Evolution at work.

[ExpatChristian]

Evolution at work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

 

[philadiddle]

They are still butterflies.

 

[slamminsam]

They are still butterflies.

Exactly-animals transforming from one KIND to another has never, ever, been observed. And, boy have evolutionists tried!
That's why we don't see new species evolving-evolution is absolutely not true.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, this is an example of natural selection, not evolution. The article itself mentions that it is not clear if the variation was in the original population, came as a mutation, or came from other butterflies.

Slamminsam - I'd be careful about using the term "species". I believe a primary characteristic of species is the ability to breed together. By that definition new "species" have been observed. New "kinds" have not. Even in the examples of new species, observed gross morphological features remain the same.

 

[philadiddle]

Exactly-animals transforming from one KIND to another has never, ever, been observed. And, boy have evolutionists tried!

Of course it hasn't been observed because the word "kind" doesn't mean anything in scientific terms.

That's why we don't see new species evolving-evolution is absolutely not true.

Actually we do.
Observed instances of speciation.
Some more observed instances of speciation.

 

[philadiddle]

Actually, this is an example of natural selection, not evolution.

Evolution is driven by natural selection. So observing natural selection is observing evolution. What do you think would be different if we observed evolution?

The article itself mentions that it is not clear if the variation was in the original population, came as a mutation, or came from other butterflies.

A mutation would be a gain of information that wasn't there before. If it was a mutation, would you believe that it was evolution? If not, what's your point?

 

[laptoppop]

Evolution is driven by natural selection. So observing natural selection is observing evolution. What do you think would be different if we observed evolution?

Natural selection is not in dispute. Gross positive morphological changes have never been observed.

A mutation would be a gain of information that wasn't there before. If it was a mutation, would you believe that it was evolution? If not, what's your point?

Actually, most mutations are not a gain of information, but are neutral or negative -- a loss of information / organization / entropy. Even the "positive" ones, such as particular drug resistance virtually always come with negative effects as well.

 

[Nooj]

Gross positive morphological changes have never been observed.

Could you explain why the change of physical characteristics in populations (as a result of genetic changes) has to be 'gross' or 'major'?

In other words, why does evolution in populations have to result in big morphological changes?

 

[philadiddle]

Natural selection is not in dispute. Gross positive morphological changes have never been observed.

Would a major morphological change have to happen in 1 step? Would you call the differences in domestic dogs morphological changes? The difference in dogs are positive changes, suited to their environment. I guess you need to say how big a change you expect and in how many steps it would take to be counted as evolution.

Actually, most mutations are not a gain of information, but are neutral or negative -- a loss of information / organization / entropy. Even the "positive" ones, such as particular drug resistance virtually always come with negative effects as well.

Your own statement says that there are positive changes without negative effects. Besides, any negative effects could be corrected by natural selection.

 

[philadiddle]

Actually, most mutations are not a gain of information, but are neutral or negative -- a loss of information / organization / entropy.

What does entropy have to do with mutations?

 

[gluadys]

Exactly-animals transforming from one KIND to another has never, ever, been observed. And, boy have evolutionists tried!
That's why we don't see new species evolving-evolution is absolutely not true.

Well common ancestry and transformation into new "kinds" are mutually exclusive concepts. Evolution supports common ancestry, which implies that there are no separate "kinds" to transform into.

 

[notto]

Gross positive morphological changes have never been observed..

Unless you can define this and demonstrate what it has to do with observation of evolution it is a meaningless claim intended only to create a subjective, impassable gap for your claim to hide in.

Wolves to dogs could be considered gross positive morphological changes.

How about new fur color? Why or why not?

Elephants loosing their trunks could be considered gross positive morphological changes.

This is like the whole kinds definition (or lack of one) . Unless it can be defined, it is just a tactic used to hide from real observations of speciation and evolution and changing the definition to fit.

If we observed gross positive morphological changes, then creationists would just move the goalposts again.

What would you consider a gross positive morphological change? Is it just one of those things that you know when you see it?

 

[Assyrian]

What is gross positive morphological change and how big does the change have to be to be considered gross? If there are no gross positive morphological changes between wolves and Chihuahua, are there between wolves and foxes or jackals? What about dogs and bears?

It is interesting the way your terminology changed after shernren showed how bacteria can continue to evolve after a positive mutation which confers antibiotic resistance. The bacteria was much more fit when antibiotics were present but was at a disadvantage when there was none. However the next mutation the bacteria has overcomes the negative side effects of the first leaving the bacteria more fit than the original form even where there was no antibiotic present. You had said:

Interestingly, there I have not found any cases of "purely positive" mutations -- all the ones I've looked at have had negative side effects.

Then we have shernrens post followed by another example from impaler http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36662522&postcount=6

So now when the subject comes up again, and you bring up your argument, what you say is:

Actually, most mutations are not a gain of information, but are neutral or negative -- a loss of information / organization / entropy. Even the "positive" ones, such as particular drug resistance virtually always come with negative effects as well.

And amazing example of evolution that should be impossible according to creationism, and your argument only acknowledges it by a tiny shift from 'all the ones' to 'virtually always'

 

[notto]

Hey! Bring that back!

 

[philadiddle]

Hey! Bring that back!

Took me a second, then I laughed.

 

[theIdi0t]

Exactly-animals transforming from one KIND to another has never, ever, been observed. And, boy have evolutionists tried!.

