@KapStuf If you prefer we can drop the micros and macros. Let's just talk about what we can observe and what we cannot observe. Does that work better for you?
So, what non-human ancestor of a human have we scientifically confirmed to be our ancestor? What non-dog ancestor of a dog have we observed? Cat? Rat? Elephant? and so on...
Remember that the testability of a hypothesis usually does not rely on direct observation. In order to test a hypothesis, we must be able to ask and answer the questions:
- What would we expect to observe if our hypothesis were accurate?
- What would we not expect to observe if our hypothesis were accurate?
- What would we expect to observe if our hypothesis were not accurate?
- What would we not expect to observe if our hypothesis were not accurate?
Common descent is presented as a hypothesis that has been confirmed to such an extent that it is now entirely unreasonable to reject it. Which means it might as well be called 'fact'.
@XGralgrathor There is absolutely nothing that confirms common descent, so why would anyone call that unreasonable to reject? Just making a bold claim does not weigh much in a discussion such as this. You know this as well as I do, so why try to sneak past a silly comment like that?
Indeed. Absolutely nothing. Except, of course, for the nested hierarchies of biology, the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, observed evolution of biological divergence, new morphological and molecular features, speciation, and so forth, and so on. Other than that, absolutely nothing.
So, now that I've listed (for the zillionth time) the many independent lines of evidence that independently support common descent - let's have yours. What evidence (independently verifiable observation) goes against common descent?
What has been scientifically confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt is that we share a common ancestor with all the other apes. But what (known or unknown) species that ancestor might have been is another matter. Some solid hypotheses exist on that front, but these hypotheses may still change as more data becomes available.
I have already made it vividly clear that there is no scientific definition of "kind" that goes beyond giving examples such as dogs and cats. But I have repeatedly asked you what it really proves? As far as common ancestry is concerned there is no observable evidence that can be demonstrated by the clever use of "definitions".
The metaphor was not intended to be "smart", and I wasn't thinking about 'spot mutations' at all. Unfortunately some of my posts (both here and in another thread) did not turn up after posting. In these I tried to explain that the metaphor was not supposed to be a perfect representation of evolution but had to do with how far extrapolation and conjection can go before it goes beyond the limits of what we can call science.
@KapStuf Now I know that this is not a fair analogy, but the question remains, how far can we extrapolate what is observed, repeated and tested before we exceed the boundaries of what is or isn't science? The macroevolutionary changes necessary to create complicated organs have never been observed, and yet they are presented a science, rather than belief.
The distinction between micro and macro evolution does not exist. There is no cut-off point at which one becomes the other. 'Macro' evolution is simply a large amount of 'micro' evolution.
Thus the evolution required for more complex organs is simply more than the evolution required for simpler organs. Complexity and evolutionary amounts are continua. So if *any* evolution occurs, your question of macro changes does not come up.
Well, it does - but it's not a distinction in mechanism. The difference is that macro includes speciation - and that's all. It's like the difference between a walk around the block and a hike across the county: they both employ the same mechanism (walking), but there is a quantitative difference in the distances involved.
@KapStuf "Try understanding a theory before you question it."
I understand it quite well. As far as your little quiz is concerned I would like you to give some details about exactly what door numer 2 leads to. If it leads to door number 1 then sure but where exactly do you draw the boundaries of this? Let me give you an example of "change, appearance, and disappearance".
@KapStuf My objective is not to prove the existence of God, but to question the validity of a theory that is constantly being presented by many as a fact, which it is not. I think this thread is a perfect example of what lengths evolutionists are willing to go to when they think speciation and lack of breeding are enough to throw up a big proud victory flag, sneer at all the dumb creationists and say 'there, we've just proved it.' Yeah.. sure!
@KapStuf Saying "this word sometimes refers to all these animals" or "this animal looks a bit like that one" won't cut it.
Won't cut what exactly? To start with, I don't need to "cut" anything. I am totally willing to admit that there is a measure of faith in creationism. There HAS to be. We believe in a designer who is not a created being and therefore not an observable entity.
@KapStuf I have addressed the issue of what a 'kind' is. I pointed out that it obviously does not have any bearing on whether or not the claims of evolution are valid. We can observe change, and we can observe limitation. What extends beyond what we can observe is anyones guess.
@KapStuf Let's say your neighbor has a Honda Civic that he goes out and hits with a hammer every day. Each day the car is slightly "modified". You go on vacation for a couple of years and when you come back see a Porsche in his driveway. Does this example of change, disappearance and appearance prove that your neighbor's car is a modified version of the old one?
@updr14 That is a truely stupid metaphor. You're thinking in terms of 'spot mutations' that are always external, regular, always destructive, and teleological.
Real mutations are none of these.
Even ignoring all that, you could replace each part of a car in turn, and eventually get a different brand. Macro-change through accumulated micro-change.
@KapStuf "The false distinction you rely on simply doesn't exist outside of creationist propaganda."
It's not a false distinction. Again, it's simply a way to group. It's putting what can be observed in one group, and what has never been observed in another.
@updr12 And how do you chose which traits to observe and which to ignore? ID deliberately has no method.
There are valid, rigorous ways to group, including genetics. Saying "this word sometimes refers to all these animals" or "this animal looks a bit like that one" won't cut it.
"Fish" is not a "kind" because is doesn't have a consistent, detailed definition. Ditto "Dinosaur" or "berry".
