Talk with a Creationist

[AFray]

I'm almost always in the general apologetics forum when I'm on this site. So welcome me to my first post on this forum! haha.

My desire is that you read where I come from and where I am at and tell me why evolution as far as speciation is concerned is the best explanation for what I see. I'm not asking you to prove it but I'm interested in you seeing where I am coming from and maybe you can shed light on why I am wrong in certain instances, where I am misinformed

My background. I am a college grad with a background and interest in evolution but the best thing to describe myself is that I am a Christian. I love Christ, I seek God in the bible daily, and pray on a regular basis. In regards to my view on life I am an Old Earth creationist. In college I took courses that interested me such as a course that investigated the historical relationship between science and religion as well as an epistemology course which basically studied what makes what you say ultimately true. So I have been exposed to Dawkins, Gould, Behe, Johnson, as well as many other writers on the subject of evolution and the relationship between science and religion.

To be upfront, I believe in evolution and can see its affects to the extent that I can see that natural selection absolutely happens. I do not believe in evolution as the mechanism which creates new species, or speciation. So here are the things that I'd like you to respond to or explain further to me. I currently am not in school and I assume by virtue of this forum that there will be a certain number of well informed people who deal with this on a daily basis that can respond intelligently to these different observations.

From the courses that I've taken and the texts read in them I understand that for speciation to work out there needs to be a lot of time. Billions of years from what I understand. This time allows for all the small mutations and variations which are guided blindly (the blind watchmaker) which eventually result in the complexity that we see today.

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation? Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening? Shouldn't I? I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change? I see stasis with each piece having its own function. I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

2: I don't understand this about the theory. Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium? This is my problem: all life comes from billions of years of transitions, thus Darwin hypothesizes that the fossil record will unearth an infinitely great amount of these transitions. Would I be having this conversation if this were the case? I know this might set some of you off but understand this first: Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat. We are talking about every single living thing transitioning from a single cell or even less then a cell? Why is it news when this happens? Doesn't this alone speak to the complete disparity of what should be all over?

Even worse is this: some evolutionists finally realize that the primary thing seen in the fossil record is stasis across the board. This alone sends off warning signals to me because it’s the exact opposite of what we should see right? Or do I understand the fossilized records of billions of years of evolution for every single living thing wrong? If you think I'm lying then why do we have punctuated equilibrium?
Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. For this reason, the theory is sometimes called evolution by jerks.[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism (“evolution by creeps”), which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).

So evolution happens in small isolated groups quickly so that no record is really visible in the fossils and thus accounts for what we see in the fossil record? So an infinite amount of transition skeletons is not what we should see now huh?

3: Even if the creation of an eye is possible over billions of years that eye is still useless without the proper system to read the information and process it. So you want to tell me that not only did the eye gradually evolve blindly but that the capacity of the nervous system and brain to read the information evolved with it? Does someone explain this? This borders on miraculous for me.

4: Why would something like this evolve: Let’s say I'm at a party and I cut a two pieces of cake, one is larger. What one am I supposed to give to my friend. That’s right, the larger one. So where did this come from? I give another more food while I suffer. If you’re going to tell me that it evolved so that they would in turn be nice to me then that would assume some sort of foresight now wouldn't it?

5: If we are nothing but a slow work in progress slowly evolving to become more then what we were a few thousand years ago why do we have morality? Frankly if you believe that morality and wrong and right are taught by society I think you are very deceived. All I have to do is look at my little sister. My parents don't need to sit down with her and tell her every single thing that is right or wrong. She knows what is fair, unfair, right or wrong. Where did this come from? It simply doesn't make any sense and we might as well get rid of it if evolution is true. Since a billion years ago we were small cells what wrong can I do if I murder another? After all, that person, or at least there sense of personhood is only the result of a lot of chemicals and a few billion years of evolution. In fact why would there be any rule about not murdering another human if human or that definition is only a transition anyway. Since evolution must continue since it explains the past.

