Macro Evolution in the present is not a problem for YEC

[gluadys]

There was no death.
We did not grow old.
Man and nature lived in harmony.
The animals did not eat each other, or people.
No disease.
No genetic malfunction
No starvation.
God himself was walking around in the Garden.

This is my definition of perfect, what’s yours?

However, God's judgment was not that the world was perfect, but that it was very good. So it doesn't matter what your definition of "perfect" is, but whether you and God have the same definition of "very good".

We do not know from scripture that there was no death. All we know is that Adam and Eve did not die before they sinned. For all we know, if they had not sinned they might have died at a good old age.

We do not know from scripture that Adam and Eve or anything else did not grow old. If nothing grew old, how could there be fruit on the trees to eat?

Scripture does imply that the next three points are correct, (except that we do not know that animals did not eat each other), but does not explicitly say so. Naturally scripture says nothing about genetics at all. However, even if we grant no genetic malfunction that would not mean no genetic change.

Finally, scripture does clearly indicate both of the last two points.

So does this meet your definition of "very good"?

All life is mortal, including human life--but Adam and Eve may avoid death by eating from the Tree of Life.
All living things grow old, but if Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Life it may be that their youth is restored or that they remain vigourous and healthy in their old age.
Humans live in harmony with nature. Predator-prey relations are a normal part of nature, but humans are vegetarian and are not attacked by animals seeking food.
There is no disease or starvation. There is genetic change, but no genetic malfunction.
God himself was walking around in the garden.


I can see God calling that "good". Even "very good".




Evolution (Noun) : A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.

What would you call going from a higher more complex or better state to a lower simpler or worse state?
Anti-Evolution, Un-Evolution, De-Evolution?

I would call the definition of evolution you provided incorrect. The dictionary in which you found it should be told to correct it. A more complex state is not necessarily better. Many species evolve from a more complex to a simpler state because it works better for them. "Higher" and "lower" are terms best applied to taxonomic ranks (e.g. an order is a higher rank than a genus and a lower rank than a class) and are not valuations of a state of being. Any inheritable change that spreads through a species to the point of fixation is evolution whether the resulting state is more or less complex, more or less adapted, more or less likely to sustain the species as viable.

This is not an “everything is improving” theme.

As you may note, the text says that "it [=the ground] will produce thorns and thistles". It does not say that plants without thorns will start producing thorns.

Are you really going to try to make the point that the plants had thorns before Adam sinned?

From the text I take it that thorns and thistles were not found in the garden and only began to appear after the fall--in the fields Adam had to till to grow grain.

You may consider the Bible non-literal but when you say a curse is a blessing you have something upside down.

Hmmm. Are you referring to this statement?

In fact, plants continue to provide us with all the oxygen we need to breathe, most of our nutrition, fabric for clothing, building material for our homes and furniture and the vast majority of our medicines. Not to mention shade and beauty and calmness.
​

Please indicate in what way any of these are not blessings.

This is not just a minor interpretation difference.
You are changing the meaning of the Bible to make it the opposite of what was intended literal or non-literal.

Duordi, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I disagree with the Bible. I think you are the one who is not interpreting the Bible as it was intended literal or non-literal. I think you are changing the meaning by adding to what the text actually says. (That is called 'eisegesis' and is considered a serious interpretive error.)

This is not a question of how long it took but which way it is going.

Since evolution is a feature of God's creation we can have confidence that it is going as God intends it to. Evolution will fulfill whatever purpose God has for it as all of nature will.

Better adapted to their habitat means the stronger will eat the weaker.

Oh, yeah! Look, see that strong mushroom eating the other mushroom! Or when was the last time you saw a strong giraffe eating a weaker giraffe. [/sarcasm]

Some animals, of course, do practice cannibalism, but evolution occurs in all forms of life not, just carnivores and not just carnivores which practice cannibalism.

Better adapted does not mean the stronger will eat the weaker. That is misinterpreting "survival of the fittest" to mean "survival of the bullies". That is contrary to what we actually observe. Better adapted may mean a certain variant of a plant may be able to withstand dessication better than others and so be able to grow in dryer areas. It may mean a certain variant of a clam may be able to tolerate colder water temperatures than others and so migrate farther from the equator. It may mean a certain variant of rabbit is better camouflaged than others and so escape a predator. It does not mean that stronger rabbits start eating weaker ones instead of their usual greens.