@KapStuf But if you think that this ability to reproduce or preferably LACK or abilty to reproduce proves that dinosaurs turned into birds then I think you've got some 'splainin' to do.
@KapStuf On a basic level there is no "wrong" or "right" way to classify, just is there is no "scientific" or "non-scientific" way. A classification is just a means of grouping according to what you are interested in observing. Now, in both the creationist and evolutionist models the concept of reproduction is significant. But how significant? I certainly don't know.
@KapStuf Despite CDK's contemptuous remark that the creationist "kind" is just a group, what exactly is a species? It's a group! The only difference is that evolutionists have come further in working out a definition than creationists. Big deal.
@KapStuf "As for it being 'percievable', it's so badly defined that it can be projected onto"
That's true, at the moment, but what does it prove? It has taken many, many years for the definition of species to be agreed on and even now there are still disagreements. Some things are easy to define, some things are hard. A classification is just a way to group things.
@KapStuf (2) All non-extinct species have existed since "the beginning".
Where are you getting your information? No creationist is saying that. We know for example that breeding has produced a great variety of dogs. But there is nonetheless a limit to what you can do with a dog. They are all still dogs. Other experiments in breeding also show limits in what you can do.
@KapStuf "(1) Species don't change, or at least not enough to branch, and therefore"
What?!?!? And evolutionists say that creationists don't understand! To start with, you will have a very hard time finding a creationist who doesn't believe in BOTH speciation AND branching. But to extrapolate that as evidence for macroevolution is like saying that since a fig tree branches off and there are differences betwee figs then eventually the fig tree will bear olives.
@KapStuf "Intuition is always correct - when convenient for you."
Wha... where did I make that kind of argument?
"it's gradual and limited because it's complex."
Just saying that it is gradual and limited is not enough to claim it is scientifically observable. No one has been able to take the gradual changes we can observe and the limitations we can observe and prove that they can be combinded in such a way as to produce the complexity required for macroevolution.
@updr12 No one. Apart from Dawkins, Myers, de Tyson, Gould, Jones and every other scientist working in the field.
Here's a challenge for you. Instead of repeating what you've heard creationist leaders assert, read a half dozen books by the people mentioned above. Try to find the notions (not necessarily the exact words) of micro- and macro-evolution.
The false distinction you rely on simply doesn't exist outside of creationist propaganda.
@KapStuf My question was simple, and your answers are ambiguous. It's clear that you either like to play around, or you DON'T have a degree in biology. It's fine if you don't; I don't either. I was just checking if you had one, since you seem to be "giving the facts" here.
@Weraisethenerdyflag My answer is I refuse to play your silly game of "You can only talk about X if you have a piece of paper saying you studied it at university, but I can lecture about it just because my invisible friend says I can."
It IS slippery but it is nonetheless perceivable. Most people can easily see that subspecies are still the same "kind" as their superspecies, with or without their abilty to reproduce. I think it's a stretch to say that Creationists "invented" it.
Excellent takedown of creationist's willful misunderstanding of science. Unfortunately, willful incomprehension can't be corrected with explanation - they need to not understand.
@KapStuf "Excellent takedown of creationist's willful misunderstanding of science."
There is no "takedown" because this video is just a sequence of strawmen arguments. Let me ask you something. Does a subspecies losing its ability to reproduce with another subspecies prove anything.. other than it doesn't reproduce?
@updr12 The point of contention in this debate is not how one classifies species. That's absurd! What does a classification prove??? We STILL need observable evidence that microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, and putting up the strawman argument that diversity - reproduction = macroevolution is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
@KapStuf What CDK is cleverly exploiting here is the difficulties in giving an exact definition of "kinds" and "macroevolution". But everyone intuitively understands that there are general groupings of animals, that 2 species of mosquitos are still mosquitos, and that small changes don't necessarily accumulate into the kinds of changes that require an enormous amount of orchestration.
@EnlightenedReader problem is they don't understand information well enough to understand what "new" means in that context. They say its a homologue so it isn't new, when there are in fact NEW pieces of information contained within, not to mention reactivated psuedogenes and frameshifts that result in functional proteins.
There is no observed evidence or graduated transitional fossils for macroevolution.
5:00 Information theory doesn't support evolution, as NO new information has EVER been observed. You have to have at least some evidence to support that claim.
5:49 Yes, there are new species, but NONE with NEW genetic information.
Macroevolution can't explain class transistions. It isn't possible because there is no explanation of the differences in species and classes with differing genetic information.
@kachoban "Yes, there are new species, but NONE with NEW genetic information." => novel genetic information has been observed. Maybe you should put the Bible down once in a while and check out PubMed.
@Casshyr What makes you assume I'm a Christian? It doesn't take a Christian nor an astrophysicist to identify the MANY issues with the theory of evolution.
@kachoban ok, disregard the Bible statement, but my main point still stands: there are documented studies that show new genetic information being formed. A simple google search will show you a lot.
No one saw O.J. SImpson murder Nicole. Since no one observed it then we have no way of arriving at an educated guess on what happened. Or we could say magic man in the sky did it.
@joeybonesgnarly a certain amount of lamarckian effect may occur via epigenetic marks, but i don't think its as straightforward as that, and it isn't unlimited. Genes do not change based on the use of traits, though a useless trait may eventually be lost to genetic drift and mutation if there are no selective forces keeping it alive in a population.