6: This point I just need guidance for sure. I have not had any reading or course on this information so how is it that scientists unearth skeletons and they are able to determine the subtle evolutionary changes in biological systems when all they have is a skeleton? I know that probably sounds stupid to those of you who are informed but please guide me to where I can figure this out or just flat out explain it to me.

Of course, point out to me where I am just wrong. And explain thoroughly. If I'm just not informed yet, explain fully why these observations aren't warranted.

I'll try and respond ASAP, as you can see from my posting history I'm not a forum hawk. I'll do my best to read what you give me and analyze your responses.

 

[Pesto]

the theory is sometimes called evolution by jerks.

Hey now, I don't know that name calling is approprate.

 

[Split Rock]

From the courses that I've taken and the texts read in them I understand that for speciation to work out there needs to be a lot of time. Billions of years from what I understand. This time allows for all the small mutations and variations which are guided blindly (the blind watchmaker) which eventually result in the complexity that we see today.

Speciation does not take billions of years, it usually takes much less time. In fact, speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. The following list is originally from Lucuspa:

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely fine fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

 

[Split Rock]

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation? Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening? Shouldn't I? I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change? I see stasis with each piece having its own function. I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

Everyone has on average a few mutations. Most do not have any phenotypic effect, so they are not noticable. Remember however, that populations evolve not individuals. Why would you think that the human population would be made up of individuals of different "stages?" We are all one species.

2: I don't understand this about the theory. Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium? This is my problem: all life comes from billions of years of transitions, thus Darwin hypothesizes that the fossil record will unearth an infinitely great amount of these transitions. Would I be having this conversation if this were the case? I know this might set some of you off but understand this first: Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat. We are talking about every single living thing transitioning from a single cell or even less then a cell? Why is it news when this happens? Doesn't this alone speak to the complete disparity of what should be all over?

It is old hat in a sense, but every transitional fossil we find gives us new information on the history of evolution on earth. How could the news of finding a new transitional be evidence that there are not enough??

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm almost always in the general apologetics forum when I'm on this site. So welcome me to my first post on this forum! haha.

Welcome! I hope you enjoy your time on here.

My desire is that you read where I come from and where I am at and tell me why evolution as far as speciation is concerned is the best explanation for what I see. I'm not asking you to prove it but I'm interested in you seeing where I am coming from and maybe you can shed light on why I am wrong in certain instances, where I am misinformed

Sounds pretty reasonable, lead on...

My background. I am a college grad with a background and interest in evolution but the best thing to describe myself is that I am a Christian. I love Christ, I seek God in the bible daily, and pray on a regular basis. In regards to my view on life I am an Old Earth creationist.

Sounds Christian to me, thanks for sharing.

In college I took courses that interested me such as a course that investigated the historical relationship between science and religion as well as an epistemology course which basically studied what makes what you say ultimately true. So I have been exposed to Dawkins, Gould, Behe, Johnson, as well as many other writers on the subject of evolution and the relationship between science and religion.

Did I just understand you right, you were exposes to Dawkins, Gould...etc in an epistomology class? I'm not really confused just curious, if you wanted to share any insights you may have picked up I'd be interested in hearing them.

To be upfront, I believe in evolution and can see its affects to the extent that I can see that natural selection absolutely happens. I do not believe in evolution as the mechanism which creates new species, or speciation. So here are the things that I'd like you to respond to or explain further to me. I currently am not in school and I assume by virtue of this forum that there will be a certain number of well informed people who deal with this on a daily basis that can respond intelligently to these different observations.

Natural selection happens, there is really no question about that. It might interest you to know that speciation actually happens but it would appear to be a one way trip. I don't really consider myself well informed but I am interesed in adaptive evolution and genetic mechanisms for improved fittness apart from random mutations.

From the courses that I've taken and the texts read in them I understand that for speciation to work out there needs to be a lot of time. Billions of years from what I understand. This time allows for all the small mutations and variations which are guided blindly (the blind watchmaker) which eventually result in the complexity that we see today.

