Evolutionary Inevitability

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Evolutionary Inevitability

Through careful study of evolution and creationist theories and doctrines, one must ask an important question towards the creationist theories

A problem of creationist argument lies at the term 'micro'-evolution. As it stands, creationism as a scientific theory agrees that 'micro'-evolutionary variations are possible. However, it is argued by creationists that macroevolution is impossible on multiple levels. However, from a purely scientific standpoint, I wonder how it can be assumed that micro-evolution, laced well with enviromental pressures, can not bring about 'macro'-evolution. We can not directly observe macroevolution, but, we can easily deduce (based on observations and other evidences), that it is possible for macro-evolution to occur, provided that micro-evolution does occur.

My question towards creationists:

Is it biologically impossible, given complex enviromental changes, aided with natural selection (on the part of the species in question), to diverge and become different species. Not necessarily to the degree that a fish becomes a bird (in which case I would be thinking in very very long time periods), but more of a variation in a species which eventually makes it different enough that it can no longer mate with its parent species. So long as the conditions forced upon the species a series of conditions which made some traits favorable. For example, multiple species of finches, and what-not.

Take for example the rough-skinned newt. As it is continiously hunted by snakes, only those who possess strong posionous content (and other traits which give them an advantage) have survived. The others have been eaten or have dropped dead. As a result, the rough-skinned newt is now more posionous.

We can agree that that is micro-evolution in the works. What is to stop a divergent evolutionary pattern from occuring so long as there are enviromental pressures which favor some traits (that may or may not be a mutation in its essence) over others.

True, these changes can not occur quickly, but can they not logically occur?

 

[Ark Guy]

The main differance between micro and macro evolution is that micro doesn't need mutations adding up over long time periods to produce change.

The changes allowed by micro-evolution is already stored in the genetic code.
The changes for macro-evolution requires mutations to change the genetic code.

I hope this helps.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

The main differance between micro and macro evolution is that micro doesn't need mutations adding up over long time periods to produce change.

The changes allowed by micro-evolution is already stored in the genetic code.
The changes for macro-evolution requires mutations to change the genetic code.

I hope this helps.

Thank you very much for the reply, I did not expect a response ) ).


However, something still puzzles me:

Natural Selection would mean that the enviroment would play a role on the species itself in addition to the mutations. Mutations provide variation, for better or for worse in our terms. Thus, natural selection makes the choices and those who do or do not possess this advantageous trait perish or at least become less likely to mate (thus reducing the overall number of the 'inferior' species).

I am aware that massive change in genetic mutations would indeed cause death and havoc upon a species (as you stated in an earlier thread). However, given a large amount of continual micro-evolutionary processes and some forced conditions (not to mention time), is macro-evolution not possible?

For example, we share a direct link to creatures such as the ape due to the similarities in cytochrome C (not to mention countless others, making us roughly 98% similar in genetic terms). However, we can not be counted as the same species. Is it not possible that variations in a species ages ago led to a diversion which ultimately made us so seperate that we are no longer the same species? Unlike our relation to other species, which is random in variation respectively, our fellow primates share many of our own characteristics. As a side question, how would this not be evidence of common descent (when coupled with other evidences and whatnot).

 

[Ark Guy]

Because it's evidence of a common creator.

 

[Bushido216]

The problem with the common creator arguement is that no creator can be readily made apparent or tested for. We have no way of knowing what this creator is, and any IDist (theological or otherwise) must make broad assumptions about the creator in question in order to create a theory that covers all of the little quirks we find in species today.

 

[Ark Guy]

The test of a common creator...is commonality.

 

[Bushido216]

But that could equally be a test for descent with modification and a common ancestor. The difference is that the evolutionary theory has things like transitional fossils and the like to back it up, while ID has smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ark Guy]

Transitionan fossils???? Where???

 

[seebs]

The main differance between micro and macro evolution is that micro doesn't need mutations adding up over long time periods to produce change.

The changes allowed by micro-evolution is already stored in the genetic code.

This would be fascinating if it were true, but I think the plastic-eating bacteria show that it isn't.

 

[Bushido216]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

 

[Bushido216]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

[Micaiah]

The problem with the common creator arguement is that no creator can be readily made apparent or tested for. We have no way of knowing what this creator is, and any IDist (theological or otherwise) must make broad assumptions about the creator in question in order to create a theory that covers all of the little quirks we find in species today.

In other words, what you are saying is that the argument for a Creator is somehow inferior to evolution because it is hard to explain it in scientific terms.

God didn't set out to humour the scientific community when he created our universe, and provided an expanation of His creation in Genesis. Scripture states that God spoke the word, and those things that didn't previously exist came into being. My understanding of our physical laws suggest that this kind of activity has not been witnessed often by the scientific community.

Christians shouldn't be surprised that our supernatural God does things that are, well supernatural, and difficult to explain in terms of our human frame of reference.

 

[Micaiah]

Evolutionary Inevitability
A problem of creationist argument lies at the term 'micro'-evolution. As it stands, creationism as a scientific theory agrees that 'micro'-evolutionary variations are possible. However, it is argued by creationists that macroevolution is impossible on multiple levels. However, from a purely scientific standpoint, I wonder how it can be assumed that micro-evolution, laced well with enviromental pressures, can not bring about 'macro'-evolution. We can not directly observe macroevolution, but, we can easily deduce (based on observations and other evidences), that it is possible for macro-evolution to occur, provided that micro-evolution does occur.

From what I have read, the evolutionist is the one with the problem. There is no evidence of the type of evolution required for man to evolve from mud (okay, okay lets say there is some algae in the mud). Changing beak types, losing or changing tusks or horns, developing resistance, really do not cut it when it comes to the changes required.

