The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

So what? We all understand that scientific theories are only provisional and subject to change. The EES people have interesting ideas; maybe some of them will pan out and become part of the "Standard" theory as well.
No, they're theistic evolutionists precisely because they can reconcile the science with belief in a creator God.

Generally speaking I agree but this certainly explains the science but can it explain how their belief fits in with that. Can they show how this works beyond just citing that God created some universal organism and then have Neo-Darwinism taking over. Becuase that relegates God to one act and leaves the rest to a blind and random process. According to Darwin and many of the pioneers of evolution as well as modern-day supporters Neo-Darwinism eliminates the need for a creator God.

That, according to Darwins convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor. And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years.
Darwin on a Godless Creation: "It's like confessing to a murder"

 

[Speedwell]

Generally speaking I agree but this certainly explains the science but can it explain how their belief fits in with that. Can they show how this works beyond just citing that God created some universal organism and then have Neo-Darwinism taking over. Becuase that relegates God to one act and leaves the rest to a blind and random process.

In the first place, I don't know what you mean by random. There is nothing random about evolution except the random (bell curve) distribution of reproductive variation. Secondly, you seem to be stuck with the idea that divine providence can only manifest itself in the material universe through the same kind of naturalistic causality that science studies.

According to Darwin and many of the pioneers of evolution as well as modern-day supporters Neo-Darwinism eliminates the need for a creator God.

And if you think EES will change that, you're in for a disappointment. You are going to have to come to terms with it on a theological level.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Generally speaking I agree but this certainly explains the science but can it explain how their belief fits in with that. Can they show how this works beyond just citing that God created some universal organism and then have Neo-Darwinism taking over. Becuase that relegates God to one act and leaves the rest to a blind and random process. According to Darwin and many of the pioneers of evolution as well as modern-day supporters Neo-Darwinism eliminates the need for a creator God.

That, according to Darwins convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor. And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years.
Darwin on a Godless Creation: "It's like confessing to a murder"

But I'm still not sure why I need any evolution? I see variation occur all the time without it, like when a Husky mates with a Mastiff or an Asian mates with an African. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook, nor does the Asian or African evolve into the Afro-Asian. In fact the Asian remains Asian, the African, African; the Husky, Husky and the Mastiff, mastiff. Just like in the fossil record where every creature remains the same from the oldest to youngest found for that creature. They just cant tell what creature mated with what creature from a pile of bones.....

 

[Shemjaza]

But I'm still not sure why I need any evolution? I see variation occur all the time without it, like when a Husky mates with a Mastiff or an Asian mates with an African. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook, nor does the Asian or African evolve into the Afro-Asian. In fact the Asian remains Asian, the African, African; the Husky, Husky and the Mastiff, mastiff. Just like in the fossil record where every creature remains the same from the oldest to youngest found for that creature. They just cant tell what creature mated with what creature from a pile of bones.....

Will you ever acknowledge that genetic evidence demonstrates that your ideas are false?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Will you ever acknowledge that genetic evidence demonstrates that your ideas are false?

Genetic evidence showed those finches have been interbreeding from the start and so Speciation never occurred. Doesn’t stop you from holding on to your false ideas.

Genetic evidence showed E. Coli remained E. Coli. Doesn’t stop you from holding on to your false ideas.

Genetic evidence showed Afro-Asians are simply a combination of Asian and African genomes, not magical evolution. Doesn’t stop you from holding on to your false ideas.

Did you have specific genetic evidence you wished to discuss or just throwing out propaganda?

 

[Shemjaza]

Genetic evidence showed those finches have been interbreeding from the start and so Speciation never occurred. Doesn’t stop you from holding on to your false ideas.

Genetic evidence showed E. Coli remained E. Coli. Doesn’t stop you from holding on to your false ideas.

Genetic evidence showed Afro-Asians are simply a combination of Asian and African genomes, not magical evolution. Doesn’t stop you from holding on to your false ideas.

Did you have specific genetic evidence you wished to discuss or just throwing out propaganda?

