Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[AV1611VET]

If you wish to discuss apologetics there is a portion of the CF specific to that. Conversely, science is expected to be discussed here, is it not?

Then answer my questions in Post 181.

And while you're at it, take a gander at who brought up the Bible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Metamorphosis is not evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals.

That's why I tossed it into the mix. Waiting for evolutionists to explain it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It depends on what you mean by "unfit variations." Such monsters as you describe occur only rarely and represent a failure of the evolutionary process. In the ordinary course of events variations are relatively small. Examine the population of any species and observe the normal variation between one individual and another. That is the kind of variation on which natural selection acts.

We're talking about "goo to you" variation.

 

[RickG]

That's why I tossed it into the mix. Waiting for evolutionists to explain it.

I don't know what your definition of "evolutionists" is, but I provided a link to a full article describing metamorphosis. Have you read it yet?

 

[Speedwell]

We're talking about "goo to you" variation.

Right. One small step at a time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't know what your definition of "evolutionists" is, but I provided a link to a full article describing metamorphosis. Have you read it yet?

No way I could wade through that. I did raise some questions however i.e. is there a math formula for metamorphosis (please include the origin of all materials and processes needed).

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. One small step at a time.

Lewis Jones robs a bank and gets caught.

Lewis wants his name in the paper.

The paper says it was all staged, just so he could have his 15 minutes of fame.

Lewis denies it.

The headline reads: EVIL LEW SHUNS A HOAX.

(I just made that up! )

 

[MasonP]

Lewis Jones robs a bank and gets caught.

Lewis wants his name in the paper.

The paper says it was all staged, just so he could have his 15 minutes of fame.

Lewis denies it.

The headline reads: EVIL LEW SHUNS A HOAX.

(I just made that up! )

Let's say evolution is a hoax, which one of the many creation stories should we believe and why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's say evolution is a hoax, which one of the many creation stories should we believe and why?

Genesis 1, because Jesus believes it.

In fact, He wrote it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now we're getting somewhere. Evolution would provide prey species for the one-legged critter (you did want to broach the subject of evolutionary interdependency, which is much more complex.)

No - the kind of abnormality you described wouldn't be the result of evolution, which involves changes in a whole population, but of a mutation in an individual. Such an abnormal individual is called a 'sport' ("an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type, especially in form or colour, as a result of spontaneous mutation" Oxford Dictionary).

Such a mutation in an individual, even if heritable, would be unlikely to persist more than a generation or two at most, so evolution wouldn't be involved.

It's also worth noting that although evolution generates all species, prey species wouldn't evolve as provision for some new predator species, one-legged or otherwise. Co-evolutionary predator-prey development goes the other way, because the predator (by acting as the natural selection pressure and weeding out the easiest prey) drives the evolution of the prey species to be more difficult to prey on. This in turn drives the evolution of the predator to be better at predating the prey. This is often called an 'evolutionary arms race'.

Where are the fossil remains of those unfit variations?

Fossilization is rare, and finding fossils even rarer, so while we may occasionally find a few individual fossils out of a large population or whole species (e.g. tens of thousands to millions of individuals), the chances of finding fossils of individual 'sports' are infinitesimal, and since soft tissues aren't usually fossilized, such a fossil would only be recognised as a 'sport' if the mutation resulted in significant bone malformation.

For less severe heritable mutations, the likelihood of finding a fossil of them will be proportional to their prevalence in the overall population at the time and place that discoverable fossil beds were laid down for that population (if at all).

However, fossils showing evidence of diseases caused by mutations (e.g. tumours) have been found; these mutations mainly affect somatic cells, so they are not usually heritable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No - the kind of abnormality you described wouldn't be the result of evolution, which involves changes in a whole population, but of a mutation in an individual. Such an abnormal individual is called a 'sport' ("an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type, especially in form or colour, as a result of spontaneous mutation" Oxford Dictionary).

Such a mutation in an individual, even if heritable, would be unlikely to persist more than a generation or two at most, so evolution wouldn't be involved.

It's also worth noting that although evolution generates all species, prey species wouldn't evolve as provision for some new predator species, one-legged or otherwise. Co-evolutionary predator-prey development goes the other way, because the predator (by acting as the natural selection pressure and weeding out the easiest prey) drives the evolution of the prey species to be more difficult to prey on. This in turn drives the evolution of the predator to be better at predating the prey. This is often called an 'evolutionary arms race'.

