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

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Let's see here.

Well, there is no validity in any of this. It can be discarded without further review. You are not even trying. Your opening statement says nothing. You follow it with a straw man. Then an incorrect claim about species. Then the typical appeal to adaptation as if it were not evolution when it is. A reproductive barrier is entirely relevant, but so typical of you to wave it away.

So nothing substantive from you at all. It is...how did you say that...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

You are not fooling us. We know that you know that science has moved on from Darwin and we have evidence accumulated over that 150 years since and a greater understanding of transitional forms. Pity you can't move on.

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 am on the middle ground. You are busy convincing yourself not to use the mind and senses God gave you.

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.

Then there is some overlap in our interpretations. Perhaps you will open eyes yet.

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.

There are several key points that illustrate your denial of science. 1. Education. 2. Understanding. 3. But the greatest of all of these is Indoctrination.

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.

Oooo! Pretty pictures.

The illustration is not of an experiment designed to breed 'not flies'. Another straw man. And you will not, you cannot, bring yourself to the obvious conclusion that is does illustrate adaptive evolution.

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

Ooooo! More pictures. More straw man.

Adaptation does not prove macro-evolution.

Another straw man. Adaptations are the evidence. Science doesn't do proofs.

Amoebas did not mutate into dinosaurs

Another straw man. Not a claim of science.

.....unless you have the goods to show that it really happened.

Of course not. No one in science is trying to support your straw man.

....and not just suggestions based on science's best guess.

And another straw man. Science is based on evidence, observation, logic and theory and not guess work. Guess work seems to be your domain.

What does it matter how living things changed if science cannot explain how life originated?

This is awesome. You just can't get over this favorite fictional argument against a theory no matter how many times you get told the truth. You do not need to know how something originated to formulate explanations about it. It is that simple. Even a child can understand that.

They act as if these two subjects are divorced from one another

Just plain false. What is worse here is that you know this.

.....but in reality they are inextricably linked.

They are linked, just not as you misrepresent. The theory of the evolution of life is not dependent on a specific origin of life. What you and other creationists do is attempt to connect something we do not know with evolution to falsify it by the association. It is a huge fail that does you no service.

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.

Not at all and you have never shown that your claim has any substance. You just repeat the same refuted points ad nauseum. Evolution fits the facts even if the origin of life is divine creation.

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.

All false with no substance or support. Theory has not redefined. The definition in science has simply been related to you repeatedly hundreds of times. Yet you still try to wave it away without support.

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?

Ooooo. More pretty pictures. And plenty more logical fallacies to garnish them.

Fortunately for us, all these interactions have been observed by people that did not deny their eyes or their intellect. These are not examples of flukes of nature. Their existence is explained by the theory of evolution. Besides, you have demonstrated to us that you are not interested in valid explanations and will just ignore and deny all in deference to you churches doctrine. On what point should anyone waste time explaining these things to you when you will just repeat the same denials and fallacies you have here and many, many, many times elsewhere?

 

[Nimos]

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.

One of the issues a lot of creationist have with evolution and these intermediate species is that they think it means that you would find something that is half elephant and half cat. And if that is ones level of understanding of evolution, its not strange that it doesn't make sense, because we don't find such things and neither does evolution say that

 

[ChristineM]

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

Language evolves. Try speaking to an English speaker of 500 years ago, 200 years ago. It evolves generation by generation. It evolves yearly, hence the reason new words are added to the dictionaries on a regular basis.

I find that impossible to believe

Yes, but luckily, unlike your god, evolution does not need your belief

 

[rational experiences]

Any argument about presence of form is irrelevant as any researched body is formed hence it was ended formed to be self presence.

The study human applied chooses the subject topic and also the discussion.

Humans called that status egotism as unless you persue information to placate assistance to the body in its presence. Being informed says if I was not living you would own no subject of the chosen discussion.

And human behaviour was studied to teach the ignorance of the human condition as seen by humans inferring less egotism.

 

[firedragon]

For the creationist (that is one who contends 'macro' evolution isn't possible):

Your post is specifically addressing a particular type of "creationists" am I correct?

 

[Deeje]

Language evolves. Try speaking to an English speaker of 500 years ago, 200 years ago. It evolves generation by generation. It evolves yearly, hence the reason new words are added to the dictionaries on a regular basis.

No matter how language changes...it will always be language......that was my point. Language will not evolve into telepathy.

Yes, but luckily, unlike your god, evolution does not need your belief

I think you mean that 'evolution does not want our belief'.....but it may see the need for it in the near future....just sayin'..... (read my signature)

 

[F1fan]

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?

It does. Humans came from non-humans, just over a very, very long time over many, many generations of very, very minute changes at each generation. I notice creationists are very, very impatient people and want change immediately. Evolution don't work that way.

 

[F1fan]

I think you mean that 'evolution does not want our belief'.....

You're anthropomorphizing evolution, just as believers do with words in the Bible that refer to a God.

but it may see the need for it in the near future....just sayin'..... (read my signature)

Except the Bible has no authority beyond a mixed collection of mortals who may be mistaken in what they believe. The advantage of science is that it follows facts, not ideology.

 

[firedragon]

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.