The fact that ancient examples of modern species didn't have fundamentally less non coding DNA. And that it is impossible to have more then the one version of gene you get from each parent. So an individual can't hold more diversity that splits into multiple races or breeds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The fact that ancient examples of modern species didn't have fundamentally less non coding DNA. And that it is impossible to have more then the one version of gene you get from each parent. So an individual can't hold more diversity that splits into multiple races or breeds.

How would you know what ancient Species DNA had? We have no samples more than a claimed few 10's of thousands of years...

Ahhhh, you mean from your belief in your belief on the rate of evolution and your belief in how the DNA would change....

Why not, wolves became over 100 breeds of dogs through simple breeding, so apparently individuals can and do hold more than you actually believe they can.

 

[Shemjaza]

How would you know what ancient Species DNA had? We have no samples more than a claimed few 10's of thousands of years...

Ahhhh, you mean from your belief in your belief on the rate of evolution and your belief in how the DNA would change....

Why not, wolves became over 100 breeds of dogs through simple breeding, so apparently individuals can and do hold more than you actually believe they can.

No, apparently not.

We have canine DNA from before modern dog breeds (the majority of which occurred in recent recorded history), and we know exactly where the diversity of modern breeds come from: mutations. It's a trivially observed phenomena that makes changes to DNA which in turn leads to changes in phenotype.

 

[stevevw]

In the first place, I don't know what you mean by random. There is nothing random about evolution except the random (bell curve) distribution of reproductive variation.

I assume you mean variation produced by random mutations. If so this is the randomness I refer to and along with blind natural selection is claimed to be a naturalistic process that does away with the need for a creator God.

Secondly, you seem to be stuck with the idea that divine providence can only manifest itself in the material universe through the same kind of naturalistic causality that science studies. And if you think EES will change that, you're in for a disappointment. You are going to have to come to terms with it on a theological level.

But if this is the case then that would contradict the claim that theistic evolutionists have reconciled the science with their beliefs. In that sense, their version of evolution includes supernatural interventions that help things along. That is still having a bet each way. I think we can use a theological understanding of the overall scheme of how life came about.

But as far as how life is able to change and evolve this would have to be through physical/biological processes for how God intervened in the beginning. It is the laws, codes other processes such as in physical development, HGT, changes in form through plasticity and changes to environments and ecosystems that God may have used to help living things adapt to changing conditions. These are more self-organising and directed processes that all life may have had from the beginning to help them live on this planet and are understood through the EES.

 

[stevevw]

But I'm still not sure why I need any evolution? I see variation occur all the time without it, like when a Husky mates with a Mastiff or an Asian mates with an African. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook, nor does the Asian or African evolve into the Afro-Asian. In fact the Asian remains Asian, the African, African; the Husky, Husky and the Mastiff, mastiff. Just like in the fossil record where every creature remains the same from the oldest to youngest found for that creature. They just cant tell what creature mated with what creature from a pile of bones.....

The word evolution is not just associated with Darwin's theory. It represents change/modification whether through development, breeding, engineering, technology etc. The processes associated with the EES are showing that change does not have to come from Darwinian evolution but can come through other processes such as in development and influences from environments and behaviour.
So there may be certain in-built development programs that produce certain forms that are more likely to happen but as you point out with dog breeding may have limitations rather than any possibility.

 

[stevevw]

No, apparently not.

We have canine DNA from before modern dog breeds (the majority of which occurred in recent recorded history), and we know exactly where the diversity of modern breeds come from: mutations. It's a trivially observed phenomena that makes changes to DNA which in turn leads to changes in phenotype.

Not necessarily. Research shows there are limitations to dog evolution. Changes in form can come from a number of other processes.

 

[Speedwell]

I assume you mean variation produced by random mutations.

No, I mean randomly distributed reproductive variation to which mutations contribute but are not the sole cause.

If so this is the randomness I refer to...

Evidently it isn't.

and along with blind natural selection

Why "blind?" What is there for it to see?

is claimed to be a naturalistic process that does away with the need for a creator God.

