Enough Time for Evolution?

[Shermana]

You're basically hung up on the Semantics of the Classification orders that humans have given them and not the biological specifics in question.

Have a good rest, we'll discuss later, but I might not be back til Sunday.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You're basically hung up on the Semantics of the Classification orders that humans have given them and not the biological specifics in question.

Just never mind the semantics and consider the vast similarities they do have(mammalian glands, fur, middle ear and whatever the carnivora similarities are).

Your proposal requires that they evolved many MANY of these same traits independent of each other, by chance, as they're not related according to you.

 

[Shermana]

Just never mind the semantics and consider the vast similarities they do have(mammalian glands, fur, middle ear and whatever the carnivora similarities are).

Your proposal requires that they evolved many MANY of these same traits independent of each other, by chance, as they're not related according to you.

It's not much more of a stretch than requiring many MANY chains of successful, simultaneously-developing mutations that resulted in drastic changes.

There's only so many types of traits something can develop.

Even some Birds have some form of lactation.

Newsroom

As I've said earlier, scientists are in the beginning stages of now being able to genetically engineer an animal into a completely different animal, and it's not necessarily related to "dormant/vestigial/recessive" genes or whatnot.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Just never mind the semantics and consider the vast similarities they do have(mammalian glands, fur, middle ear and whatever the carnivora similarities are).

Your proposal requires that they evolved many MANY of these same traits independent of each other, by chance, as they're not related according to you.

I don't think he believes that they evolved these features independent of each other, but rather that God created all animals in certain groups. So if we suppose that a God created every living thing then mammals can still be valid, while cats share no relation with bears.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Even some Birds have some form of lactation.

Newsroom

It isn't lactation, though, just a feature with a similar function.


Since you claim that evolution can only go up to a certain point, the burden of proof is on you. There's nothing suggesting that the changes stop at a certain point or that there is a barrier to how much a population can change. You cannot expect us to observe the transition from a bearlike animal into a catlike animal during a human lifespan, but we can observe huge changes in organisms that have shorter reproductive cycles and we have.

In the fossil records as well as in the genetics of different organisms (the mapping of which is far from complete yet) we can see evidence of transitions. I'm sure you've seen the evolution of the horse, for example, which is well understood. You claim that no animal can change from it's base type, but you provide no evidence that there is any form of barrier preventing this.

First of all, if we're going to have this debate, then can you please establish what you mean by macroevolution and also give a consistent and as close to scientific as possible definition of "kind" or "type"?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Are these two (sorry for the pictures being so large) the same kind or different kinds? Are all trees the same kind or are there different tree kinds?

 

[Curious George]

Well that was a dodge if I ever saw one.

Ironic, no?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It's not much more of a stretch than requiring many MANY chains of successful, simultaneously-developing mutations that resulted in drastic changes.

There's only so many types of traits something can develop.

Even some Birds have some form of lactation.

Newsroom

As I've said earlier, scientists are in the beginning stages of now being able to genetically engineer an animal into a completely different animal, and it's not necessarily related to "dormant/vestigial/recessive" genes or whatnot.

Wouldn't birds producing milk be an example of convergent evolution?

 

[Agnostic75]

If "Aliens" are responsible, that's still basically the same thing as saying "gods". It's really Semantics.

You claimed that incremental changes cannot account for naturalistic evolution. Even if you are right, aliens could have plausibly accounted for evolution. If God created the aliens, you have won your argument about naturalism, but you have not won your argument that God created life on earth if that is what you are arguing. So, are you arguing that God created life on earth or not? If you are, my aliens argument is valid. If you are arguing that naturalism cannot account for the universe, that is a different subject than what you are discussing in this thread.

For this thread, I am not necessarily arguing against Theistic evolution or even Common Descent, even if I personally don't hold to those. This is 100% against naturalism, non-theistic naturalism.

But naturalism can account for evolution if aliens brought life to earth unless you have sufficient evidence that naturalism cannot account for the beginning of the universe.