That is one of the fallacies creationists love to pound on, myself included. Most mutations don't do anything at all, they can't affect fittness in any way shape or form no matter how long they accumulate. Most of the ones the affect fittness are deleterious (harmfull), the blind watchmaker stuff is Dawkins waxing elogant, it isn't really helpfull in understanding how living systems improve fittness over generations.

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation? Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening? Shouldn't I? I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change? I see stasis with each piece having its own function. I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

You would think so but when you make something as random as spontaneous mutations your driving force it's hard to identify trackable patterns. Most mutations are the result of transcript errors that get through the cell cycle check points. The odds of getting a favorable outcome from a random transcript error hardly seems likely. All I can figure is that there are mechanisms that change alleles, shut genes on and off, swap out dominate and recessive traits and change alleles in a profoundly sweeping fashion. We know that a lot of adaptive mechanisms are highly responsive to environmental influences but the fascination mainstream science has with random mutations makes it hard to see.

2: I don't understand this about the theory. Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium?

Your brain being a prime example.

This is my problem: all life comes from billions of years of transitions, thus Darwin hypothesizes that the fossil record will unearth an infinitely great amount of these transitions. Would I be having this conversation if this were the case? I know this might set some of you off but understand this first: Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat. We are talking about every single living thing transitioning from a single cell or even less then a cell? Why is it news when this happens? Doesn't this alone speak to the complete disparity of what should be all over?

Don't start with billions, start with some kind of an adaptive change that is readily understood. One of the biggest problems with evolution is that it starts billions of years ago and then projects from there to living systems of today. My perception is that science doesn't do that, science starts here and now and pretty much stays in the here and now.

I'm going to have to cut it short. I'll watch the thread and see how it goes for you. Again, welcome to the Crevo forum and have fun!

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hydra009]

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation? Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening? Shouldn't I? I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change? I see stasis with each piece having its own function.

Well, there are actually quite a lot of mutations, but many are in segments of the genome that don't code for proteins. I think that part of this perception that mutations don't occur is the popular notion of "mutants" as deformed monstrosities rather than individuals with a barely noticeable phenotypical change. A good example of a mutation that isn't immediately and easily noticeable would be the mutation for lactose tolerance or whether or not a person can taste PTC.

On the other hand, there are examples of very obvious mutants, like a blue lobster, a mutantion in humans which causes excessive body hair, and polydactyly.

I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

Well, actually the transitions are apparent: the illustration to the right shows increasingly complex eye structures in snails.

eye evolution

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm almost always in the general apologetics forum when I'm on this site. So welcome me to my first post on this forum! haha.

My desire is that you read where I come from and where I am at and tell me why evolution as far as speciation is concerned is the best explanation for what I see. I'm not asking you to prove it but I'm interested in you seeing where I am coming from and maybe you can shed light on why I am wrong in certain instances, where I am misinformed

My background. I am a college grad with a background and interest in evolution but the best thing to describe myself is that I am a Christian. I love Christ, I seek God in the bible daily, and pray on a regular basis. In regards to my view on life I am an Old Earth creationist. In college I took courses that interested me such as a course that investigated the historical relationship between science and religion as well as an epistemology course which basically studied what makes what you say ultimately true. So I have been exposed to Dawkins, Gould, Behe, Johnson, as well as many other writers on the subject of evolution and the relationship between science and religion.

To be upfront, I believe in evolution and can see its affects to the extent that I can see that natural selection absolutely happens. I do not believe in evolution as the mechanism which creates new species, or speciation. So here are the things that I'd like you to respond to or explain further to me. I currently am not in school and I assume by virtue of this forum that there will be a certain number of well informed people who deal with this on a daily basis that can respond intelligently to these different observations.

From the courses that I've taken and the texts read in them I understand that for speciation to work out there needs to be a lot of time. Billions of years from what I understand. This time allows for all the small mutations and variations which are guided blindly (the blind watchmaker) which eventually result in the complexity that we see today.