And it is still the case that there are many examples of social species in which cooperative behaviour is beneficial and contributes to fitness.

This is not good but a curse.

Survival of the bullies would certainly not be good, but since that is not what natural selection gives us, we can disregard that.

By your though process we really don’t need God at all, just time and Chance.

What makes you think time and chance don't need God?

This is another variation on the theme "natural=no god". That is the lie that undergirds atheism. It has no place in a discussion among Christians.

Don't you believe, as I do, that God's power and love pervades all of nature? (Indeed God's love IS God's power).
So, then, since evolution is part of nature, God's love and power pervades all of evolution.

]Citation?

Gen. 3:19

Sorry, that text says nothing at all about random chance or survival of the fittest. This is another example of putting words into scripture that are not there. That is the error of eisegesis.

It is the species that is kind gentle and tolerant which will be extinct.

You might think so, but studies in behavioral evolution are showing this is not the case. In fact, arch-atheist Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on why species that are kind, and gentle and tolerant (but not completely so) survive better than species that are cruel and violent and bullying all the time. You may have heard of it. It is called The Selfish Gene. It turns out that selfish genes tend to have a better chance at survival if their animal hosts cooperate with each other than if they kill one another off.

To survive we must be the opposite.
Do you see where evolution takes us?

I do and it is quite the opposite of your vision. Clearly you have not studied actual observations of the consequences of evolution.

I will not be able to make the case in your judgement because of the strength of your faith in evolution.

You will not be able to make your case because you have no idea what you are talking about. You have a vision of evolution that is far removed from the reality of evolution. You think evolution is about a lot of things it is not about at all.

You are wrong. Everything was made and can be made again by God. Earth will end well because God will intervene. When the elect enter heaven it will not be because evolution makes things better but because God will prevent the curse of evolution from reaching its conclusion.

Or because evolution completes the purpose for which God created it.

If you believe evolution causes improvement without scientific demonstration you do so by faith and because you choose to believe it.

You are assuming beliefs I do not hold. But evolution is demonstrated scientifically. So I don't need to rely on faith to hold that it is fact.

Evolution defines death and killing as morally correct and necessary (theology). (This is evil and a lie)

No, you are blaming evolution for the way some people have misused it. You should put the blame where it belongs--on people who falsely claimed "scientific justification" for immoral actions.

Evolution does not define morals at all. It just describes a process of how species change and diversify over time.

What those people were doing was committing a logical error called the naturalistic fallacy. By this fallacy if anything is natural it is good. So if spiders eat their mates, its ok for human women to do the same. But it is stupid beyond belief to hold that what is natural for spiders (or any other species) is a moral good for humanity.

One could also call this a category error. "natural" is a descriptive term, not a value term. "good" is a value term. Describing something as natural doesn't tell us whether it is good or evil. A hurricane is natural. That doesn't mean we should act like hurricanes.

Evolutions followers believe without proof and rejects all other beliefs. (Religion). (Read the first commandment)

Not true at all. Certainly not true of theists who accept evolution. Evolution is science, not religion, based on evidence, not faith. Evolution does not reject any religion. Definitely not Christian religion.

Evolution promises your decedents will benefit from your death and suffering. (Promise) (This is the lie that satan told eve. Eat this and you will improve. Did she?)

No, it doesn't. What the theory says is that my descendants will benefit from or be harmed by the genetic legacy they received at conception. This has nothing to do with my death or suffering as these do not affect the genes they received. Nor does it have anything to do with their death and suffering either, for that doesn't affect the genes they received either.

Consider how evolution has changed your perspective on the purpose and direction of life.

For the better, I assure you.

Christians will always be in the minority for “narrow is the road to salvation and few will find it.”

Yes, and I thank the Lord that he has shown me the way and has promised to keep me in it.

Are you saying that the thistles and thorns are not plants?

Duordi

Of course not. But the plants in the garden of Eden, without thorns, are still with us as well and do not harm us.

 

[Calminian]

It's an interesting discussion on evolution, and information, but i'm afraid everyone (with perhaps a couple of exceptions) are missing my point.