Since you cannot adequately defend your claims in debates with experts, why should anyone trust your opinions? At best, all that you can accomplish in this thread is to show that you know more about biology than some skeptic laymen do.

You keep saying that skeptics will not address your arguments, but you know that lots of experts will be happy to address your arguments in public Internet discussion forums.

You have claimed that some skeptics have been evasive, but you have refused to reply to my aliens argument even though I have posted it several times.

The vast majority of people do not know a lot about biology, and cannot adequately evaluate debates between experts. In your opinion, how should they decide whether or not naturalism can account for evolution?

At There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True, there is an article by Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., biology. Dr. Newman has criticized him, but many other experts support him. In the article, Coyne discusses the research by Wilf, and Ewens that you mentioned. Will you please critique the article? If you do, I hope that you have an excellent background in math since Coyne says:

Here’s their complicated equation for the number of rounds of “guessing”, that is the number of rounds it takes to achieve adaptive evolution at every one of L genes:

The mean number of rounds that are necessary to guess all of the letters of an L letter word, the letters coming from an alphabet of K letters, is

[1]
with β(L) being the periodic function of log L that is given by Eq. 7 below. The function β(L) oscillates within a range which for K≥2, is never larger than .000002 about the first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 7.
​

Let’s put some biological numbers to this. Let’s assume that we have to change 20,000 genes to get from an ancestor to a descendant. (That’s a LOT of genes, since the whole human genome is only a tad bigger than this.) And let’s assume that at each gene only 1/40 of all gene variants are adaptive. (We’re assuming that if the population has as few as one “adaptive” variant, that one will sweep through the population. That’s not strictly correct since some of these will get lost by genetic drift and never contribute to evolution.) The 1/40 figure comes from assuming a population has a million births each generation, that there are 20,000 genes, that each generation of new births carries about 5 million new mutations in the genome—about 250 per gene—and that only one new mutation in 10,000 will be favored over the “resident gene type” (The mutation data are taken from humans, and assume that only a small percentage of new mutations arise in regions of the genome that actually do something.)

So there you have it, Jerry Coyne discussed the very same research by Wilf, and Ewens that you did in your opening post. What is wrong with Coyne's article?

 

[Alceste]

While researchers speculate it is from a gliding ancestor, they are clueless as to the transitional problem.

The best answer they have is the "Rogue finger" concept, and it itself is based on wild speculation and assumption, but I have yet to see the further science for this conclusion on how it promoted powered flight.

Rogue finger gene got bats airborne - 13 November 2004 - New Scientist

Lol - wild speculation that somehow managed to isolate the specific gene responsible and activate it in mice in a laboratory, causing their digits to elongate like a bat's.

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. You should read more articles like that.

 

[Falvlun]

Here's Shermana's list of reasons why he believes there is not enough time for evolution, for anyone who'd like to refute them one by one.

The first one, which I included in my post was:
1) Not enough beneficial mutations.

My response to this is: How have you calculated that?

2. Beneficial mutations generally aren't that much of a change to begin with and haven't been observed to do much more than adapt from within the structure, not adapt the structure itself. (I.E. developing resistance to antibodies).
3. No demonstratable evidence of large-scale structural changes.
4. As Dr. Stewart Newman says, lack of evidence of incremental changes leading to such large-scale structural changes, and a reliance on the idea of "Giant leaps" which currently has no basis from evidence but relies totally on speculation.

All 3 of these appear to be the same issue. And they are issues you have with the theory of evolution itself: that evolution cannot create large structural changes at all. This would make the time issue moot, and therefore, they aren't really relevant to this list.

I'm not sure where you are getting this "no large scale structural changes" bit.

I mean, the triplication of chromosome 21 (Down's Syndrome) results in pretty drastic structural changes, not just in the brain but in physical features as well.

A single autosomal dominant gene mutation can cause extra fingers or toes. How is that not a structural change?