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation? Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening? Shouldn't I? I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change? I see stasis with each piece having its own function. I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

2: I don't understand this about the theory. Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium? This is my problem: all life comes from billions of years of transitions, thus Darwin hypothesizes that the fossil record will unearth an infinitely great amount of these transitions. Would I be having this conversation if this were the case? I know this might set some of you off but understand this first: Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat. We are talking about every single living thing transitioning from a single cell or even less then a cell? Why is it news when this happens? Doesn't this alone speak to the complete disparity of what should be all over?

Even worse is this: some evolutionists finally realize that the primary thing seen in the fossil record is stasis across the board. This alone sends off warning signals to me because it’s the exact opposite of what we should see right? Or do I understand the fossilized records of billions of years of evolution for every single living thing wrong? If you think I'm lying then why do we have punctuated equilibrium?
Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. For this reason, the theory is sometimes called evolution by jerks.[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism (“evolution by creeps”), which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).

So evolution happens in small isolated groups quickly so that no record is really visible in the fossils and thus accounts for what we see in the fossil record? So an infinite amount of transition skeletons is not what we should see now huh?

3: Even if the creation of an eye is possible over billions of years that eye is still useless without the proper system to read the information and process it. So you want to tell me that not only did the eye gradually evolve blindly but that the capacity of the nervous system and brain to read the information evolved with it? Does someone explain this? This borders on miraculous for me.

4: Why would something like this evolve: Let’s say I'm at a party and I cut a two pieces of cake, one is larger. What one am I supposed to give to my friend. That’s right, the larger one. So where did this come from? I give another more food while I suffer. If you’re going to tell me that it evolved so that they would in turn be nice to me then that would assume some sort of foresight now wouldn't it?

5: If we are nothing but a slow work in progress slowly evolving to become more then what we were a few thousand years ago why do we have morality? Frankly if you believe that morality and wrong and right are taught by society I think you are very deceived. All I have to do is look at my little sister. My parents don't need to sit down with her and tell her every single thing that is right or wrong. She knows what is fair, unfair, right or wrong. Where did this come from? It simply doesn't make any sense and we might as well get rid of it if evolution is true. Since a billion years ago we were small cells what wrong can I do if I murder another? After all, that person, or at least there sense of personhood is only the result of a lot of chemicals and a few billion years of evolution. In fact why would there be any rule about not murdering another human if human or that definition is only a transition anyway. Since evolution must continue since it explains the past.

6: This point I just need guidance for sure. I have not had any reading or course on this information so how is it that scientists unearth skeletons and they are able to determine the subtle evolutionary changes in biological systems when all they have is a skeleton? I know that probably sounds stupid to those of you who are informed but please guide me to where I can figure this out or just flat out explain it to me.

Of course, point out to me where I am just wrong. And explain thoroughly. If I'm just not informed yet, explain fully why these observations aren't warranted.

I'll try and respond ASAP, as you can see from my posting history I'm not a forum hawk. I'll do my best to read what you give me and analyze your responses.

Wow, welcome. It is nice to have another OEC on the forum.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Whoops, should have just posted rather than paste your entire post.

 

[Edx]

Whoops, should have just posted rather than paste your entire post.

The edit button is your friend!

 

[Oncedeceived]

The edit button is your friend!

 

[michabo]

Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

There are many mutations that you can see around you. Eye colours, racial differences, AIDS immunity, sickle cell anemia. Aron-Ra has given some excellent examples:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1126612-define-your-central-terms.html&page=8

2: I don't understand this about the theory. Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium?

Evolution occurs at different rates at different times, depending on the size of the population (it's faster with smaller populations) and selective pressure (the greater the selective pressure, the faster the changes).

Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat.

Media likes to hype things up. Scientists like new discoveries. I can't believe you think this is an argument.

Even worse is this: some evolutionists finally realize that the primary thing seen in the fossil record is stasis across the board.

Where are you getting this from?

So an infinite amount of transition skeletons is not what we should see now huh?

Why do you imagine that every organism that has ever lived will get fossilized?

So you want to tell me that not only did the eye gradually evolve blindly but that the capacity of the nervous system and brain to read the information evolved with it? Does someone explain this? This borders on miraculous for me.

