Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[Yerda]

Animal bodies are built in accordance to which particular genes are present, how they are stored and when they are switched on and off (and some epigenetic factors). I'm simplifying a bit due to ignorance, but this is roughly correct, yes?

The difference then between the Westie that sleeps at my feet and the American Bulldog next door is down to some differences in genes and some differences in the timing of the expression of those genes?

And the difference between the bodies of a grizzly bear and the unfortunate salmon they catch is explained by the same factors?

The genes, the storage system and the timings are all alterable through mutation?

For the creationist (that is one who contends 'macro' evolution isn't possible): if the differences between the variety of animal bodies are explainable (in principle) with regards to the genome, and the genome is inherently changy, why would evotionary change be unable to produce fish from non-fish, cats from non-cats, humans from non-humans?

I promise not to be rude. I really am interested in seeing if there is a stumbling block that can be shifted here. Plus I could be entirely wrong.

If this doesn't make sense I'll try to clarify below. Thanks in advance for responses from anyone who knows anything about how animal bodies are built.

Also, I think my social life has hit rock bottom. It's ten-past-twelve on Sat night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In general, phenotypes are an expression of the gene by environment interaction. These interactions involve the stage of development at which expression occurs, the duration of expression, copy number, and interaction with other genes. As well as other factors like DNA packaging (epigenetics).

The suite of traits taken together as external morphology is the result of genes and their interactions. However, widely unrelated organisms like fish and bears can share a fair number of genes. Some, like Hox genes, are highly conserved, very important regulators of development in animals. Mutations in these are most often lethal, since they control body plans, basic form and spatial identity.

Snout length in dogs is determined by how long particular genes are turned on during the embryonic development of dogs. Some of that accounts for the facial difference between your Westie and that American Bulldog. The difference in the genomes of those two dogs is not going to be very large. The genetic difference between dogs and their wolf ancestors is not large. Something as simple as increased copy number has evolved in dogs to allow them to digest what has become a new food source for them. Amylase is the enzyme that enables the digestion of starch. Wolves have two copies. They do not eat much starch. Dogs have 4 to 30 copies of the gene for amylase. It is "naturally" selected from a diet adaptation to increased starch in their diets due to domestication.

Mutation is the major mechanism for variation in the genes. Genes, chromosomes and apparently the epigenome are subject to mutation.

I am unclear if all creationist think that the theory of evolution is saying that cats turn into dogs or something similar. But it appears to be the main confusion of the theory within the creationists. Whether it is from ignorance or contrived, changes that would, in all reality refute the theory of evolution, are what creationist insist the theory is saying.

Evolutionary change that leads a species to become so radically different than their ancestors to warrant re-classification begins with variation and selection at the population level. The entire species does not need fix the change, be subjected to the same selection, to die out or evolve in the same direction. It can. It isn't a requirement of theory. All the evidence indicates that evolution occurs incrementally over time through small changes. The time can vary, but is usually of great duration even when considering punctuated stasis. There are instances of very rapid evolution in 100's or 1000's of years, but these are less common and most occurs over hundreds of thousands of years and with greater change occurring over even longer spans of time. There will be no dogs giving birth to cats.

My social life sucks too. I'm working on it.

 

[AlexanderG]

Sounds about right. Every part of an organism is alterable through mutation. Individuals with negative mutations tend to die off and disappear, and systems with genes or mutations that work well enough stick around. Mutations that improve fitness tend to see that version of the gene gain in its proportional representation within a population over successive generations. After many, many generations, we can see new speciation and/or remarkable changes in form and function.

The main stumbling blocks I've seen with creationists is:
1. Their version of Christianity requires them to falsely believe that there wasn't enough time for evolutionary changes beyond slight adaptations.
2. They often falsely believe that no new information or genetic material can be added to a genome via mutation, when in fact there are many such mechanisms that are well known. This hampers their ability to understand evolution, and typically when I point out all these mechanisms, they simply ignore the comment as if I never spoke and then move on to other arguments.
3. They somehow argue that if evolution can't explain the origin of life, then it's a failed biological field. In fact, evolution has nothing to say about how life originated, only how it has changed over time given its a priori existence.
4. Creationists usually don't understand what a "scientific theory" is. At all. They also don't understand what the scientific method is, or what constitutes scientific evidence. This seems to be due to a prolonged disinformation campaign by professional apologists, who grossly misrepresent what science is with a set of false memes that they've passed around amongst each other for decades. A cursory read through any biology textbook would correct these false notions.
5. They assume that the evolutionary process has a goal in mind, but also that it's random and meaningless and biologists should descend into nihilism. Hence their incompatible arguments on the one hand that evolution is too emotionally unsatisfying to believe, and also that the odds are astronomically against evolution turning out exactly the way it did and so it must be special because humans are obviously incredibly special. Both are irrelevant arguments.