I think you are referring specifically to YEC's. And I dont know with what knowledge you are making claims like "Creationists usually dont understand what a scientific theory is. Thats absolutely false. The man who is considered the man who propagated the scientific method was a creationist. Creationists propagated evolution way before this new evolutionists you are referring to as if its exclusive to who ever you are referring to. Its fundamentally an uneducated assessment.

Again, I think you are referring to some fringe group of people. Just know that the world is wider than that and history is definitely wider in time span that what ever you are referring to.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans know we invented science terms as just humans for humans.

Then you have theists who use pretend. Claiming when a human did not exist.

Stating holy word first ....
When a human.

So when is a human not a human?

Science says to the next higher similar living body...when you are a monkey.

The holy word of God was written by humans for humans that said only one word was holy by teaching definition.

Live.

If you did something against life...
Live...eviL.

Pretty basic what one word meant.

Especially when science human stated said sacrificed by cross + adding falsely.

You cannot add onto a state.

Science lied said numbers were in form.

Science a contradiction said I infer numbers are inside of form for scientific analysis.

By humans.

Just a big human con always was.

If a number is inside a body it can't be outside too. As science analysis.

I.e. I will pretend stone is number one.

Outside form. Seen.

What is our outside seen form?

Bio human.

Everyone looks different. Natural.

How many human variables in our species?

Do you know why?

By sex.

Sex is not evolution it just owns presence.

 

[ChristineM]

No matter how language changes...it will always be language......that was my point. Language will not evolve into telepathy.


I think you mean that 'evolution does not want our belief'.....but it may see the need for it in the near future....just sayin'..... (read my signature)

And animals will not evolve into telepathy too, yet both language and life evolves


Nope i was correct. It was need, i wrote and need i meant

 

[Yerda]

Your post is specifically addressing a particular type of "creationists" am I correct?

Well, I take creationism to mean the assertion that we were made as we are by divine act.

 

[firedragon]

Well, I take creationism to mean the assertion that we were made as we are by divine act.

You know what, there is another thread you might be interested in.

Creationists & evolution, hugging or enemies?

 

[Yerda]

I like this analogy very much. Thanks for posting.

I agree, it is a really great analogy.

 

[AlexanderG]

I think you are referring specifically to YEC's. And I dont know with what knowledge you are making claims like "Creationists usually dont understand what a scientific theory is. Thats absolutely false. The man who is considered the man who propagated the scientific method was a creationist. Creationists propagated evolution way before this new evolutionists you are referring to as if its exclusive to who ever you are referring to. Its fundamentally an uneducated assessment.

Again, I think you are referring to some fringe group of people. Just know that the world is wider than that and history is definitely wider in time span that what ever you are referring to.

I'm referring to anyone who believes, and gives arguments with the intent to persuade others, that life on earth was divinely created roughly how it appears now, rather than evolving from prior forms over hundreds of millions of years as all available evidence indicates. If a theist doesn't let their beliefs override plain, demonstrable, repeatable, objective evidence that we see in reality, then I have no problem with them in terms of science or evolution.

I think I made it clear in my comment that I was referring to my own personal conversations with creationists, and wasn't generalizing to an entire group or all of history. And I think you're making a genetic fallacy. If a creationist invents the scientific method, and then the scientific method provides clear unassailable evidence against creationism, then there is no contradiction here, nor is there a contradiction if other creationists fail to grasp what the scientific method is.

 

[firedragon]

I'm referring to anyone who believes, and gives arguments with the intent to persuade others, that life on earth was divinely created roughly how it appears now, rather than evolving from prior forms over hundreds of millions of years as all available evidence indicates.

Forget about evidences etc etc. You are still referring to a very specific type of creationists.

 

[AlexanderG]

Forget about evidences etc etc. You are still referring to a very specific type of creationists.

You keep telling me my definition is "wrong" without clarifying or offering your own definition. This is ridiculous, and it feels like you're playing evasive semantic games rather than engaging with any of the ideas. See my other post in the topic you started earlier today, where I ask you for your definition.

Either address my definition as its own idea, or provide your own and go from there. As it is, I feel like I'm playing that Battleship game from the 80's.

 

[firedragon]

You keep telling me my definition is "wrong"

I did not. So that's a strawman.

 

[Jose Fly]

So basically this is just a reiteration of the "Hey creationists, what's the barrier that prevents microevolution from producing macroevolution" challenge.

From 9 years ago.....What mechanism prevents evolution above species level / "kind"? | Religious Forums

From 2017......A Very Simple Question For Creationists | Religious Forums

From 2017......Microevolution: YEA! Macroevolution: BOO! | Religious Forums

From 2019.......Creationists: A Very Simple Question | Religious Forums

And those are just the ones I could find via searching thread titles only. Just goes to show how stale this "debate" has become.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So basically this is just a reiteration of the "Hey creationists, what's the barrier that prevents microevolution from producing macroevolution" challenge.

From 9 years ago.....What mechanism prevents evolution above species level / "kind"? | Religious Forums

From 2017......A Very Simple Question For Creationists | Religious Forums

From 2017......Microevolution: YEA! Macroevolution: BOO! | Religious Forums

From 2019.......Creationists: A Very Simple Question | Religious Forums

And those are just the ones I could find via searching thread titles only. Just goes to show how stale this "debate" has become.

One long, tiring denial in multiple parts. These days, often with pretty pictures, flamboyant fonts and lots of little yellow guys.

Still, there are nuggets of value to be found in this midden.