Let me try to explain it differently. Because of the inductive nature of science, scientists are often susceptible to a particular deductive fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If A then B, B therefore A.

An evolutionist might say, if all the different kinds of animals alive today have descended from a common ancestor (A), then we'd expect to see evolution occuring in the present (B). We see evolution in the present (B), therefore all must have evolved from a common ancestor (A). But this is of course a fallacious deduction. It doesn't logically follow, and it's easy to see why by the analogy below.

If the unknown animal is a cat, it will have four legs. The unknown animal has four legs, therefore it must be a cat. (obviously false as it could be a number of animals besides a cat)

The potential macro changes in the future, do not mandate macro changes in the past. God could have specially created each kind of animal with the potential to make macro changes in the future.

Creationists currently believe that the various kinds of animals were preprogrammed to make micro changes only with its kind. There are 400 species of dogs, but they're all still dogs. But even if God created the original dog with the ability to make macro changes and eventually become a cat some time in the future (given enough time), this wouldn't be a problem for young earth theology. It would merely mean God created fully developed kinds with the potential for more changes than originally thought.

Anyone following yet?

 

[gluadys]

It's an interesting discussion on evolution, and information, but i'm afraid everyone (with perhaps a couple of exceptions) are missing my point.

Let me try to explain it differently. Because of the inductive nature of science, scientists are often susceptible to a particular deductive fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If A then B, B therefore A.

An evolutionist might say, if all the different kinds of animals alive today have descended from a common ancestor (A), then we'd expect to see evolution occuring in the present (B). We see evolution in the present (B), therefore all must have evolved from a common ancestor (A). But this is of course a fallacious deduction. It doesn't logically follow, and it's easy to see why by the analogy below.

If the unknown animal is a cat, it will have four legs. The unknown animal has four legs, therefore it must be a cat. (obviously false as it could be a number of animals besides a cat)

The potential macro changes in the future, do not mandate macro changes in the past. God could have specially created each kind of animal with the potential to make macro changes in the future.

Creationists currently believe that the various kinds of animals were preprogrammed to make micro changes only with its kind. There are 400 species of dogs, but they're all still dogs. But even if God created the original dog with the ability to make macro changes and eventually become a cat some time in the future (given enough time), this wouldn't be a problem for young earth theology. It would merely mean God created fully developed kinds with the potential for more changes than originally thought.

Anyone following yet?

I get your point on macroevolution. But you are wrong on one aspect of macroevolution (not the point you are making but a different detail) and on the scientific use of logic.

Macroevolution first: because of the historical constraints imposed by cladistic speciation, even with macroevolution a dog would never become a non-dog. It might become something that doesn't exist yet--but that would still be some variation on a dog, even if we decided to call it something different. As, for example, we call dogs "dogs" even though they are really a domesticated form of wolf and some of them have been bred to be very different morphologically from wolves.

Logic now: You misunderstand how scientists use the logical format. They don't use the logic to prove the hypothesis, but to determine if there is evidence to falsify the hypothesis. If they used the logic as you present it, it would be fallacious. But this is how they actually use it:

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.

But what if we do observe B?

As you say, that doesn't mean "therefore A".
But it does mean " B (the evidence the theory predicted) has been observed. Therefore A is possibly correct." You would agree, I am sure, that the four-footed unknown animal is possibly a cat even if there are many other possibilities.

Of course, as more and more hypotheses are derived from the theory and more and more of them turn out to be correct, the final line becomes:

"A is likely correct"
"A is very likely correct"
"A is probably correct"
"A is very probably correct"
"That A is correct is so probable that it is irrational not to treat it as correct until further evidence suggests otherwise."

Try it with the unknown animal. Once you have established that it does have four feet, what other features must it also have to be a cat? For example, not only must it have four feet, but the feet must have four padded toes--not the cleft hooves of a pig or the flippers of a seal. Keep adding details to be tested. At what point are you convinced that it is indeed a cat?

That is the way scientists come to their conclusions, not through a careless logical fallacy.

 

[shernren]

Let me try to explain it differently. Because of the inductive nature of science, scientists are often susceptible to a particular deductive fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If A then B, B therefore A.