5. The time frame for beneficial mutations in general on complex life forms is far higher than for Bacterium.

Rather, the reproduction cycle of bacteria is much faster than larger organisms.

What studies with bacteria show us is 1) the rate per generation of mutation that can be expected and 2) the rate at which such a mutation can disperse through a population.

So, regardless of whether you create 1 thousand progeny within a year or 1 million progeny, you should still be able to expect X amount of mutations per progeny.

The research shows that these rates are much faster even than anticipated. These can be applied to more complex organisms, with the knowledge that generation time will take longer.

6. A reliance on the idea of "Mutational hot spots" that have yet to show any actual observation in light of these issues.

I don't know anything about this, nor the supposed "reliance". But from what I do recall, some genes are more prone to mutation than others.

I must say, it doesn't really appear that you have much to go on.

 

[Agnostic75]

While researchers speculate it is from a gliding ancestor, they are clueless as to the transitional problem.

The best answer they have is the "Rogue finger" concept, and it itself is based on wild speculation and assumption, but I have yet to see the further science for this conclusion on how it promoted powered flight.

Rogue finger gene got bats airborne - 13 November 2004 - New Scientist

Ah yes, the fallacy of "argument from ignorance." Consider the following:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

Please note "in debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

As Ken Miller and others have noted, some issues in evolutionary theory that have become widely accepted even by most creationists were previously objected to by the very same creationists who appealed to the fallacious "argument from ignorance."

Perhaps aliens brought bats to earth. If that happened, it does not reasonably prove where the aliens came from, but it proves how bats came to earth.

 

[Curious George]

Here's Shermana's list of reasons why he believes there is not enough time for evolution, for anyone who'd like to refute them one by one.

The first one, which I included in my post was:
1) Not enough beneficial mutations.

My response to this is: How have you calculated that?


All 3 of these appear to be the same issue. And they are issues you have with the theory of evolution itself: that evolution cannot create large structural changes at all. This would make the time issue moot, and therefore, they aren't really relevant to this list.

I'm not sure where you are getting this "no large scale structural changes" bit.

I mean, the triplication of chromosome 21 (Down's Syndrome) results in pretty drastic structural changes, not just in the brain but in physical features as well.

A single autosomal dominant gene mutation can cause extra fingers or toes. How is that not a structural change?


Rather, the reproduction cycle of bacteria is much faster than larger organisms.

What studies with bacteria show us is 1) the rate per generation of mutation that can be expected and 2) the rate at which such a mutation can disperse through a population.

So, regardless of whether you create 1 thousand progeny within a year or 1 million progeny, you should still be able to expect X amount of mutations per progeny.

The research shows that these rates are much faster even than anticipated. These can be applied to more complex organisms, with the knowledge that generation time will take longer.

I don't know anything about this, nor the supposed "reliance". But from what I do recall, some genes are more prone to mutation than others.

I must say, it doesn't really appear that you have much to go on.

This^^

Plus a host of other ways in which organisms change, symbiogenesis, hybrids, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Not to mention we might yet discover other means of change.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It's not much more of a stretch than requiring many MANY chains of successful, simultaneously-developing mutations that resulted in drastic changes.

There's only so many types of traits something can develop.

Even some Birds have some form of lactation.

Newsroom

As I've said earlier, scientists are in the beginning stages of now being able to genetically engineer an animal into a completely different animal, and it's not necessarily related to "dormant/vestigial/recessive" genes or whatnot.

You're saying two creatures that are nearly identical are completely unrelated.

I know it's hard to believe, but cats and bears are nearly identical. The only reason why it's difficult to understand is because it's easier for the human mind to notice differences in something than similarities. It's like taking two buckets of water and putting a single vitamin tablet in one and a drop of extremely potent poison in the other. Just by doing that, there are obvious differences now, even though they're both over 99% water. If they are truly unrelated, then why do they share all of the characteristics of a basic carnivora, a basic mammal, a basic therapsid, a basic chordata and why they are even both animals as well as going further up the taxon from that.

