You may already accept evolution

[Phred]

All but the most extreme creationists admit that evolution, the change in the frequency of alleles within a population, is true. This has happened and is happening no matter what you believe about the origins of life.

Many would argue that while this "micro-evolution" happens it never could lead to enough change that, for example, a land creature could become a dolphin or whale.

Along with evolution as defined above, we have also observed speciation. That is, enough change within a population that the new species can no longer mate with the original population it came from. The usual retort is, "Sure, those lizards can't breed with each other... but they're still lizards!"

Yes, they are still lizards. But they can no longer interbreed and this is the key. You see, once a population can no longer breed with the original population any changes that occur within one group can no longer be transmitted to the other. This is very important. The changes that occur within one population are no longer able to be shared with the other. Thus the two groups can only continue to become more and more different over time.

If you agree that evolution occurs and you agree that the observations of speciation are valid, then you have no choice but to accept that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are simply different stages of the same process.

 

[Janus]

Excellent post, Phred. Too bad I can't rep you right now.

 

[vajradhara]

Excellent post, Phred. Too bad I can't rep you right now.

i got your back on that one

it is a very good post... and i am curious to see if it is addressed in a serious manner.

metta,

~v

 

[Apos]

I think the current hurdle most of the sort of "common-sense" style creationists (the ones that would be theistic evolutionists but are just too incredulous to think that evolution really could do large scale design) have is in seeing how radically different new structures could come about. The current refrain is something like "ok, so maybe evolution can speciate, but it's never created a new organ or major body structure!" They might even believe in some form of common descent (because fossils + genetics + geographic distribution patterns are just too much to dispute on this matter). But the complex structures? That's just too much to be believed.

This charge is a little harder to deal with because organs don't generally fossilize, which knocks out that helping hand in seeing how they developed.
This is where homology is our friend, of course. While modern life has no "primitive organs" in the sense that evolution on them stopped, the fact that life diverged at various points in the development of particular organs and systems, after which these organs and systems developed in differfent directions does allow us to have some sense of how to triangulate on how they developed. Genetic evidence then takes up a lot of the slack.

I would say that, as with the mammalian eye, there is already a fairly plausible first brush idea of how all the major organ systems evolved. Many simple animals have no real complex with-heart circulatory system, but we can see how a gradual development from this state would have led to some simple mechanism for squeezing the system to move fluids, which would have developed into a heart. From here, we have a pretty good idea of how higher-pressure systems would have demanded changes to things like clotting systems and the immune system and so on. We have a pretty good sense of how lungs developed in fish (especially since some modern creatures have both gills and lungs). The nervous system is the same. The digestive system is probably the easiest to understand.

While none of these stories is certain, neither are the "just-so" stories, given that they have a lot of evidence backing them up in the form of homology based on ancestry, and there is a way to ultimately check these ideas as the genetic evidence becomes more refined at tracking back the changes necessary. At the very least, they are good enough to overcome the claimed implausibility of them evolving gradually.

 

[Joman]

the change in the frequency of alleles within a population, is true.

Are there any scientific experimental examples of a mutation producing a change in alleles frequency? If so, please inform me, thank you.

Many would argue that while this "micro-evolution" happens it never could lead to enough change that, for example, a land creature could become a dolphin or whale.

There are no examples of macroevolution available to argue about.

Along with evolution as defined above, we have also observed speciation.

Macroevolution has never been observed.

That is, enough change within a population that the new species can no longer mate with the original population it came from.

This isn't what macro-evolution is.
The Bible tells us that a creature can only reproduce after it's own kind. The word reproduce informs us that the offspring are reproductions of the originating parents. The reproduction is allowed limited variation. God's allowance for varitation within the confines of a particular "kind" of creature produces breeds of "kinds" of creatures. But, none of the resulting breeds will be discovered to be a new "kind" of creature.
There are other reasons for an inability to reproduce then the one you gave.

The usual retort is, "Sure, those lizards can't breed with each other... but they're still lizards!"

There's nothing wrong with this retort. Just because two horses cannot breed doesn't define either one of them as a non-horse.

But they can no longer interbreed and this is the key.

This is a key that unlocks nothing of any controversial value in this debate concerning macro-evolution.

You see, once a population can no longer breed with the original population any changes that occur within one group can no longer be transmitted to the other.