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution. Evolutionists must assume that new genes came into being by random mutations caused by random environmental forces (i.e. radiation). That's a blind leap of faith for evolutionists. Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
@Mogley52 Gene mutations have been shown to produce new genes that do different things. Same thing with chromosomes. Clearly you are not as well versed on the subject as you would like to assume. You know the only real defining factor that separates us from chimps is we have one fused chromosome that they have. That is why we have one less pair..... Thats really it. Thats all it takes.
@CtheWolfe I dont see how that could have happend "naturaly" i believe in the alien intervention theroy i mean we geneticly modify things all the time whats so crazy to think something in the past did the same to create us.
@j2mfp78 Clearly you do not understand embryology all that well. Replication errors are the primary cause of pretty much every abnormality and defect. If it was not we would be perfect clones essentially.
so we are assuming your definition that the difference between micro and macro surrounds change in species with inabilities to reproduce without considering the fact that the categorization of species in of itself could be, and i believe it is, very flawed. Just because two different animals of the same kind cannot reproduce doesn't mean that macroevolution has occurred. While you argue that 'kind' is arbitrary to opinion why aren't classification such as family and genus any more so?
@toranvarghese That is actually the scientific definition of what separates species. Clearly because your use of the word "kind" you are clearly a creationist refusing to accept commonly accepted scientific definitions.
4:50 that's why the classification system is wrong, different 'species' can breed together, and produce viable offspring (like the macaws and dogs/wolves/coyotes) They still claim that some species are a different species, when they can breed, and some of them do often. The fact that they can breed and they're 'different' is good evidence for evolution.
How did he move the goalposts? he said very clearly, several times, that micro-evolution is any changes no matter how large that do not create a change in species. he said macro evolution is any changes, no matter how small, that do change the species. he defined species as animals that cannot breed with each other to produce fertile offspring. he defined changes as species wide changes in allele frequency. if you paid attention to the video, he made no fallacy's of equivocation.
How did he move the goalposts? he said very clearly, several times, that micro-evolution is any changes no matter how large that do not create a change in species. he said macro evolution is any changes, no matter how small, that do change the species. he defined species as animals that cannot breed with each other to produce fertile offspring. he defined changes as species wide changes in allele frequency. if you paid attention to the video, he made no fallacy's of equivocation.
Amazing how he accuses creationists of moving the goalposts and committing the fallacy of equivocation with the word "kind" while he just did it with "evolution," species" and "macroevolution."
i think i missed the first chapter,but it common for hard headed evolutionsts to skip all the good parts.im so sick of hearing about darwins stupid finches.
But before a new functional protein (or RNA for that matter) sequence has emerged and started to function, it is clear that natural selection is incapable of providing any guidance to the evolution that will (hopefully) lead to that new functional endpoint.
How do we then characterize evolution of that sort? We have no natural selection of relevance, so we are left with RANDOM MUTATION to do the job of finding new functions.
Saying that evolution isn't a random process, but chemistry, is the same as saying that throwing dice isn't about random number generation, but about the laws of physics.
Evolution and dice throwing involve physics and chemistry (any physical process involves physics, and evolution (and dice) incorporate chemicals) but they're both random processes as well.
An all knowing entity could accurately predict the outcomes of each (thus theoretically non random) but we can't.
You might say that evolution is rather like throwing weighted dice. And thus non-random. But if you think about it, it is still a random process. When you throw 2 six sided dice, then the number of possible outcomes are pretty limited and weighted dice may skew the outcomes into just a few (most of the time). But what if a million weighted dice were thrown at once? Would the outcome look non-random? Definately not! And in any case evolution isn't always weighted.
It's simple to prove that evolution is only sometimes weighted (affected by natural selection) and other times is not affected by it. In addition, in order for new systems to evolve into existence (functional systems that didn't previously exist) then it is eeasily shown that evolution is purely random becausae natural selection cannot influence towards the selection for or against a function that doesn't exist (because NS depends on function comparison for selection).
Since the kind of evolution that is interesting to people arguing for or against the notion that evolution "explains the appearance of biological functional systems that didn't previously exist beforehand", then the kind of evolution that's interesting and relevant to the Creation versus Evolution debate, is nothing more than a random process. As we know, random processes don't create sophisticated functional systems. That requires a designer. That idea scares some people.
@tubewatch59 Ah, I'll explain to you why it is not a random process, let's take an example, bacteria.
If you send a bacteria to a cold sea, most likely after few billion years the bacteria will have a good fur to survive better. If you send a bacteria to a worm place, most likely after few billion years the bacteria will have less fur.
It's the power of evolution, to make it better for your son's life.
Evolution (of the kind you're talking of (that can use natural selection) can only make slight adjustments of biological systems that already exist. It doesn't create the new systems. It can only vary what exists a little. That doesn't explain where new kinds of life come from. It only explains how existing life adapts a little to changing conditions. That kind of adaption is too unlikely to evolve new systems. Also, specific systems already exist helping life to adapt.
You can walk to your room. Also, you can walk to your front door. You can walk to the next suburb and maybe even to the next city. You may even be able to walk to the coast or across the continent.
But you'll never "walk" across the ocean. And you'll never walk into orbit, or be able to walk to the moon. There are certain journeys which simply can't be made by walking. There are barriers in most complicated kinds of transitions. Why should that be false with life?
