Why Does Evolution Stop?

[fromdownunder]

Well, I know this has been tried before, but I am not quite sure that it has occured that recently, at least, not from this particular angle.

Most YECs accept speciation these days (including AIG, one of the premier YEC sites), and most accept that evolution can occur up to a point ("micro evolution"). That point is usually the created "kind" level.

So, for YECs who accept this, all I want is two things:

1. A clear valid scientific definition of what a "kind" is (bearing in mind that "if it looks like a "---", it must be a "---" does not count); and

2. A falsifiable theory as to why "micro" evolution is possible up to and including any species at the "kind" level, but cannot continue beyond this point.

In other words, why is it thus far, but no further?

(For those who do not consider the above valid, please comment if you wish, but I would apreciate it if you would not attempt to derail the thread by going off on tangents. Thanks.

Norm

 

[Tiphereth]

Well, I know this has been tried before, but I am not quite sure that it has occured that recently, at least, not from this particular angle.

Most YECs accept speciation these days (including AIG, one of the premier YEC sites), and most accept that evolution can occur up to a point ("micro evolution"). That point is usually the created "kind" level.

So, for YECs who accept this, all I want is two things:

1. A clear valid scientific definition of what a "kind" is (bearing in mind that "if it looks like a "---", it must be a "---" does not count); and

2. A falsifiable theory as to why "micro" evolution is possible up to and including any species at the "kind" level, but cannot continue beyond this point.

In other words, why is it thus far, but no further?

(For those who do not consider the above valid, please comment if you wish, but I would apreciate it if you would not attempt to derail the thread by going off on tangents. Thanks.

Norm

Greetings and Salutations.

On the second point, perhaps it might also be related to the lack of time, as the Earth is supposed to be only 6000 years old, according to the Young-Earth Creationist perspective. At least, that's what one YEC remarked to me once.

Thanks for considering my post.

 

[moogoob]

1. A clear valid scientific definition of what a "kind" is (bearing in mind that "if it looks like a "---", it must be a "---" does not count)

Good luck. We've had whole 150+ post-long threads about the definition of "kind" and met no satisfactory or even agreed-upon answer.

 

[Edx]

Good luck. We've had whole 150+ post-long threads about the definition of "kind" and met no satisfactory or even agreed-upon answer.

Unless I missed something, they didnt even try.

 

[shadowmage36]

Well, as near as I can tell, human evolution has, at this point in time, effectively come to a halt, at least physically. Because of medical advances, global travel, and the like, one can spread one's genetic code all across the planet without much effort, and even if said code induces bad things to happen, such as hereditary diseases, we now have the technology to treat them and keep people alive long enough to reproduce and pass on those same debilitating condtions.

However, that's just my theory. I could easily be wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well, as near as I can tell, human evolution has, at this point in time, effectively come to a halt, at least physically. Because of medical advances, global travel, and the like, one can spread one's genetic code all across the planet without much effort, and even if said code induces bad things to happen, such as hereditary diseases, we now have the technology to treat them and keep people alive long enough to reproduce and pass on those same debilitating condtions.

However, that's just my theory. I could easily be wrong.

just in my short lifetime i've seen a change in:

height
weight
wisdom teeth
eyes (due to glasses and contacts)
athletic performance (abilities of the high end)
diabetes
autism
alzheimers

evolution is the changing % of different alleles in a population over time.

when i hear things like the quote above, i can't help but thinking that the author sees evolution as some kind of physical progression, not simply any change, as in the direction of the dunkards walk.

 

[shadowmage36]

Hmm...excellent point. I hadn't thought about that angle...

I stand corrected.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, I know this has been tried before, but I am not quite sure that it has occured that recently, at least, not from this particular angle.

Most YECs accept speciation these days (including AIG, one of the premier YEC sites), and most accept that evolution can occur up to a point ("micro evolution"). That point is usually the created "kind" level.

So, for YECs who accept this, all I want is two things:

1. A clear valid scientific definition of what a "kind" is (bearing in mind that "if it looks like a "---", it must be a "---" does not count); and

2. A falsifiable theory as to why "micro" evolution is possible up to and including any species at the "kind" level, but cannot continue beyond this point.

In other words, why is it thus far, but no further?

(For those who do not consider the above valid, please comment if you wish, but I would apreciate it if you would not attempt to derail the thread by going off on tangents. Thanks.

Norm

The purpose of the created "Kind" argument is to maintain the belief that Man was created by a specific act of God, and is not related to the dirty, souless animals that Darwinists insist we come from.

Other than that, they insist that mutations do not add any information, or benefit to an organism. Therefore, variation is limited to what exisited in the gene pool at the time of Creation. Some make exceptions for mutations that are detrimental, as part of the Curse that resulted from The Fall.

 

[Hydra009]

That's a good question. Since YECs propose an extremely rapid evolution (too rapid for ToE mechanisms) from created kinds in the past 6,000 years, then how come we haven't observered some really drastic evolutionary changes in the past 2,000 years or so?

 

[AlwaysThinking]

Was this thread DOA? or did it just sink too fast to get real replies? seemed promising at first

 

[Deren]

Rather than file through the babble in the OP, I thought I would just ask in regard to the OP question: When Did Evolution Ever Start?

 

[metherion]

Apparently, micro-evolution started the first time anything ever had a little that-same-thing. Even according to AiG. Since (micro)evolution would have started as soon as things began reproducing, the first reproductions would therefore have been the first bits of (micro)evolution.

