For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why does the fact that animals like the horseshoe crab, the shark and the crocodile, have not changed significantly from their ancestors become a problem? If a creature succeeds in its biological niche, it will not change dramatically. That's something that the theory of evolution predicts, and we see that prediction fulfilled.

I take your point, but I was responding to a poster saying how everything is always evolving- and this is a common characterization of the incremental progression originally predicted by the theory- that you might expect to find from constant variation, mutation

But I was pointing out the 'staccato' nature the record has revealed- and as Raup noted

If an office memo looks like the original after a million copies- you know it's from a master copy, not successive generations with cumulative errors, and that supports the earlier point made: variation occurs within predetermined ranges, with specific limits, independent of the underlying template which resists change.

We see the same in feral dogs, which after generations of intense breeding selection, very quickly revert to the 'base model' once the pressure is removed
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
variation occurs within predetermined ranges, with specific limits, independent of the underlying template which resists change

The only real, template that exists in nature is "You cannot change your starting point". Humans are apes, are mammals, are animals, are Eukaryotas.
There's no real barrier to evolution after that.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The only real, template that exists in nature is "You cannot change your starting point". Humans are apes, are mammals, are animals, are Eukaryotas.
There's no real barrier to evolution after that.

perhaps not, but we can see hurdles at least, to what can be achieved by observed Darwinian mechanisms alone
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
perhaps not, but we can see hurdles at least, to what can be achieved by observed Darwinian mechanisms alone

Except that Darwinian evolution is no longer considered to be THE model for the theory of evolution. It's not used any more.
So... why are you ragging solely on Darwin?
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Except that Darwinian evolution is no longer considered to be THE model for the theory of evolution. It's not used any more.
So... why are you ragging solely on Darwin?

Then we agree on something!

I think Darwin came up with an entirely logical, elegant and intuitive theory - based on the Victorian model of reality at the time, so I am not ragging on him as much as people who DO still see Darwinism as the comprehensive explanation.- post quantum mechanics, DNA and in the 21st C information age etc..

the micro-to macro evolution outlined in the OP is explicitly what Darwin's theory was based on- that the very small variations we observe in finch beaks and sheep wool etc may be seamlessly extrapolated into the sort of macro evolution that can turn a bacteria into a human being- which is what the OP claims- that macro evolution is just minor variation multiplied- right?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Because the gaps and jumps in the record were long held to be artifacts of incomplete data- punctuated equilibrium concedes to a large degree what skeptics said all along- the gaps are real, change does happen very suddenly, not gradually as predicted by the theory...
It's not an either-or. Both occur.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I take your point, but I was responding to a poster saying how everything is always evolving- and this is a common characterization of the incremental progression originally predicted by the theory- that you might expect to find from constant variation, mutation
The modern synthesis has put increasing emphasis on genetic drift as a driver of new evolutionary directions.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's not an either-or. Both occur.

Well as Raup noted- it's very difficult to find clear examples of species gradually adapting significant beneficial adaptations- new distinct species tend to appear very suddenly in the record, then hang around unchanged for a couple of 100 million years before getting wiped out and being replaced with something entirely different, to paraphrase!
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The modern synthesis has put increasing emphasis on genetic drift as a driver of new evolutionary directions.

certainly- in other words we increasingly recognize that natural selection is... a selection process- not an ORIGIN of species but rather a filter of them, a reduction

the modern synthesis still lacks a theory of the generative, as one secular member of a recent Royal Society meeting put it..
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Well as Raup noted- it's very difficult to find clear examples of species gradually adapting significant beneficial adaptations- new distinct species tend to appear very suddenly in the record, then hang around unchanged for a couple of 100 million years before getting wiped out and being replaced with something entirely different, to paraphrase!
Nonsense; not only have we observed gradual speciation in the wild and the lab, but you only have to look at closely related groups of extant species to see gradual adaptations providing significant benefits - they're even found in various human populations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
certainly- in other words we increasingly recognize that natural selection is... a selection process- not an ORIGIN of species but rather a filter of them, a reduction
And genetic variation is what supplies the... phenotypic variation.

the modern synthesis still lacks a theory of the generative, as one secular member of a recent Royal Society meeting put it..
Citation?

E.T.A. I thought it sounded familiar - it was Gerd B. Müller - a quote much used by creationists, despite Müller having authored a (clumsily titled) book on 'The Origination of Organismal Form', a collection of papers on the origins of body plans, i.e. generative development. His (in my view, very plausible) ideas suggest that the post-Darwinian 'modern synthesis' of around the middle of last century doesn't take account of many later biological discoveries which can give a more coherent account of 'the generative' - this account being known as the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis; I think he's probably right.

I suppose, to avoid these historical 'gotchas', I should start referring explicitly to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis rather than the 'modern synthesis' for contemporary evolutionary theory post Darwinism...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And genetic variation is what supplies the... phenotypic variation.

Citation?



“the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”1

(1) Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman, On the Origin of Organismal Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), p.7.