Fossilization is rare, and finding fossils even rarer, so while we may occasionally find a few individual fossils out of a large population or whole species (e.g. tens of thousands to millions of individuals), the chances of finding fossils of individual 'sports' are infinitesimal, and since soft tissues aren't usually fossilized, such a fossil would only be recognised as a 'sport' if the mutation resulted in significant bone malformation.

For less severe heritable mutations, the likelihood of finding a fossil of them will be proportional to their prevalence in the overall population at the time and place that discoverable fossil beds were laid down for that population (if at all).

However, fossils showing evidence of diseases caused by mutations (e.g. tumours) have been found; these mutations mainly affect somatic cells, so they are not usually heritable.

How do you account for the individual differences between 3.5 billion humans? This alone causes problems in the population evolution model, doesn't it?

 

[Speedwell]

How do you account for the individual differences between 3.5 billion humans? This alone causes problems in the population evolution model, doesn't it?

Indeed not. It is what the evolutionary model predicts. But humans are a bad example, because though as a population we exhibit random variation as evolutionary theory predicts, we have taken the forces of natural selection largely into our own hands and it no longer operates as in nature.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed not. It is what the evolutionary model predicts. But humans are a bad example, because though as a population we exhibit random variation as evolutionary theory predicts, we have taken the forces of natural selection largely into our own hands and it no longer operates as in nature.

So evolution has conveniently stopped working in the case of humans. What about other species?

It seems like evolution has all the answers.

 

[Speedwell]

So evolution has conveniently stopped working in the case of humans.

Who said it has stopped working? Why would you find that convenient?

What about other species?

What about them? We have changed the natural environments of many of them as well, consequently changing the forces of selection which act on them. But random variation and selection go on all the same.

It seems like evolution has all the answers.

That depends on the questions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How do you account for the individual differences between 3.5 billion humans?

Every individual (barring identical twins) has a unique genetic makeup, the combination of each parent, who also have unique genetic makeup. This applies to all sexually reproducing species - it may be that you don't notice the individual differences between them so much because they're not your species. Some have said that even other human populations, "all look the same to me".

In fact, there's less genetic variation in the whole human race than in a single whoop of chimps, which suggests all living humans descend from a very small population (less than 2,000) relatively recently (perhaps 20-40,000 years ago). This is known as a population bottleneck. It means that we may have come back from the brink of extinction (we'd have been 'Endangered' on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List).

However, you don't need much genetic variation to produce noticeably different populations in a relatively short time and small number of generations - as dog breeders will tell you.

This alone causes problems in the population evolution model, doesn't it?

In what way?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... humans are a bad example, because though as a population we exhibit random variation as evolutionary theory predicts, we have taken the forces of natural selection largely into our own hands and it no longer operates as in nature.

Not strictly true - we've reduced the most severe selection pressures for many people, but human populations are still evolving by natural selection:

"...the majority of genes that have undergone recent evolution are associated with smell, reproduction, brain development, skin pigmentation and immunity against pathogens."​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because of natural selection, or in spite of it?

Both - if the selection pressure is too great, no individuals may survive to reproduce.

But on the other hand, a one-off event (e.g. a sudden global winter due to asteroid strike) can destroy many species at once.

Of course, you could consider one-off events to be intense selection pressure for whatever traits might aid survival, but it's generally considered in intra-species or population terms rather than inter-species. So, a sudden global winter would kill off many species, but after the initial impact (pun intended ), the ongoing cold climate would present new selection pressures for any survivors.

 

[MasonP]

Genesis 1, because Jesus believes it.

In fact, He wrote it.

Who was he when he wrote it? did he write it before he was born?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who was he when he wrote it?

Does it matter?

did he write it before he was born?

Does it matter?

 

[quatona]

Many 'adults' are unable to answer 'childish' questions, not because they are childish but because they have no answers.

Sometimes you don´t have an answer because the question is based on false premises or loaded with wrong assumptions.
Whatever...
The appropriate response when you have no answer is "I don´t know". I don´t see much good coming from responding to "childish" questions with childish answers.