Also, I would say that breeding is a type of evolution. We're taking the most fruitful, the fastest growing, the tastiest, the whateverest of various plants and animals and breeding them together to bring out those special traits that we like. Is this not evolution? Since the plants and animals that survive are the ones who have the genes for what humans want most, it would seem to be that it is. Just evolution controlled by humans insteadof by nature.

Also, there is a saying "civilization stops evolution." I agree with this statement, and I somewhat agree with shadowmage36's first post on this. While humans may indeed be growing taller, more athletic, etc., I am not fully convinced this is all in our genome. A lot of it is from improved diets and medical care, and more may be from what we put in food, like growth enzymes in milk and stuff. Just my thoughts on the matter.

God Bless!

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I know this has been tried before, but I am not quite sure that it has occured that recently, at least, not from this particular angle.

Most YECs accept speciation these days (including AIG, one of the premier YEC sites), and most accept that evolution can occur up to a point ("micro evolution"). That point is usually the created "kind" level.

At the level of Genus most likely, notice it has the same root word as Genesis.

So, for YECs who accept this, all I want is two things:

1. A clear valid scientific definition of what a "kind" is (bearing in mind that "if it looks like a "---", it must be a "---" does not count); and

Let's try Hominidae for a thousand Alex, but seriously, this is one such definition:

"A genus of the Hominidae with the following characters: the structure of the pelvic girdle and the hind-limb skeleton is adapted to habitual erect posture and bipedal gait; the fore-limb is shorter than the hind-limb; the pollex is well developed and fully opposable and the hand is capable not only of a power grip but of, at least, a simple and usually well developed precision grip"

(A New Species of the Genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge, L. Leakey, P. Tobias, J. Napier, Nature 1964)

The human brian is three times the size of the chimpanzees. Now that is a logical division of a specially created kind in a real world context of observed differences.

2. A falsifiable theory as to why "micro" evolution is possible up to and including any species at the "kind" level, but cannot continue beyond this point.

In other words, why is it thus far, but no further?

(For those who do not consider the above valid, please comment if you wish, but I would apreciate it if you would not attempt to derail the thread by going off on tangents. Thanks.

Norm

The specific traits associated with characteristics above the level of genus require massive reformations of genes. Naturalists who dispute the stability of species in a continuous evolution in the complete transformation of one originally created kind (OCKs) to another an indubitable proof that OCKs are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.

 

[fromdownunder]

Rather than file through the babble in the OP, I thought I would just ask in regard to the OP question: When Did Evolution Ever Start?

So, are you suggesting for example, that an Okapi is identical to a Giraffe, a relative, a different created "kind", or that they had a common ancestor?

Were there Great Danes, as well as Wolves and King George Spaniels son the Ark? Or were they just created at a later date?

The origiinal question is fairly simple: "What is a scientific definition of a created "kind"?

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

"A genus of the Hominidae with the following characters: the structure of the pelvic girdle and the hind-limb skeleton is adapted to habitual erect posture and bipedal gait; the fore-limb is shorter than the hind-limb; the pollex is well developed and fully opposable and the hand is capable not only of a power grip but of, at least, a simple and usually well developed precision grip"

(A New Species of the Genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge, L. Leakey, P. Tobias, J. Napier, Nature 1964)

The human brian is three times the size of the chimpanzees. Now that is a logical division of a specially created kind in a real world context of observed differences.

I am sorry but I am not quite following you here. Are you suggesting that YECs claim that within the taxanomic system, genus = "created kind", because I am pretty certain that they do not.

In fact, they do not, not have they ever provided a falsifiable scinetific definition of what a "created kind" is. Or more to the point, have postulated a number of definitions which are mutually exclusive.

Norm

 

[mark kennedy]

I am sorry but I am not quite following you here. Are you suggesting that YECs claim that within the taxanomic system, genus = "created kind", because I am pretty certain that they do not.

What I am saying is that change beyond the level of genus with regards to Pan and Homo represent a distinction between originally created kinds. It's as simple as that and we can go from there.

In fact, they do not, not have they ever provided a falsifiable scinetific definition of what a "created kind" is. Or more to the point, have postulated a number of definitions which are mutually exclusive.

Norm

I don't know exactly what kind of definition you are fishing for but I proposed one such distinction. The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzee and 6 times that normal for other mammals. There is a clear line of demarkation here beyond which apes cannot continuously evolve into another altogether different kind.

 

[fromdownunder]

What I am saying is that change beyond the level of genus with regards to Pan and Homo represent a distinction between originally created kinds. It's as simple as that and we can go from there.



I don't know exactly what kind of definition you are fishing for but I proposed one such distinction. The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzee and 6 times that normal for other mammals. There is a clear line of demarkation here beyond which apes cannot continuously evolve into another altogether different kind.

OK, to put it as simply as possible, where do created "kiinds" fit specifically into the taxonomic system, or don't they? And if they are something else, what is it?:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Norm

 

[JohnR7]

1. A clear valid scientific definition of what a "kind" is

A "kind" is a species, it is something that is able to grow, interbreed or multiply.

 

[Edx]

A "kind" is a species, it is something that is able to grow, interbreed or multiply.

No it isnt a "species" John. If you are going to use a scientific term use it properly. You cant just rewrite the definition of species just because you want to use the word.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Mutations are changes that occur to genes.


mutations occur in all the dna, not just that within genes, which is only about 3-5% of the total dna.