Make me an evolutionist

[Dominus Fidelis]

still not getting cladistics?

Not really...unless there is something more than the obvious.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I can be harsh, but I'm also very serious.

The accepted definition of macroevolution is "the formation of new biologically distinct taxa." Speciation is the formation of a new species, and meets this criteria.

So unless we redefine speciation and/or macroevolution, then what I'm saying is absolutely correct.

And I'm still not sure what you'd expect fruit flies to turn into. Think of my automobile examples - at what point does a brand of car stop being a car?

The tree of life doesn't suggest that "one organism can change into any random, other organism." It describes a process in which very particular lineages arose from pre-existing lineages, and, in total, accounts for a vast amount of diversity through time.

Evolution suggests new branches in the tree of life will always closely resemble the branches from which they grew. Given the proper selective pressure and an incredible amount of time, some very distant descendent of a fly may not look like a fly at all. But in that branching sequence that lead to that event, between any two species, you'd notice very subtle difference. It's only when all of that change cumulates do you notice (perceptually speaking) "big" change.

I understand. Fruit flies speciating for millions of years could theoretically result in the fruit flies looking entirely different to the point that they could no longer resemble flies at all and would be classified as some other organism entirely. I get the concept.

 

[mikeynov]

Not really...unless there is something more than the obvious.

___________________ Descendent of fruit fly
|
------------------------- Fruit fly

The descendent of the fruit fly is still nested within the larger grouping of "fruit fly." So a fruit fly is never going to give rise to something that isn't also part of the grouping "fruit fly."

Edit: why doesn't this thing accept spaces before text? Argh.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

___________________ Descendent of fruit fly
|
------------------------- Fruit fly

The descendent of the fruit fly is still nested within the larger grouping of "fruit fly." So a fruit fly is never going to give rise to something that isn't also part of the grouping "fruit fly."

Edit: why doesn't this thing accept spaces before text? Argh.

I know...the lack of indenting is annoying.

Anyway, yes, I get the nested heirarchy.

 

[Jet Black]

I understand. Fruit flies speciating for millions of years could theoretically result in the fruit flies looking entirely different to the point that they could no longer resemble flies at all and would be classified as some other organism entirely. I get the concept.

absolutely check out hawaiian drosophila and silverswords.

 

[Jet Black]

The descendent of the fruit fly is still nested within the larger grouping of "fruit fly." So a fruit fly is never going to give rise to something that isn't also part of the grouping "fruit fly."

Edit: why doesn't this thing accept spaces before text? Argh.

                blah
                        blah
                                blah

stupid. it doesn't even work for code tags. I will put it up in suggestions

 

[mikeynov]

I understand. Fruit flies speciating for millions of years could theoretically result in the fruit flies looking entirely different to the point that they could no longer resemble flies at all and would be classified as some other organism entirely. I get the concept.

Pretty much. Don't worry, we'll put you on the fast track towards being an evolutionist. Understanding taxonomy is a good first step

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Pretty much. Don't worry, we'll put you on the fast track towards being an evolutionist. Understanding taxonomy is a good first step

You'll have problems doing that given what I believe Jesus and Mary said regarding the Flood. You might have a stronger scientific case, but that pesky faith thing gets in the way.

 

[mikeynov]

You'll have problems doing that given what I believe Jesus and Mary said regarding the Flood. You might have a stronger scientific case, but that pesky faith thing gets in the way.

Don't worry, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is content to make you a theistic evolutionist for the time being so as to allow you to keep your faith.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Don't worry, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is content to make you a theistic evolutionist for the time being so as to allow you to keep your faith.

Are there theistic evolutionists whom believe in the global Flood?

 

[mikeynov]

Are there theistic evolutionists whom believe in the global Flood?

I think Glenn Morton actually has some sort of global deluge model he believes, or at least once did. The downside being that it was millions of years ago, and makes Noah some sort of early hominid or something if memory serves.

 

[Tomk80]

I understand. Fruit flies speciating for millions of years could theoretically result in the fruit flies looking entirely different to the point that they could no longer resemble flies at all and would be classified as some other organism entirely. I get the concept.

Well, they wouldn't be classified as some other organism entirely. They would be classified as a family of 'thingies' within the class 'fruit flies'. They would, in fact, still be 'fruit flies' (or maybe better, drosophila), although they wouldn't look like the fruit flies we know now anymore.

What helped me understand cladistics better was browsing this webpage: http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html. It shows the tree of life, of both extant and extinct species. I like browsing through it and I've gained a lot of understanding by doing so.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Well, they wouldn't be classified as some other organism entirely. They would be classified as a family of 'thingies' within the class 'fruit flies'. They would, in fact, still be 'fruit flies' (or maybe better, drosophila), although they wouldn't look like the fruit flies we know now anymore.

What helped me understand cladistics better was browsing this webpage: http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html. It shows the tree of life, of both extant and extinct species. I like browsing through it and I've gained a lot of understanding by doing so.

