Evolution conflict and division

[The Barbarian]

This is speciation that scientists have directly observed, genetically confirmed, and can still see in nature today.

The claim begs for a precise definition of "species".

That's one of the many huge problems for creationism. If creationism were true, there would be nice definable separations between species. But instead, as Darwin predicted, we see all sorts of intermediate cases. Reproductive isolation defines species. But even that isn't perfect. In the case of clines or ring species, the extinction of a part of the population could retroactively make microevolution into macroevolution. Would you like to learn how?

Hybrids are microevolution events.

Usually. But sometimes, it results in a reproductively-isolated species. Would you like to learn about how that works?

Scientists have directly observed macroevolution. Even many YE creationists admit the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. They just moved the goal posts farther out to change the definition of macroevolution.

So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

I haven't observed a volcanic eruption either. But I'm pretty sure they are a fact. Just like macroevolution.

Words mean things. If you don't use them as others do, you're never going to communicate effectively.
BTW, all definitions are tautologies, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.

And of course, it's instructive. I just showed you what the word means.

But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies.

In this case, "macroevolution" is defined as speciation. So, it points out that evolution not resulting in reproductive isolation is not macroevolution. Which seems like an important concept to me. But then, I've spent a lifetime studying biology. So your take might be different.

For example, "All triangles have three sides."

Kinda like "all macroevolutionary events involve speciation." Your example strikes me as informative. Math teachers would think so. But then, they've spent years studying math.

Contrast it with the statement, "No triangle has any diagonals," which not a tautology.

Contrast it with the statement "No macroevolutionary event happen without speciation." Which is not a tautology.

I don't think you've given this matter enough thought.

 

[stevevw]

Are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? I think people tend to get the two confused.

I agree with microevolution (Basically natural selection within a group) but don't agree with macroevolution (apes turning into humans or wolves turning into whales.) Or the idea that we came from nothing. That there is no creator.

This reminds me of the 'lumpers and splitters' in taxonomy. Lumpers see any variation as within the species and splitters will see variations as a new species.

The group of skulls found at Dmanisi Georgia years ago threw a spanner in the neat evolution of homo sapiens by showing significant diversity within the same species of homo erectus.

The features once assigned to different hominin species such as Homo Rudolfensis, Gautengensis, Ergaster and possibly Homo Habilis may have been variations within a single, widespread species, such as Homo Erectus. Therefore implying a less branching and more of a bushy type evolution where there were less species but more variation within species.

Prior to this paleontologists had relegated these variations as new species. Suddenlt several species were wiped out with this discover. Though the debate is still going on. Which is sort of the point that this is a matter of which side of the fense you sit as to lumpers and splitters lol.

 

[The Barbarian]

This reminds me of the 'lumpers and splitters' in taxonomy. Lumpers see any variation as within the species and splitters will see variations as a new species.

Yep. Because evolution produces all sorts of intermediate states, it's often difficult to say precisely when species evolve.

The group of skulls found at Dmanisi Georgia years ago threw a spanner in the neat evolution of homo sapiens by showing significant diversity within the same species of homo erectus.

It was never neat. The evolution of hominids is very messy.

 

[o_mlly]

*Bzzt* *Bzzt* Pedant alert!

Thanks for the heads-up. His posts demonstrates a certain kind of pedant; a condescending pedant. And his posts that argue from a fallacious and self-referential appeal to authority make any progress by further exchanges with him improbable. His faith in science overwhelms any use of critical thinking argumentation.

The ever-evolving hypotheses of the evolution theory beg for a a good dose of Occam's Razor.

 

[River Jordan]

The ever-evolving hypotheses of the evolution theory beg for a a good dose of Occam's Razor.

Then go do better! If you really think you have a better way to do biology, then either go do it yourself and show everyone how great it is or at least go to a creationist organization and present your way to them so they can implement it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks for the heads-up. His posts demonstrates a certain kind of pedant;

You missed it. sfs was calling himself a pedant (albeit humorously). You see, chimps are actually two species, forest chimpanzees and bonobos. He was pointing out that the phylogeny of great apes looks like this:

But is often shown as this:

Notice that humans, chimpanzees and bonobos still are more closely related to each other, than any are related to other apes. A hyper-pedant could also insert H. neanderthalis into the human side of the clade and then the four species would be more closely related to each other than any of them are related to other apes.

