The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems to me that this discussion is about natural selection rather than macro-evolution. It seems every time someone asks for scientific evidence for macro-evolution they are giving evidence for natural selection (micro-evolution) which most people whether creationists, evolutionists and everyone inbetween already accept.

In reality, there is no "distinct" process in evolution known as "macro evolution".

Creationists tend to coin that term, as if it is some "special" aspect of the evolutionary process, but it isn't.


There is no "line" that makes the accumulation of micro changes turn into "macro changes".

Instead, it's an idea merely relative to a point of origin.

Consider the evolution of this binary string:

GEN0: 0001 0000 0001 0000
GEN1: 0001 0010 0001 0000
GEN2: 0001 0011 0001 0000
GEN3: 0001 0011 0011 0000
GEN4: 0001 0011 0011 0010
GEN5: 0001 0011 0011 0011
GEN6: 0001 0011 0011 1011
GEN7: 0001 0011 0010 1011
GEN8: 0001 0011 1010 1011
GEN9: 0001 1011 1010 1011

In every generation, just one bit was changed. So the difference between generation X and X-1 is just a single bit.

"macro evolution", would be the difference between the binary string in GEN9 and the binary string in the point of origin, in GEN0.

There is no single step where "evolution" turns into "macro evolution". It's just a matter of perspective and nothing else. The mechanisms that power it are / stay the exact same.

 

[Kylie]

In reality, there is no "distinct" process in evolution known as "macro evolution".

Creationists tend to coin that term, as if it is some "special" aspect of the evolutionary process, but it isn't.


There is no "line" that makes the accumulation of micro changes turn into "macro changes".

Instead, it's an idea merely relative to a point of origin.

Consider the evolution of this binary string:

GEN0: 0001 0000 0001 0000
GEN1: 0001 0010 0001 0000
GEN2: 0001 0011 0001 0000
GEN3: 0001 0011 0011 0000
GEN4: 0001 0011 0011 0010
GEN5: 0001 0011 0011 0011
GEN6: 0001 0011 0011 1011
GEN7: 0001 0011 0010 1011
GEN8: 0001 0011 1010 1011
GEN9: 0001 1011 1010 1011

In every generation, just one bit was changed. So the difference between generation X and X-1 is just a single bit.

"macro evolution", would be the difference between the binary string in GEN9 and the binary string in the point of origin, in GEN0.

There is no single step where "evolution" turns into "macro evolution". It's just a matter of perspective and nothing else. The mechanisms that power it are / stay the exact same.

Great example of how small changes can lead to large changes over many generations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every time some one gives an example of this it is merely micro-evolution and is just a another variation within the one kind of creature well within its genetic possibilities.

OBVIOUSLY..... The process of evolution will not do things that are "outside" the genetic possibilities. Derp.

And yes, speciation is a vertical process... A species always speciates into a sub-species. Evolution is a branching tree. Branches split in sub-branches. Species don't "jump" to parallell branches.

And as I have already explained, it's not like "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are different aspects of evolution.... There is no line where "micro" turns into "macro".

Evolution is the accumulation of small changes through inheritance. No matter to what level you zoom. At bottom, that is what happens.... Every new generation is slightly different from the previous one.

No new genetic information is created or developing with new mutations either, just a loss of information from what I can see.

That is just demonstrably false. A quick look at what type of mutations are possible, is enough to burry that silly proposition.

 

[Kylie]

Well those interested can learn what Professor Giertych has to say from his own lips.

Yes, and as Subduction Zone pointed out in post 584, this guy has zero expertise in the field of evolution.

So why should we pay any attention to his opinions on the topic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe not but it means much the same thing to most people. People who don't agree with darwinist evolution mostly have no problem with accepting that most living creatures have an ability to adapt built into them which allows them to adapt to various different environments but not outside the limits built into their genetic code. This is natural selection. However I would like to hear your definition of what natural selection is and what micro evolution and macro evolution is and how they differ so that we are understanding each other what is meant by those terms.

Natural selection: the "best equipped" for the habitat / niche / environment have the best chance of surviving and reproducing.

Micro/macro evolution: there is no difference in underlying mechanisms. The only difference here is scale. Inches versus miles. 2 generations worth of accumulated micro-changes versus thousands of generations worth of accumulated micro-changes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you at least I know what you mean by the terminology. However one then needs to know what you mean by evolutionary change. If by evolutionary change one means that certain populations adapt or change due to variation or natural selection and artificial breeding then I believe in evolutionary change. However if by evolutionary change you mean a change that leads to a cat or dog or elephant no longer being a cat or dog or elephant then I don't accept it.

Nothing in evolution theory states that species X would turn into "not species X".

In fact, if that would happen, evolution theory would be falsified.

Tetrapods produce more tetrapods.
Mammals produce more mammals.
Primates produce more primates.
Felines produce more felines.

 

[Jimmy D]

using well poisoning language like "story telling" might impress the rubes in the revival tent,

It's worth highlighting that line for prosperity, it made me spit my coffee out on my my desk.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Professor Maciej Giertych stated, "Evolutionists main argument is that there are small positive (beneficial) mutations which occur in the reproductive cells and are then retained by natural selection. These mutations, they say, accumulate and cause one species to gradually change into another. I am a geneticist and I can confirm that in all the laboratories around the world where many generations of organisms have been produced, no where have positive mutations ever been observed. For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information. There is no natural process known which will produce these new genes either by isolation, selection, mutation, or breeding. This is not possible."

It seems that this "professor" is a plain old liar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many of these socalled benefits are due to a loss of genetic information in these mutations. I think the Professors point "For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information" is the crux of the matter. Aren't your rather vague multiple processes based on evolutionary philosophical ideas like evolutionary necessity rather than observable evidence.

Gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation in those duplacted genes.
Done.

 

[USincognito]

Gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation in those duplacted genes.
Done.

I posted links to four papers discussing the evolution of new globin producing alleles via whole genome duplication and got boilerplate as my response.

 

[Aronbengilad]

In reality, there is no "distinct" process in evolution known as "macro evolution".

Creationists tend to coin that term, as if it is some "special" aspect of the evolutionary process, but it isn't.


There is no "line" that makes the accumulation of micro changes turn into "macro changes".

Instead, it's an idea merely relative to a point of origin.

Consider the evolution of this binary string:

GEN0: 0001 0000 0001 0000
GEN1: 0001 0010 0001 0000
GEN2: 0001 0011 0001 0000
GEN3: 0001 0011 0011 0000
GEN4: 0001 0011 0011 0010
GEN5: 0001 0011 0011 0011
GEN6: 0001 0011 0011 1011
GEN7: 0001 0011 0010 1011
GEN8: 0001 0011 1010 1011
GEN9: 0001 1011 1010 1011

In every generation, just one bit was changed. So the difference between generation X and X-1 is just a single bit.

"macro evolution", would be the difference between the binary string in GEN9 and the binary string in the point of origin, in GEN0.

There is no single step where "evolution" turns into "macro evolution". It's just a matter of perspective and nothing else. The mechanisms that power it are / stay the exact same.

Thank you for your explanation.

 

[Aronbengilad]

OBVIOUSLY..... The process of evolution will not do things that are "outside" the genetic possibilities. Derp.

And yes, speciation is a vertical process... A species always speciates into a sub-species. Evolution is a branching tree. Branches split in sub-branches. Species don't "jump" to parallell branches.

And as I have already explained, it's not like "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are different aspects of evolution.... There is no line where "micro" turns into "macro".

Evolution is the accumulation of small changes through inheritance. No matter to what level you zoom. At bottom, that is what happens.... Every new generation is slightly different from the previous one.



That is just demonstrably false. A quick look at what type of mutations are possible, is enough to burry that silly proposition.

Like what?

 

[Aronbengilad]

Yes, and as Subduction Zone pointed out in post 584, this guy has zero expertise in the field of evolution.

So why should we pay any attention to his opinions on the topic?

His area is population genetics so I think that is pretty relevant. If he had expertise in the area of evolution that would mean he was just an approved evangelist for evolution which would not interest me at all.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Natural selection: the "best equipped" for the habitat / niche / environment have the best chance of surviving and reproducing.

Micro/macro evolution: there is no difference in underlying mechanisms. The only difference here is scale. Inches versus miles. 2 generations worth of accumulated micro-changes versus thousands of generations worth of accumulated micro-changes.

TagliatelliMonster I would like to thank you for your (mostly) calm and clear presentation of information which I think anyone reading this would gain some benefit. The approach of some others done with a sneer and air of their own superiority doesn't help to communicate much.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation in those duplacted genes.
Done.

I can't see how any new information is gained by such a process only a loss.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like what?

Duplication, among other things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't see how any new information is gained by such a process only a loss.

lol, wut???

Consider this binary string:
Ex1: 0000 1111 0101 1010

Let's duplicate the last byte and insert it in front of said string.
Ex2: 0101 1010 0000 1111 0101 1010

In what universe does Ex2 constitute a "loss" of information as opposed to in Ex1? How does Ex2 not contain more information then Ex1??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TagliatelliMonster I would like to thank you for your (mostly) calm and clear presentation of information which I think anyone reading this would gain some benefit. The approach of some others done with a sneer and air of their own superiority doesn't help to communicate much.

Why thank you, my pleasure.

But this is the second time that you merely "thank" me for a "post well done". I'ld rather discuss the actual points raised instead of if I was clear or polite.

So, could you perhaps acknowledge the actual points raised?
Is there anything you disagree with? If so, what exactly and why?

 

[Aronbengilad]

I will keep all you atheists in my prayers and leave you to your evolutionary fantasies and stories. By the way I quite like stories and storytelling and think it is valuable in every area of learning as long as one remains open to being wrong and adapting and changing them when presented with new evidence. I am quite happy to admit I might be wrong about evolution but I think I would rather have such a conversation with more pleasant communicators who are more open minded and free spirited rather than a brunch of people who seem to be choleric melancholics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will keep all you atheists in my prayers and leave you to your evolutionary fantasies and stories

What "fantasies" and "stories"?

You thanked me twice for "posts well done". This above statement leads me to believe that for some reason you don't agree with the contents of those posts.

Take the one concerning "macro evolution" for example... what is your problem with that point?

By the way I quite like stories and storytelling and think it is valuable in every area of learning as long as one remains open to being wrong and adapting and changing them when presented with new evidence

All of science takes that stance - and that includes evolutionary biology.

I am quite happy to admit I might be wrong about evolution but I think I would rather have such a conversation with more pleasant communicators who are more open minded and free spirited rather than a brunch of people who seem to be choleric melancholics.

Well, at least you admit that you might be wrong about creationism. I guess that is something.

But you need to understand how the field of evolutionary biology was settled some 2 centuries ago. To still argue against it, as a westerner with easy access to education and the internet, in the 21st century is pretty much on par with arguing in favor of a flat earth or geocentrism.

I mean, the science has been done. The jury is not "out" on the issue. The issue is settled (or at least, as close to settled as it gets in science).

It is not surprising at all to see that every argument against evolutionary biology has one or more of the following ingredients:
- a lack of understanding of what it really says
- a fundamentalist religious bias
- plain old dishonesty

I have yet to encounter an argument against evolutionary biology, that is not based on one or more of those three things.