Wow, thats a nice site!

 

[Shadowseldil]

All right, now to the arduous task of posting an answer to everything thus written.

As I read over this, it is becoming increasingly clear that evolutionists and creationist have a completely different vocabulary system for the same terms. This, obviously, makes it very difficult to discuss an issue, as a creationist says something that means something different to a evolutionist, or vice-versa. Therefore, I will define a few terms before I begin answering the peoples.
This is what I have always understood these to mean; if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected, and if anyone can explain it better, I'd appreciate it too. Anyway:

Theory of Evolution:
"The processes and understandings explaining how life came to be through small changes over vast amounts of time, generally believed to be through natural processes."

Evolutionist: "Someone who believes in the theory of evolution."
Creationist: "Someone who believes in special creation as described in the Bible."

Microevolution: "Small changes within a species, resulting in various changes through following generations, speciation."
Macroevolution: "The formation of new biologically distinct taxa.(Thanks mikeynov) The process through which one kind(see below) becomes another kind."

All right, I think that this covers the basics. I was thinking about describing theory and law, but this isn't about semantics, and since these aren't the main thrust of the thread, I will not deal with them.
This I will deal with. I thought I knew the difference between scientific theories and laws, instead what I had was some misconceptions about the definitions of theory and law. I had always been taught the theory of gravity as a sub-part of the law of gravity. I am sorry for my misunderstanding and I thank you for correcting them(in a mostly polite manner). I said I had genius-status IQ, not that I was a super-genius. The difference is the amount of knowledge in one's head. I can well process what I have in my mind, but I don't know everything. Not even close.

Ok, back on task. I have another thing to clear up, because I feel that evolutionist are unaware of these things.

Kinds vs. Species
NOTE: this has given me great trouble, for as I wrote this, I realized I had little understanding of what a 'species' actually is other than a method of classification. After further research, I have become even more confused, as it seems 'species' has a rather amorphous meaning. Therefore, it is with pain that I feel I must define what I mean by 'species'.
Species: The classification level below Genus(sorry, that's the best I could do).

In Genesis 1, the Bible says that God created everything according to certain kinds. Simplistically, these were creatures that could interbreed. These "kinds" are NOT synonymous with "species". They are synonymous with... well, I can't think of anything with which they are synonymous. Therefore, variations within kinds, creationist's speciation, could be expected with the variations of the different phenotypes.
Therefore, there are no qualms between creationist's view of kinds and speciation. I realize this seems to be a cop-out, but it brings up an interesting point.

Speciation vs. Macroevolution

I had planned on quoting people, but far too many made far too many different comments for me to note them all, so I will begin with this. Macroevolution does not equal speciation, even though many claim that macroevolution is simply speciation over long periods of time.
How can I make such a claim? Let me give evidence(not "proof", as I have been semantically corrected ). In any and every documented cause of speciation, there has been a loss of genetic information.
Let us take fruit flies(though, my knowledge is a little rusty). No, I do not intend to bring up the 'they are still fruit flies' routine. Just hear me out.

In every case of fruit fly variation, regardless whether it be wing shape, eye or body color, or whatever, has resulted in a loss of genetic information. A vestigial fly would have to mate with a normal fly in order to regain the lost information.
Therefore, let's carry this to a larger scale.
FSTDT stated that supposedly dogs and cats share a common ancestor. I really have know knowledge of this, but were this the case, than a creature that contained all the different alleles for all modern cats, as well all the alleles for dogs, because if the parents do not have the alleles, the progeny cannot have the alleles(In humans, it would be that two blue-eyed parents could not have a brown-eyed child, because they do not have the alleles for that phenotype.).
Herein lies the problem, both of my understanding, and a point in which I feel evolution is unsatisfactory in it's explanation. First of all, you would need to not only lose alleles, but you would need to lose entire genes as well. I am unaware if variation in the number of genes occurs.
However, the problem still lies that the theory of evolution explains it backwards. It claims (to my understanding) that information was added into the DNA structure to make a more complex creature, not that information was lost to make a less complex, while possibly more varied and distinct, creature.
From whence then does the genetic information come? All the information for offspring must be contained within the parent; however, if everything is the descendant of a single celled organism from billions of years ago, from whence does the information come? Mycoplasma genitalium, a bacteria believed to have the lowest gene count of any living creature, has a mere ~470 genes, while man has ~25,000, a rather large difference. How were the extra genes added?
Mutations? While every documented account of mutations claims to detract from the genetic code in some fashion, let's assume it is possible. Again, I don't think mutations actually add locus or genes, but I honestly don't know. The problem of irreducible complexity then arises.
Irreducible complexity, an idea arranged and championed by Michael Behe, states that certain structures can be reduced only to the point in which they must be complete or else they fail to work. This example is also his:
Think of a mouse trap. It has five basic components: the base, the catch, the hammer, the holding bar, and the spring. Take away one part, and you are not left with a mouse trap that works at 80% proficiency, you are left with a broken mouse trap.
His example in biology is that of a flagellum motor, a device remarkably similar to an outboard motor of an common fishing boat like any of you might have. This devise can be gradually taken apart and still work, but once you get so far, you must have all of the pieces or it will not work. The number of parts in the flagellum motor is 52(I think. I cannot remember what he said it was exactly.). Over fifty parts that must all be present or else it will not work. These parts could not gradually have evolved over time, regardless of whatever mutations would occur, since that assuming one part was added in, not only would that cell need to survive, it would have to pass down its mutation to its progeny. Since they reproduce asexually, making exact copies of themselves(mutations aside), this is not necessarily difficult, except that all of these mutations would need to be in this same line of cells, and that the new mutant cell would have to survive. Not an easy task, considering that it basically has a vestigial organ in/on it, which would hinder its chances of survival.
Anyway, it is late, and I need sleep. I did not get near as far as I would have liked. I will pick up here tomorrow. Sigh, it will take a lot of work to catch up.
So, to review, my problems:
Addition of new information into the genetic code (including that of mutations)
Irreducible complexity(but not so much, more of a side issue)

