What mechanism prevents evolution above species level / "kind"?

[Shermana]

Which radical changes would be prevented given enough time? These things didn't evolve over one generation.

edit: see transitional fossils, all fossils are transitional

I don't understand why you included the common claim that "All fossils are transitional", that's fine, no problem there, don't see what that has to do with it though.

Anyways, my question ultimately was, now that I've clarified with my edit, what evidence do we have that the timeframes take place as they do? How do we know there's a mechanism to allow it in the first place? Is the argument about trying to prove a negative? Are you saying that because I can't disprove a mechanism that allows it, that you don't have to prove a mechanism that allows it?

 

[mycorrhiza]

The question itself cannot be answered because there is no evidence of a specific mechanism which is, as defined as '"Mechanism" specifically engineered to stop the greater structural changes that would render it to go beyond "Micro" into a truly, wholly different species. There may be some evidence depending on how you view it, we know that virtually all mutations are neutral or harmful, and any major changes even in a survivable direction usually result in a hindrance elsewhere. Logically it can be argued there's simply not enough time for some extremely lucky specimens to propagate and not be hunted down or starve out from various circumstances. Can it be proven that such radical changes would result in such a short time frame? Would monkeys transition to men within just a few ten millions of years? Do we have evidence of how quickly such radical transitions can be made? Can we mathetmatically estimate it with reasonable accuracy based on prior samples?

However, perhaps I should make a thread on "What mechanism ALLOWS radical changes in animals such as bat wings, Cocooning, acid-kamikazing, arched feet, and opposable thumbs"? If the answer is "Random mutation!" well then, back to square 1. What allows fish to completely transition gills to lungs?

We have clearly observed new species appearing. As the current knowledge suggests that evolution does go beyond "microevolution" the burden of proof is on the the creationists.

The answer to what you wrote above is selection. There are many mutations in each individual in each generation and some of these are bound to be beneficial. In nature, beneficial mutations are more easily passed on than detrimental, because detrimental will often lead to less probability to breed, while beneficial will lead to higher probability. How well a creature does is dependent on the environment and a mutation can be beneficial in one environment while being detrimental in another, while another is the opposite. If a species is separated into two different environments, then they will surely evolve in different directions, shortening the process of speciation. This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are many other factors and processes to account for.

We shouldn't expect monkeys to turn into men, because that's not really what happened.

 

[Shermana]

Heard of the species problem? The issue of what a "Species" is often becomes an issue of Semantics and is a crucial issue for how to define what exactly is a "species" in terms of how it applies to what is known about Evolutionary theory. The new "species" we have seen formed is debatable as to whether or not they are truly species to the point they are completely different to the point of mating incompatability with other similar forms. And from there we have to see how long such a change took, and we need a way of proving how long it would actually take with such transitions to go from Fish-thing to Land-dweller. Otherwise, why should we believe the mechanism doesn't take billions of years instead of millions? When do we see entirely new Genuses? (As opposed to incorrectly classified different Genuses like Camels and Llamas)

We shouldn't expect monkeys to turn into men, because that's not really what happened.

We should expect "monkey-things" according to the model. I also don't believe that every single lower transitional ape-man form was just killed off by the higher species. Now how can we prove how long it takes to completely lose a tail and gain an opposable thumb and arched feet?

There are many mutations in each individual in each generation and some of these are bound to be beneficial. In nature, beneficial mutations are more easily passed on than detrimental, because detrimental will often lead to less probability to breed, while beneficial will lead to higher probability. How well a creature does is dependent on the environment and a mutation can be beneficial in one environment while being detrimental in another, while another is the opposite. If a species is separated into two different environments, then they will surely evolve in different directions, shortening the process of speciation. This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are many other factors and processes to account for.

That's a nice primer on Evolution 101 but I don't see what it has to do with the specifics in question as to how we know the mechanism allows such radical changes and how long it takes. Like the comment with "All fossils are transitional", that's great and all but I don't see how that addresses the point of the question. What evidence do we have of these radical changes, and how long do they take to happen, and how do we know that we can have a bunch of changes on the minor level that eventually equate to things like bat wings and arched feet? Do you not see how big the gaps are?