What "new systems" are you speaking of? Consider: wings are just modified forelimbs. Forelimbs are just modified fins. Fins are just modified flaps of epidermis. Skin is just modified surface tissue. A multicellular organism is just a colony of single celled organisms adapted to coexist. And so on.
At what point did an entirely "new system" spring into existence?
I suppose that the actual point in question is whether wings are just modified forelimbs (in an evolutionary sense). I'd think by now that if transitions from one to another were possible we'd be well on the way to showing that via artificial selection experiments. But they can also be variations on a design theme as well, which solves difficulties related to evolutionay transitions, since each would have been designed "from scratch", but using similar design patterns.
We can see they are, can't we? We can see exactly how the various bones in the paws and hands of mammals relate to the bones in the wings of birds, and how their shape would have to be altered in order to make one into the other (or more accurately, how they might derive from the same precursor). The changes are not so large; they're mostly some tweaking of size and proportion. So what objection is there against the scenario?
« we'd be well on the way to showing that via artificial selection experiments »
Why? What purpose would such experiments have, if any? For one thing, nobody is proposing that such a transition happened in 50, 5000 or even 5 million years: while the difference between bone structure of wing and paw are minimal, the difference between bone structure of human hand and ape hand is even less significant, and even that took 6 mln years.
There is some basis for thinking this might be the case for potential ID systems. In programming textbooks there are now often chapters given over to "Design Patterns". Programmers are encouraged to use well proven design patterns (solutions that are "known to work well") to solve frequently recurring problems. ie. A "Why reinvent the wheel?" approach to engineering. We've realized the utility of design patterns. They likely would work well for biological designs as well.
Sure, fine. But what "new systems" were you speaking of? Consider: wings are just modified forelimbs. Forelimbs are just modified fins. Fins are just modified flaps of epidermis. Skin is just modified surface tissue. A multicellular organism is just a colony of single celled organisms adapted to coexist. Each new form just a slight modification of the form before it. At what point is it required to introduce an entirely "new system"?
For theistic evolutionists (with whom I disagree) it is possible I suppose to fall back on the idea that evolution was somehow "guided by God" such that the correct mutations happenned in the correct order and that many other law of probability would likewise have to be "bent" in order for evolution to be able to do what it manifestly cannot.
But you and many others don't believe in evolution guided by God. You beleive in natural selection and random mutations (or various kinds).
But what about when we have the requirement that evolution invent a new function? This requirement is everywhere in evolutions past. For proteins it must be the case that over and over again, the evolution of existing aa sequences with one function (or no function, or a lost function) evolved into proteins with a different function. New functions had to come from somewhere.
But BEFORE they emerged, natural slection is IRRELEVANT to the evolution that occurs on the way to such new function.
Yes, I know that people claim over and over that EVOLUTION IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS!!!
That is the case (that it's not random) when you have a trait or function or systems that is ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING, and thus natural selection is able to select for or against changes that make neutral, beneficial or deleterious changes. Such evolution is (to a rather meagre extent) guided and non random. It is able to (mostly) prevent such changes that are very obviously deleterious.
I know that irreducible complexity is supposedly dealt with (in particular by proffering the Matzke explanation of the evolution of the flagellum) however that explanation falls over by being unable to explain how each of the many steps of protein evolution were able to occur. If Matzke didn't know it then, he must know about it by now, that protein functionality is rare in sequence space. Far too rare for an unguided random process of evolution to be able to find such potential functionality.
Therefore, what is key is how these poised response systems and adaptional networks came into existence in the first place? The book argues that evolution is capable of adapting to a certain extent because of these preexisting systems. But these completely depend on what they call the core conserved processes (the underlying and very sophisticated cellular machinery). Do the books authors explain how such machinery came to exist? No, they must resort to asserting that it just did evolve.
The key issue of relevance, is how the macroevolution you decribe (which is really just "micromacroevolution") is capable of defeating for instance, the barriers of irreducible complexity and the rarity of functional protein sequences.
Cecal valves wouldn't seem to be a good example of the evolution of new structures since at the large scale in biology we already have (as described by Kirshner and Gerhardt in "the Plausibility of life") poised response networks capable of making such changes.
One place where evolutionsts are fundamentally wrong is:
You correctly point out that cats cannot evolve into dogs because they both lie on separate branches of the "evolutionary tree". You can't cross from one node onto another completely different tree node. Yes.
But tree nodes being connected vertically in these diagrams is a fictional construct! The branch points located lower down are also fictional, save for the simple known cases of (so called) macroevolution (the mosquitos).
@meteor7331 Correct. But these folks actually believe it is. Not because it is demonstrated empirically, they just assume "evolution" is true. Rather than considering what needs to be investigated, speciation necessarily proves what they already assume to be true. No need for them to inquire further about ancestral links or whether natural selection can really do the job. That just annoys them, because the thought it might NOT be true is unacceptable to their atheistic religious preference.
Actually, it is. If it isn't, then you need to create some third arbitrary division. The distinction rests on the level of the species by definition. You're wrong, meteor.
Microevolution is possible..like breeding different dogs...Lots of people like to believe that macroevolution is true yet, it's imppossible....and with all the problems evolution has....its just not really a solid belief/base. and with science changing all the time..there is only gonna be more problems...
@ThePlazimiciron How is it impossible? Why is it impossible? You must have an intimate familiarity with evolutionary theory and mechanisms of speciation to make such a claim, and something tells me you do not. What are these so-called "problems?"