Suppose you leave five-year-old Tommy alone in a room with Grandma's favorite vase for one minute and come back to see the pieces strewn all over the floor. If Tommy broke the vase, its pieces would be strewn all over the floor, and so you duly accuse him of doing exactly that. His defense is that maybe a mystery man came in and broke the vase. In other words, he thinks you might be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent: except that it isn't much of a fallacy, now is it?

Affirming the consequent is (probabilistically) valid to the extent to which the consequent is specific to the precedent. In some cases, affirming the consequent is not a logical error. After all, that is how medical tests work: if you have cancer, there will be such-and-such a chemical in your blood; such-and-such a chemical is present, therefore you have cancer, or at least are likely to.

The reason it works is because the business of updating confidence in propositions is done using Bayesian probability calculation.

So, suppose your segment of the population generally has a 10% risk of getting liver cancer. Now suppose there is a cancer marker which occurs in 90% of liver cancer sufferers, but only in 10% of non-cancer-sufferers (who knows what the body produces sometimes). The overall probability of someone having this marker in their body (whether cancer sufferer or not) is 90% x 10% + 10% x 90% = 0.18. Note that half of those are cancer sufferers (90% of the 10% who have cancer, or 9% of the total population) and half of those are not (10% of the 90% who do not have cancer, or another 9% of the total population). We'll get back to that.

Suppose the marker is identified in your body. What is the probability that you have cancer? One way to answer is 50%: half of the population who contains markers has cancer, and half doesn't, as pointed out above. But you could also use Bayesian reasoning. The formula to use is that

Pr(A, given B) = Pr(A) x Pr (B, given A) / Pr (B)

In this case, the probability that I have cancer is 10% (before knowing I have the marker); the probability that I have the marker, if I have cancer, is 90%; the probability that I have the marker (before knowing I have cancer) is 18%. The final probability that I have cancer is 10% x 90% / 18% = 50%: exactly what I expected.

You see, the cancer marker has high specificity: it is quite likely to occur if I have cancer, and unlikely to occur if I don't. Therefore, the detection of the marker in my body quite rightly raises the probability that I do have cancer. To make this explicit: Affirming the consequent is (probabilistically) valid to the extent to which the consequent is specific to the precedent.

Now, consider the case of evolutionary history and macroevolution. Suppose I am initially undecided about evolution: I believe there's a 50-50 chance that evolutionary history is accurate. (We will see shortly that the actual probability is irrelevant.) Now, if evolutionary history is accurate, there's no good reason for macroevolution to have stopped in the past: suppose I believe that, were evolution true, there is a 90% probability of observing macroevolution in the present. (That is probably an underestimate.)

To figure out the overall probability of macroevolution, though, I need to figure out how likely it is given the alternative. If I did not believe in evolutionary history, how likely is it that I would believe in macroevolution? The answer is, very unlikely. I could do this statistically: given that nearly four millenia of people have believed in special creation, and only one creationist I know (namely Calminian) will even countenance the possibility of macroevolution, the probability of macroevolution being acceptable given that one believes in special creation is nearly zero.

Furthermore, there is a good heuristic argument against macroevolution. After all, didn't God create the world as a dwelling place for humanity? Furthermore, will humans not still be around when the world meets its physical end? Now humans can survive only within a very narrow range of physiological and ecological parameters, and eschatology suggests that this world will never stray outside those parameters. As such, it is unlikely that plants and animals will have any environmental changes to adapt to which are so large as to require macroevolution. (The Fall is moot: surely God foreknew it!)

And how could the Scriptures use animal metaphors for God if animal kinds could change? Should lions shrink to the size of housecats and lambs acquire wings and claws, would Jesus still be the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God? Or would those jots and tittles need removing from the Bible? (I use a strawman of macroevolution here, of course, but since you think of dogs becoming cats I think the strawman is not too far from your actual understanding.) Taken together with the injunctions not to mix kinds between animals or agricultural produce, I think the cumulative case against macroevolution, given a literal interpretation of Scripture, is quite strong.

But perhaps only the animal kinds that are used as metaphors for God are inviolate, or something. So there are certainly ways in which creationists could justify macroevolution: nevertheless, there aren't that many. But let's be charitable and say that there is a 10% chance that macroevolution is true given that special creation is.

