Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[tycho]

Btw, on a serious note, it is not up to critics of evolution to disporve evolution, but evolutionists must prove....

This thread was started to discuss the basis for statements that macroevolution is not possible. So, randman, it's true that the burden of proof falls on the those making the claim. Where's that proof again? Oh yeah, you're making it up. By the way, just because you're unable to grasp a complex topic like physics or genetics doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[randman]

No, this is a typical question posed by evoltionists, of the kind Talkorigins uses, to set up a false dichotomy, and try to state that critics of evolution must porve that micro-evolution cannot create macro-evolution. It is a completely bogus argument, and propoganda technique.

The idea that there must be a mechanism to prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution presupposes that micro-evolution can, on its own so to speak, result in macro-evolutionary changes, and thus need a mechanism to stop it. If you can't see the duplicity in this question, you are farther along in being brainwashed than I'd supposed.

The question itself is making an unproven statement.

Think about it awhile, and it will come to you. Don't just try to win an argument by any means.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sheesh... morphological change over time in the fossil record is only "circular" evidence for evolution.

As far as I know the only limitations to what micro-evolution can accomplish are known from standard population genetics. That was the point of the thread. The evidence FOR evolution is being discussed in the separate thread.

 

[randman]

Thus far, mutations have not been shown to add to the limited potential already there. I won't say can't add information because for instance, they can add back information that was lost in earlier mutations.

However, they have not been shown to add to the potential in a way that creates macro-evolution, and this is the point.

 

[Jerry Smith]

A.

Originally posted by randman
Thus far, mutations have not been shown to add to the limited potential already there.

B.

I won't say can't add information because for instance, they can add back information that was lost in earlier mutations.

Which?

 

[tycho]

No, this is a typical question posed by evoltionists, of the kind Talkorigins uses, to set up a false dichotomy, and try to state that critics of evolution must porve that micro-evolution cannot create macro-evolution. It is a completely bogus argument, and propoganda technique.

So, are you stating that you have no proof that it can't occur, but that doesn't matter since you object to the question or that you are obstaining from the question since you object to the question?

I guess I don't see why it's wrong to ask for proof when somebody says something isn't possible. Now, don't go on again on how there doesn't need to be a mechanism to stop something for it not to happen. I fully agree with you there. There's nothing stopping me from visiting New Orleans and yet I haven't done so. So, there's disagreeing with you there.

Now pay attention, randman. This thread is addressing the claim that macroevolution is not possible. There are other threads discussing why some of us feel it has occured. Discussing that here will only inhibit the thread topic. Do you not see this or is this your point?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tycho
This thread is addressing the claim that macroevolution is not possible. There are other threads discussing why some of us feel it has occured. Discussing that here will only inhibit the thread topic. Do you not see this or is this your point?

Randman, he is correct. I started three threads at once. This one, in case someone did have it in mind that macro-evolution was impossible, or that microevolution had intrinsic limits, a second one discussing evidence that macroevolution has happened, and a third one discussing how much evidence was required to remove doubt given that microevolution happens and has no known intrinsic limits.

If you know of some intrinsic limits to microevolution, please state what they are. As far as I can tell, the only limits known come from standard population genetics.

 

[randman]

Well, can micro-evolution produce an automobile? Can you prove it can't?

Quit being silly. The question implies that micro-evolution has been shown to be able to cause macro-evolutioon unless there is a mechanism to stop it. The problem is with the assumption within the question. If you are going to contain such an assumption within a question, it is up to you to first prove that the assumption is right.

Also, use your brain. Adding to the potential is not the same as adding. Genetic information can be added where it was once subtracted, but the make-up of the genetic material limits the possibilities. Look again at what I posted. There is no contradiction.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Well, can micro-evolution produce an automobile? Can you prove it can't?

No, and no. However, I do not admit that microevolution is observed in non-living things. I believe most of the creationists here do admit that microevolution is observed in living creatures.

Quit being silly. The question implies that micro-evolution has been shown to be able to cause macro-evolutioon unless there is a mechanism to stop it.

You quite being silly. The question implies that there is no reason to adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that macroevolution can result from micro-evolution and speciation unless some mechanism can be shown that prevents it.

The problem is with the assumption within the question. If you are going to contain such an assumption within a question, it is up to you to first prove that the assumption is right.

The question is premised on nothing but that microevolution takes place and that reproductive isolation takes place. If you dispute either of these things, then we can start another thread to discuss it.

Also, use your brain. Adding to the potential is not the same as adding.

Who needs to use their brain?