So? The changes can be transmitted to yet another population that can become reproductively isolated; ad infinitum. In the end you may have many populations of horses that cannot interbreed. But, when your done breeding your going to yet, and still have a horse.

This is very important.

No it isn't.

Thus the two groups can only continue to become more and more different over time.

False. The limits upon the possibilities of variation still stand regardless of which group your dealing with. In fact, if evolution was indeed occuring as proposed in theory, the outcome should result in rapidly increasing numbers of kinds of creatures. This has never been seen in the history of mankind. If you say it can happen easily in our lifetime then the world should have far more kinds of creatures than exist today given the huge span of time evolutionists require for producing their smokescreen of excuses for lacking any evidence of macro-evolution.. This isn't found in the fossil record nor anywhere else.

Joman.

 

[Opethian]

Are there any scientific experimental examples of a mutation producing a change in alleles frequency? If so, please inform me, thank you.

We don't even need experiments. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria prove this fact quite clearly.

There are no examples of macroevolution available to argue about.

The fossil record, joined with the continental plate shifting and a basic knowledge of ecology, shows plenty of proof for macroevolution.

Macroevolution has never been observed.

That's because it takes time, and it doesn't happen in such an obvious way as in your little mind.

This isn't what macro-evolution is.
The Bible tells us that a creature can only reproduce after it's own kind. The word reproduce informs us that the offspring are reproductions of the originating parents. The reproduction is allowed limited variation. God's allowance for varitation within the confines of a particular "kind" of creature produces breeds of "kinds" of creatures. But, none of the resulting breeds will be discovered to be a new "kind" of creature.
There are other reasons for an inability to reproduce then the one you gave.

This is exactly what macro-evolution is, it just doesn't fit in the ridiculous view you have of it, since you lack any knowledge on the subject. The bible has nothing to do with science and species, so leave it out of this question. It's just a book, you don't see me quoting the Lord Of The Rings here do you? Yes, there are other reasons for an inability to reproduce, but these are exceptions, and the rule applies for organisms under normal conditions. The general definition of species is a group of organisms that interbreed.

There's nothing wrong with this retort. Just because two horses cannot breed doesn't define either one of them as a non-horse

You are confused. The rule applies for organisms under normal conditions, it doesn't apply to the individuals, which may have physical problems.

This is a key that unlocks nothing of any controversial value in this debate concerning macro-evolution

Who are you to judge?

So? The changes can be transmitted to yet another population that can become reproductively isolated; ad infinitum. In the end you may have many populations of horses that cannot interbreed. But, when your done breeding your going to yet, and still have a horse.

No. Once they are reproductively separated, they are a different species. Get that in your head.

No it isn't.

That's certainly a very good argument!

False. The limits upon the possibilities of variation still stand regardless of which group your dealing with. In fact, if evolution was indeed occuring as proposed in theory, the outcome should result in rapidly increasing numbers of kinds of creatures. This has never been seen in the history of mankind. If you say it can happen easily in our lifetime then the world should have far more kinds of creatures than exist today given the huge span of time evolutionists require for producing their smokescreen of excuses for lacking any evidence of macro-evolution.. This isn't found in the fossil record nor anywhere else.

"Limits" upon the possibilities of variation don't exist. Only in your mind. The outcome does result in rapidly increasint numbers of kinds of creatures, only you're forgetting a few little factors like, oh, say extinction??! It has never been seen in the history of mankind, since we have only been here for a very short timespan. Oh wait, you're probably a YEC. Get it inside your little head: the earth is around 4,55 billion years old. There have been organisms on this earth for around 3 billion years. The time we have been capable of observing their changes is neglectable when compared to the time organisms have been changing.

 

[Joman]

I think the current hurdle most of the sort of "common-sense" style creationists (the ones that would be theistic evolutionists but are just too incredulous to think that evolution really could do large scale design) have is in seeing how radically different new structures could come about.

The current refrain is something like "ok, so maybe evolution can speciate, but it's never created a new organ or major body structure!"

Facts tend to need repeating.

But the complex structures? That's just too much to be believed.

Define "complex".

Many simple animals have no real complex with-heart circulatory system, but we can see how a gradual development from this state would have led to some simple mechanism for squeezing the system to move fluids, which would have developed into a heart.