Like I said, if you attribute the big gaps that scientists have studied for years without any leads to just "random mutation", you're back at square 1, just complaining at what Creationists generally point to without addressing it. If you don't consider bat wings, arched feet, and lungs to be "gaps" (there is nothing close to a transitional evidence between fish and land animals, not Tiktaalik or Lungfish) ,and if you don't consider "gaps" to be a problem, then it's fundamentially more a question on philosophy than science if you're going to just drive over the gaps as if they're no big deal.

Perhaps I should be more specific: At what point did the "Opposable thumb" develop into something like it is today and how long would it have taken? What evidence do we have for how long it would have taken for such a thumb to work.

Let me further say, I believe 100% in Epigenetics and Micro-evolution, so no need to tell me about how "every fossil is transitional" and how evolution works regarding the speciation of different forms. I just want an answer to my question of how we know there's a Mechanism that allows for larger-scale changes than what is seen within Epigenetics and Micro-evolution.

From what I gather, it seems that you have a problem with Creationists saying that Micro-evolution cannot turn into true Macro-Evolution after enough eons, but you don't have any actual of proving what this mechanism is that allows it, other than just saying "IT just happens"? Correct?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Heard of the species problem? The new "species" we have seen formed is debatable as to whether or not they are truly species to the point they are completely different to the point of mating incompatability with other similar forms. And from there we have to see how long such a change took, and we need a way of proving how long it would actually take with such transitions to go from Fish-thing to Land-dweller. Otherwise, why should we believe the mechanism doesn't take billions of years instead of millions?

That we can't clearly define species is something we should expect in the evolutionary model. How long speciation takes is different in each case. In some cases it takes millions of years, in others it could happen overnight (hybrid speciation, polyploidic speciation). We don't know the exact time it took from fish to land animals, but that doesn't really matter.

We should expect "monkey-things" according to the model. Now how can we prove how long it takes to completely lose a tail and gain an opposable thumb and arched feet?

What makes you think we should expect "monkey things"? If evolution favored the lack of a tail and opposable thumbs then it could evolve in that direction, but there's no set limit to the time it would take.

That's a nice primer on Evolution 101 but I don't see what it has to do with the specifics in question as to how we know the mechanism allows such radical changes and how long it takes. Like the comment with "All fossils are transitional", that's great and all but I don't see how my question relates.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic. The current scientific position is that there is evidence enough to support evolution. There is nothing biological that separates microevolution from macroevolution, it's simply a classification that attempts to categorize a world that doesn't want to be put into categories.

So as creationists are challenging the current understanding of evolution, they are the ones who need to provide evidence that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different biological processes.

 

[Shermana]

That we can't clearly define species is something we should expect in the evolutionary model. How long speciation takes is different in each case. In some cases it takes millions of years, in others it could happen overnight (hybrid speciation, polyploidic speciation). We don't know the exact time it took from fish to land animals, but that doesn't really matter.

That's part of the point, if we don't know how long it takes, then we can't say there's such a mechanism. In fact, we can argue that such a mechanism would require far longer than the estimated timeframe. It appears the evolutionary time frames have absolutely no real reason for their claims other than...estimates. No actual biological or Geological reasons.

What makes you think we should expect "monkey things"? If evolution favored the lack of a tail and opposable thumbs then it could evolve in that direction, but there's no set limit to the time it would take.

Let me re-explain, if you can't say how long it takes to lose a tail or grow thumbs and arched feet, how can you possibly give an estimate of this mechanism's working and say that it truly allows such in the time frame?

I don't see what this has to do with the topic. The current scientific position is that there is evidence enough to support evolution. There is nothing biological that separates microevolution from macroevolution, it's simply a classification that attempts to categorize a world that doesn't want to be put into categories.

There's nothing biological between Microevolution and Macroevolution? Prove it. That was the point of my first point. Prove this mechanism of your own which you claim Creationists claim a counter-mechanism. Again, it appears your position is just having your own unsupportable timeframe and imaginary mechanism that allows such radical questions. That's why you can't answer the question and write it off as non-pertinent. Whether the Scientific establishment agrees with your view is another issue, if you're coming from the angle that whatever they say is not arguable, then say so in the OP that you're not willing to allow Creationist counter-arguments to the generally Atheist scientific establishment's claims.