@ThePlazimiciron Microevolution is ALSO based on mutations. The vast majority of mutations that take place are completely neutral with respect to their effect on the organism. This is due to redundancy in the genetic code and vast areas of non-coding regions. However, to say that all mutations are "harmful" to organisms is simply dishonest and/or ignorant. It also ignores the fact that mutations can lead to novel phenotypes that can, in fact, increase Darwinian fitness.
@ThePlazimiciron Polyploidy in plants destroys your argument about variance in the number of chromosomes (plants can double, triple, even quadruple their number of chromosomes with no ill-effects). The removal of an entire chromosome would very likely cause harm to an organism, only because necessary coding regions would be removed.
However, mutation isn't limited to the addition/subtraction of entire chromosomes. You're ignoring entire categories of mutation with your example.
I refuse to use the terms Macroevolution/Microevolution. I just say evolution. The whole "micro/macro" statement was just some bullcrap creationists came up with the explain away variation.
@paulalex19 but variation is commonly used when discussing a population. and it does not really explain a slight change but rather a differance(hence using it for population). evolution is the change of the species as a whole. micro and macro really just come down to classifying either of 2 different types of evolution.
It is impossible to believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. The only difference is timescale. Macroevolution is just repeated microevolution.
Speciation of one mosquito into another is an example of natural selection not “goo to you evolution”, this is known as an equivocation fallacy.
Natural selection is a sorting and actual loss of information that may indeed lead to speciation.
You may be able to start out with a wolf like ancestor of modern dogs and thru natural selection and selective breeding end up with hundreds of breeds of dogs yet you will never take one of those genetically depleted breeds and reverse the process .
@KapStuf If you prefer we can drop the micros and macros. Let's just talk about what we can observe and what we cannot observe. Does that work better for you?
So, what non-human ancestor of a human have we scientifically confirmed to be our ancestor? What non-dog ancestor of a dog have we observed? Cat? Rat? Elephant? and so on...
updr12 1 week ago
@updr12
"what we cannot observe"
Remember that the testability of a hypothesis usually does not rely on direct observation. In order to test a hypothesis, we must be able to ask and answer the questions:
- What would we expect to observe if our hypothesis were accurate?
- What would we not expect to observe if our hypothesis were accurate?
- What would we expect to observe if our hypothesis were not accurate?
- What would we not expect to observe if our hypothesis were not accurate?
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@MrGralgrathor Of course, I agree fully. There is nothing wrong with having a hypothesis, as long as it is presented as such.
updr12 1 week ago
@updr12
"as long as"
Common descent is presented as a hypothesis that has been confirmed to such an extent that it is now entirely unreasonable to reject it. Which means it might as well be called 'fact'.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@XGralgrathor There is absolutely nothing that confirms common descent, so why would anyone call that unreasonable to reject? Just making a bold claim does not weigh much in a discussion such as this. You know this as well as I do, so why try to sneak past a silly comment like that?
updr12 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12
"absolutely nothing"
Indeed. Absolutely nothing. Except, of course, for the nested hierarchies of biology, the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, observed evolution of biological divergence, new morphological and molecular features, speciation, and so forth, and so on. Other than that, absolutely nothing.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@updr12
"bold claim"
So, now that I've listed (for the zillionth time) the many independent lines of evidence that independently support common descent - let's have yours. What evidence (independently verifiable observation) goes against common descent?
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@MrGralgrathor "now that I've listed (for the zillionth time) the many independent lines of evidence"
You have? Where?
updr12 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12
"Where?"
Three comments below this one, the comment posted at 2012-02-22 15:48:10 CET, starting with "Indeed. Absolutely nothing."
XGralgrathor 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12
"scientifically confirmed to be our ancestor?"
What has been scientifically confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt is that we share a common ancestor with all the other apes. But what (known or unknown) species that ancestor might have been is another matter. Some solid hypotheses exist on that front, but these hypotheses may still change as more data becomes available.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@KapStuf "Prove me wrong: Post your definition."
I have already made it vividly clear that there is no scientific definition of "kind" that goes beyond giving examples such as dogs and cats. But I have repeatedly asked you what it really proves? As far as common ancestry is concerned there is no observable evidence that can be demonstrated by the clever use of "definitions".
updr12 1 week ago
@KapStuf "That is a truely stupid metaphor."
The metaphor was not intended to be "smart", and I wasn't thinking about 'spot mutations' at all. Unfortunately some of my posts (both here and in another thread) did not turn up after posting. In these I tried to explain that the metaphor was not supposed to be a perfect representation of evolution but had to do with how far extrapolation and conjection can go before it goes beyond the limits of what we can call science.
updr12 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KapStuf Now I know that this is not a fair analogy, but the question remains, how far can we extrapolate what is observed, repeated and tested before we exceed the boundaries of what is or isn't science? The macroevolutionary changes necessary to create complicated organs have never been observed, and yet they are presented a science, rather than belief.
updr14 1 week ago
@updr14 Okay, I'll explain it once again.
The distinction between micro and macro evolution does not exist. There is no cut-off point at which one becomes the other. 'Macro' evolution is simply a large amount of 'micro' evolution.
Thus the evolution required for more complex organs is simply more than the evolution required for simpler organs. Complexity and evolutionary amounts are continua. So if *any* evolution occurs, your question of macro changes does not come up.