Evolutionary Inevitability
My question towards creationists:

Is it biologically impossible, given complex enviromental changes, aided with natural selection (on the part of the species in question), to diverge and become different species. Not necessarily to the degree that a fish becomes a bird (in which case I would be thinking in very very long time periods), but more of a variation in a species which eventually makes it different enough that it can no longer mate with its parent species. So long as the conditions forced upon the species a series of conditions which made some traits favorable. For example, multiple species of finches, and what-not.

If you want to accept that man came from mud, then you need to be able to explain how a fish turned into a bird. God simply states that everything was created and reproduced after its kind. From what I have seen of nature, that is a scientific fact. Cats give birth to cats, salmon to salmon etc.

It seems pretty well confirmed that populations of birds can develop different types of beaks in certain conditions. Is this evolution, or simply God providing the genetic capability for animals to adapt to their environment.

Evolutionary Inevitability
We can agree that that is micro-evolution in the works. What is to stop a divergent evolutionary pattern from occuring so long as there are enviromental pressures which favor some traits (that may or may not be a mutation in its essence) over others.

True, these changes can not occur quickly, but can they not logically occur?

No problem with this. There are big dogs and little dogs, some with big ears, and some with long tails, but at the end of the day, they are all dogs. As far as I know, there is no genetic mechanism known for these dogs to have evolved from say the ant.

 

[Ark Guy]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

T.O. has a list of fossils that they call transitionals. Big Deal.

They just lined up fragmented fossils of variations of contemporanious species and deemed is as evolution.

But I'll tell you what...pick your best 4 of the so-called transitional series...tell me why they are transitionals and then I'll show you why they are not.

 

[Bushido216]

...

AG: So me transitionals.
B: Here.
AG: TO calls those transitionals, big deal!
B's jaw drops.

I'm not about to start this dialogue with you, I can see where its going.

 

[Ark Guy]

So, now your backing down. All you did was present a web page..then expect me to refute the entire page, all the while never presenting a transitional series.

Sorry.

 

[Ark Guy]

You see folks, when the evos are put on the spot they evolve into fish....flounders.

 

[Bushido216]

Actually, if you had read the webpage, you would have found several examples of transitional fossils... Instead of saying why they weren't transitional fossils, you just told me they weren't.

That sort of arguement doesn't win any debates, it merely infuriates the other side and makes you look less intelligent than I'm sure you are.

 

[Bushido216]

In other words, what you are saying is that the argument for a Creator is somehow inferior to evolution because it is hard to explain it in scientific terms.

God didn't set out to humour the scientific community when he created our universe, and provided an expanation of His creation in Genesis. Scripture states that God spoke the word, and those things that didn't previously exist came into being. My understanding of our physical laws suggest that this kind of activity has not been witnessed often by the scientific community.

Christians shouldn't be surprised that our supernatural God does things that are, well supernatural, and difficult to explain in terms of our human frame of reference.

No... because whenever you see an exception to this broad rule you design about a creator, you have to reshape this concept. For instance, when we find seeds on islands where there are no mammals with adaptations for grabbing onto the fur of passing mammals, you have to make some pretty funky leaps of faith if you want to hold onto the creation arguement.

And when I say that common "design" is more an arguement for evolution it's only because evolution has definable mechanics which can be observed. It's like two people having different views on why apples fall to earth. Newton says it's gravity, Joe Blow says the magick fairies pulled it down. Newtons method is testable and we have mechanisms for it, Blow's idea doesn't, so who do we go for? There's no way of "falsifying" Joe's idea, yet we still reject it.

 

[Bushido216]

From what I have read, the evolutionist is the one with the problem. There is no evidence of the type of evolution required for man to evolve from mud (okay, okay lets say there is some algae in the mud). Changing beak types, losing or changing tusks or horns, developing resistance, really do not cut it when it comes to the changes required.



If you want to accept that man came from mud, then you need to be able to explain how a fish turned into a bird. God simply states that everything was created and reproduced after its kind. From what I have seen of nature, that is a scientific fact. Cats give birth to cats, salmon to salmon etc.

It seems pretty well confirmed that populations of birds can develop different types of beaks in certain conditions. Is this evolution, or simply God providing the genetic capability for animals to adapt to their environment.



No problem with this. There are big dogs and little dogs, some with big ears, and some with long tails, but at the end of the day, they are all dogs. As far as I know, there is no genetic mechanism known for these dogs to have evolved from say the ant.

You're assuming a few things (wrongly). First, you're assuming that these changes were large. Second, you're assuming that they were an intended result. Third, you're assuming that a piece of an organism always had that function. All of these are wrong. Mutations are minor and are only beneficial to that specific organism at that specific time. Accumulation of these minor changes leads to speciation.

No evolutionist in his right mind (or left, for that matter), says that a bird came from a fish. And you're right, every living organism gives birth after its kind. If you define a kind as a reproductively isolated species, I see no problem with a creationist -> evolutionist translation. You're also forgetting that intermediaries. A fish doesn't just hop onto the land and become an amphibian, there are intermediaries. Think of this example. I can count from 0 to 1 in intervals of hundredths. So, 0, .01, .02, etc all the way up to 1. Each of those hundredths represents a mutation that has been accumulated via natural selection. 1 can reproduce all the way down to .01, and 0 can reproduce all the way up to .99. However, when 0 and 1 either don't want to reproduce, or can't, so they've speciated. They are no longer of the same "kind". Kinds are being produced and changed every day.

Of course there is no mechanism for a dog to have evolved from the ant. However, say you substituted "ant" with "pre-dog species". You'd be a bit closer. However, this is one big arguement from ignorance. Just because you are unaware that it happens, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.