So as creationists are challenging the current understanding of evolution, they are the ones who need to provide evidence that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different biological processes.[/quote]

 

[mycorrhiza]

Just saw your edit, so I'll answer that too.

Like I said, if you attribute the big gaps that scientists have studied for years without any leads to just "random mutation", you're back at square 1, just complaining at what Creationists generally point to without addressing it. If you don't consider bat wings, arched feet, and lungs to be "gaps" (there is nothing close to a transitional evidence between fish and land animals, not Tiktaalik or Lungfish) ,and if you don't consider "gaps" to be a problem, then it's fundamentially more a question on philosophy than science if you're going to just drive over the gaps as if they're no big deal.

We don't need to fill every single gap to understand the general processes. My knowledge of the subject does in no way represent the scientific community, and I'm sure that evolutionary biologists could explain many of the things you call gaps. Just because I can't explain it doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

Perhaps I should be more specific: At what point did the "Opposable thumb" develop into something like it is today and how long would it have taken? What evidence do we have for how long it would have taken for such a thumb to work.

I don't know exactly, but why does that matter? There's nothing that's so special about the opposable thumb that it can't have evolved through natural processes. Here's a little on it's evolution: Thumb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me further say, I believe 100% in Epigenetics and Micro-evolution, so no need to tell me about how "every fossil is transitional" and how evolution works regarding the speciation of different forms. I just want an answer to my question of how we know there's a Mechanism that allows for larger-scale changes than what is seen within Epigenetics and Micro-evolution.

For one thing, we have seen macroevolution according to the scientific definition. For it to stop at microevolution there needs to be a mechanism that says "Stop! No more mutation, drift and selection beyond this point!".

From what I gather, it seems that you have a problem with Creationists saying that Micro-evolution cannot turn into true Macro-Evolution after enough eons, but you don't have any actual of proving what this mechanism is that allows it, other than just saying "IT just happens"? Correct?

Once again, there is no biological difference between micro- and macroevolution. You can't allow for one, but not the other unless you have a mechanism that stops it at a certain point. You're the one challenging the current scientific position and should thus be able to provide evidence for your stance.

 

[Shermana]

That we can't clearly define species is something we should expect in the evolutionary model. How long speciation takes is different in each case. In some cases it takes millions of years, in others it could happen overnight (hybrid speciation, polyploidic speciation). We don't know the exact time it took from fish to land animals, but that doesn't really matter.

That's part of the point, if we don't know how long it takes, then we can't say there's such a mechanism. In fact, we can argue that such a mechanism would require far longer than the estimated timeframe. It appears the evolutionary time frames have absolutely no real reason for their claims other than...estimates. No actual biological or Geological reasons.

What makes you think we should expect "monkey things"? If evolution favored the lack of a tail and opposable thumbs then it could evolve in that direction, but there's no set limit to the time it would take.

Let me re-explain, if you can't say how long it takes to lose a tail or grow thumbs and arched feet, how can you possibly give an estimate of this mechanism's working and say that it truly allows such in the time frame?

I don't see what this has to do with the topic. The current scientific position is that there is evidence enough to support evolution. There is nothing biological that separates microevolution from macroevolution, it's simply a classification that attempts to categorize a world that doesn't want to be put into categories.

There's nothing biological between Microevolution and Macroevolution? Prove it. That was the point of my first point. Prove this mechanism of your own which you claim Creationists claim a counter-mechanism. Again, it appears your position is just having your own unsupportable timeframe and imaginary mechanism that allows such radical questions. That's why you can't answer the question and write it off as non-pertinent. Whether the Scientific establishment agrees with your view is another issue, if you're coming from the angle that whatever they say is not arguable, then say so in the OP that you're not willing to allow Creationist counter-arguments to the generally Atheist scientific establishment's claims. Can you admit that you're defending your own undefendable claim while accusing Creationists of doing so?

So as creationists are challenging the current understanding of evolution, they are the ones who need to provide evidence that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different biological processes.