 

[AlexanderG]

A very good analogy for evolution is the development of new languages over time. Latin speakers migrated across Europe and gave rise to the romance languages. What was initially one population broke up into many isolated populations, and over time individual words changed along with pronunciation, phrasing, etc.

We see slow gradual changes in different directions, in each population, until eventually a French speaker cannot understand an Italian speaker. This is analogous to new species. Note here that we would never expect or predict that "a Latin speaker would give birth to a French speaker." You would never have a child not understanding its parents, because the language change is so incremental, but if you compare the 10th generation to the 100th generation, there will be major differences in unpredictable directions.

For someone to ask "What are the odds that Latin would change into French exactly how it did among the population that became French speakers" is as meaningless as asking what the odds are that humans would arise from "pond scum." There is absolutely no need to reference tornadoes assembling airplanes in junkyards, haha.

 

[Deeje]

Every part of an organism is alterable through mutation. Individuals with negative mutations tend to die off and disappear, and systems with genes or mutations that work well enough stick around. Mutations that improve fitness tend to see that version of the gene gain in its proportional representation within a population over successive generations. After many, many generations, we can see new speciation and/or remarkable changes in form and function.

Beneficial mutations are counted on way more than is actually observable to science though...... No genetic mutation will take any creature outside of its taxonomy. "Speciation" is a misleading term because there are not really any new "species"...only new varieties of a single species that is produced by adaptation. Their ability to interbreed (or not) is irrelevant.

From Wiki...
"Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
This dilemma can be described as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.[7]

So all the transitional varieties are simply absent? Even "rarity" is misleading since they are not just rare but not a single one has been found.....how scientific is that?

Another dilemma,[8] related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth". That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species."

The explanation that followed is a strange mix of contradictions....not to mention based on educated guessing.
Speciation - Wikipedia

The main stumbling blocks I've seen with creationists is:
1. Their version of Christianity requires them to falsely believe that there wasn't enough time for evolutionary changes beyond slight adaptations.

I am not a YEC so I have no such constraints....the Bible does not support a YEC position....and science does not support it either. I believe that there is middle ground and that is where I find myself.

I see in Genesis, grounds for a very ancient earth and very long periods of the creative process. I do not see God as a 'magician', but as a purposeful super-intelligent Designer/Creator, taking all the time he needs to experiment with a work in progress...and to do the necessary 'tweaking' if it is warranted to produce the desired finished product. The very fact that the Creator ends each creative period with an expression of satisfaction proves this to me.

2. They often falsely believe that no new information or genetic material can be added to a genome via mutation, when in fact there are many such mechanisms that are well known. This hampers their ability to understand evolution, and typically when I point out all these mechanisms, they simply ignore the comment as if I never spoke and then move on to other arguments.

What hampers our ability to swallow science's version of events is a lack of real substantiated evidence that what they claim is true....or even possible. The "mechanisms" that they point to are not proven to form new taxonomic families....adaptation only adds new varieties to an already existing one. Mutations are a poor argument because the majority of them are deleterious, resulting in death or failure to reproduce.Beneficial mutations are very rare.

When are the flies in these experiments no longer flies? Regardless of the minute changes undergone, or how long they will adapt to changing conditions.......these flies will always be flies, just new varieties of the same genus.

Darwin's finches were all still finches....none of them were transforming into other kinds of birds.
Speciation - Wikipedia

Adaptation does not prove macro-evolution. Amoebas did not mutate into dinosaurs.....unless you have the goods to show that it really happened.....and not just suggestions based on science's best guess.

3. They somehow argue that if evolution can't explain the origin of life, then it's a failed biological field. In fact, evolution has nothing to say about how life originated, only how it has changed over time given its a priori existence.

What does it matter how living things changed if science cannot explain how life originated? They act as if these two subjects are divorced from one another.....but in reality they are inextricably linked. If there was an intelligent Creator who was responsible for all the "kinds" of lifeforms that have ever existed, then evolution falls flat on its face. Perhaps this is why some are so desperate to hang onto it, despite its many gaping holes.

4. Creationists usually don't understand what a "scientific theory" is. At all. They also don't understand what the scientific method is, or what constitutes scientific evidence. This seems to be due to a prolonged disinformation campaign by professional apologists, who grossly misrepresent what science is with a set of false memes that they've passed around amongst each other for decades. A cursory read through any biology textbook would correct these false notions.

Redefining the word "theory" by placing the adjective "scientific" in front of it doesn't magically alter its meaning.
Evolution is not a proven fact...it is at best still a hypothesis....described as "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." The word "scientific" doesn't mean that anything is "proven"....it just means that the idea is supported by those who interpret the evidence to suit their theory.