This statement was from '03, but Gerd opened the meeting in 2016

Overview
Scientific discussion meeting organised in partnership with the British Academy by Professor Denis Noble CBE FMedSci FRS, Professor Nancy Cartwright FBA, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, Professor John Dupré and Professor Kevin Laland.


The Royal Society, London
Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution[
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense; not only have we observed gradual speciation in the wild and the lab, but you only have to look at closely related groups of extant species to see gradual adaptations providing significant benefits - they're even found in various human populations.

That was Raup's opinion regarding macro-evolution over large timescales, I guess it gets into the subjective semantics of 'significant' but i agree- a lost dog with more fur will have a significant advantage in the wild come winter..

but that doesn't do much to help explain dinosaurs arising from muddy puddles!
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That was a quote from Dawkins- I should have credited him for it. Of course they are not the same thing; we use binary code and electronics, DNA uses primarily quaternary (base 4) code and chemistry- but as Dawkins recognized, they operate on uncannily similar architecture & design principles, whether or not that is by accident.. you have the same inherent limitations on what different parts of the hierarchical system can and cannot do. The information is organized in layers- just as this software-
we can randomly mutate superficial parameters like font size here, and get superficial changes. But we can't randomize information in the browser software or operating system- same thing in DNA, from control genes to regulatory networks- changes are required at different layers to achieve different degrees of change

This is all well and good from the purpose of explaining DNA at a conceptual level. But it doesn't mean that DNA and computer code are the same thing. They are not and never will be.

I was trying to explain the principle, - but the barriers are not necessarily for 'evolution' but for what can be achieved by random mutation and variation of the gene sequence-- i.e. micro to macro evolution by Darwinian mechanisms. It's getting pretty well established that something else at least is going on beyond that- e.g. epigenetics

There may be other evolutionary mechanisms at work, but such mechanisms would still fall under a theory of evolution. Keep in mind that like all theories in science, they are continuously updated as new mechanisms are discovered or existing mechanisms become better understood.


It's refreshing to see someone using "Darwinism" in a non-derogatory manner here. So thank you for that. :)

That said, what Darwin originally proposed and what the current theory of evolution entails are not the same thing. The ToE has come along way in the past ~150 years.


I'm just using that to distinguish from other theories of evolution- but some explicitly saw engineering racial supremacy as a direct application of the theory yes- very unfortunate of course

Some people still try to use genetics to try to argue for racial segregation. Just because some people misapply ideas from science doesn't make those ideas real-world applications of the same.

Do you have to be a Darwinist to apply these things though? Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not Darwinists who long maintained that 'JUNK DNA' served no purpose, where skeptics long suspected it did?

This isn't about what a person "is". It's about what knowledge and scientific theories people apply to accomplish something. In the case of the theory of evolution, it has various real-world application as an application of the theory itself. Companies have even filed patents based on it for such applications.

Also, when I talk about functional identification and annotation of the genome I'm not necessarily speaking of junk DNA. I'm talking about the general search of the human genome to figure out what everything does. This is one of the research areas of modern genomics and something where the theory of evolution has been applied.

I can start digging up prior examples I've posted here over the years if you'd like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
“the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”1

(1) Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman, On the Origin of Organismal Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), p.7.


This statement was from '03, but Gerd opened the meeting in 2016

Overview
Scientific discussion meeting organised in partnership with the British Academy by Professor Denis Noble CBE FMedSci FRS, Professor Nancy Cartwright FBA, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, Professor John Dupré and Professor Kevin Laland.


The Royal Society, London
Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution[
Yup, it all came back to me - he's contrasting the early 'modern synthesis' with contemporary Extended Evolutionary Synthesis - see my addendum to my last post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
a lost dog with more fur will have a significant advantage in the wild come winter..
Yeah, but evolution involves populations.

... that doesn't do much to help explain dinosaurs arising from muddy puddles!
It certainly doesn't - whose laughable idea was that?

Oh wait... yours :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
this guy

2000
And what did he ask you?

"Why do you continue to make these bogus anti-science claims?"
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
we are gaining some understanding of the nature of the barriers in both cases I would submit to you..
Then present that evidence for evaluation.
Along with your evidence for the mechanism by which creationist macroevolution can produce 1000+ species of bat in only a few thousand years post-flood with nobody noticing, or whatever it is you cryptically advocate.
After all, even Feynman insisted that it is not enough to reject a theory, you have to replace it with one that better explains the data.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
I think it's fair to say that not just creationists, but all skeptics of Darwinism, including secular, see limitations on evolutionary change occurring through processes of random/natural variation- the limits vary by species as do their ranges of variation. Just as one car model may have more optional extras than another- but barriers appear to lie somewhere in the hierarchy of each design.
So no barriers between "Kinds." Got it.
Well exactly, there are a vast number of intermediate steps required to get from one to the other, right? yet under lab conditions, were still stuck on step #1- so I meant that in terms of empirically demonstrating the process- the barrier is still stuck at the starting gate..
Right - so tell us about the creation science experiments regarding the massive intra-Kind variation required to explain post-flood diversity? How is that coming?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.