Observable evidence for evolution?

[The Barbarian]

It's a frequently-measured fact, called "founder effect." But they don't "lose" genetic information, they have less genetic information because they have fewer individuals. Over time, genetic information will increase, if the population becomes established.

There are many, many transitional forms. Even honest YE creationists admit this.

But then it’s not an isolated population

Almost always it is. That's what we see in nature. This wasn't first noticed by Eldridge and Gould; Ernst Mayr noticed that aberrant populations tended to be found in isolated places. Eldridge and Gould explained why. Founder effect is well-documented, as is allopatric speciation.

so once again, the PE theory of Gould, is disproven by actual science by wildlife biology

You've been misled about that. The evidence has accumulated to show that allopatric speciation is the common mode. The fossil record rather clearly shows the usual pattern of speciation to be quite rapid, followed by long periods of stasis. As Darwin noted, a well-fitted population in a constant environment shouldn't change much, because of natural selection.

it requires isolated populations.

It's the usual mode, but not always. Horses, ammonites and some others show more gradual change.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Yes. Notice that he says "generally lacking." Even Gould pointed out exceptions. We often have transitional species in horses. They were usually numerous and lived where fossilization was more common than many other environments.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dogs can't count to ten

Dogs can count, especially when it comes to treats: study
Dogs can count, especially when it comes to treats: study

Maybe not to 10. Crows can do even better.
How Do Crows Count?

 

[ReesePiece23]

Dogs can count, especially when it comes to treats: study
Dogs can count, especially when it comes to treats: study

Maybe not to 10. Crows can do even better.
How Do Crows Count?

I just love everything about this response.

 

[GenemZ]

Why would God want to quote me, when His own Infallible Word is what Teaches me that all forms of "evolution" in Creation is utterly DEMONIC!

Keep in mind.. God hates a false witness.

Evolution does exist! Exists in a limited form. But, not like the evolutionists promote.

To state what you do?

..."all forms of "evolution" in Creation is utterly DEMONIC!"

If I were still a baby Christian? And, thought what you believe was what I need to believe? I would have become depressed and walked away from Christianity. It would make God's work of drawing me closer to Him harder than need be. For its blatantly wrong what you are saying. Its false. Its a lie. Darwin saw something really change, but ran with it out of bounds and way off the playing field.

What you proclaimed makes you look ignorant in the evolutionists eyes, and makes their choice for rejecting Christ seem better justified. For they want no part of such closed minded ignorance.

You are doing no one favors by defying reality, by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.. Micro evolution is a reality. Do you know what that is? Its what Darwin witnessed to. Macro evolution is what catches the evolutionist in his imagination (which he takes pride in) and that form of evolution is DEMONIC! Macro evolution contrives ways to say the dog, cat, and cow all came from a common ancestor. That the chicken came from a dinosaur. That's when it becomes demonic...

Please? Stop giving those who reject the Lord any excuse to do so by being a false witness.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[The Barbarian]

I just love everything about this response.

How about this...

Dogs have an intuitive understanding of fair play and become resentful if they feel that another dog is getting a better deal, a new study has found.


The study, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at how dogs react when a buddy is rewarded for the same trick in an unequal way.


Friederike Range, a researcher at the University of Vienna in Austria, and her colleagues did a series of experiments with dogs who knew how to respond to the command "give the paw," or shake. The dogs were normally happy to repeatedly give the paw, whether they got a reward or not.


But that changed if they saw that another dog was being rewarded with a piece of food, while they received nothing.


"We found that the dogs hesitated significantly longer when obeying the command to give the paw," the researchers write. The unrewarded dogs eventually stopped cooperating.


Scientists have long known that humans pay close attention to inequity. Even little children are quick to yell "Not fair!" But researchers always assumed that animals didn't share this trait.


"The argument was that this is a uniquely human phenomenon," says Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta and a researcher at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center.
Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds

 

[The Barbarian]

Micro evolution is a reality. Do you know what that is?

Evolution within a species.

Macro evolution is evolution that results in new species. At one time creationists denied this could happen. But now most creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species, genera, and often families (sometimes higher).