KapStuf 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KapStuf
"does not exist"
Well, it does - but it's not a distinction in mechanism. The difference is that macro includes speciation - and that's all. It's like the difference between a walk around the block and a hike across the county: they both employ the same mechanism (walking), but there is a quantitative difference in the distances involved.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KapStuf "Try understanding a theory before you question it."
I understand it quite well. As far as your little quiz is concerned I would like you to give some details about exactly what door numer 2 leads to. If it leads to door number 1 then sure but where exactly do you draw the boundaries of this? Let me give you an example of "change, appearance, and disappearance".
updr14 1 week ago
@KapStuf My objective is not to prove the existence of God, but to question the validity of a theory that is constantly being presented by many as a fact, which it is not. I think this thread is a perfect example of what lengths evolutionists are willing to go to when they think speciation and lack of breeding are enough to throw up a big proud victory flag, sneer at all the dumb creationists and say 'there, we've just proved it.' Yeah.. sure!
updr12 1 week ago
@updr12
Evolution is fact.
Your belief in Christianity is the ONLY reason you reject the biological fact of evolution.
odinata 1 week ago
@updr12 Try understanding a theory before you question it.
To get you started: The word evolution has two senses.
(1) The recorded facts of species change, appearance and disappearance.
(2) A theory of how this occurs.
First of all, decide which of the two you are questioning.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Saying "this word sometimes refers to all these animals" or "this animal looks a bit like that one" won't cut it.
Won't cut what exactly? To start with, I don't need to "cut" anything. I am totally willing to admit that there is a measure of faith in creationism. There HAS to be. We believe in a designer who is not a created being and therefore not an observable entity.
updr12 1 week ago
@updr12 Since you're not prepared to address the issue of what a 'kind' is, perhaps you could explain why an uncreated being must be unobservable.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf I have addressed the issue of what a 'kind' is. I pointed out that it obviously does not have any bearing on whether or not the claims of evolution are valid. We can observe change, and we can observe limitation. What extends beyond what we can observe is anyones guess.
updr14 1 week ago
@updr14 You have not defined 'kind' for the obvious reason that it has no definition. And it was, er, *designed* that way by creationists.
Prove me wrong: Post your definition.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Let's say your neighbor has a Honda Civic that he goes out and hits with a hammer every day. Each day the car is slightly "modified". You go on vacation for a couple of years and when you come back see a Porsche in his driveway. Does this example of change, disappearance and appearance prove that your neighbor's car is a modified version of the old one?
updr14 1 week ago
@updr14 That is a truely stupid metaphor. You're thinking in terms of 'spot mutations' that are always external, regular, always destructive, and teleological.
Real mutations are none of these.
Even ignoring all that, you could replace each part of a car in turn, and eventually get a different brand. Macro-change through accumulated micro-change.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf "The false distinction you rely on simply doesn't exist outside of creationist propaganda."
It's not a false distinction. Again, it's simply a way to group. It's putting what can be observed in one group, and what has never been observed in another.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12
The concept of "kind" is dead--it doesn't work.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata Wow.. that was deep..
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12
Just the facts.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@odinata You didn't name any facts. Just some silly rhetorical nonsense. If on the other hand you want to talk "real facts" then do so. I'm all ears.
updr12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12
Yes I did name the facts.
The facts are Essentialism is dead, and the concept of "kinds" is dead.
Science killed it.
odinata 2 weeks ago
@updr12 And how do you chose which traits to observe and which to ignore? ID deliberately has no method.
There are valid, rigorous ways to group, including genetics. Saying "this word sometimes refers to all these animals" or "this animal looks a bit like that one" won't cut it.
"Fish" is not a "kind" because is doesn't have a consistent, detailed definition. Ditto "Dinosaur" or "berry".
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf But if you think that this ability to reproduce or preferably LACK or abilty to reproduce proves that dinosaurs turned into birds then I think you've got some 'splainin' to do.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Which dinosaurs are you talking about? There were hundreds of species - a fact which ignore. When convenient.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf On a basic level there is no "wrong" or "right" way to classify, just is there is no "scientific" or "non-scientific" way. A classification is just a means of grouping according to what you are interested in observing. Now, in both the creationist and evolutionist models the concept of reproduction is significant. But how significant? I certainly don't know.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf Despite CDK's contemptuous remark that the creationist "kind" is just a group, what exactly is a species? It's a group! The only difference is that evolutionists have come further in working out a definition than creationists. Big deal.
updr12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KapStuf "As for it being 'percievable', it's so badly defined that it can be projected onto"
That's true, at the moment, but what does it prove? It has taken many, many years for the definition of species to be agreed on and even now there are still disagreements. Some things are easy to define, some things are hard. A classification is just a way to group things.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf "Ken Ham invented it"
OK, I think what you mean to say is that Ken Ham has tried putting a definition on what a kind is, which is possible...
updr12 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf (2) All non-extinct species have existed since "the beginning".
Where are you getting your information? No creationist is saying that. We know for example that breeding has produced a great variety of dogs. But there is nonetheless a limit to what you can do with a dog. They are all still dogs. Other experiments in breeding also show limits in what you can do.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf "(1) Species don't change, or at least not enough to branch, and therefore"
What?!?!? And evolutionists say that creationists don't understand! To start with, you will have a very hard time finding a creationist who doesn't believe in BOTH speciation AND branching. But to extrapolate that as evidence for macroevolution is like saying that since a fig tree branches off and there are differences betwee figs then eventually the fig tree will bear olives.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf "You haven't actually watched the video have you?"