How could two creatures have all of these similarities and not be related? You're saying that two nearly alike creatures exist by chance, is more likely, than a population of creatures to diversify. That's basically what you're against is diversification(to some unclear level). Either that, or you just don't realize all of the base features that a cat and a bear share and ONLY notice the differences; which is easier for the mind to do, so it's understandable. But is still a fallacy.

 

[johnhanks]

How could two creatures have all of these similarities and not be related? You're saying that two nearly alike creatures exist by chance, is more likely, than a population of creatures to diversify. That's basically what you're against is diversification(to some unclear level). Either that, or you just don't realize all of the base features that a cat and a bear share and ONLY notice the differences; which is easier for the mind to do, so it's understandable. But is still a fallacy.

It's a fallacy that is reinforced by looking only at extant animals, like a very short-sighted person looking at a tree and seeing only the tips of the separate branches. Follow the fossil record back far enough and cats and bears disappear completely, bears into the Caniformia and cats into the Feliformia, which in turn merge some 40-odd million years bp into miacids.

As always, the fossil record is wholly consistent with evolution and wholly inconsistent with separate creation. A creationist will doubtless say that fossils like miacids and nimravids are no more than extinct species, with no implied ancestral links; but if cats and bears really are separate creations which existed alongside miacids and nimravids, why are their fossils not found among them too?

This is a very elementary question, and a crucial one for creationism. Why are there no whale bones intermingled with the trilobites? Where are Haldane's Precambrian rabbits? More generally, if evolution is false why is the fossil record so insanely distorted as to make it look true?

 

[McBell]

Just stopping by to see if Shermana has presented his math yet.

 

[savagewind]

I thought of another consideration. All the beneficial mutations in an organism that are passed on to the next generation must occur BEFORE reproduction*. The ones after it do nothing. Add that to your math, why don't you?

*That goes without saying but I'll say it anyway.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As always, the fossil record is wholly consistent with evolution and wholly inconsistent with separate creation...

This is a very elementary question, and a crucial one for creationism. Why are there no whale bones intermingled with the trilobites? Where are Haldane's Precambrian rabbits? More generally, if evolution is false why is the fossil record so insanely distorted as to make it look true?

Indeed; an elementary question for which the creationist has no plausible answer available to them. Evolution is extremely susceptible to falsification; all it would take would be a couple of fossils out of place- and yet, what we see if quite the opposite; in other words, we see exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were true.

Really, the only way for the creationist to get around the amazing consistency between the ToE and the fossil record (and by the same token, the inconsistency between creationsim/ID and the fossil record) is to say that God planted all those fossils there to fool us... Pretty compelling.

 

[Ouroboros]

Really, the only way for the creationist to get around the amazing consistency between the ToE and the fossil record (and by the same token, the inconsistency between creationsim/ID and the fossil record) is to say that God planted all those fossils there to fool us... Pretty compelling.

yup. And it would speak volumes about God's character and mischievous intent. Same with the idea that God created light in travel. What kind of God would place things to make it look like something else? Creating a universe looking like it was not created? I'd call that a deceptive God. That's not a good God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Evolution is extremely susceptible to falsification

Of course it is. It's science. The problem is that creationists don't play by the same rules. For example, the OP asks us to stick to the matters of the "peer-reviewed" article quoted. Only the journal in question isn't really peer-reviewed- by design. They claim (and there is some truth in this) that real peer-review comes from how a study is received after publication. So they don't bother to do much of anything other than determine whether a study might prove interesting before publishing it. Now, even though this "study" isn't cited in the literature, it suddenly becomes "peer-reviewed science".

Really, the only way for the creationist to get around the amazing consistency

is lie, backtrack, move goalposts, or

between the ToE and the fossil record (and by the same token, the inconsistency between creationsim/ID and the fossil record) is to say that God planted all those fossils there to fool us... Pretty compelling.