Here's something for those not familiar with the term, but judging this crowd, that should be few of you.
http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm

By the way, Self Improvement, I like your signature.
Thank you again everyone for your comments.

 

[Oliver]

Theory of Evolution:
"The processes and understandings explaining how life came to be through small changes over vast amounts of time, generally believed to be through natural processes."

Evolutionist: "Someone who believes in the theory of evolution."

You're right in that it is useful to clear misunderstandings about the basics first, before going on with the rest.

So two quick comments on the very beginning of your post, before I go on reading it:
- first, the theory of evolution DOESN'T explain "how life came to be". It assumes that life exists and is concerned with how lifeforms change to give the various lifeforms we see today. (Remember Darwin's work: he titled his book On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life).
- then, the last sentence in this paragraph ("generally believed to be through natural processes") is IMHO misleading: although only the natural processes can be studied by science, they need not be completely independent from the supernatural, if it exists. So even though only the natural processes we see are described in a scientific theory, they are not necessarilly believed (by the scientists) to be "all that exists". IOW don't confuse methodological materialism (maybe not the exact word, I'll have to check my english here) and philosophical materialism.
- lastly, it'd be more exact to say that an evolutionist is someone who holds the ToE as the best theory currently available to explain the diversity of life on earth. You don't believe in a scientific theory: at most you believe it to be correct. This is quite different from a religious belief.

 

[Oliver]

In any and every documented cause of speciation, there has been a loss of genetic information.

I'm sure others will answer to this point, but this seems like quite a strong claim to me. You realize that in order to justify it, or in order for someone to show you a satisfying counter-example, this term of information needs to be precisely defined?

And in defining information, keep in mind your two claims here (because there is one explicit and one implicit claim in the sentence I quoted):
- a mutation always decreases information
- an increase in information is necessary for evolution to happen.

Herein lies the problem, both of my understanding, and a point in which I feel evolution is unsatisfactory in it's explanation. First of all, you would need to not only lose alleles, but you would need to lose entire genes as well. I am unaware if variation in the number of genes occurs.

It does. Both deletions and duplications of genes occur.

However, the problem still lies that the theory of evolution explains it backwards. It claims (to my understanding) that information was added into the DNA structure to make a more complex creature, not that information was lost to make a less complex, while possibly more varied and distinct, creature.

Actually, the theory makes no such claim: a loss of a functionality is called evolution, just like the modification of an existing feature or the developpement of a new one. And there is no definition of information, nor any explicit mention of it in the theory.

From whence then does the genetic information come? All the information for offspring must be contained within the parent;

Not really: every time you have a mutation, you end up with something else than what was in the parents' genome.

How were the extra genes added?Mutations? While every documented account of mutations claims to detract from the genetic code in some fashion, let's assume it is possible. Again, I don't think mutations actually add locus or genes, but I honestly don't know.

They do.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

An easy to digest definition of information would be helpful.

I wish I could understand "specified complexity" of information when creationist researchers talk about it, but I was never much good at math.

 

[mikeynov]

An easy to digest definition of information would be helpful.

I wish I could understand "specified complexity" of information when creationist researchers talk about it, but I was never much good at math.

Don't worry, neither is Dembski. Ha ha ha :-x

 

[Jet Black]

An easy to digest definition of information would be helpful.

I wish I could understand "specified complexity" of information when creationist researchers talk about it, but I was never much good at math.

specified complexits is supposedly what is detected using the following filter:

(1) If an event E has high probability, accept regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.
(2)If the chance hypothesis assigns E a high probability or E is not specified, then accept chance; otherwise move down the list.
(3)Having eliminated regularity and chance, accept design.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Don't worry, neither is Dembski. Ha ha ha :-x