5. They assume that the evolutionary process has a goal in mind, but also that it's random and meaningless and biologists should descend into nihilism. Hence their incompatible arguments on the one hand that evolution is too emotionally unsatisfying to believe, and also that the odds are astronomically against evolution turning out exactly the way it did and so it must be special because humans are obviously incredibly special. Both are irrelevant arguments.

Lets take a couple of examples from Berkeley Evolution 101....

The Orchid wasp is tricked by a plant into pollinating it......can you explain how a mindless plant can fool a wasp by producing the pheromone of a female orchid wasp so that it thinks it is mating with one? No goal in mind? Are you serious? This is a perfect example of planning and execution of the plan, ending in a mission accomplished. Just a fluke? I don't think so....

What about camouflage?
Do you really think that these creatures could mimic nature so perfectly without any intelligent direction? Can you say that there is no planning demonstrated here? How do these creatures mimic nature so perfectly with no plan to do so? Can insects have a plan? No!.... but I can see that their Creator does.

What about cuttlefish? Any ideas about how these guys developed their impressive skills?
What are the chances of these creatures being flukes of nature?

 

[Deeje]

For someone to ask "What are the odds that Latin would change into French exactly how it did among the population that became French speakers" is as meaningless as asking what the odds are that humans would arise from "pond scum." There is absolutely no need to reference tornadoes assembling airplanes in junkyards, haha.

Or the fact that language is still language no matter who speaks it.....it doesn't evolve into telepathy.

And a mousetrap would be useless unless its simple components were put together in the right order by someone with half a brain and opposable thumbs. So how do you explain the many complex systems that make up our human bodies? Did they just magically invent all those components and assemble themselves in the right order?
Sorry.....I find that impossible to believe......

 

[exchemist]

A very good analogy for evolution is the development of new languages over time. Latin speakers migrated across Europe and gave rise to the romance languages. What was initially one population broke up into many isolated populations, and over time individual words changed along with pronunciation, phrasing, etc.

We see slow gradual changes in different directions, in each population, until eventually a French speaker cannot understand an Italian speaker. This is analogous to new species. Note here that we would never expect or predict that "a Latin speaker would give birth to a French speaker." You would never have a child not understanding its parents, because the language change is so incremental, but if you compare the 10th generation to the 100th generation, there will be major differences in unpredictable directions.

For someone to ask "What are the odds that Latin would change into French exactly how it did among the population that became French speakers" is as meaningless as asking what the odds are that humans would arise from "pond scum." There is absolutely no need to reference tornadoes assembling airplanes in junkyards, haha.

I like this analogy very much. Thanks for posting.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"It turns out that dogs and seals are pretty closely related, and we know that dogs are about 85% similar to humans at the DNA level."
Of course, Chimps and apes are our closest cousins at 98.8%.
https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+difference+between+dog+and+human+genes?&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=KMcPYd75D92Z4-EP7qqGoAY&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYQ_VOELczi0gM7NuNfxJiPkMp4dkhNJI&oq=percentage+difference+between+dog+and+human+genes?&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyCAghEBYQHRAeOgsILhCxAxCDARCTAjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEELEDOggILhCxAxCDAToOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowI6CAguEIAEELEDOgUIABCABDoFCC4QgAQ6BggAEBYQHjoFCCEQoAFQlBZY05UBYN6YAWgAcAB4AIAB8wGIAco4kgEGMC40OC4ymAEAoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjerZiFsKHyAhXdzDgGHW6VAWQQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if the differences between the variety of animal bodies are explainable (in principle) with regards to the genome, and the genome is inherently changy, why would evotionary change be unable to produce fish from non-fish, cats from non-cats, humans from non-humans?

You seem to be thinking that the creationist will evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion based on them. The facts, as you note, are that there is no apparent barrier to any living form transforming to into another form sufficiently different that it is classified as a different kind of life, what the creationist calls macroevolution. And since there is no apparent barrier, it is possible (likely, even, but possible is enough) that such transformations occurred over geological time.

But that's critical evaluation, which dispassionately and impartially goes from evidence and facts to sound conclusions.

As you no doubt know, there is a very different way of thinking, wherein someone simply decides to believe that an insufficiently supported idea is true, and then looks at the evidence, but not impartially - tendentiously - and chooses whatever he thinks can be used to support his faith-based belief, and ignoring, dismissing, or rationalizing away any contradictory evidence, a process called confirmation bias (I'm sure that you already know this, but I wanted to lay it out in words anyway), and a logical fallacy called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

An interesting ramification of faith-based thought in a world that respects reason is the effort to present this process in the reverse order, by frontloading the massaged evidence and placing the faith-based premise at the end as if it were a conclusion derived from the evidence and argument that preceded it.