Read a book. It's not miraculous, it's one of the most heavily studied examples. "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable" would help.

4: Why would something like this evolve: Let’s say I'm at a party and I cut a two pieces of cake, one is larger. What one am I supposed to give to my friend. That’s right, the larger one. So where did this come from? I give another more food while I suffer. If you’re going to tell me that it evolved so that they would in turn be nice to me then that would assume some sort of foresight now wouldn't it?

Are you asking for the evolutionary advantages of altruism?

 

[Nooj]

I'm almost always in the general apologetics forum when I'm on this site. So welcome me to my first post on this forum! haha.

Hi.

From the courses that I've taken and the texts read in them I understand that for speciation to work out there needs to be a lot of time.

Not necessarily. New species can be created in a few generation through hybridisation.

Billions of years from what I understand.

Millions of years at the most, from what the fossil record seems to tell us.

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation?

Yes.

Also, please note that most mutations are neutral in their effects on reproductive ability.

Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening?

Human beings tend to have 100~ mutations per zygote. Sorry, but I don't have the actual science paper that says this with me right now.

I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change?

There is a lot of change. Just not a lot of change that you can see with the naked eye. Why do mutations have to result in an extra eye or a different colour? Why not a different amino acid in a protein? Someting that you can't see with the naked eye?

I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

This doesn't have much to do with speciation. Other posters have addressed this issue.

Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium? This is my problem: all life comes from billions of years of transitions, thus Darwin hypothesizes that the fossil record will unearth an infinitely great amount of these transitions. Would I be having this conversation if this were the case?

You wouldn't be having this conversation now if you had looked at this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I know this might set some of you off but understand this first: Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat. We are talking about every single living thing transitioning from a single cell or even less then a cell? Why is it news when this happens? Doesn't this alone speak to the complete disparity of what should be all over?

Because it is exciting to discover something new? Science is all about exploration and the wonder that goes along with that.

Even worse is this: some evolutionists finally realize that the primary thing seen in the fossil record is stasis across the board.

Please back this up.

This alone sends off warning signals to me because it’s the exact opposite of what we should see right? Or do I understand the fossilized records of billions of years of evolution for every single living thing wrong?

All organisms are in transition between their ancestors and their descendants.

If you think I'm lying then why do we have punctuated equilibrium?
Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. For this reason, the theory is sometimes called evolution by jerks.[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism (“evolution by creeps”), which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).

So evolution happens in small isolated groups quickly so that no record is really visible in the fossils and thus accounts for what we see in the fossil record? So an infinite amount of transition skeletons is not what we should see now huh?

In some cases, the fossils never get created because the conditions aren't right. In others, the population is too small and the statistical probability of them getting preserved compared to a numerous species is low. In other cases, we get good transitional fossils.

Punk eek may be true in some cases.

3: Even if the creation of an eye is possible over billions of years that eye is still useless without the proper system to read the information and process it. So you want to tell me that not only did the eye gradually evolve blindly but that the capacity of the nervous system and brain to read the information evolved with it? Does someone explain this? This borders on miraculous for me.

And this has what to do with species?

Nevertheless, no one is saying that the eye evolved suddenly. The nerves and photoreceptors and the neural pathways evolved step by step along with the eye, from a simple 'pit' found in many modern unicellular organisms to more complex eyes found in shellfish.

4: Why would something like this evolve: Let’s say I'm at a party and I cut a two pieces of cake, one is larger. What one am I supposed to give to my friend. That’s right, the larger one. So where did this come from? I give another more food while I suffer. If you’re going to tell me that it evolved so that they would in turn be nice to me then that would assume some sort of foresight now wouldn't it?

Chimpanzees do that too.

5: If we are nothing but a slow work in progress slowly evolving to become more then what we were a few thousand years ago why do we have morality?

More than what? What were we a few thousand years ago?

Frankly if you believe that morality and wrong and right are taught by society I think you are very deceived. All I have to do is look at my little sister. My parents don't need to sit down with her and tell her every single thing that is right or wrong. She knows what is fair, unfair, right or wrong.