Perhaps if sfs would use the "WFTH-I" warning I sometimes use for such things, you'd have noticed that he was gently poking fun at himself.

 

[o_mlly]

Then go do better! If you really think you have a better way to do biology, then either go do it yourself and show everyone how great it is or at least go to a creationist organization and present your way to them so they can implement it.

I'm not a biologist. Critical thinking, ie., logic, discloses the virtual improbability of evolution theories. So improbable so as to be impossible. Secondly, all evolution theories violate first principles of logical thinking.

You missed it. sfs was calling himself a pedant (albeit humorously).

That may well be your interpretation; I think mine more accurate.

Posts which state mere hypotheses as declarative facts always indicate bias, a bias toward elevating one's opinions to the realm of reality.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm not a biologist. Critical thinking, ie., logic, discloses the virtual improbability of evolution theories. So improbable so as to be impossible. Secondly, all evolution theories violate first principles of logical thinking.

Do you not see the disconnect between the first sentence and the following ones? You're not a biologist and you gave no support for your claims about "evolution theories" except your own authority, so why should anyone take what you say over what actual biologists say?

If we were in a room with a team of biologists and they all said evolutionary theory is very well supported and evidenced, and then you came in and declared "they're wrong", why do you think anyone should believe you?

 

[Job 33:6]

You missed it. sfs was calling himself a pedant (albeit humorously). You see, chimps are actually two species, forest chimpanzees and bonobos. He was pointing out that the phylogeny of great apes looks like this:
View attachment 369431
But is often shown as this:

View attachment 369433
Notice that humans, chimpanzees and bonobos still are more closely related to each other, than any are related to other apes. A hyper-pedant could also insert H. neanderthalis into the human side of the clade and then the four species would be more closely related to each other than any of them are related to other apes.

Perhaps if sfs would use the "WFTH-I" warning I sometimes use for such things, you'd have noticed that he was gently poking fun at himself.

The irony that sfs was joking about himself and the only person who didn't catch on was the critic of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

You missed it. sfs was calling himself a pedant (albeit humorously).

That may well be your interpretation; I think mine more accurate.

It appears that you're the only one who failed to get the joke.

I'm not a biologist. Critical thinking, ie., logic, discloses the virtual improbability of evolution theories.

Logical certainty in science. Impressive. Show us this.

Secondly, all evolution theories violate first principles of logical thinking.

Well, let's look at Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every organism is somewhat different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences affect the likeihood of surviving to reproduce.
4. The useful differences tend to accumulate, and the harmful ones tend to be lost, and this leads to speciation.

Tell us which of these is logically wrong.

 

[sfs]

That may well be your interpretation; I think mine more accurate.

@The Barbarian's interpretation was correct.

Critical thinking, ie., logic, discloses the virtual improbability of evolution theories. So improbable so as to be impossible. Secondly, all evolution theories violate first principles of logical thinking.

I, too, am interested in these logical arguments. Biologists are reasonably intelligent (well, most of them), and you'd think we'd have noticed if the unifying framework of the field we spend our lives studying were trivially false, but by all means, show us what you got.

 

[Jipsah]

Evolution conflict and division.
Post by TGGIL

The Great Divide: Evolution vs. Creation
Let’s imagine the world split evenly in two. Half of humanity believes that the universe, Earth, the sun, and all life evolved naturally—through processes like the Big Bang and biological evolution. This group sees no need for a supreme, omnipresent creator. The other half believes in a spiritual, all-knowing God who created everything: space, time, matter, and life itself.

These two worldviews stand in stark contrast, each with passionate followers and deep convictions.
The Question to Evolutionists
In a global debate arena, we pose a question to the evolution-believing half: Why would evolutionists ever invent the concept of God? If early humans evolved to reason and reflect, what sparked the idea of a supreme being—an invisible, omnipresent spirit called God? Was it fear, wonder, politics, or something else entirely?

Gross over simplication. Some of us believe that God used the natural forces that He designed and created to achieve His creation. It's usually presented as believing that God created everything with an airy wave of His hand, or if He did it as a matter of Grand Design, creating all the natural laws by which His creation is governed, and all the natural processes that He saw fot to create and use as tools of His creation.