So, you're a creationist, and you have to contend with the claims of evolutionary science. Since you have decided in advance that evolution is wrong, you need to fabricate specious arguments as to why it did not occur, and just about any idea that a creation apologist can think of has been tried - there is something called macroevolution that is qualitatively different from the evolution that is observed on a smaller scale such that while the latter is possible (hard to deny what people can see), the former is impossible. No reason is given, because there is no reason, just an assertion, or a reason such as it being impossible for mutation to add information to a genome (we are told that mutation can only degrade the genome), but again, it is just a bare, unsupported claim contradicted by evidence.

Back to your question. If you ask the creationist that question, you might think that he will reason with you, but he won't. He has a stake in not believing what the scientific arguments conclude, and getting him to cooperate with you is impossible, although necessary if forward progress is to be made. If you happen to be in discussion with another evidence-to-sound conclusions, then dialectic is possible. If two people have come to different conclusions but share the same idea on how to decide what is true in the world, they can trace their individual lines of thinking back to where they first diverge, discover why they came to different conclusions, and if it an error of fact or reasoning (fallacy) on the part of one, he will see his error and correct it.

As I said, dialectic is a cooperative effort, like teaching and proving. Both parties need to participate according to the rules of critical evaluation. If one has closed his mind to defend his faith-based beliefs, there is no possibility of forward progress. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof with a person determined to not hear you. It is enough to simply say that you don't agree, and maybe add what it is that you do believe, but with no argument unless there are others that can hear or read it that might be able to benefit from a cogent, evidenced, compelling argument.

Does that answer your question?

 

[exchemist]

You seem to be thinking that the creationist will evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion based on them. The facts, as you note, are that there is no apparent barrier to any living form transforming to into another form sufficiently different that it is classified as a different kind of life, what the creationist calls macroevolution. And since there is no apparent barrier, it is possible (likely, even, but possible is enough) that such transformations occurred over geological time.

But that's critical evaluation, which dispassionately and impartially goes from evidence and facts to sound conclusions.

As you no doubt know, there is a very different way of thinking, wherein someone simply decides to believe that an insufficiently supported idea is true, and then looks at the evidence, but not impartially - tendentiously - and chooses whatever he thinks can be used to support his faith-based belief, and ignoring, dismissing, or rationalizing away any contradictory evidence, a process called confirmation bias (I'm sure that you already know this, but I wanted to lay it out in words anyway), and a logical fallacy called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

An interesting ramification of faith-based thought in a world that respects reason is the effort to present this process in the reverse order, by frontloading the massaged evidence and placing the faith-based premise at the end as if it were a conclusion derived from the evidence and argument that preceded it.

So, you're a creationist, and you have to contend with the claims of evolutionary science. Since you have decided in advance that evolution is wrong, you need to fabricate specious arguments as to why it did not occur, and just about any idea that a creation apologist can think of has been tried - there is something called macroevolution that is qualitatively different from the evolution that is observed on a smaller scale such that while the latter is possible (hard to deny what people can see), the former is impossible. No reason is given, because there is no reason, just an assertion, or a reason such as it being impossible for mutation to add information to a genome (we are told that mutation can only degrade the genome), but again, it is just a bare, unsupported claim contradicted by evidence.

Back to your question. If you ask the creationist that question, you might think that he will reason with you, but he won't. He has a stake in not believing what the scientific arguments conclude, and getting him to cooperate with you is impossible, although necessary if forward progress is to be made. If you happen to be in discussion with another evidence-to-sound conclusions, then dialectic is possible. If two people have come to different conclusions but share the same idea on how to decide what is true in the world, they can trace their individual lines of thinking back to where they first diverge, discover why they came to different conclusions, and if it an error of fact or reasoning (fallacy) on the part of one, he will see his error and correct it.

As I said, dialectic is a cooperative effort, like teaching and proving. Both parties need to participate according to the rules of critical evaluation. If one has closed his mind to defend his faith-based beliefs, there is no possibility of forward progress. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof with a person determined to not hear you. It is enough to simply say that you don't agree, and maybe add what it is that you do believe, but with no argument unless there are others that can hear or read it that might be able to benefit from a cogent, evidenced, compelling argument.

Does that answer your question?

The question, as I understand it, is about biology, not the rhetorical methods of creationists.

On second thoughts, no, it is really about what pseudoscientific rationale the creationist would use to distinguish macro from micro evolution. So you are right.

As I understand it, the most usual argument is that there is no real-time evidence for macro-evolution. Which is pretty thick of the creationists, since obviously it takes too long to be observed in real time.

 

[Nimos]

From Wiki...
"Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
This dilemma can be described as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.[7]

So all the transitional varieties are simply absent? Even "rarity" is misleading since they are not just rare but not a single one has been found.....how scientific is that?

That is not true, first of all Darwin raises this question, because it was difficult for him to answer this, but also if you actually read the chapter he gives an explanation for it. Which you can read here for the full explanation, starting at page 141.

https://laurieximenez.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/the-origin-of-species_charles-darwin.pdf

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record." page 146

And as we know scientists have found these intermediate species.

Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name, Urvogel (lit. 'original bird' or 'first bird'), is a genus of bird-like dinosaurs. These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between non-avian dinosaurs and birds.

What does it matter how living things changed if science cannot explain how life originated? They act as if these two subjects are divorced from one another.....but in reality they are inextricably linked. If there was an intelligent Creator who was responsible for all the "kinds" of lifeforms that have ever existed, then evolution falls flat on its face. Perhaps this is why some are so desperate to hang onto it, despite its many gaping holes.

Because evolution might tell us something about the history or origin of all the species that have lived on Earth, I do agree that evolution is closely related to the origin of life, but it is not what its main focus is on. But ultimately I think we will see a bridge being made between these fields of science.

But the problem is that evolution shows us that an intelligent Creator did not create animals after their kinds, but that they evolved. So evolution is not going to fall flat on its head. Evolutionist have asked for the creationist to demonstrate these kinds and every time they try, they fail, because it doesn't fit with the data.

Redefining the word "theory" by placing the adjective "scientific" in front of it doesn't magically alter its meaning.

I already demonstrated this for you once, which you just ignored I guess? It does change its meaning and there is nothing wrong with it. That you won't accept it, is your problem not that of the science community.

Evolution is not a proven fact...it is at best still a hypothesis....described as "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." The word "scientific" doesn't mean that anything is "proven"....it just means that the idea is supported by those who interpret the evidence to suit their theory.

It is, it is a scientific theory, you can't simply refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word, because you disagree with it, when this is what it means.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[6][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

It is a theory that explain why something is a fact, that as stated have been tested and widely accepted as being valid. Evolution is probably the most tested scientific theory we have and it have never failed!!.

 

[AlexanderG]

Beneficial mutations are counted on way more than is actually observable to science though...... No genetic mutation will take any creature outside of its taxonomy. "Speciation" is a misleading term because there are not really any new "species"...only new varieties of a single species that is produced by adaptation. Their ability to interbreed (or not) is irrelevant.

From Wiki...
"Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
This dilemma can be described as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.[7]

So all the transitional varieties are simply absent? Even "rarity" is misleading since they are not just rare but not a single one has been found.....how scientific is that?

Another dilemma,[8] related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth". That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species."

The explanation that followed is a strange mix of contradictions....not to mention based on educated guessing.
Speciation - Wikipedia


I am not a YEC so I have no such constraints....the Bible does not support a YEC position....and science does not support it either. I believe that there is middle ground and that is where I find myself.

I see in Genesis, grounds for a very ancient earth and very long periods of the creative process. I do not see God as a 'magician', but as a purposeful super-intelligent Designer/Creator, taking all the time he needs to experiment with a work in progress...and to do the necessary 'tweaking' if it is warranted to produce the desired finished product. The very fact that the Creator ends each creative period with an expression of satisfaction proves this to me.


What hampers our ability to swallow science's version of events is a lack of real substantiated evidence that what they claim is true....or even possible. The "mechanisms" that they point to are not proven to form new taxonomic families....adaptation only adds new varieties to an already existing one. Mutations are a poor argument because the majority of them are deleterious, resulting in death or failure to reproduce.Beneficial mutations are very rare.

When are the flies in these experiments no longer flies? Regardless of the minute changes undergone, or how long they will adapt to changing conditions.......these flies will always be flies, just new varieties of the same genus.

Darwin's finches were all still finches....none of them were transforming into other kinds of birds.
Speciation - Wikipedia

Adaptation does not prove macro-evolution. Amoebas did not mutate into dinosaurs.....unless you have the goods to show that it really happened.....and not just suggestions based on science's best guess.


What does it matter how living things changed if science cannot explain how life originated? They act as if these two subjects are divorced from one another.....but in reality they are inextricably linked. If there was an intelligent Creator who was responsible for all the "kinds" of lifeforms that have ever existed, then evolution falls flat on its face. Perhaps this is why some are so desperate to hang onto it, despite its many gaping holes.


Redefining the word "theory" by placing the adjective "scientific" in front of it doesn't magically alter its meaning.
Evolution is not a proven fact...it is at best still a hypothesis....described as "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." The word "scientific" doesn't mean that anything is "proven"....it just means that the idea is supported by those who interpret the evidence to suit their theory.


Lets take a couple of examples from Berkeley Evolution 101....

The Orchid wasp is tricked by a plant into pollinating it......can you explain how a mindless plant can fool a wasp by producing the pheromone of a female orchid wasp so that it thinks it is mating with one? No goal in mind? Are you serious? This is a perfect example of planning and execution of the plan, ending in a mission accomplished. Just a fluke? I don't think so....

