Humans are unique, not evolved

[The Barbarian]

If there is no narrative to explain away the literal description of the way God created the world

The text makes it clear that it's not literal. There's no way to revise it to make it a literal account.

It's all a part of the constant attack on the validity of scripture.

No, I don't think so. The people who are trying to revise scripture to be a literal account are almost all sincere, IMO. Unless they get so attached to their new doctrines that they start to believe they are essential to salvation, they are no less Christians than the rest of us.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Does that help?

Not it doesn't. A simple research and a little knowledge in real science would tell you that mutation is detrimental to survival, a mutation is a mistake in DNA replication, it results in birth defect and cancer, not "evolution".

 

[The Barbarian]

What are some examples of evidence supporting macroevolution?

From the Dictionary of Biology:

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions​

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species

From YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

New species observed:

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Be sure to read the details as to the genetic evidence showing speciation.

Many YE creationists now admit the fact:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

 

[The Barbarian]

Not it doesn't. A simple research and a little knowledge in real science would tell you that mutation is detrimental to survival,

As you just learned, that belief is false. There are many favorable mutations. I showed you some. Would you like to learn about some more?

 

[The Barbarian]

a mutation is a mistake in DNA replication, it results in birth defect and cancer, not "evolution".

By definition every new mutation in a population is evolution. Remember what evolution is: a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

 

[The Barbarian]

We don’t see physical changes over time we just see different species, different variations of the same animals. We don’t see any specific animal going thru the process of becoming a different animal.

That would be contrary to evolutionary theory. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. But we do see evolutionary changes in animals constantly. A recent example, is that more and more male elephants have no tusks. Ivory poachers are selectively killing off males with tusks. Any males without them tend to survive to reproduce. And the population is now changing toward a kind that is tuskless.

We do see that some animals became extinct.

Happens constantly. The vast majority of species on Earth are now extinct. There wouldn't have been space, food, or shelter for all of them, if they had all lived at the same time.

And we can’t say that cows didn’t exist just because we haven’t found any.

That was Darwin's explanation for the (at his time) lack of transitionals in the fossil record. He was right. As your fellow creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is a very large number of transitional series that confirm Darwin's predictions and are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

By definition every new mutation in a population is evolution. Remember what evolution is: a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

By reality every new mutation leads to deformity, cancer and death. Whoever has a lots of new mutation are the least fittest for survival.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That would be contrary to evolutionary theory. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. But we do see evolutionary changes in animals constantly. A recent example, is that more and more male elephants have no tusks. Ivory poachers are selectively killing off males with tusks. Any males without them tend to survive to reproduce. And the population is now changing toward a kind that is tuskless.

This would simply be an example of genetic extinction not evolution.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That was Darwin's explanation for the (at his time) lack of transitionals in the fossil record. He was right. As your fellow creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is a very large number of transitional series that confirm Darwin's predictions and are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I’m not familiar with those species so I can’t comment on them at this time nor am I familiar with Kurt Wise so his opinion is inconsequential to me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

From the Dictionary of Biology:

Macroevolution​

Definition​

noun, plural: macroevolutions​

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species

From YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

New species observed:

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Be sure to read the details as to the genetic evidence showing speciation.

Many YE creationists now admit the fact:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

Ok so my question is how do they know that these weren’t just a different species that became extinct? How do they know that the similar species we have now didn’t exist before these became extinct?

 

[The Barbarian]

I’m not familiar with those species so I can’t comment on them at this time nor am I familiar with Kurt Wise so his opinion is inconsequential to me.

Being unfamiliar with the subject can be a disadvantage, yes. But it's fixable if you want to know about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok so my question is how do they know that these weren’t just a different species that became extinct?

They were all different species. That's how evolution works. Dr. Wise was pointing out that Darwin had predicted these transitional forms long before they were found. Which, as he points out, is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. He still prefers his interpretation of scripture, and he expresses hope that there will someday be an adequate creationist explanation for all this evidence.

As I said, it's even more compelling that there are no such transitional forms where there shouldn't be any, according to evolutionary theory.

How do they know that the similar species we have now didn’t exist before these became extinct?

We see them appear in sequence in the fossil record. Mammal-like reptiles appeared long before mammals. Dinosaurs appeared before flying dinosaurs and birds. Hoofed mammals appeared before whales. And so on. Again precisely what the theory predicts.

 

[The Barbarian]

That would be contrary to evolutionary theory. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. But we do see evolutionary changes in animals constantly. A recent example, is that more and more male elephants have no tusks. Ivory poachers are selectively killing off males with tusks. Any males without them tend to survive to reproduce. And the population is now changing toward a kind that is tuskless.

This would simply be an example of genetic extinction not evolution.

No. It involves a change in allele frequency in the population, producing a new kind of elephant which don't have tusks. And as you recall, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Turns out both males and females in African elephants have tusks. The mutation for tusklessness in females has been identified:

Science
21 Oct 2021
Vol 374, Issue 6566
In regions of Africa wracked by heavy poaching, people have observed an increased incidence of African elephants without their iconic white tusks, which are prized in the multibillion-dollar wildlife black market. But there has been no direct genetic evidence indicating how this was happening, or why this trait was occurring exclusively in female elephants.

Harvest and poaching of wildlife have increased as the human population and our technology have grown. These pressures now occur on such a scale that they can be considered selective drivers. Campbell-Staton et al. show that this phenomenon has occurred in African elephants, which are poached for their ivory, during the 20-year Mozambican civil war (see the Perspective by Darimont and Pelletier). In response to heavy poaching by armed forces, African elephant populations in Gorongosa National Park declined by 90%. As the population recovered after the war, a relatively large proportion of females were born tuskless. Further exploration revealed this trait to be sex linked and related to specific genes that generated a tuskless phenotype more likely to survive in the face of poaching.