In that case, the overall probability that macroevolution occurs is 50% (90% x 50% + 10% x 50%). Now, if I should actually observe macroevolution occurring in the present, how should that change the confidence I have in evolutionary history? Bayesian reasoning (which gave the correct answer last time) says that it should be 50% x 90% / 50% = 90%. In other words, given that macroevolution occurs, my confidence in evolutionary history should increase from 50% to 90%.

In fact, the starting probability is irrelevant: no matter what it is, the probability of evolutionary history being correct increases as long as the ratio (probability of macroevolution, given evolutionary history) to (probability of macroevolution) is more than one. How could it be reduced to less than one? Either the probability of macroevolution, given evolutionary history, must be reduced, or the probability of macroevolution, given special creation, must be increased. Good luck trying either.

 

[duordi]

Math Correction
When you combine two probability arguments you have four possibilities.
A and B 90% x 10% = 9%
Not A and B 10% x 10% = 1%
A and not B 90% x 90% = 81%
Not A and not B 10% x 90% = 9%
These four add to 100%
In your example it is impossible for A and Not B to exist.
It is also impossible for Not A and B to exist.
The person can’t have cancer for test one and not have cancer for test two if they are considering a single point in time.
90% * 10% = 9% You have cancer
or
10% * 90% = 9% You do not have cancer.
100%-9%-9% = 82% unknown because you have violated the rules which the laws of probability are based on.

Let me suggest this as a correct mathematical model.
A group of people exist of which 10% have cancer and 90% do not have cancer.
There are two tests for cancer.
A positive Test A predicts with 90% certainty that the individual has cancer.
Chance of cancer P = .9, F = .1
Positive Test B predicts with 90% certainty that the individual does not have cancer.
Chance of cancer P =.1, F = .9
The possible conditions are as follows

10% have cancer so this group is 10 per hundred.
Cancer? Test A Test B
Yes --------P -------P ---10/100 x .9 x .1 = .9% Test A correct test B fails
Yes-------- P------- F ---10/100 x .9 x .9 = 8.1% Both tests correct
Yes --------F------- P ---10/100 x .1 x .1 = 0.1% Both tests fail
Yes --------F -------F ---10/100 x .1 x .9 = 0.9% Test A fails test B correct
90% do not have cancer so this group is 90 per hundred
No--------- P -------P ---90/100 x .9 x .1 = 8.1% Test A fails test B correct
No ---------P -------F ---90/100 x .1 x .1 = 0.9% Both tests fail
No ---------F -------P--- 90/100 x .9 x .9 = 72.9% Both tests correct
No ---------F -------F--- 90/100 x .1 x .9 = 8.1% Test A correct test B fails
Of course the total adds to 100%
10% have cancer and 90% do not.
The tests are completely correct 72.9 +8.1 = 81% of the time.
They are completely incorrect .1 + .9 = 1% of the time.
9% of the time they disagree but it is defined.
Test A is correct and test B Fails = 9 %
Test B is correct and test A Fails = 9%

Duordi

 

[shernren]

In my example, there are people who actually have cancer or who don't. There are also people who have the cancer marker, or who don't. The breakdown of the population is as follows:

No cancer / no marker = 81%
Has cancer / has marker = 9%
No cancer / has marker = 9%
Has cancer / no marker = 1%

If you have the cancer marker, you are among 18% of the population who has the marker, of which half (9% out of 18%) actually has cancer. (Note that I am not positing a second fallible test: if you have cancer, you really have cancer, even if the docs fail to find it and leave you to a miserable death.)

Your math for a two-test model is correct, but it simply doesn't apply to my model which has only one test. In any case, try using Bayesian probability calculations on your model and you will see that it works. It's long-winded but relatively straightforward.

 

[duordi]

Duordi

 

[That Canadian Guy]

Still reeling from the title?

I don't know if many realize this, but YEC and special creation would be unscathed if a macro-type evolution (the increasing of information over time) were observed and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. You see the issue is not about current observable processes, but starting points.

Was the beginning a series of natural events, or a miracle?