You sure? What if she was brought up in a society where 'right' was considered 'wrong'? What if she was brought up in a society where polygamy was normal?

Where did this come from? It simply doesn't make any sense and we might as well get rid of it if evolution is true.

Why? Evolution doesn't make moral judgements.

Since a billion years ago we were small cells what wrong can I do if I murder another?

Because we are human beings?

There's something wrong with you if the only reason you aren't raping or pillaging is because religion stays your hand.

After all, that person, or at least there sense of personhood is only the result of a lot of chemicals and a few billion years of evolution.

'only'?

In fact why would there be any rule about not murdering another human if human or that definition is only a transition anyway.

Morals aren't biological. They're memes. They couldn't biologically evolve and so aren't part of the theory of evolution.

6: This point I just need guidance for sure. I have not had any reading or course on this information so how is it that scientists unearth skeletons and they are able to determine the subtle evolutionary changes in biological systems when all they have is a skeleton? I know that probably sounds stupid to those of you who are informed but please guide me to where I can figure this out or just flat out explain it to me.

Paleontologists and anthropologists cannot determine subtle evolutionary changes, like fur colour or the evolution of their vocalisations. They work with bones instead. Structural adaptations often result in a rearrangement of the bones. For example, palaeontologists can tell how the length of the tibiotarsus has changed in dinosaur-birds by comparing many specimens.

 

[shernren]

You would think so but when you make something as random as spontaneous mutations your driving force it's hard to identify trackable patterns. Most mutations are the result of transcript errors that get through the cell cycle check points. The odds of getting a favorable outcome from a random transcript error hardly seems likely. All I can figure is that there are mechanisms that change alleles, shut genes on and off, swap out dominate and recessive traits and change alleles in a profoundly sweeping fashion. We know that a lot of adaptive mechanisms are highly responsive to environmental influences but the fascination mainstream science has with random mutations makes it hard to see.

Hoo boy. Define the terms transcription and transcript error as you are using them, please. Because you are definitely not using these terms the way real biology uses them.

I really hope this isn't going to be another "amino acids code for proteins" moment.

 

[Split Rock]

Most mutations don't do anything at all, they can't affect fittness in any way shape or form no matter how long they accumulate.

Agreed

Most of the ones the affect fittness are deleterious (harmfull)

Harmful mutations are selected against. Helpful ones are selected for. That is why Natural Selection is so important.

Most mutations are the result of transcript errors that get through the cell cycle check points. The odds of getting a favorable outcome from a random transcript error hardly seems likely.

Wooow there. Transcription errors are not mutations and only affect the one RNA molecule that is being synthesized. DNA Replication errors produce mutations, along with agents that damage DNA.

All I can figure is that there are mechanisms that change alleles, shut genes on and off, swap out dominate and recessive traits and change alleles in a profoundly sweeping fashion.

The mechanism that changes alleles is called mutation. Regulatory genes switch other genes on and off, as do some other molecules, such as DNA-binding proteins. As far as I know there is no way to swap out dominate and recessive traits outside of assortive mating.

One of the biggest problems with evolution is that it starts billions of years ago and then projects from there to living systems of today. My perception is that science doesn't do that, science starts here and now and pretty much stays in the here and now.

This preception is wrong. We can learn about the past by studying its effects on the present.

 

[AFray]

Hey now, I don't know that name calling is approprate.

Haha, sorry. This was pasted from wikipedia because they described it better then I could from my memory of studying it.

 

[AFray]

Speciation does not take billions of years, it usually takes much less time. In fact, speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. The following list is originally from Lucuspa:

This helps. Since each instance wasn't comepletly explained its going to take me some time to start going through these, especially since I'm going to need to study some of the terminology. Thanks.

 

[Pesto]

1) Short answer, yes. Any mutation that negatively affects a creature's reproductive success generally won't persist in a population. Any mutation that is neutral will spread randomly, and those that positively affect a creature's reproductive success will spread through the population. One important point that is usually missed is that what determines whether a specific trait is beneficial or deleterious is the environment. If the environment changes, a trait that was previously beneficial could become a hinderance, or what was once a benign mutation could become a huge windfall.