I have. And I have addressed it. Thereof my question: What does classification prove? Really?
updr12 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf "Intuition is always correct - when convenient for you."
Wha... where did I make that kind of argument?
"it's gradual and limited because it's complex."
Just saying that it is gradual and limited is not enough to claim it is scientifically observable. No one has been able to take the gradual changes we can observe and the limitations we can observe and prove that they can be combinded in such a way as to produce the complexity required for macroevolution.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 No one. Apart from Dawkins, Myers, de Tyson, Gould, Jones and every other scientist working in the field.
Here's a challenge for you. Instead of repeating what you've heard creationist leaders assert, read a half dozen books by the people mentioned above. Try to find the notions (not necessarily the exact words) of micro- and macro-evolution.
The false distinction you rely on simply doesn't exist outside of creationist propaganda.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf Do you have a degree in biology?
Weraisethenerdyflag 2 weeks ago
@Weraisethenerdyflag Do you have a degree in theology?
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf I'll take that as a no!
Weraisethenerdyflag 2 weeks ago
@Weraisethenerdyflag You do indeed have the right to completely miss the point. While accidentally making it.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf My question was simple, and your answers are ambiguous. It's clear that you either like to play around, or you DON'T have a degree in biology. It's fine if you don't; I don't either. I was just checking if you had one, since you seem to be "giving the facts" here.
Weraisethenerdyflag 2 weeks ago
@Weraisethenerdyflag My answer is I refuse to play your silly game of "You can only talk about X if you have a piece of paper saying you studied it at university, but I can lecture about it just because my invisible friend says I can."
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf And I refuse to put up with your unnecessary attitude. I'm not a creationist, so don't give me your "we rule it now" bullshit.
Weraisethenerdyflag 1 week ago
@KapStuf "'Kind' is a slippery concept"
It IS slippery but it is nonetheless perceivable. Most people can easily see that subspecies are still the same "kind" as their superspecies, with or without their abilty to reproduce. I think it's a stretch to say that Creationists "invented" it.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 IIRC, Ken Ham invented it. It's certainly not a notion which appears outside creationist textbooks and creationist talking points.
As for it being 'percievable', it's so badly defined that it can be projected onto, for instance:
* The 'kind' of creature that has wings
* The 'kind' of animals that have language
* The 'kind' of living thing which swims by flexing its tail
* Dinosaurs
* The 'kind' which has a trunk
* The 'kind' which has a trunk but not tusks.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf "1) The production of 'kinds' and 'macroevolution' are the same thing. They're not. See the example of dinosaurs."
What about dinosaurs?
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 You haven't actually watched the video have you? Go to 6:45
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
Macroevolution (the Darwin theory) is completely false.
newgeology.us/presentation32.html
orlandofriend 1 month ago
@MrCobra811 Just keep on denying
soepvorkje 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Macro evolution is a failure , no matter how you want to sugar coat it ! Another PILTDOWN MAN in the making
MrCobra811 1 month ago
@5rooker Despite him providing their scientific definitions? Dumbass.
jib1000 1 month ago
Excellent takedown of creationist's willful misunderstanding of science. Unfortunately, willful incomprehension can't be corrected with explanation - they need to not understand.
KapStuf 2 months ago
@KapStuf "Excellent takedown of creationist's willful misunderstanding of science."
There is no "takedown" because this video is just a sequence of strawmen arguments. Let me ask you something. Does a subspecies losing its ability to reproduce with another subspecies prove anything.. other than it doesn't reproduce?
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 The point of contention in this debate is not how one classifies species. That's absurd! What does a classification prove??? We STILL need observable evidence that microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, and putting up the strawman argument that diversity - reproduction = macroevolution is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Two subspecies which cease to be able to interbreed are no longer subspecies. That's the 'moment' of speciation.
So you're asking what a speciation event proves. Obviously it proves that some species haven't always existed, thus disproving creationism.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf "Obviously it proves that some species haven't always existed, thus disproving creationism."
What??? How on earth does that disprove creationism?
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Creationism is the hypothesis that
(1) Species don't change, or at least not enough to branch, and therefore
(2) All non-extinct species have existed since "the beginning".
The appearance of new species refutes (1), and therefore (2).
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@KapStuf What CDK is cleverly exploiting here is the difficulties in giving an exact definition of "kinds" and "macroevolution". But everyone intuitively understands that there are general groupings of animals, that 2 species of mosquitos are still mosquitos, and that small changes don't necessarily accumulate into the kinds of changes that require an enormous amount of orchestration.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 You're making several arguments:
1) The production of 'kinds' and 'macroevolution' are the same thing. They're not. See the example of dinosaurs.
2) 'Kind' is a slippery concept, so can't be disproven by precise reasoning. That's why creationists invented it.
3) Intuition is always correct - when convenient for you.
4) Evolution requires 'orchestration' because it's complex. No - it's gradual and limited because it's complex.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
@5rooker you say that but offer no evidence to support your opinion
nickmcV123 3 months ago
@EnlightenedReader problem is they don't understand information well enough to understand what "new" means in that context. They say its a homologue so it isn't new, when there are in fact NEW pieces of information contained within, not to mention reactivated psuedogenes and frameshifts that result in functional proteins.
kotoroshinoto 3 months ago
There is no observed evidence or graduated transitional fossils for macroevolution.