Could God have created multiple original creatures all with the built in ability to develop new information and change into other kinds of creatures over time? (according to our definition of kinds)

Proof of evolution in creatures in the present, says nothing about their origins. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe this type of evolution exists, but it really doesn't harm the idea of a miraculous starting point. God could have created the original creatures with the ability to only make changes within a species (from loss of information). And God could have created the original creatures with the ability to make changes far beyond that. From a theological young earth standpoint, it really doesn't matter.

Especially when you look at specific geological time periods such as the Cambrian, it is very clear that biological life most certainly did have a miraculous starting point, but no evolutionist in his right mind will admit such things.

 

[Calminian]

I get your point on macroevolution. But you are wrong on one aspect of macroevolution (not the point you are making but a different detail) and on the scientific use of logic.

Macroevolution first: because of the historical constraints imposed by cladistic speciation, even with macroevolution a dog would never become a non-dog. It might become something that doesn't exist yet--but that would still be some variation on a dog, even if we decided to call it something different. As, for example, we call dogs "dogs" even though they are really a domesticated form of wolf and some of them have been bred to be very different morphologically from wolves.

Logic now: You misunderstand how scientists use the logical format. They don't use the logic to prove the hypothesis, but to determine if there is evidence to falsify the hypothesis. If they used the logic as you present it, it would be fallacious. But this is how they actually use it:

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.

But what if we do observe B?

As you say, that doesn't mean "therefore A".
But it does mean " B (the evidence the theory predicted) has been observed. Therefore A is possibly correct." You would agree, I am sure, that the four-footed unknown animal is possibly a cat even if there are many other possibilities.

Of course, as more and more hypotheses are derived from the theory and more and more of them turn out to be correct, the final line becomes:

"A is likely correct"
"A is very likely correct"
"A is probably correct"
"A is very probably correct"
"That A is correct is so probable that it is irrational not to treat it as correct until further evidence suggests otherwise."

Try it with the unknown animal. Once you have established that it does have four feet, what other features must it also have to be a cat? For example, not only must it have four feet, but the feet must have four padded toes--not the cleft hooves of a pig or the flippers of a seal. Keep adding details to be tested. At what point are you convinced that it is indeed a cat?

That is the way scientists come to their conclusions, not through a careless logical fallacy.

I'm not it disagreement with what you say, I'm merely pointing out that scientists are susceptible to move from inductive thinking (likely, very likely etc.) to deductive thinking, especially when entering into a theological debate like origins.

If A, then B, B therefore A, being a good example. And granted even with the macro evolution model, it is very unlikely a dog would morph into a cat, but that was just for the sake of argument to say a dog may in millions of years lead to something different from a dog on the same level as a cat is different from a dog.

But you get my point, and i appreciate that. A special creation, sin before death model, relies on the interventions of God, and not on natural laws by which we could extrapolate backwards with uniformitarian assumptions. These are unpredictable undetectable acts of God, creating things already functioning and fully formed. But that model, in and of itself, does not require a limitation of the changes that can occur in animals in the future.

 

[shernren]

But you get my point, and i appreciate that. A special creation, sin before death model, relies on the interventions of God, and not on natural laws by which we could extrapolate backwards with uniformitarian assumptions. These are unpredictable undetectable acts of God, creating things already functioning and fully formed. But that model, in and of itself, does not require a limitation of the changes that can occur in animals in the future.

But if God specially creates the universe and knows (as He must) that it will be destroyed within a few millenia, why would any of His species ever need to macro-evolve? Especially when the only possible mechanism of macro-evolution, namely random mutation and natural selection, is so often disparaged by creationists themselves as something brought about by sin and meaningless in a world without death?

And if it is even a little less than likely that special creation would include macro-evolution, and a little more than likely that evolutionism must include it, then Bayesian reasoning states that any evidence for macro-evolution must increase the probability of evolutionism being right and special creation wrong, no matter what their prior probabilities are.

The only possible exception is if one begins with the prior probability of special creation being 1 and of evolution being zero - the "presuppositionalism" that creationists so often fall back to after (but almost never before!) their pseudoscientific arguments have been defeated. But if that is so, then those probabilities could never be changed by any means of logic, so why bother with evidence and argument?