Well then there's no point in asking us to prove our mechanism which we claim to stop Macro-evolution, there's no evidence of it. However, when we ask to prove the Mechanism that allows it, all you have to go on is appeal to authority without any actual raw data. So what's the point? Are you just looking to rag on Creationists without wanting to defend the views of the estbalishment? Why should Creationists feel obligated to provide a Mechanism that adequately stops Macro-evolutionary-level changes if a Mechanism that ALLOWS such is not needed to be proven?

Who is this scientific establishment that we must disprove before asking them to prove their own claims? Sounds like Lysenkoism.

It boils down to essentially demanding Christians account for their dissent of a negative, without having to have evidence for your own view and relying on appeal to authority.

In a way it's not much different than a Christian telling you that you can't argue with his interpretation of the Bible because the majority consensus of Christian scholars agree with him, and it's up to you to prove why they are wrong in a setup where your own arguments won't even be addressed. Except in this case, you'd actually have access to the Scriptures where in your case, you have no Raw data to actually base your claims on, only the consensus of a majority who is more than evidently predominantly sided with an Atheist ideology.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Well then there's no point in asking us to prove our mechanism which we claim to stop Macro-evolution, there's no evidence of it. However, when we ask to prove the Mechanism that allows it, all you have to go on is appeal to authority without any actual raw data. So what's the point? Are you just looking to rag on Creationists without wanting to defend the views of the estbalishment? Why should Creationists feel obligated to provide a Mechanism that adequately stops Macro-evolutionary-level changes if a Mechanism that ALLOWS such is not needed to be proven?

What you're basically asking me to do is explain most of evolution at or above species level (as you wouldn't settle for the basics). I simply don't have the time nor knowledge to do that. I must assume that those who are challenging the processes are well aware of the evidence behind them, otherwise the thread wont serve a purpose.

 

[Shermana]

What you're basically asking me to do is explain most of evolution at or above species level (as you wouldn't settle for the basics)

Sort of, I'm asking you the same thing you're asking Creationists to prove but reversed.

. I simply don't have the time nor knowledge to do that

No need to find out, modern scientists can't figure it out either. That's part of my point. Do you even know about how they've scrambled to figure out the bat wing to no avail?

. I must assume that those who are challenging the processes are well aware of the evidence behind them, otherwise the thread wont serve a purpose.

I don't think I understand what you mean. Who is aware of the evidence behind what? Evolutionists? No, they don't. That's my point. To make blanket statements like "The evidence is there" is simply untrue. They don't know. It's all assumption. It's purely conjecture. There's not any real biological or geological basis to it. That's part of the point of the Creationist contentions.

If your argument ultimately boils down to "Well yes there's evidence otherwise so many scientists (who happen to be Atheists) wouldn't agree with it", then that's not a very scientific reason to believe it. You should base your views on the raw data itself, not on the authorities. Otherwise, go have a pound of Aspartame every day, it's good for you.

Just like with Manmade Global Warming, I think many Scientists on a whole may have sold out to their own interests and push an agenda for the sake of the establishment. If you're going to just say "Well the entire Scientific world believes it, so it must be true", you should at least be able to provide the Raw data behind it, but otherwise I don't see the difference from Lysenkoism.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Sort of, I'm asking you the same thing you're asking Creationists to prove but reversed.

I'm asking for a basic mechanism, your asking me to explain a whole field of science.

No need to find out, modern scientists can't figure it out either. That's part of my point. Do you even know about how they've scrambled to figure out the bat wing to no avail?

We have found very few bat fossils. Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean that we will never be able to. Again, specific cases don't matter when it comes to general processes.

I don't think I understand what you mean. Who is aware of the evidence behind what? Evolutionists? No, they don't. That's my point. To make blanket statements like "The evidence is there" is simply untrue. They don't know. It's all assumption. It's purely conjecture. There's not any real biological or geological basis to it. That's part of the point of the Creationist contentions.

The biologists, paleontologists and geologists which specify in the field understand the process of evolution quite well (even though there still are many specifics left to figure out). To say that there is no real basis to evolution is to say that 99,9% of all scientists in the relevant fields are simply putting their fingers in their ears and blindly accepting evolution based on faith. I don't need to tell you that that's not how science works. I have read about the processes and the evidence behind them, so unless the fossils, observations and the genetic records are just made up, there's plenty of evidence. So far, the "evolutionists" have provided stunning amounts of evidence while the creationists have provided none.