"Is claimed to be?" What a cop out. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, is consistent with with both theism and atheism. It does not require disbelief in God.

But if this is the case then that would contradict the claim that theistic evolutionists have reconciled the science with their beliefs. In that sense, their version of evolution includes supernatural interventions that help things along.

It may be that there are theistic evolutionists who believe such. I do not, and think it entirely unnecessary.

That is still having a bet each way. I think we can use a theological understanding of the overall scheme of how life came about.

What I meant was that you need to come to a better theological understanding of causality. You still seem to think that identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon denies a divine cause and that what you see as a blind and random process poses a barrier to divine providence,.

But as far as how life is able to change and evolve this would have to be through physical/biological processes for how God intervened in the beginning. It is the laws, codes other processes such as in physical development, HGT, changes in form through plasticity and changes to environments and ecosystems that God may have used to help living things adapt to changing conditions. These are more self-organising and directed processes that all life may have had from the beginning to help them live on this planet and are understood through the EES.

"That God may have used to help living things adapt to changing conditions?" Sounds like you are trying to have a bet both ways like you imagine theistic evolutionists are trying to do and sneer at them for. But EES is not going to provide you with a window of opportunity for that "help." It is just as thoroughly naturalistic as the rest of the theory of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

No, I mean randomly distributed reproductive variation to which mutations contribute but are not the sole cause.

Ok, but when you say randomly distributed variation this is still an unguided process that will throw up a number of possibilities good and bad. I was referring to what is claimed as the main source of Neo Darwinism in what is called random mutations.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

I am talking about the difference between those random variations and more directed and self-organising change of which some do not even involve changes in genes. It is these sources of variation that may come from mechanisms such as the development process, epigenetics and plasticity that may point to inbuilt abilities all living things have to help them adapt to environments.

Evidently it isn't.

If it is the standard mutation that evolution often speaks of then they are random because they do not have any direction or know what a living thing needs to adapt ahead of time. As opposed to some of the EES processes that direct change by providing well-suited variations by providing certain outcomes over others or by allowing living things to influence change themselves.

Why "blind?" What is there for it to see?

Natural selection is said to be blind as far as seeing ahead to what may be needed to help a creature adapt to its environment. So long as there is some survival advantage it does not matter whether the variation is good, bad or ugly. As many have said there is no purpose or goal for Natural selection.

natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

"Is claimed to be?" What a cop out. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, is consistent with both theism and atheism. It does not require disbelief in God.

Then why do the person who made the theory in Charles Darwin and most of the pioneers and prominent supporters state that the theory does away with Gods creation or the more common statement “Design without a Designer”.

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer
Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin's discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer

It may be that there are theistic evolutionists who believe such. I do not, and think it entirely unnecessary.

But if your view of evolution does not include supernatural interventions and supports Neo-Darwinism then this contradicts a creator God i.e. as it has been promoted. “Design without a designer”. It is the same for theories about how the universe came about. Scientific theories like Inflation theory try to explain the universe coming from a naturalistic process that created itself without the need for a God. Unless you disagree with the conclusions and view the observations as being the result of other processes, hence ID interpret the same evidence being the result of design processes.

What I meant was that you need to come to a better theological understanding of causality. You still seem to think that identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon denies a divine cause and that what you see as a blind and random process poses a barrier to divine providence,.

I suppose you could rationalize those ideas into your belief but then you would have to rely on faith to support those ideas being caused by a naturalistic process that others say does away with the need for God. I cannot reconcile Neo-Darwinism as a natural process that relates to a creator God because of the very definition the creators of the theory give to it i.e. Design without a designer.

That is why I say theistic evolutionist would have to interpret the evidence differently or just have faith that God used evolution as a way to help living things survive on earth. Its all a matter of how one understands how evolution works. My view is there are natural processes that do fit in with a creator God better such as some of the processes within the EES. Equipping life with mechanisms and abilities that help them adapt is more of a logical explanation.