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.
...
Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years, according to a genetic study looking at select portions of DNA from 100,000 species.
Speciation

 

[coffee4u]

You're welcome. I've actually been making more of an effort to listen in recent weeks, because these forums seem to be playing out like a John Wayne movie lately. Sure, it's fun sometimes but this is as close to a church as I'm going to get for a while (UK is STILL in lockdown) and I've still got a faith that needs watering. Plus, I've publicly voiced my concerns about the future of these forums - I really don't think that the current climate can continue for much longer. So I'm gradually trying to change it by questioning with an open mind, whilst also pitching my current view and initiating a sound discussion.

Anyway. I don't think humans do know as much as they'd like to (about anything, really). And I think that should just be appreciated. Dogs can't count to ten, spiders can't write poetry, and humans can't comprehend "where it all began" - and that's okay. In the end, wherever we end up with these debates, *I* can personally take solace in not knowing because I trust Him 100%. (If I've had a few beers though, you might get a few pretentious theories; I like to try and sound edgy and 'out there' when I've had a drink. I'll be honest.)

I'll never call someone an idiot for having an opinion and delivering it with thought and eloquence - whatever that opinion might be. But I might if someone snaps at me with egotistical bluster and excessive exclamation points. Loud dialogue tends to get my back up pretty quickly - and as it is, one or two of the members in this thread are really pushing their luck quite heavily.

But I DO like these sorts of talks, as these 'science x God' subjects are the sticky wickets on my walk. But I've got to reach an educated conclusion. Blind faith will NOT do it. I wish it did, but God deserves the very best worship from me. To get there, it needs to be a consistent drip feed.

One of my friends in the UK has not been able to see her granddaughter, who must be 2-3 months old at this point. I hope things get better over there soon.

I enjoy these talks even though my view is set to 6 day creation. I wasn't always a 6 day creationist but I had some teaching about 25 years ago that made me change camps. I would enjoy it more if an evolutionist had some doctrine about it and didn't just post about science here -there is a science area after all.

Site rules make it so no one can literally call anyone an idiot, but they get around that with passive aggression.

 

[coffee4u]

firstly, Genesis 1:1 has the Hebrew "shâmayim" in the plural, "heavens", and the "earth", which includes all things seen and unseen. The term "universe" means just that, God Creating everything that it out there! Not just "universe", but the plural "universes", regardless of the numbers, God Created them ALL!

Are you denying that the God of the Bible Created ALL things? Read Colossians 1:16, "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him". Where the "τὰ πάντα" means "in an absolute sense, all things collectively, the totality of created things, the universe of things" (J H Thayer Greek lexicon).

The Lexicon that I read said Genesis 1 means sky as does the verse in Exodus and the Old King James says heaven singular rather than heavens like the NIV. So I am more inclined to believe it is just the visible sky being talked about there.

While I don't always agree with d taylor he is a creationist so lets try not to shoot at each other since we are in the minority on here.

 

[coffee4u]

Keep in mind.. God hates a false witness.

Evolution does exist! Exists in a limited form. But, not like the evolutionists promote.

To state what you do?

..."all forms of "evolution" in Creation is utterly DEMONIC!"

If I were still a baby Christian? And, thought what you believe was what I need to believe? I would have become depressed and walked away from Christianity. It would make God's work of drawing me closer to Him harder than need be. For its blatantly wrong what you are saying. Its false. Its a lie. Darwin saw something really change, but ran with it out of bounds and way off the playing field.

What you proclaimed makes you look ignorant in the evolutionists eyes, and makes their choice for rejecting Christ seem better justified. For they want no part of such closed minded ignorance.

You are doing no one favors by defying reality, by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.. Micro evolution is a reality. Do you know what that is? Its what Darwin witnessed to. Macro evolution is what catches the evolutionist in his imagination (which he takes pride in) and that form of evolution is DEMONIC! Macro evolution contrives ways to say the dog, cat, and cow all came from a common ancestor. That the chicken came from a dinosaur. That's when it becomes demonic...

Please? Stop giving those who reject the Lord any excuse to do so by being a false witness.

In Christ, GeneZ

That depends what people mean when they use the word evolution. Which is half the problem. When I use it, I only mean from goo to you. I do not mean 'micro evolution' nor will I ever use that term. It is a word ploy, designed to make one part look good and so by extension make all of it look good. It is the same ploy used by Satan in the garden, give truth mixed with lie.

 

[The Barbarian]

One of my friends in the UK has not been able to see her granddaughter, who must be 2-3 months old at this point. I hope things get better over there soon.