If your argument ultimately boils down to "Well yes there's evidence otherwise so many scientists (who happen to be Atheists) agree with it), then that's not a very scientific reason to believe it. You should base your views on the raw data itself, not on the authorities. Otherwise, go have a pound of Aspartame every day, it's good for you.

Many of the scientists who accept evolution are religious. It's not about disproving God. I'm pretty sure that no scientist claims that it's perfectly healthy to eat a pound of aspartame every day.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Just like with Manmade Global Warming, I think many Scientists on a whole may have sold out to their own interests and push an agenda for the sake of the establishment.

And this agenda is what? Protecting the environment, something that should be done even if global warming wasn't partly caused by humans?

 

[Shermana]

And this agenda is what? Protecting the environment, something that should be done even if global warming wasn't partly caused by humans?

That's for another thread, but if you know anything about Carbon Tax politics, there's many billions if not Trillions involved worldwide. The point was however that sometimes the majority of scientists may in fact all be involved in Industry-funded collusion. See GMO foods and Monsanto for example. This newest Stanford Survey against Organic foods is obvious evidence that they'll even contradict earlier studies when the funding is right.

You are from Sweden, why do you think the EU forbids GMO foods but the USA allows them? Is the EU stupid and paranoid?

But anyways, do you have anything else in that post to address that's actually pertaining to the OP? Do you deny that scientists may sometimes be involved in outright collusion with interests to push a different conclusion of the facts? Did the word "Lysenkoism" register?

I guess I should make a post on whether there is in fact a Mechanism involved, but I'll have to word it carefully to prevent any of the Semantic traps.

 

[idav]

I don't understand why you included the common claim that "All fossils are transitional", that's fine, no problem there, don't see what that has to do with it though.

Anyways, my question ultimately was, now that I've clarified with my edit, what evidence do we have that the timeframes take place as they do? How do we know there's a mechanism to allow it in the first place? Is the argument about trying to prove a negative? Are you saying that because I can't disprove a mechanism that allows it, that you don't have to prove a mechanism that allows it?

What allows it is already there in what you call micro-evolution. Once you know a grain of sand can become a hill, eventually it would be a mountain.

 

[mycorrhiza]

That's for another thread, but if you know anything about Carbon Tax politics, there's many billions if not Trillions involved worldwide. The point was however that sometimes the majority of scientists may in fact all be involved in Industry-funded collusion. See GMO foods and Monsanto for example. This newest Stanford Survey against Organic foods is obvious evidence that they'll even contradict earlier studies when the funding is right.

Could you link me to the survey? The only thing I found was a study that showed the organic food had no health benefits over regular food, and that has nothing to do with the environmental impact of the conventional food industry. When it comes to Carbon Tax, most of the suggestions I've seen has been to use the money from the taxes to invest in renewable energy and climate solutions.

You are from Sweden, why do you think the EU forbids GMO foods but the USA allows them? Is the EU stupid and paranoid?

The EU doesn't forbid GMO foods... It has a lot to do with capitalism. GMO foods are generally totally safe for human consumption, but they're often just as bad for the environment as conventionally produced food and a potential threat to biodiversity. We still allow for oil-based products, and I don't really see the difference between that and GMO. There are plenty of scientists who are speaking out against GMO because of it's potential effects on biodiversity. Many more than there are creationist scientists .

But anyways, do you have anything else in that post to address that's actually pertaining to the OP? Do you deny that scientists may sometimes be involved in outright collusion with interests to push a different conclusion of the facts? Did the word "Lysenkoism" register?

Some scientists do indeed abandon scientific method to promote ideas, but that doesn't mean that there are conspiracies that stretch over entire fields of science. I have never heard of Lysenkoism, but you can hardly compare a dictatorship with a democratic country when it comes to scientific freedom.

I guess I should make a post on whether there is in fact a Mechanism involved, but I'll have to word it carefully to prevent any of the Semantic traps.

Please do make a post about it, so we don't drift too far off topic

 

[mycorrhiza]

What would be the agenda "evolutionists" are pushing for and what would be it's purpose?

It can't be disproving God as many biologists, paleontologists etc are religious (about 40% if I recall correctly) and many churches have accepted evolution as true.