What comes first...the fluid to pump...the pump to pump it with...the need to pump...the need for the fluid...the arteries for directing the fluid in and out of the pump...the input of the pump...the output of the pump...or the need to start over from scratch? And, what happens to the organism while parts of a system exist without any viability for their existence?

From here, we have a pretty good idea of how higher-pressure systems would have demanded changes to things like clotting systems and the immune system and so on.

Would have demanded of whom? There's no one to demand anything of in evolution. Now a real designer would objectively understand the demand and intelligently determine the needed changes to produce the appropriate and accurate design outcome. But, evolution lacks the objectivity and complex testing ability that is required to produce any complex result that affords immediate viability to the organism in question. What came first...the problem or the solution? If you say the problem was what first arose...then all such problems must be of a less than life threatning importance.

We have a pretty good sense of how lungs developed in fish (especially since some modern creatures have both gills and lungs).

Fish don't and never have and never will have lungs. Any creature with both was designed to have both and survives in accordance with the need for both.

The digestive system is probably the easiest to understand.

Relative statement that smokescreens the complexity of the digestive system. What came first the food intake system or the food digestive system? What came first...the digestive system or the final answer as to what foods the creature in question eats?



Design cannot occur without the objectivity needed for design analysis. Natural selection doesn't provide the objectivity. Go/No go is to crude a outcome to produce the level of analysis required to produce the appropriate and accurate outcomes as found in nature systems.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

Opethian,

I read your post. I judged it as unworthy of specific responses. When you are able to, please give me a rational answer to my debate issues. Until then...have fun.

Joman.

 

[Opethian]

Facts tend to need repeating.

MESSAGE.TO.JOMAN
EARTH.IS.4.6.BILLIONS.OF.YEARS.OLD
MACROEVOLUTION.TAKES.TIME

What comes first...the fluid to pump...the pump to pump it with...the need to pump...the need for the fluid...the arteries for directing the fluid in and out of the pump...the input of the pump...the output of the pump...or the need to start over from scratch? And, what happens to the organism while parts of a system exist without any viability for their existence?

That which would come first, is that which is the first mutation in that gives the organism a benefit. And, if a mutation occurs that changes something that has no specific benefit, it will still become present (but not quite as dominating) in the population, since it also has no disadvantage, if the organism manages to produce offspring. That way, mutations can build on each other without even needing to give the organism an advantage. Once a mutation adds to the already existing structure providing another benefit, the allele frequencies of the new organisms will rise dramatically in the population, and over time the organs build. Ask yourself: don't you know of any parts of animals, even ourselves, that we don't really need, that don't really give us an advantage? There's plenty to name!

Would have demanded of whom? There's no one to demand anything of in evolution. Now a real designer would objectively understand the demand and intelligently determine the needed changes to produce the appropriate and accurate design outcome. But, evolution lacks the objectivity and complex testing ability that is required to produce any complex result that affords immediate viability to the organism in question. What came first...the problem or the solution? If you say the problem was what first arose...then all such problems must be of a less than life threatning importance.

MESSAGE.TO.JOMAN
NATURAL.SELECTION=PERFECT.TESTING.METHOD
JUST.LIKE.THE.REAL.THING
SINCE.IT.IS.THE.REAL.THING...
http://www.christianforums.com/t2479162-the-problem-with-anti-evolutionists.html

Fish don't and never have and never will have lungs. Any creature with both was designed to have both and survives in accordance with the need for both.

Ever head of lungfish? I don't know what the correct term in english is but a litteral translation from dutch to english is lungfish... YOU NEED MORE KNOWLEDGE!!!

Relative statement that smokescreens the complexity of the digestive system. What came first the food intake system or the food digestive system? What came first...the digestive system or the final answer as to what foods the creature in question eats?



Design cannot occur without the objectivity needed for design analysis. Natural selection doesn't provide the objectivity. Go/No go is to crude a outcome to produce the level of

You are thinking in long term plans. Evolution does not work that way. Whatever mutates first, and works well in its initial state, comes first. Next comes, whatever mutates next, and works well, or doesn't add a disadvantage. Rinse and repeat. There is no need for design, the simple fact that the organisms that do not survive, don't produce any offspring, is enough to ensure the evolution will head in the right direction.