It seems that this particular mutation is lethal in males, so it's not surprising that two-thirds of newborn elephants are now female. It's exactly what you would expect from such an allele. But this research confirms that it's an evolutionary change. The genetic composition of the population has changed. Which is, as you learned, what evolution is.

 

[QvQ]

Tusked and Tuskless Elephants
Selective breeding is Not evolution.
The poachers are selecting tusked elephants. The tuskless elephants are Selected by Human Poachers the same as hornless cattle are selected by Human breeders:
The tuskless elephants have the genes to recombine into tusked elephants.
All those elephants /cows can recombine the genetic code in each elephant/cow into either tusked/horned or tuckless/hornless
Not evolution Not speciation
Selective Breeding:
European Cattle
British Shorthorns: same genes
Texas Long Horns: same genes

 

[The Barbarian]

Tusked and Tuskless Elephants
Selective breeding is Not evolution.

Forgot again? Write it down. "Biological evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

This is not "selective breeding." It's natural selection. Elephants with tusks are getting shot before they can reproduce. Elephants with the mutation for no tusks aren't being shot. So the frequency of that allele is increasing in the population. Not that hard to understand, I think

Do write that down, it maybe is easy to forget...

 

[QvQ]

It's natural selection. Elephants with tusks are getting shot before they can reproduce. Elephants with the mutation for no tusks aren't being shot. So the frequency of that allele is increasing in the population.

IF Selective Breeding (by man) and Natural Selection (by providence) are the same
Then that is a very good case for Intelligent Design

But it is not Evolution.
Long Horns and Shorthorn Cattle are not mutated or evolved.
They are different expression of the same genes.

When man stops shooting tusked elephants, the elephants will return to their normal tusked population distribution.

"The behavior's, and often the very manifestation of any gene in the phenotype, depends on the genetic background i.e. non-allelic genes that interact in different ways with the gene being studied"

 

[The Barbarian]

It's natural selection. Elephants with tusks are getting shot before they can reproduce. Elephants with the mutation for no tusks aren't being shot. So the frequency of that allele is increasing in the population.

IF Selective Breeding (by man) and Natural Selection (by providence) are the same

They aren't as you can see by this example. No human is selectively breeding elephants. Predators are killing elephants with certain genes, and leaving others with different genes. Natural selection.

But it is not Evolution.

You forgot again.... Biological evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Which is exactly what's happening here.

When man stops shooting tusked elephants, the elephants will return to their normal tusked population distribution.

Maybe. That's how natural selection works. If the environment changes, then natural selection changes. But elephants are changing their diets to match their lack of tusks, and if this continues, then there will be no selective pressure for tusks, and the mutated gene will become fixed in the population.

"The behavior's, and often the very manifestation of any gene in the phenotype, depends on the genetic background i.e. non-allelic genes that interact in different ways with the gene being studied"

That's what I just showed you. Did you not understand what it means?

 

[QvQ]

That's what I just showed you. Did you not understand what it means?

the behavior's, and often the very manifestation of any gene in the phenotype, depends on the genetic background i.e. non-allelic genes that interact in different ways with the gene being studied"

This is Phenotype. Genes that determine whether cats have blue eyes or elephants have tusks.
It has nothing to do with allele frequency causing evolution.
It actually represents a phenotype to have either long horns or short horns or tusks or no tusks, or blue eyes.
All those "genes and non-allelic genes" are in the Elephant. Every single elephant has those same genes....behaviors and manifestations are within the range of the animal, everyone of them

 

[The Barbarian]

That's what I just showed you. Did you not understand what it means?

the behavior's, and often the very manifestation of any gene in the phenotype, depends on the genetic background i.e. non-allelic genes that interact in different ways with the gene being studied"

Epistasis, in other words. But epistasis has nothing to do with the tuskless mutation. Unless you've turned up some research I haven't seen. What do you have?

This is Phenotype. Genes that determine whether cats have blue eyes or elephants have tusks.

No. Phenotype isn't genes at all. Phenotypes are traits.

It has nothing to do with allele frequency causing evolution.

In this case, as you seem to now realize, the change in alleles is caused by selective pressure that favors the tuskless mutation. If any elephant should have one copy of the mutation, it would lack tusks. The tusked elephants lack that allele. The ratio of tusked to tuskless elephants is changing, because the allele frequency due to selective pressure. Which you know, if you've been paying attention, is what biological evolution is.

All those "genes and non-allelic genes" are in the Elephant.

No. The tuskless allele is dominant, which means that one copy of the gene is sufficient to cause the tuskless phenotype. And so the increase in tuskless elephants tells us that the allele frequencies are changing. Which again, is what evolution is.

behaviors and manifestations are within the range of the animal, everyone of them

Sorry, no. If this is still confusing for you, I can do some diagrams to show you how it works.

 

[QvQ]

Phenotype isn't genes at all. Phenotypes are traits.

Phenotype, all the observable characteristics of an organism that result from the interaction of its genotype (total genetic inheritance)

Mendelian Ratios do not explain all types of inheritance patterns:

Indeed, Mendel's experiments revealed that phenotypes could be hidden in one generation, only to reemerge in subsequent generations.

With their interactions, non-allelic genes could affect one gene over the other during gene expression. These interactions include epistasis (recessive and dominant), inhibitory factor, inhibitory factor with partial dominance, polymorphic gene, duplicate gene, a duplicate gene with dominance modification, and multiple factors (two loci and three loci), simple interaction, and complementary factor. In simple interactions, two allelic gene pairs affect a particular phenotype.

Spare me the diagrams.
And the patronizing tone.
I have treated you with respect.
I expect the same.