How do you go around using a word that has no meaning?

Yes, there is no evidence of evolution that is not within kinds, just as there is no evidence of evolution that is not within goobligook.

I suggest you figure out what the word means and then return, because we all are curious to learn.

 

[Atheuz]

Natural selection is not in dispute. Gross positive morphological changes have never been observed.

Oh I don't know but could be because gross positive morphological changes take place over millions of years and we have only been observing Evolution for a timespan of 150 years?

Evolution doesn't say that suddenly one animal turns into another, it takes a long time with small changes over million of years. Besides the fossil record confirms this, but since you're choosing to ignore all the scientific evidence for Evolution you won't be convinced!

 

[laptoppop]

Unless you can define this and demonstrate what it has to do with observation of evolution it is a meaningless claim intended only to create a subjective, impassable gap for your claim to hide in.

Wolves to dogs could be considered gross positive morphological changes.

How about new fur color? Why or why not?

Totally fair. I have not completed correlating the research, so pardon the incompleteness. What it is looking like is that there is a range of allowable variation built into each critter. Beyond that range, DNA repair mechanisms kick in. Movement within the range is swift. I can create a new dog breed with drastically different appearance and temperament in just a few generations. However, they will all be dogs.

Mutations exist, however the far and vast majority are either neutral or negative. If neutral, there is no reason for them to propagate because natural selection has nothing to work on. If negative, there is harm to the beast, and negative natural selection. Even in the case of bacteria and drugs, the normative mutation which causes drug resistance hurts the bacteria in other ways. Yes, a further mutation can restore the functonality, perhaps, but it is a 1 step forward, 3 steps back kind of world. Localized populations do not tend toward increased vigor, etc., but rather end up with mutational loading that hurts the population.

[auote]Elephants loosing their trunks could be considered gross positive morphological changes.[/quote]
(losing, not loosing -- pet peeve of mine)
Yes, in certain circumstances it could be. However, it is a loss of information and structure, not a gain. What has never been demonstrated is an increase in information and structure. Why? If supposedly it has happened trillions upon trillions of times, why do we not have a single clear example? We do have some....sort of. Flys that develop a duplicate set of wings (they fly more poorly, would not have made it through natural selection). Deformities, such as cows with the rare, but existent extra leg,etc. So we do have some cases where existing structures are duplicated. But new structures -- new information -- spring fully formed in the fossil record.

What we see in the fossil record is fully formed organisms appropriate for an ecological niche. If you accept the conventional geologic time frame for the geologic column, then in many cases rich, complex structures spring fully formed. Where are the fossils of things leading up to the trilobite eye? Why is there an explosion of complex life at the cambrian layer? We now know that life is much much more complex than Darwin ever imagined. The wonderful self-replicating machinery inside every cell -- we're still puzzling it all out. Where did this come from? How did it develop? Why is there no record?

 

[laptoppop]

What is gross positive morphological change and how big does the change have to be to be considered gross? If there are no gross positive morphological changes between wolves and Chihuahua, are there between wolves and foxes or jackals?

These are valid questions. It requires a difference in the structures and how they are laid out, etc., not just a change in size. There is an ICR project just starting where they are specifically looking at determining the allowed variation range. Dr. Behe's new book describes his take on some of the limits of variation. Of course, he allows for more variation in history, but ends up with a goddidit answer because he doesn't want to deny common ancestry.

What about dogs and bears?

Indeed. Here we have many similar structures in function, but a ton of variations and differing structures. Of course, to some similarity means common descent, while to me it means common designer and building blocks.

It is interesting the way your terminology changed after shernren showed how bacteria can continue to evolve after a positive mutation which confers antibiotic resistance. The bacteria was much more fit when antibiotics were present but was at a disadvantage when there was none. However the next mutation the bacteria has overcomes the negative side effects of the first leaving the bacteria more fit than the original form even where there was no antibiotic present. You had said:

Then we have shernrens post followed by another example from impaler http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36662522&postcount=6

Yes, my terminology and understanding has changed. Thank you. I seek the truth, and I am glad to learn and be corrected and grow. I desire to be more accurate in both my understanding and my terminology over time.

And amazing example of evolution that should be impossible according to creationism, and your argument only acknowledges it by a tiny shift from 'all the ones' to 'virtually always'

Is the "tiny shift" not truthful? Is it not accurate to say that only the tiniest of percentages of mutations are positive, with the bulk being neutral and a large percentage being harmful? Tiny shifts represent learning and growth. I do not say "all" because "all" is not necessarily true.

 

[laptoppop]

Oh I don't know but could be because gross positive morphological changes take place over millions of years and we have only been observing Evolution for a timespan of 150 years?

Evolution doesn't say that suddenly one animal turns into another, it takes a long time with small changes over million of years. Besides the fossil record confirms this, but since you're choosing to ignore all the scientific evidence for Evolution you won't be convinced!

No, the big point is that the fossil record does NOT show this. The changes as recorded in the fossil record are much too big. The critters in the fossil record are fully adapted to their ecological niches. Why, with all the fossils, is that all we have? Why with all the negative mutations that we can observe, have we never seen new structures form? "because the changes are too small" doesn't cut it. We have observed germs with populations of billions going through millions of generations -- and we do not see examples of new structures.