 

[Opethian]

Opethian,

I read your post. I judged it as unworthy of specific responses. When you are able to, please give me a rational answer to my debate issues. Until then...have fun.

Joman.

Oh, just because I refuted anything you claimed, you won't answer me? That's fine, I never expected you able to do so...

 

[Loudmouth]

Define "complex".

Define "kind".

What comes first...the fluid to pump...the pump to pump it with...the need to pump...the need for the fluid...the arteries for directing the fluid in and out of the pump...the input of the pump...the output of the pump...or the need to start over from scratch?

Fluid can be moved by the movement of somatic muscles alone. A heart only aided in this. So the fluid and movement of fluid preceded the heart.

And, what happens to the organism while parts of a system exist without any viability for their existence?

Yes, what is happening to the platypus as it waits for it's placenta.

Now a real designer would objectively understand the demand and intelligently determine the needed changes to produce the appropriate and accurate design outcome. But, evolution lacks the objectivity and complex testing ability that is required to produce any complex result that affords immediate viability to the organism in question.

Bullpucky. Differential reproductive succes (ie natural selection) gives immediate feedback as to the value of mutations.

What came first...the problem or the solution? If you say the problem was what first arose...then all such problems must be of a less than life threatning importance.

So fish are in danger because they don't have lungs? Are platypusses in trouble because they don't have a placenta? Are humans in trouble because they don't have wings? Well guess what, the problem of breathing air, protecting fetuses, and flying exist so I guess fish, platypusses, and humans are all in life threatening danger.

Fish don't and never have and never will have lungs.

The lungfish does have a lung, a modified swim bladder. It also has gills. So I guess you are wrong.

What came first the food intake system or the food digestive system?

What system do bacteria use?

What came first...the digestive system or the final answer as to what foods the creature in question eats?

Eating came before the digestive system.

Design cannot occur without the objectivity needed for design analysis. Natural selection doesn't provide the objectivity. Go/No go is to crude a outcome to produce the level of analysis required to produce the appropriate and accurate outcomes as found in nature systems.

Why is natural selection incapable, beyond your own incredulity?

 

[JoshDanger]

Macroevolution has never been observed.



This isn't what macro-evolution is.
The Bible tells us that a creature can only reproduce after it's own kind. The word reproduce informs us that the offspring are reproductions of the originating parents. The reproduction is allowed limited variation. God's allowance for varitation within the confines of a particular "kind" of creature produces breeds of "kinds" of creatures. But, none of the resulting breeds will be discovered to be a new "kind" of creature.
There are other reasons for an inability to reproduce then the one you gave.

Someone who thinks there is an actual distinction between the two really should not be allowed to tell someone what "macro-evolution" is.

Micro-evolution IS macro-evolution. They are the exact same thing! Same process! These two words should not even exist, and I really dislike how they are even being used by some authorities in the field nowadays.

Also, I would love to know what this word "kind" means, because I have never actually heard a decent definition of it.

 

[Phred]

Are there any scientific experimental examples of a mutation producing a change in alleles frequency? If so, please inform me, thank you.

Your question shows a lack of understanding. Allele frequency within a population changes everytime a child is born or someone dies. Since, in the case of human beings, we are each born with an average of seven mutations then the allele frequency changes due to mutation everytime someone is born.

There are no examples of macroevolution available to argue about.

I said, Micro-evolution.

Macroevolution has never been observed.

Macro-evolution is a term I don't like to use since it was introduced by creationists trying to differentiate between evolution they can't dismiss and speciation which they try to dismiss. As far as speciation, which is what most reasonable people specify as "macro-evolution", it has been observed. Here, thanks lucaspa.

This isn't what macro-evolution is.

Speciation is not macro-evolution? Then please, define for me what you want it to mean.

The Bible tells us that a creature can only reproduce after it's own kind. The word reproduce informs us that the offspring are reproductions of the originating parents. The reproduction is allowed limited variation. God's allowance for varitation within the confines of a particular "kind" of creature produces breeds of "kinds" of creatures. But, none of the resulting breeds will be discovered to be a new "kind" of creature.

The Bible is irrelevant as it is neither a verifiable nor a science source. When you consider that this statement is not even what the Bible may mean, but rather what you interpret it to mean, I find this almost insulting. You don't even have a definition for "kind" or an example of what a "kind" is beyond philosophical concepts. All in all this statement is useless in this sort of discussion.