God gave us the ability to understand his creation through science and not just entirely through faith. That’s why I say that I would think people who support theistic evolution have to rely on faith as to exactly how God uses evolution because the scientific explanation seeks to exclude a creator God.

"That God may have used to help living things adapt to changing conditions?" Sounds like you are trying to have a bet both ways like you imagine theistic evolutionists are trying to do and sneer at them for. But EES is not going to provide you with a window of opportunity for that "help." It is just as thoroughly naturalistic as the rest of the theory of evolution.

Not really, like I said I think there have to be natural processes that point to Gods creation if you want to use the science. Those will be the mechanisms and processes that life has been equipped with from the beginning. Some of the processes within the EES point to this such as development processes that are biased towards producing certain forms rather than any possibility that is suggested by the Standard evolution theory. This points more to design.

It’s not a case of having a bet each way but finding the natural processes and laws that do point to design rather than just having faith that God must have done it through the science. That’s why I say some theistic evolutionists just believe evolution was used by God and do not really understand what the theory represents according to the science.

Not all scientific theories are correct and still need to be understood and tested. But it is more important for believers in God to scrutinize the science as far as how it fits in with their beliefs rather than just believing so because of the science. I believe we can get a better understanding of Gods creation by understanding the science behind it.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am talking about the difference between those random variations and more directed and self-organising change of which some do not even involve changes in genes. It is these sources of variation that may come from mechanisms such as the development process, epigenetics and plasticity that may point to inbuilt abilities all living things have to help them adapt to environments.

You have mentioned this on several occasions, but always - as far as I have read - in a very general way. Can you flesh this out with some specifics, ideally in your own words, but supported by relevant citations to peer reviewed research? This would facilitate a meaningful discussion about your views on this. On a related matter, but distinct from the foregoing point, would you agree that your view necessarily includes an implicit measure of teleology?

 

[Speedwell]

Not a bad response. You appear to have a fair understanding of the theory of evolution--rare in a creationist--but you are still in deep water metaphysically.

But if your view of evolution does not include supernatural interventions and supports Neo-Darwinism then this contradicts a creator God i.e. as it has been promoted. “Design without a designer”.

Right. Design without divine intervention through the kind of natural causes which science studies.

I suppose you could rationalize those ideas into your belief but then you would have to rely on faith to support those ideas being caused by a naturalistic process that others say does away with the need for God.

Of course I rely on faith. In fact, I distrust any other position.

That is why I say theistic evolutionist would have to interpret the evidence differently or just have faith that God used evolution as a way to help living things survive on earth. Its all a matter of how one understands how evolution works. My view is there are natural processes that do fit in with a creator God better such as some of the processes within the EES. Equipping life with mechanisms and abilities that help them adapt is more of a logical explanation.

God gave us the ability to understand his creation through science and not just entirely through faith. That’s why I say that I would think people who support theistic evolution have to rely on faith as to exactly how God uses evolution because the scientific explanation seeks to exclude a creator God.

It doesn't "seek to exclude." It is just indifferent to God's existence.

Not really, like I said I think there have to be natural processes that point to Gods creation if you want to use the science. Those will be the mechanisms and processes that life has been equipped with from the beginning. Some of the processes within the EES point to this such as development processes that are biased towards producing certain forms rather than any possibility that is suggested by the Standard evolution theory. This points more to design.

I don't believe you will find any, I don't think there are any. Further, I think you are wasting your time looking at EES for them. EES is just as firmly naturalistic as the rest of evolutionary theory. You should spend that time instead studying the metaphysics of causality. Maybe you will learn why there don't have to be natural processes which point to God's creation.

It’s not a case of having a bet each way but finding the natural processes and laws that do point to design rather than just having faith that God must have done it through the science. That’s why I say some theistic evolutionists just believe evolution was used by God and do not really understand what the theory represents according to the science.

Of course they do. They understand that all scientific theories, including evolution, point to a completely naturalistic universe. They understand that faith is all there is. They understand that you are not going to find God's greasy thumbprint on the works and say "Aha! Natural causes alone could not have done this."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, apparently not.