What about camouflage?
Do you really think that these creatures could mimic nature so perfectly without any intelligent direction? Can you say that there is no planning demonstrated here? How do these creatures mimic nature so perfectly with no plan to do so? Can insects have a plan? No!.... but I can see that their Creator does.

What about cuttlefish? Any ideas about how these guys developed their impressive skills?
What are the chances of these creatures being flukes of nature?

Thank you for thoroughly demonstrating all of my points. Except the first one about the age of the earth, I suppose, but you and Ken Ham can talk about that and let me know when you both agree on the one correct interpretation of the Bible.

Your entire position appears to rely on actual ignorance of what is known about biology and what constitutes the scientific method, which you then feed into a series of fallacious arguments from ignorance. We have answers to all of the questions that you've posed with righteous incredulity. You literally just need to crack open a biology textbook or pull up some of the thousands of journal articles that directly answer these questions. But I'm sure you've had this explained to you before.

I'll also suggest you stop quoting Darwin's uncertainty about the frontiers of biological knowledge 150 years ago, when such questions are well-settled and understood today.

 

[AlexanderG]

Or the fact that language is still language no matter who speaks it.....it doesn't evolve into telepathy.

And a mousetrap would be useless unless its simple components were put together in the right order by someone with half a brain and opposable thumbs. So how do you explain the many complex systems that make up our human bodies? Did they just magically invent all those components and assemble themselves in the right order?
Sorry.....I find that impossible to believe......

I also find that impossible to believe, which is fine because no one with a real understanding of evolution would ever characterize it this way. There is no "putting together in the right order." As with everything else you bring up, this is entirely understood and no one really cares about your personal ignorance and strawmen. Look up "parallel evolution."

 

[Yerda]

No genetic mutation will take any creature outside of its taxonomy.

Hi, Deeje. This is kinda the point of the OP.

If the difference between two animals from different species are dictated by the genome and the genome can change why can't a series of mutations produce creatures "outside the taxonomy" of the creature we started with?

Let's say God in a pique of creativity started producing mutant genes in a lineage of lions. Is there any reason He would have to stop before the lineage was no longer producing lions?

 

[Yerda]

You seem to be thinking that the creationist will evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion based on them. The facts, as you note, are that there is no apparent barrier to any living form transforming to into another form sufficiently different that it is classified as a different kind of life, what the creationist calls macroevolution. And since there is no apparent barrier, it is possible (likely, even, but possible is enough) that such transformations occurred over geological time.

But that's critical evaluation, which dispassionately and impartially goes from evidence and facts to sound conclusions.

As you no doubt know, there is a very different way of thinking, wherein someone simply decides to believe that an insufficiently supported idea is true, and then looks at the evidence, but not impartially - tendentiously - and chooses whatever he thinks can be used to support his faith-based belief, and ignoring, dismissing, or rationalizing away any contradictory evidence, a process called confirmation bias (I'm sure that you already know this, but I wanted to lay it out in words anyway), and a logical fallacy called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

An interesting ramification of faith-based thought in a world that respects reason is the effort to present this process in the reverse order, by frontloading the massaged evidence and placing the faith-based premise at the end as if it were a conclusion derived from the evidence and argument that preceded it.

So, you're a creationist, and you have to contend with the claims of evolutionary science. Since you have decided in advance that evolution is wrong, you need to fabricate specious arguments as to why it did not occur, and just about any idea that a creation apologist can think of has been tried - there is something called macroevolution that is qualitatively different from the evolution that is observed on a smaller scale such that while the latter is possible (hard to deny what people can see), the former is impossible. No reason is given, because there is no reason, just an assertion, or a reason such as it being impossible for mutation to add information to a genome (we are told that mutation can only degrade the genome), but again, it is just a bare, unsupported claim contradicted by evidence.

Back to your question. If you ask the creationist that question, you might think that he will reason with you, but he won't. He has a stake in not believing what the scientific arguments conclude, and getting him to cooperate with you is impossible, although necessary if forward progress is to be made. If you happen to be in discussion with another evidence-to-sound conclusions, then dialectic is possible. If two people have come to different conclusions but share the same idea on how to decide what is true in the world, they can trace their individual lines of thinking back to where they first diverge, discover why they came to different conclusions, and if it an error of fact or reasoning (fallacy) on the part of one, he will see his error and correct it.

As I said, dialectic is a cooperative effort, like teaching and proving. Both parties need to participate according to the rules of critical evaluation. If one has closed his mind to defend his faith-based beliefs, there is no possibility of forward progress. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof with a person determined to not hear you. It is enough to simply say that you don't agree, and maybe add what it is that you do believe, but with no argument unless there are others that can hear or read it that might be able to benefit from a cogent, evidenced, compelling argument.

Does that answer your question?

Sure, I get your point. I'm not expecting to really change anyone's mind here. Sometimes exchanges with creationists are still worthwhile.

