for practical purposes, that, as many feel uncomfortable with, that we didn't evolve from more primitive apes. At some point you just have to let reality be reality. Trust that God is active and loving, and work with what you have.

How do I know that it was smoking that gave that person lung cancer and not God? We could ask that question for any fathomable topic. But to prevent ourselves from sinking into this infinite philosophical hole of "unknowing", we kind of just have to take axioms of science and reality as they present themselves in order to maintain some level of sanity.

Click to expand...

And maybe that's why God made physical laws to begin with. So that we can live day to day without fear of falling into a black hole whenever we step out the front door. We depend on God's established laws to maintain some form of understanding of creation. It's what He gave us to work with. So we place a level of trust that they remain, generally and for practical purposes, consistently true. And that includes laws of evolution.