There are other reasons for an inability to reproduce then the one you gave.

Not inability. The populations can reproduce, just no longer with each other.

There's nothing wrong with this retort. Just because two horses cannot breed doesn't define either one of them as a non-horse.

You haven't defined what a "horse" is. The two populations are two distinct species. If you wish to call them two species of horse that's not relevant.

This is a key that unlocks nothing of any controversial value in this debate concerning macro-evolution.

Again, more psuedo-scientific sounding terms that haven't been defined. Most biologists define "macro-evolution" as speciation. Once two populations can no longer interbreed they will continue to evolve separately. This is most certainly a key.

So? The changes can be transmitted to yet another population that can become reproductively isolated; ad infinitum. In the end you may have many populations of horses that cannot interbreed. But, when your done breeding your going to yet, and still have a horse.

You can't see this? The evolution of all populations continues and there is no way the changes that occur in one will be carried over into another. So once the two diverge the changes continue to be cumulative but only within that population. If you have more and more populations you have more and more changes that are unique to only one population. Once we had only wolves, now we have dogs and wolves. I'm sure you can define your word, "kind" to mean all of these... and will.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

False. The limits upon the possibilities of variation still stand regardless of which group your dealing with.

What are those limits and what maintains the limitations?

In fact, if evolution was indeed occuring as proposed in theory, the outcome should result in rapidly increasing numbers of kinds of creatures. This has never been seen in the history of mankind.

That's because you're not stating the theory but rather what you want it to be. You're forgetting about natural selection. If populations are competing for a limited amount of resources we'll see many of the populations diminish in size or disappear completely. We do see many different sorts of creatures popping up all over the fossil record. Just as predicted. We also don't see them around anymore. Just as predicted.

If you say it can happen easily in our lifetime then the world should have far more kinds of creatures than exist today given the huge span of time evolutionists require for producing their smokescreen of excuses for lacking any evidence of macro-evolution.. This isn't found in the fossil record nor anywhere else.

It's found everywhere. But, I won't convince you since you won't even accept observed data. There's nothing I can do for you if it isn't in the Bible and it meets with your interpretation. I'm sorry you don't accept the direct creation of your creator. Not the Bible, the universe.

.
​

 

[Apos]

Facts tend to need repeating.

You've missed the point. The point is that this is not a repitition, but the new position to which incredulity has retreated to. It used to be that all microevolution was denied, and then it was speciation. Now that those have beccome too well understood by laypeople to deny without looking silly, it's larger scale changes.

Define "complex".

I'm not sure that you're actually reading my words before responding to them. I just said that we were talking about organ systems.

What comes first...the fluid to pump...the pump to pump it with...the need to pump...the need for the fluid...the arteries for directing the fluid in and out of the pump...the input of the pump...the output of the pump...or the need to start over from scratch? And, what happens to the organism while parts of a system exist without any viability for their existence?

None of this is an actual structural problem. In the case of the circulatory system, it began as simple osmosis: no pump in the creature at all other than the basic chemistry of its cells in an environment from which they could take nutrients surrounding them. Later creatures had a system in which their own limited lomotion provided the "flow" of nutrients through the system via interia. Once such a system is in place, there is room to add more control over the movement of fluids through the body: hence the pump.

Your problem is that you are imagining complex modern systems and then ripping entire components out of them piecemeal, and then thinking it means something when they cannot function in a modern environment. But that thought experiment bears almost nothing in common to the way organ systems evolve. There, many different systems evolve in tandem, or have much simpler needs and functions to begin with, only needing more complex structures once they've increased function elsewhere.

Would have demanded of whom? There's no one to demand anything of in evolution. Now a real designer would objectively understand the demand and intelligently determine the needed changes to produce the appropriate and accurate design outcome. But, evolution lacks the objectivity and complex testing ability that is required to produce any complex result that affords immediate viability to the organism in question. What came first...the problem or the solution? If you say the problem was what first arose...then all such problems must be of a less than life threatning importance.