 

[Keachian]

Adams curse for disobeying God is that the plants will “grow thorns”. This means that life will change into something that will hurt mankind. (This is a bad thing.)

Your wording here seems to suggest that God created for man. That the entirety of creation was made for man's pleasure, does Gen 1:31 say that man saw all that God created and beheld that it was very good? And as has been pointed out it is the soil that Adam is tilling that will produce thorns not thorns growing on plants.

 

[Greg1234]

If A, then B, B therefore A, being a good example. And granted even with the macro evolution model, it is very unlikely a dog would morph into a cat, but that was just for the sake of argument to say a dog may in millions of years lead to something different from a dog on the same level as a cat is different from a dog.

There are numerous experiments which expose limits.

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.​

The Kentucky Derby Limit

The Kentucky Derby data does not show increasing speed without limit. It shows remarkable consistency, which seems to indicate that the limit may already have been reached.​

PLANNED BREEDING VS. NATURAL SELECTION - 2

"In any case the change brought about by selection tends to reach a limit, as was shown by sugar beets in France. These have been developed from ordinary table beets starting with roots having 6 percent of sugar. By planting seed from the best (i. e., richest in sugar) each year, after about 100 years, 17 percent of sugar was attained. This, of course, was a good result; but the same process of selection, continued for 40 years more, and gave no higher percentage of sugar [D.F. Jones, Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement (1924), p. 414]. This is the situation found time and again in nature with genes, which do not increase in effectiveness . . Charles Darwin, with no observation of such behavior but his neighbor's rule of thumb selection, guessed wrongly that genes change slightly in each reproduction, in every possible direction, and without limit."—William J. Tinkle, "Genetics Favors Creation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, p. 156.​

 

[Assyrian]

There are numerous experiments which expose limits.

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.​

The Kentucky Derby Limit

The Kentucky Derby data does not show increasing speed without limit. It shows remarkable consistency, which seems to indicate that the limit may already have been reached.​

PLANNED BREEDING VS. NATURAL SELECTION - 2

"In any case the change brought about by selection tends to reach a limit, as was shown by sugar beets in France. These have been developed from ordinary table beets starting with roots having 6 percent of sugar. By planting seed from the best (i. e., richest in sugar) each year, after about 100 years, 17 percent of sugar was attained. This, of course, was a good result; but the same process of selection, continued for 40 years more, and gave no higher percentage of sugar [D.F. Jones, Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement (1924), p. 414]. This is the situation found time and again in nature with genes, which do not increase in effectiveness . . Charles Darwin, with no observation of such behavior but his neighbor's rule of thumb selection, guessed wrongly that genes change slightly in each reproduction, in every possible direction, and without limit."—William J. Tinkle, "Genetics Favors Creation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, p. 156.​

Actually our genome does change with every reproduction, you were born with 120 or so new changes in your chromosomes. What these experiments show is not a limit to variation, but a limit to variation that can be achieved quickly through selection of traits already existing in the gene pool. It does not say that once species are reproductively isolated, they cannot continue to build up variations through mutation which can in turn be selected. What is really interesting is that the current rate of variation we see in each generation would produce the differences between humans and chimps in just 7 or 8 million years.

Googling Sugar beet yield find people are now talking about yields of 20% and even 22.5% sugar. Now I don't know the reasons for the increase but they certainly aren't stuck on 17% like Creation Research says they were in 1924

 

[Greg1234]

Actually our genome does change with every reproduction, you were born with 120 or so new changes in your chromosomes. What these experiments show is not a limit to variation, but a limit to variation that can be achieved quickly through selection of traits already existing in the gene pool. It does not say that once species are reproductively isolated, they cannot continue to build up variations through mutation which can in turn be selected. What is really interesting is that the current rate of variation we see in each generation would produce the differences between humans and chimps in just 7 or 8 million years.

Googling Sugar beet yield find people are now talking about yields of 20% and even 22.5% sugar. Now I don't know the reasons for the increase but they certainly aren't stuck on 17% like Creation Research says they were in 1924

The average beet content is 17% Sugar beet farming in the uk

 

[gluadys]

The average beet content is 17% Sugar beet farming in the uk

Of course, since that is an average, there must also be beets with a sugar content higher than this average. An average cannot be identical to the upper limit.