I enjoy these talks even though my view is set to 6 day creation. I wasn't always a 6 day creationist but I had some teaching about 25 years ago that made me change camps. I would enjoy it more if an evolutionist had some doctrine about it and didn't just post about science here -there is a science area after all.

It would be like asking an electrician to present some doctrine. There's nothing in Genesis about electricity. My thought is that God didn't consider it important to the message. But I think that St. Paul's observation in Romans 1:20 is apt.

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

When I am by myself, out somewhere in nature, every now and then, while I'm looking at animal behavior, and immersed in what's going on, I will also apprehend God's creative power in making a universe, in which nature has brought forth things as He willed it to do. That's an emotional moment, and an epiphany for me. I wish everyone could have what I have at that moment.

Site rules make it so no one can literally call anyone an idiot, but they get around that with passive aggression.

I hope no one thinks that creationism is merely the result of stupidity. I know too many intelligent creationists to accept that idea.

 

[The Barbarian]

That depends what people mean when they use the word evolution. Which is half the problem.

It's about 90% of the problem. The scientific definition of evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

I only mean from goo to you.

That's not it. Evolution is merely changes in genes. Evolutionary theory explains why it happens. You're thinking of abiogenesis, the notion that the earth brought forth living things. That's what God says, but not evolutionary theory, which takes no position on that point. Darwin assumed God created the first living things, but did not specify how.

"Microevolution" is evolution that does not produce new species. "Macroevolution" is evolution that does produce new species.

Both have been observed.

 

[chad kincham]

....what does genetic information even mean? Are you talking about diversity of genes? Or just genetic information vanishes, and evolution comes about by new information or information that was there becoming more important.

a simple example of PE is antibiotic resistance. you have a new pressure show up, a new antibiotic. Resistance/immunity is either already within the population, OR there is partial immunity that helps some survive, due to the pressure of the antibiotic there is a much faster evolution away from the problem. And you have a evolution of a new trait that would have died off or taken much longer to evolve happen in a shorter period of time. There is a loss of genetic information in the diversity kind, because all the genes that other bacteria that were unique to them were lost. But evolution still happens so new genes, new alleles appear over time.

For macro evolution to occur, so that a lower life form could change into a higher life form, a quantum-leap increase in genetic information would be needed.

Any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a moth still a moth, or a bacterium still a bacterium, isn’t vertical evolution whatsoever.

When a bacteria adapts to an antibiotic, it has lost genetic information, not gained it.

Mutations involve a break in DNA that has occurred, and when the break is edited, an error happens, and one of two things happens: a gene sequence is eliminated and is missing, or it is duplicated so there are two identical genes in a sequence, when there should be one.

The result is something missing, like a finger, or an extra finger results - mutations do not increase genetic information in any significant way - thus evolution has no mechanism for vertical evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

For macro evolution to occur, so that a lower life form could change into a higher life form, a quantum-leap increase in genetic information would be needed.

Let's test that assumption. Is a human higher or lower than a giraffe?

Then we can look for that "quantum-leap increase."

If you think mammals are all about the same, then let's do a human compared to a reptile. Would that work better for you?

Let me know about that.

Meantime, it might be good to find out what "information" means in genetics. Every new mutation will increase the genetic information of a population. Would you like to see some numbers for that?

And sometimes, evolution involves a decrease in genetic information. We can talk about some of those cases if you like. Let me know.

 

[loveofourlord]

For macro evolution to occur, so that a lower life form could change into a higher life form, a quantum-leap increase in genetic information would be needed.

Any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a moth still a moth, or a bacterium still a bacterium, isn’t vertical evolution whatsoever.

When a bacteria adapts to an antibiotic, it has lost genetic information, not gained it.

Mutations involve a break in DNA that has occurred, and when the break is edited, an error happens, and one of two things happens: a gene sequence is eliminated and is missing, or it is duplicated so there are two identical genes in a sequence, when there should be one.

The result is something missing, like a finger, or an extra finger results - mutations do not increase genetic information in any significant way - thus evolution has no mechanism for vertical evolution.

REALLY interesting cacn you tell me what the genetic information between humans and apes are? Can you tell me how much more information there is between humans and apes?

wow I'm just learning so much stuff here, so when bacteria become antibiotic resistant they lose information....WAIT that's the opposite of what happens literally. Maybe for the first, one, but when bacteria B and C become antibiotic resistant they GAIN the information on producing the resistance from the original bacteria.