Genetic information can be added where it was once subtracted, but the make-up of the genetic material limits the possibilities.

Do you have some references to back up this claim?

Look again at what I posted. There is no contradiction.

No, sorry, I read your words wrong. So you claim that the ONLY means by which a mutation can add genetic diversity is by undoing a past mutation? If not, what is your claim, exactly...

 

[randman]

I am certainly not an expert on genetics, but have waded through some articles on both sides of the issue, some of a technical nature, but I do understand that in a argument, one side has to prove a positive, or try to, before they can egitimately demand the other disprove it.

The issue is existing potential. Evolutionists must show that mutations can add to that potential in a meaningful way that can add up to macro-evolutionary changes. That hasn't been shown from my reading, though it is a hot topic.

The limits then, the mechanism you ask for, is the same mechanism for change, the existing genetic material. The question is if evolutionists have shown how that genetic material can add genes in a manner to produce macro-evolutionary changes.

Think of it like rocket propulsion. Rocket propulsion has definite limits on speeds that can be acheived. It is true that technological advances give us greater and greater speed but there appear to be limits on this type of propulsion. However, creatiing a space-time bubble theoritically could overcome those limits. Evolutionists haven't demonstrated that mutations are sufficinetly unlimited in potential to create all of life.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
I am certainly not an expert on genetics, but have waded through some articles on both sides of the issue, some of a technical nature, but I do understand that in a argument, one side has to prove a positive, or try to, before they can egitimately demand the other disprove it.

Ok, when I get ready to make a positive statement about microevolution having led to macroevolution I will do so, and I will probably make the point that microevolutionary changes have no known limiting factor.

The issue is existing potential. Evolutionists must show that mutations

Mutations have been proven to happen.

can add to that potential

Mutations have an impact on the phenotype, and depending on the environment, those changes can be adaptive, and this has been shown.

in a meaningful way

Most of the mutations don't major in the liberal arts, so this phrase can go in the can.

that can add up

Provided a change is selected for it remains. Nothing prevents future changes from occuring, therefore they can add up...

to macro-evolutionary changes.

And if we don't know of any mechanism that prevents them, there is no reason to assume that microevolutionary changes cannot add up until they reach a scale that is macroevolutionary. Thus the inference of macroevolution from microevolution is not unreasonable absent a limiting mechanism. This thread demonstrates that the inference is a reasonable one, the other demonstrates that there is evidence in support of the inference.

The limits then, the mechanism you ask for, is the same mechanism for change, the existing genetic material.

Mutation is the mechanism for change. Mutation is change to existing genetic material. What, exactly are you saying?

The question is if evolutionists have shown how that genetic material can add genes in a manner to produce macro-evolutionary changes.

Genetic material was never postulated to add genes. Evolutionists have shown that descent with modification occurs. Evolutionists have even shown that mutations can add genes or chromosomes, or change genes that are already there. The production of macro-evolutionary changes is what is at issue, so I will save that for the other thread... I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a mechanism that prevented it that someone knew about.

Think of it like rocket propulsion. Rocket propulsion has definite limits on speeds that can be acheived. It is true that technological advances give us greater and greater speed but there appear to be limits on this type of propulsion. However, creatiing a space-time bubble theoritically could overcome those limits. Evolutionists haven't demonstrated that mutations are sufficinetly unlimited in potential to create all of life.

I think I will think of it like descent with modification, and go from there.... the rest is just obfuscation by analogy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of us agree that micro-evolution occurs in nature. Many of us agree further, that speciation by reproductive isolation occurs in nature.

Some hold the view that macroevolution (common descent, or the evolution of novel features) is impossible. For those, I would like this to be a thread devoted to discussing why macroevolution is impossible, or more to the point: what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution.

I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.

Each species "runs its course", then it's done.

It may go extinct, or it may exist 'as is' for all time; but regardless, giving birth to a new genus is out of the question.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.

Each species "runs its course", then it's done.

It may go extinct, or it may exist 'as is' for all time; but regardless, giving birth to a new genus is out of the question.

What if it could be shown that there are examples of "giving birth to a new genus"? Would this change your point of view, or would you just move the goal post?

 

[AV1611VET]

What if it could be shown that there are examples of "giving birth to a new genus"? Would this change your point of view, or would you just move the goal post?

I know -- here comes a lecture on ring species or triticale?

Which, of course, means that we all came from the jungle --

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.

A boundary which has been arbitrarily set by you?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.

Where is the boundary? Can it be measured? Can it be tested?

 

[Greg1234]

Where is the boundary? Can it be measured? Can it be tested?