Indeed, though it should be "species threatening" importance, as the death of this or that animal isn't the end of the evolutionary line. Sticking with circulatory systems, there was always room for both pressure and clotting to improve without necessarily it being devastating that one was slightly out of pace with the other. For instance, very low pressure animals like sea cucumbers have some very simple clotting systems (which, by the way aren't just simple but share as their basic component the specific proteins found in even more complex beings to which they are distantly related). It's not at all implausible that the pressure could increase slightly, meaning that there is an advantage for the clotting to increase further but not necessarily deadly consequences if it doesn't do so immediately.

Fish don't and never have and never will have lungs. Any creature with both was designed to have both and survives in accordance with the need for both.

This is a basically pointless statement that simply assumes you are correct. The line fish which evolved into tetrapods (the first animals on land) most definately did develop lungs over time. It's not really even hard to see how this happened, because their environment was one in which some ability to survive above water (for instance, in tidal pools) would have been useful.

Relative statement that smokescreens the complexity of the digestive system. What came first the food intake system or the food digestive system? What came first...the digestive system or the final answer as to what foods the creature in question eats?

If you'd bother to study the digestive systems all throughout nature you'd again see a long and plausible path from simple osmosis of nutrients from the surrounding area to movement induced system, to a more controlled system, to even more complex ways of processing the nutrients (among which including ways to deal with new forms of food). There is no "chicken/egg" dilemna here.

Design cannot occur without the objectivity needed for design analysis. Natural selection doesn't provide the objectivity.

Indeed: it provides a brute force method instead of foresight. The result is a design that's characteristically redudant, roundabout, and often rube-goldbergian (very different from what we'd expect a designer with foresight to do).

Go/No go is to crude a outcome to produce the level of analysis required to produce the appropriate and accurate outcomes as found in nature systems.

Your sentances are pretty hard to understand, containing a lot of ambiguity and semantic confusion. I don't know what the last one even means. What is "Go/No go" supposed to refer to? Did you mean "too" after it?

 

[Apos]

Are there any scientific experimental examples of a mutation producing a change in alleles frequency? If so, please inform me, thank you.

There are so many and this is so common that its hardly worth mentioning most of the time. One obvious example is HIV, which when first introduced to a drug, quickly developed an adaptation involving four successive mutations in four different places on its genome that made it invulnerable to the drug.

There are no examples of macroevolution available to argue about. Macroevolution has never been observed.

Macroevolution and common descent are so well established that no one even considers this a serious scientific issue anymore. Direct observation is in many ways LESS reliable than the vast quantities of hard physical evidence that we have, most of which contains cross-checks within itself.

The Bible tells us that a creature can only reproduce after it's own kind. The word reproduce informs us that the offspring are reproductions of the originating parents. The reproduction is allowed limited variation. God's allowance for varitation within the confines of a particular "kind" of creature produces breeds of "kinds" of creatures. But, none of the resulting breeds will be discovered to be a new "kind" of creature.
There are other reasons for an inability to reproduce then the one you gave.

Speciation: the development of two separate populations that either genetically or phyiscally cannot produce viable offsping has been directly observed. It's also stong inferred from physical evidence of the history of life on earth, as well as from what we know of genetics.

There's nothing wrong with this retort. Just because two horses cannot breed doesn't define either one of them as a non-horse.

Actually, that's exactly what generally defines a species. "Horse" is not a very specific term, but if a horse is distinct from a donkey, then its pretty clear that both horses and donkeys were once related species and have since diverged to the point where their offspring is sterile (a mule). This is what's known as a hybrid. Hybridization is just one of the many reasons to think that the concept of "kinds" is fataly flawed.

So? The changes can be transmitted to yet another population that can become reproductively isolated; ad infinitum. In the end you may have many populations of horses that cannot interbreed. But, when your done breeding your going to yet, and still have a horse.

Unfortunately, this is not what the fossil and genetic record, which both confirm each other, show. Just like all other mammals, including ourselves, horses evolved from rodent-like creatures that no one in their right mind would call a horse.

False. The limits upon the possibilities of variation still stand regardless of which group your dealing with.

You have yet to suggest any evidence for any such limits.

In fact, if evolution was indeed occuring as proposed in theory, the outcome should result in rapidly increasing numbers of kinds of creatures.

That's like saying that because it rains, the ocean should be getting deeper and deeper over time. It forgets that species are also constantly dying off.

This isn't found in the fossil record nor anywhere else.

The fossil record shows countless species which have died off. In fact, most of the species that have ever lived died off without leaving descendants.