Also EHHH wrong, some do it by reducing the ways the antibiotics enter the cell, but others are neutral or positive information additions.

How do germs become resistant?.

As usual creationists love their nonsense talking points but don't understand the science.

Oh and on mutations, you do know you have hundreds of mutations not from your parents, I guess your dead and missing fingers and toes, what is that like? All of mine exist.

 

[loveofourlord]

Let's test that assumption. Is a human higher or lower than a giraffe?

Then we can look for that "quantum-leap increase."

If you think mammals are all about the same, then let's do a human compared to a reptile. Would that work better for you?

Let me know about that.

Meantime, it might be good to find out what "information" means in genetics. Every new mutation will increase the genetic information of a population. Would you like to see some numbers for that?

And sometimes, evolution involves a decrease in genetic information. We can talk about some of those cases if you like. Let me know.

I would argue that most changes from apes to humans is just changes to existing genes and structures and little if any are actually whole sale new genes. Heck I would go as far to say that from fish to humans. Hair is just modified scales and so on. Oh and not every mutation, some add information, some remove and others just change.

The cat is red
the car is red
the cat s red
the cast is red, all are examples of mutations, but the amount of information changes from each one. If were talking information theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would argue that most changes from apes to humans is just changes to existing genes and structures and little if any are actually whole sale new genes.

Yes. Changes in allele frequencies, but few really new genes. In fact, relatively few genes that control timing and duration of gene function can account for the differences. Most of the differences in face and skull are neotonous, that is, humans have delayed maturation,and never change to the degree that other apes do.

Heck I would go as far to say that from fish to humans. Hair is just modified scales and so on.

Not quite. Hair, scales, and feathers are homologous, but one didn't necessarily evolve from another. They all may have evolved from a common structure that was not any of them. But mostly it works as you suggest.

Oh and not every mutation, some add information, some remove and others just change.

New mutations add information to a population. If an allele no longer occurs in the population, that's loss of information. It's important to remember that "information"applies to populations, not individuals.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes. Changes in allele frequencies, but few really new genes. In fact, relatively few genes that control timing and duration of gene function can account for the differences. Most of the differences in face and skull are neotonous, that is, humans have delayed maturation,and never change to the degree that other apes do.

Not quite. Even within fish, there are differences in scales. But mostly it works as you suggest.



Changes add information to a population. If an allele no longer occurs in the population, that's loss of information. It's important to remember that "information"applies to populations, not individuals.

well depends on wich squirly definition of information they are using hehe :> Creationists like to use multiple. If were talking genes it's bits. A mutation is on the gene level, so a mutation that makes humans stronger would be on the gene level then that allele would go to the higher level. it's one of those things where creationists get squirrely with what they mean.

 

[GenemZ]

That depends what people mean when they use the word evolution. Which is half the problem. When I use it, I only mean from goo to you. I do not mean 'micro evolution' nor will I ever use that term. It is a word ploy, designed to make one part look good and so by extension make all of it look good. It is the same ploy used by Satan in the garden, give truth mixed with lie.

You should include a disclaimer and a personal statement of what you believe then. Have it on file and copy and paste it to the posts about evolution to show us how you see evolution. Otherwise you will only make the confusion spin faster. For micro evolution is accepted by many young earth creationists who understand it.

Micro evolution is God's omniscience being bannered on high when it appears, showing how God always anticipated what would be needed to survive some unforeseeable and unexpected event.

As it stands with some here.. Evolutionists are going to be content and feel secure with their position as long as young earth creationists keep lapsing into rigid thinking when they can not deal with REAL facts.

Keep in mind. Glorifying Christ does not have to mean winning the opposition to Christ. It can also mean leaving them to be without excuse. When they appear before Jesus they will be shown that they willfully lied against the facts they wanted to deny. Yet, with the simpleminded stubbornness that certain ones here utilize that will be impossible. Their stand does not glorify Christ. Though emotionally they feel unmovable.

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but whoever hates correction is stupid." pr 12:1
​

We all need correction from time to time.

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

he Old King James says heaven singular rather than heavens like the NIV

The Hebrew noun שָּׁמַ֖יִם is masculine in gender, and plural in number, "HEAVENS". The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs lists "universe" also as a meaning, among many other things, like the "starts", the "abode of God", etc, etc. and for the whole of Creation under the Heavens!