⚔️ A Political Split in the Evolution Camp
Could the idea of God have emerged from a political or philosophical divide among early evolutionists themselves? Imagine two thinkers

Very unlikely, being, again, a gross oversimplification. The "airy wave of the hand" view renders both parties to the argument ridiculous.

So we return to the central question: Did evolution create God, or did God create evolution? Was the divine a product of human imagination, born from conflict and division? Or is God the eternal source of all things, including the very minds that question Him?

What you have there is "evolution" elevated to the status of a secular deity, which in, in fact, not a bad definition from the purely materialist standpoint. But you end up with a deity either way, call it what you will.

 

[OnceLostButNowFound]

However, I will say, that's a cool profile picture. I remember when the first odd world came out. The hayday of PlayStation.

I'm happy we agree there. PS1 and PS2 were my favorite consoles growing up, and I still find myself booting up Abe's Oddysee every few years or so.

But yeah, while I don't personally agree, I respect your stance. And it makes me kinda sad to see Christians sniping at each other over this, speaking as someone who's been struggling with that sort of thing.

As long as we agree that Jesus is the Christ, I don't think there should be that big of an issue.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm happy we agree there. PS1 and PS2 were my favorite consoles growing up, and I still find myself booting up Abe's Oddysee every few years or so.

But yeah, while I don't personally agree, I respect your stance. And it makes me kinda sad to see Christians sniping at each other over this, speaking as someone who's been struggling with that sort of thing.

As long as we agree that Jesus is the Christ, I don't think there should be that big of an issue.

Sure. All Christians struggle with a concept of scientific concordism. Or if they believe that they no longer struggle, they certainly did in the past.

Haveyou read content or seen lectures by Dr. John Walton before?

 

[o_mlly]

I, too, am interested in these logical arguments

First Principles:

1) The principle of sufficient reason: the existence of being is accountable either in itself or in another. (A being cannot give what it does not have.)
2. The principle of proportionate causality: the effect cannot be greater than the cause.

My faith permits belief in evolution of the body, not the soul. The animation of creatures and especially rational creatures -- man, requires special acts of God. However, the probability that God worked through secondary causes, ie., chemical and biological, to bring about His plan while possible is not mathematically probable. Evolution theory is less an empirical science than an historiographical one. The way in which empirical scientists arrive at new and better theories has little in common with the way in which historians make new findings and revise earlier views of what happened in the past. The former include repeatable experiments and deductive reasoning to arrive at alternate hypotheses. The latter on less cogent indirect evidence and inductive reasoning.

I entered this "Christians Only" debate thread expecting a civilized discussion on the merits demerits of evolution theory. I find the evolution ideologists here not very different than the atheist/secular evolutionists in the threads on the same topic in the open forum so I'll leave you as I found you.

 

[sfs]

1) The principle of sufficient reason: the existence of being is accountable either in itself or in another. (A being cannot give what it does not have.)

This in no way prohibits the reality of common descent.

2. The principle of proportionate causality: the effect cannot be greater than the cause.

This is not a principle of logic but a metaphysical claim in a particular stream of philosophy, and it also does not rule out evolution and common descent.

However, the probability that God worked through secondary causes, ie., chemical and biological, to bring about His plan while possible is not mathematically probable.

That is the claim I wanted you to support. You have not done so.

Evolution theory is less an empirical science than an historiographical one. The way in which empirical scientists arrive at new and better theories has little in common with the way in which historians make new findings and revise earlier views of what happened in the past. The former include repeatable experiments and deductive reasoning to arrive at alternate hypotheses. The latter on less cogent indirect evidence and inductive reasoning.

While there are differences between observational and experimental sciences, both are firmly part of science rather than of history, and what you've written here does not accurately capture those differences. I suspect you don't have much experience in the actual practice of science.

I entered this "Christians Only" debate thread expecting a civilized discussion on the merits demerits of evolution theory. I find the evolution ideologists here not very different than the atheist/secular evolutionists in the threads on the same topic in the open forum so I'll leave you as I found you.

I just invited you to participate in precisely such a discussion; your response is to refuse to participate and to go away?

 

[The Barbarian]

However, the probability that God worked through secondary causes, ie., chemical and biological, to bring about His plan while possible is not mathematically probable.