Thats not what we say. Creationists are tasked with finding a barrier, a sort of molecular stop sign, which restricts adaptation to within conserved parameters. And unless we find this molecular mechanism, a tangible measurable mechanism, then Darwinian presuppositions can persist.

The problem is within other types of created machinery with the capability to adapt, such a mechanism is not requested nor is it necessary. The reason a ceiling fan does not keep adapting its speed settings until it arrives at a race car is not because there is a small man with a stop sign. Its not because the manufacturer is stopping at everybody's homes to halt adaptation when it gets too intense. It is the discovery and experimentation of adaptation within the fan which shows that there are limits, not the discovery of an actual roadblock. Even if we have found no mechanism stopping a ceiling fan from turning into a race car, it is absolutely preposterous to suppose that it can, given a million years. You do not need to know what "kinds" are or which fans were created by the manufacturer to experiment and know that there is a limit to adaptation. It comes standard. The limits just are.

The only reason Darwinists ask for a tangible mechanism, is because tangible mechanisms are not needed to stop adaptation. Not in organisms and not in ceiling fans. And as long as they are not needed, and they are not there, you can keep saying that it is indefinite. But the actual way you discover limits is through testing. Every long term experiment shows that the fan has limits. A creationist doesn't have to show an implemented shut of switch in the fan for there to be limits. The limits are evident in the data collected on the fan itself.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Thats not what we say. Creationists are tasked with finding a barrier, a sort of molecular stop sign, which restricts adaptation to within conserved parameters. And unless we find this molecular mechanism, a tangible measurable mechanism, then Darwinian presuppositions can persist.

This is surpisingly reasonable. You should have stopped here.

The problem is within other types of created machinery with the capability to adapt,

1. since when are animals created machinery?
2. Since when can machinery adapt?
3. What mechanism do you think machines use to adapt?

such a mechanism is not requested nor is it necessary. The reason a ceiling fan does not keep adapting its speed settings until it arrives at a race car is not because there is a small man with a stop sign. Its not because the manufacturer is stopping at everybody's homes to halt adaptation when it gets too intense. It is the discovery and experimentation of adaptation within the fan which shows that there are limits, not the discovery of an actual roadblock. Even if we have found no mechanism stopping a ceiling fan from turning into a race car, it is absolutely preposterous to suppose that it can, given a million years. You do not need to know what "kinds" are or which fans were created by the manufacturer to experiment and know that there is a limit to adaptation. It comes standard. The limits just are.

The only reason Darwinists ask for a tangible mechanism, is because tangible mechanisms are not needed to stop adaptation. Not in organisms and not in ceiling fans. And as long as they are not needed, and they are not there, you can keep saying that it is indefinite. But the actual way you discover limits is through testing. Every long term experiment shows that the fan has limits. A creationist doesn't have to show an implemented shut of switch in the fan for there to be limits. The limits are evident in the data collected on the fan itself.

manmade machines and lifeforms are not the same thing.
Your entire arguement is now moot.
Have a good day.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

The reason a ceiling fan does not keep adapting its speed settings until it arrives at a race car is not because there is a small man with a stop sign. Its not because the manufacturer is stopping at everybody's homes to halt adaptation when it gets too intense. It is the discovery and experimentation of adaptation within the fan which shows that there are limits, not the discovery of an actual roadblock.

Ceiling fans do not reproduce with variation.

Even if we have found no mechanism stopping a ceiling fan from turning into a race car, it is absolutely preposterous to suppose that it can, given a million years.

Of course, because ceiling fans do not reproduce. If you put a ceiling fan on a race track for a million years it will still be simply a ceiling fan.

You do not need to know what "kinds" are or which fans were created by the manufacturer to experiment and know that there is a limit to adaptation. It comes standard. The limits just are.

That's because ceiling fans are manufactured. Nobody cares about the ostensible limitations of manufactured machines that cannot reproduce, what is being asked is what limits the evolution of living things that do reproduce. . .with variation.

The only reason Darwinists ask for a tangible mechanism, is because tangible mechanisms are not needed to stop adaptation.

[sarcasm]
Silly Darwinists, you're not supposed to ask about the mechanism - it just is.
[/sarcasm]




Lurker

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thats not what we say. Creationists are tasked with finding a barrier, a sort of molecular stop sign, which restricts adaptation to within conserved parameters. And unless we find this molecular mechanism, a tangible measurable mechanism, then Darwinian presuppositions can persist.

Creationists are the ones claiming the existence of this barrier -- who else should be tasked with finding it?