 

[AlexanderG]

Hi, Deeje. This is kinda the point of the OP.

If the difference between two animals from different species are dictated by the genome and the genome can change why can't a series of mutations produce creatures "outside the taxonomy" of the creature we started with?

Let's say God in a pique of creativity started producing mutant genes in a lineage of lions. Is there any reason He would have to stop before the lineage was no longer producing lions?

Right. I think Deeje's point is that we haven't observed this, which is funny because all evidence point to this process requiring millions of years. It's like saying stars can't arise from clouds of hydrogen because we haven't directly observed the entire process happening for one star.

To be intellectually consistent (I know, a fanciful dream for creationists), Deeje would have to look at a cave full of stalactites, all of them at varying lengths, and then insist they were all created at their current lengths with maybe a tiny bit extra added due to the mineral-rich liquid we can observe slowly dripping down them today. We could point out that the innermost parts of a cut stalactite can be reliably dated to progressively older dates, and that the rate of observable mineral deposition was consistent with them being that age. But Deeje would insist that the full formation of a stalactite over thousands or millions of years is an unjustified assumption because we can't directly observe it. The same would apply to glacier formation, continental drift, etc. This flawed reasoning leads to a very inaccurate understanding of reality.

This kind of thinking also reflects a lack of reasoning and a poor understanding of what scientific evidence is or how novel testable predictions can support an explanatory model. But as @It Aint Necessarily So pointed out so well, this has never been about reasoning, evidence, or intellectual honesty for creationists. It's about using any set of tools, no matter how contradictory, incomplete, or fallacious, to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion at any cost.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Beneficial mutations are counted on way more than is actually observable to science though...... No genetic mutation will take any creature outside of its taxonomy. "Speciation" is a misleading term because there are not really any new "species"...only new varieties of a single species that is produced by adaptation. Their ability to interbreed (or not) is irrelevant.

From Wiki...
"Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
This dilemma can be described as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.[7]

So all the transitional varieties are simply absent? Even "rarity" is misleading since they are not just rare but not a single one has been found.....how scientific is that?

Another dilemma,[8] related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth". That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species."

The explanation that followed is a strange mix of contradictions....not to mention based on educated guessing.
Speciation - Wikipedia


I am not a YEC so I have no such constraints....the Bible does not support a YEC position....and science does not support it either. I believe that there is middle ground and that is where I find myself.

I see in Genesis, grounds for a very ancient earth and very long periods of the creative process. I do not see God as a 'magician', but as a purposeful super-intelligent Designer/Creator, taking all the time he needs to experiment with a work in progress...and to do the necessary 'tweaking' if it is warranted to produce the desired finished product. The very fact that the Creator ends each creative period with an expression of satisfaction proves this to me.


What hampers our ability to swallow science's version of events is a lack of real substantiated evidence that what they claim is true....or even possible. The "mechanisms" that they point to are not proven to form new taxonomic families....adaptation only adds new varieties to an already existing one. Mutations are a poor argument because the majority of them are deleterious, resulting in death or failure to reproduce.Beneficial mutations are very rare.

When are the flies in these experiments no longer flies? Regardless of the minute changes undergone, or how long they will adapt to changing conditions.......these flies will always be flies, just new varieties of the same genus.

Darwin's finches were all still finches....none of them were transforming into other kinds of birds.
Speciation - Wikipedia

Adaptation does not prove macro-evolution. Amoebas did not mutate into dinosaurs.....unless you have the goods to show that it really happened.....and not just suggestions based on science's best guess.


What does it matter how living things changed if science cannot explain how life originated? They act as if these two subjects are divorced from one another.....but in reality they are inextricably linked. If there was an intelligent Creator who was responsible for all the "kinds" of lifeforms that have ever existed, then evolution falls flat on its face. Perhaps this is why some are so desperate to hang onto it, despite its many gaping holes.


Redefining the word "theory" by placing the adjective "scientific" in front of it doesn't magically alter its meaning.
Evolution is not a proven fact...it is at best still a hypothesis....described as "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." The word "scientific" doesn't mean that anything is "proven"....it just means that the idea is supported by those who interpret the evidence to suit their theory.


Lets take a couple of examples from Berkeley Evolution 101....

The Orchid wasp is tricked by a plant into pollinating it......can you explain how a mindless plant can fool a wasp by producing the pheromone of a female orchid wasp so that it thinks it is mating with one? No goal in mind? Are you serious? This is a perfect example of planning and execution of the plan, ending in a mission accomplished. Just a fluke? I don't think so....

What about camouflage?
Do you really think that these creatures could mimic nature so perfectly without any intelligent direction? Can you say that there is no planning demonstrated here? How do these creatures mimic nature so perfectly with no plan to do so? Can insects have a plan? No!.... but I can see that their Creator does.

What about cuttlefish? Any ideas about how these guys developed their impressive skills?
What are the chances of these creatures being flukes of nature?