Sounds interesting. Show us your numbers. I have heard people say that before, but they never show the math.

Evolution theory is less an empirical science than an historiographical one.

You've never read Darwin's book? It has empirical evidence in numbing detail. Pick up a text on population genetics. It will be a revelation for you.

I find the evolution ideologists here not very different than the atheist/secular evolutionists in the threads on the same topic in the open forum so I'll leave you as I found you.

It might have gone better for you, if you had done a bit of research first. Why not learn about the evidence for (and against) evolution, and then come back and tell us about it?

 

[o_mlly]

Sounds interesting. Show us your numbers. I have heard people say that before, but they never show the math.

It is commonly believed that if a pathway of functional continuity can be envisioned, a plausible evolutionary pathway has been proposed. For example, the evolution of the eye is often explained by a pathway of gradually increasing curvature of the retina, with each step resulting in slightly increasing visual acuity. Generally ignored is the calculation of the probability of the mutations that create a curved retina to appear in a given population. For example, Nilsson and Pelger proposed a model of eye evolution in fish, beginning with a flat photo-sensitive spot [4]. They proposed 1829 steps of incrementally increasing curvature of the retina and narrowing of the pupil, and demonstrated that each step would have been functionally superior to the preceding step. In the article, they conclude that a camera eye could have easily evolved in 364,000 years. However, the probability of those 1829 mutations appearing in a given population of fish over a specified number of generations is not calculated.

The following is a calculation of the probability of these changes to appear in the genome. Assume a genome size of 1.5 billion base pairs. Assume that one point mutation results in one step of an increasingly curved retina (a very generous assumption). Assume a population size of 20,000. Assume 1000 viable offspring per generation. Assume a mutation rate of 150 point mutations per generation. Assume a fixation rate of 0.002 for each favorable mutation. Using the binomial distribution formula, the probability of such a pattern of mutations over 364,000 years is 1.5 × 10−1423 (see calculation below*).

*Binomial Distribution:
Calculation of probability of the evolution of a globe-shaped eye (Nilsson and Pelger) in a population of fish:
Probability mass: f(x,n,p)=nCxpx(1−p)n−x
Probability of success: inverse of genome size (1/1.5 × 109) × 0.33 (3 possible nucleotide substitutions for each position) x fixation rate (0.002) = 4.4 × 10−13.
Number of trials (n): number of reproducing pairs in population (20,000/2) = 10,000 × number of mutations per generation, per germ cell (150/2 = 75) × number of offspring per generation (1000) × number of generations (364,000) = 2.73 × 1014 success number: 1829 (incremental steps of eye evolution).

Results

Probability mass (f): 1.43 × 10−1423.

Lower cumulative distribution (P): 1.

Upper cumulative distribution (Q): 1.53 × 10−1423.

Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed, it is apparent that the probability of such a pattern of mutations appearing in a finite population over a limited number of generations can be rounded off to zero. Think about achieving 60% heads with 10,000 coin tosses. With mathematical certainty, random mutations will not deviate from predictable random outcomes to preferentially effect specific genes.

Probability mass (f): 1.43 × 10−1423.
Lower cumulative distribution (P): 1.
Upper cumulative distribution (Q): 1.53 × 10−1423.

Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed, it is apparent that the probability of such a pattern of mutations appearing in a finite population over a limited number of generations can be rounded off to zero. Think about achieving 60% heads with 10,000 coin tosses. With mathematical certainty, random mutations will not deviate from predictable random outcomes to preferentially effect specific genes.

Mathematical Challenges to Macroevolution

Explore the mathematical challenges to the modern synthesis of evolution, based on current understanding of mechanisms and experimental molecular biology.

www.scirp.org

 

[o_mlly]

This in no way prohibits the reality of common descent.

Apparently you do not understand the principle. Common descent is not the issue that violates this principle: only devolution is possible, a loss of functionality.

While there are differences between observational and experimental sciences ...

Apparently you also do not understand the difference between the methods of historiographical and empirical sciences.

 

[o_mlly]

It might have gone better for you, if you had done a bit of research first.

It might go better for you if you researched how many scientists reject evolution theory.

All science is in the realm of doubt. Unanimous agreement among experts is the appropriate measure of discerning truth with regard to anything that is a matter of truth. In matters of taste, like evolution, not so much.