We have canine DNA from before modern dog breeds (the majority of which occurred in recent recorded history), and we know exactly where the diversity of modern breeds come from: mutations. It's a trivially observed phenomena that makes changes to DNA which in turn leads to changes in phenotype.

Except the Grants found with actual real life, that interbreeding was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutation. This is because interbreeding changes several loci at once when the genes recombine at conception, while mutation only changes a single loci.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x

So I’ll stick with the facts instead of the propaganda if you don’t mind. Also you seem to be unaware of the Russian Silver Fox experiments where breeding for tamability alone produced changes in the foxes.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, but when you say randomly distributed variation this is still an unguided process that will throw up a number of possibilities good and bad. I was referring to what is claimed as the main source of Neo Darwinism in what is called random mutations.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

I am talking about the difference between those random variations and more directed and self-organising change of which some do not even involve changes in genes. It is these sources of variation that may come from mechanisms such as the development process, epigenetics and plasticity that may point to inbuilt abilities all living things have to help them adapt to environments.

Yes, the mutations are random, but which mutations are passed on to offspring are NOT random.

Any mutations which convey some difficulty to the organism will likely result in that organism NOT reaching maturity and producing offspring, hence the mutations will not get past on.

Any mutations that convey some benefit will make it more likely that the organism will reach maturity, and so beneficial mutations are more likely to be passed on.

Natural selection is said to be blind as far as seeing ahead to what may be needed to help a creature adapt to its environment. So long as there is some survival advantage it does not matter whether the variation is good, bad or ugly. As many have said there is no purpose or goal for Natural selection.

natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

Natural selection is blind in the sense that it won't try to keep the gills of an animal in case they could be useful in 100,000 years if getting rid of the gills produces a benefit in the here and now.

 

[Shemjaza]

Except the Grants found with actual real life, that interbreeding was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutation. This is because interbreeding changes several loci at once when the genes recombine at conception, while mutation only changes a single loci.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x

So I’ll stick with the facts instead of the propaganda if you don’t mind.

You are still ignoring the origin of this variation. Your magical mega phenotype ancestors are not in evidence and are impossible given any demonstrated genetics.

If two different species hybridize and breed true, there is a whole lot of variation to introduce, and yes faster then mutation.

However, where did the variation come from?

Also you seem to be unaware of the Russian Silver Fox experiments where breeding for tamability alone produced changes in the foxes.

Yes? That's all pretty standard evolution. The animals with very limited gene pool and very strict selection were able to change rapidly. It's selection for very specific genetic traits already in the population or for new mutations that support those traits. (A specific female had better behavior and I believe was the exclusive mother of the next generation).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, the mutations are random, but which mutations are passed on to offspring are NOT random.

Any mutations which convey some difficulty to the organism will likely result in that organism NOT reaching maturity and producing offspring, hence the mutations will not get past on.

Any mutations that convey some benefit will make it more likely that the organism will reach maturity, and so beneficial mutations are more likely to be passed on.



Natural selection is blind in the sense that it won't try to keep the gills of an animal in case they could be useful in 100,000 years if getting rid of the gills produces a benefit in the here and now.

But a single mutation won’t change gills into lungs. It would take thousands over millions of years.

So despite what you said you want us to believe that useless mutations are kept until they can all add up together to create a lung.

Why if I didn’t know better I would think you were implying intelligence working behind the scene, keeping mutations that do nothing yet until one has a fully functional lung from a gill.

 

[Shemjaza]

But a single mutation won’t change gills into lungs. It would take thousands over millions of years.

So despite what you said you want us to believe that useless mutations are kept until they can all add up together to create a lung.

Why if I didn’t know better I would think you were implying intelligence working behind the scene, keeping mutations that do nothing yet until one has a fully functional lung from a gill.

Gills don't turn into lungs. However there are many animals with both.

The point is that tiny steps of improvement are statistical advantages.