The theory is correct. No intelligent designer is necessary. Nature is sufficient.

So how do you explain the many complex systems that make up our human bodies?

Evolution. Those interested have learned how.

Did they just magically invent all those components and assemble themselves in the right order?

No, they obeyed physical law. If you had wanted to understand, you already would.

Sometimes exchanges with creationists are still worthwhile.

Yes, but not for the creationist. After years of experimenting with different approaches to creationists with no new insights in years, I don't think that there is anything left to learn there, so there is no further benefit discussing these issues with them.

And, of course, the creationist deliberately never learns, which is why there is no duty to try to teach them. It is enough just to tell them that they are wrong, unless one feels that there are readers present who don't know why, but can learn. I didn't think that was necessary above, as any educated person present would be expected to agree already that evolutionary theory is correct and that the tree of life is its byproduct according to naturalistic mechanisms.

As I indicated in my response to you, I got the impression that you were considering reasoning with a creationist. You seemed to want answers from creationists as to why they considered "macroevolution" impossible. My answer was intended to demonstrate why that is a futile pursuit. Do you not agree? Do you still hope to penetrate the faith-based confirmation bias? With what?

• "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris
• "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

What a nice depiction of what I was describing above about these two very different ways of deciding what is true about the world. I believe Ham when he says that nothing can change his mind, so why bother trying with him or with creationists in general? That was my answer to you regarding trying to get the creationist to participate in dialectic with you as the OP considered attempting. I'm telling you how the discussion will go.

There are already posts on this thread to confirm that. You didn't get the kind of reasoned answer that you might have given, just a repeat of a statement of faith and a raft of specious argumentation that doesn't actually answer your question of how macroevolution is not possible. As Ham's answer demonstrates, you cannot make these people cooperate with you. They don't think like you do. Their methods and agenda are in conflict with yours.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or the fact that language is still language no matter who speaks it.....it doesn't evolve into telepathy.

And a mousetrap would be useless unless its simple components were put together in the right order by someone with half a brain and opposable thumbs. So how do you explain the many complex systems that make up our human bodies? Did they just magically invent all those components and assemble themselves in the right order?
Sorry.....I find that impossible to believe......

You just love to beat on straw. No one claims that language has changed into something that is not language. But I would imagine that if one telepath is trying to communicate with another, that speaking the same language would make that work.

It saddens me to find out that you cannot assemble a mousetrap or a cogent argument.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

At least they have some evidence, you have none other than your thousand-year old books.
I do not agree that the information is limited, I would say it is sufficient.

You literally just need to crack open a biology textbook or pull up some of the thousands of journal articles that directly answer these questions.

He could not understand Biology in the school. That was his weak area, and so was physics, Chemistry or Geology, not to talk about Maths.

Sometimes exchanges with creationists are still worthwhile.

You rightly said 'some times', most of the time it is a sort of foolishness that atheists engage in.

 

[Yerda]

Yes, but not for the creationist. After years of experimenting with different approaches to creationists with no new insights in years, I don't think that there is anything left to learn there, so there is no further benefit discussing these issues with them.

And, of course, the creationist deliberately never learns, which is why there is no duty to try to teach them. It is enough just to tell them that they are wrong, unless one feels that there are readers present who don't know why, but can learn. I didn't think that was necessary above, as any educated person present would be expected to agree already that evolutionary theory is correct and that the tree of life is its byproduct according to naturalistic mechanisms.

As I indicated in my response to you, I got the impression that you were considering reasoning with a creationist. You seemed to want answers from creationists as to why they considered "macroevolution" impossible. My answer was intended to demonstrate why that is a futile pursuit. Do you not agree? Do you still hope to penetrate the faith-based confirmation bias? With what?

• "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris
• "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

What a nice depiction of what I was describing above about these two very different ways of deciding what is true about the world. I believe Ham when he says that nothing can change his mind, so why bother trying with him or with creationists in general? That was my answer to you regarding trying to get the creationist to participate in dialectic with you as the OP considered attempting. I'm telling you how the discussion will go.

There are already posts on this thread to confirm that. You didn't get the kind of reasoned answer that you might have given, just a repeat of a statement of faith and a raft of specious argumentation that doesn't actually answer your question of how macroevolution is not possible. As Ham's answer demonstrates, you cannot make these people cooperate with you. They don't think like you do. Their methods and agenda are in conflict with yours.

Well, I've had the odd discussion with creationists on here that was useful for me. I'm interested in the minds of other people I suppose.

I've found that when I'm not hostile that most people can be quite pleasant to talk with and when I don't begin by calling them ignorant, irrational fools that a chat can go surprising places. And it's ok if it goes nowehere; I'm just a bored chap with questions in his head and a lazy weekend recovering from my covid jab to fritter away.