2) Think of Punctuated Equilibrium in this light. Evolution will not always progress at the same speed. If there is a bunch of critters that are well suited to their environment, all of the selection pressures are going to be for them to stay the same. As long as their environment stays fairly constant, they likely won't evolve at all, or if they do, very slowly. When the environment changes there will be new selection pressures and the critters will begin to evolve more rapidly.

As to the fossil record, not every critter ends up as a fossil. As with all investigations of history, as time marches on evidence gets lost, so no, we shouldn't expect an "infinitely great amount" of anything in the fossil record. Now, if we could hop in our time machine and take a biological snapshot every twenty years or so, yes, I think we would see the kind of transition you are talking about. Since we can't, this is why new fossils are news worthy.

3) I don't really know enough about the specific evolution of either the eye or the nervous system to answer this, so I'll leave it to the others.

4) We are a social species. By cooperating we enhance all of our chances of survival (and procreation). Imagine you were to be selfish and not give your friend the larger piece of cake. If you treated enough people like this, you wouldn't have a whole lot of friends, which means you wouldn't have a whole lot of people to help you out when you get in a bind. Meanwhile, the people who are nice to each other help each other out of difficult and possibly dangerous situations. Who's going to have a better chance to survive?

5) See 4.

6) There is more evidence than just skeletons. If you look at some archaeopteryx fossils, you will clearly see impressions of feathers. There are also times where stomach contents are apparent. Insects fossilize in amber preserving the whole organism. Fossilized footprints help tell us how some creatures moved. I'm sure there's lots more that I don't know about.

Kudos to being genuinely curious about this.

 

[AFray]

Everyone has on average a few mutations. Most do not have any phenotypic effect, so they are not noticeable. Remember however, that populations evolve not individuals. Why would you think that the human population would be made up of individuals of different "stages?" We are all one species.

What are the phenotypic mutations that scientists point to in lets say humans? From the definition of phenotype on wikipedia it seems to me they are saying that phenotype is determined by variation within a genotype caused by nature? But variation within a species by genes that already are there doesn't point to a mechanism that has the force of creating new species does it? Or do I understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype wrong?

My issue was when I look around or when I was in my health classes I don't see the very slow process of inherited phenotypic mutations. That is why I was talking about stages. Is it wrong for me to assume that they should be there? If there are tons of mutations and lets say we get a phenotypic change, according to the evolutionary theory, they should be all over the place right? I say this because only a very few of them are going to be favorable right? And those few that are favorable will only be passed on so long as that person is helped in reproducing. So am I blind? By definition it seems these phenotypic changes would be very small and build up over time to result in something that determines better fitness. So let’s take humans, where are they?

It is old hat in a sense, but every transitional fossil we find gives us new information on the history of evolution on earth. How could the news of finding a new transitional be evidence that there are not enough??

It is strange to me that finding a transitional these days can be news by what the evolutionary theory postulates. Darwin himself says that the fossil record must have an inconceivably great amount of tranistionals. How can it conceivably be only "old hat in a sense" when all life came about over billions of years and Darwinism has been around for over a hundred years with people seeking out the evidence of it? I'll go into more depth on what I think about this when I respond to a few later posts.

 

[michabo]

By definition it seems these phenotypic changes would be very small and build up over time to result in something that determines better fitness. So let’s take humans, where are they?

I posted a link to another CF discussion. Have you read it? It's illuminating and should give you many examples.

There are also the trivial examples of the different appearances of the different races. These have arisen over a relatively short period of time, sometimes as little as 10,000 years.

 

[AFray]

Did I just understand you right, you were exposes to Dawkins, Gould...etc in an epistomology class? I'm not really confused just curious, if you wanted to share any insights you may have picked up I'd be interested in hearing them.

Well that would have been cool but it was actually two different courses. A course that studied the historical relationships between science and religion as well as a different course on epistimology.

Your brain being a prime example.

Can you elaborate? I didn't understand what you were saying here.