5:00 Information theory doesn't support evolution, as NO new information has EVER been observed. You have to have at least some evidence to support that claim.
5:49 Yes, there are new species, but NONE with NEW genetic information.
Macroevolution can't explain class transistions. It isn't possible because there is no explanation of the differences in species and classes with differing genetic information.
kachoban 3 months ago
@kachoban watch?v=I14KTshLUkg and watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4
infinit888 3 months ago
@kachoban "Yes, there are new species, but NONE with NEW genetic information." => novel genetic information has been observed. Maybe you should put the Bible down once in a while and check out PubMed.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr What makes you assume I'm a Christian? It doesn't take a Christian nor an astrophysicist to identify the MANY issues with the theory of evolution.
kachoban 3 months ago
@kachoban ok, disregard the Bible statement, but my main point still stands: there are documented studies that show new genetic information being formed. A simple google search will show you a lot.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@kachoban Name one "issue" with evolution, i dare you.
jib1000 1 month ago
No one saw O.J. SImpson murder Nicole. Since no one observed it then we have no way of arriving at an educated guess on what happened. Or we could say magic man in the sky did it.
drudger6666 4 months ago
@drudger6666 O.J. Simpson was brainwashed into doing it or framed
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
@oscarmarin1995
Probably. :)
drudger6666 3 months ago
@drudger6666 Yee. Do you think God is a magic man in the sky?
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
if a male bodybuilder has a child who also bodybuilds, will the child be slightly bigger than the father?
joeybonesgnarly 4 months ago
@joeybonesgnarly
As far as I know, that's Lamarckian evolution and has been debunked.
It'd be cooler, though...
twooffour 4 months ago
Comment removed
joeybonesgnarly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour wait a second, but what about adaptation? wouldn't we have to adapt to lifting heavier things?
joeybonesgnarly 4 months ago
@joeybonesgnarly Not necessarily. If the child inherited "stronger" muscle genes, then yes. If they don't, then no.
Blazy9 4 months ago in playlist Videos from cdk007
Comment removed
joeybonesgnarly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blazy9 @twooffour wait a second, but what about adaptation? wouldn't we have to adapt to lifting heavier things?
joeybonesgnarly 4 months ago
@joeybonesgnarly a certain amount of lamarckian effect may occur via epigenetic marks, but i don't think its as straightforward as that, and it isn't unlimited. Genes do not change based on the use of traits, though a useless trait may eventually be lost to genetic drift and mutation if there are no selective forces keeping it alive in a population.
kotoroshinoto 3 months ago
Good concise information.
Good work, Thanks!
MrHoolits 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution. Evolutionists must assume that new genes came into being by random mutations caused by random environmental forces (i.e. radiation). That's a blind leap of faith for evolutionists. Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Gene mutations have been shown to produce new genes that do different things. Same thing with chromosomes. Clearly you are not as well versed on the subject as you would like to assume. You know the only real defining factor that separates us from chimps is we have one fused chromosome that they have. That is why we have one less pair..... Thats really it. Thats all it takes.
CtheWolfe 5 months ago
@CtheWolfe ...how did it get fused together?
j2mfp78 5 months ago
@j2mfp78 Most likely a replication error that was passed along and progressed as such.
CtheWolfe 5 months ago
@CtheWolfe I dont see how that could have happend "naturaly" i believe in the alien intervention theroy i mean we geneticly modify things all the time whats so crazy to think something in the past did the same to create us.
j2mfp78 5 months ago
@j2mfp78 Clearly you do not understand embryology all that well. Replication errors are the primary cause of pretty much every abnormality and defect. If it was not we would be perfect clones essentially.
CtheWolfe 5 months ago
@CtheWolfe okay youtube expert.
j2mfp78 3 months ago
@j2mfp78 mmm no I have just read a few books on biology that is all... not an expert.
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
so we are assuming your definition that the difference between micro and macro surrounds change in species with inabilities to reproduce without considering the fact that the categorization of species in of itself could be, and i believe it is, very flawed. Just because two different animals of the same kind cannot reproduce doesn't mean that macroevolution has occurred. While you argue that 'kind' is arbitrary to opinion why aren't classification such as family and genus any more so?
toranvarghese 6 months ago
@toranvarghese That is actually the scientific definition of what separates species. Clearly because your use of the word "kind" you are clearly a creationist refusing to accept commonly accepted scientific definitions.
CtheWolfe 5 months ago
I mean mean the pic of the seagulls with the lines between them not the words being said
ChooksLoverCC 7 months ago
4:50 that's why the classification system is wrong, different 'species' can breed together, and produce viable offspring (like the macaws and dogs/wolves/coyotes) They still claim that some species are a different species, when they can breed, and some of them do often. The fact that they can breed and they're 'different' is good evidence for evolution.
ChooksLoverCC 7 months ago
I love how the commentary in the video chewed it down for everyone . . . it's a shame that it doesn't help convince anyone otherwise
Akiachrounoumena 7 months ago
@meteor7331
If it's so obvious then fitting an expansion into 490 words or less shouldn't be too hard.
June28July 8 months ago
@meteor7331
You weren't able to detect the sarcasm when I referred to your non-expansion of
"Fairly clear, I would say"
as
"one of the clearest expansions in the history of expansions"?
Again, FAIL!
June28July 8 months ago
@meteor7331
FAIL
June28July 8 months ago
@meteor7331
Well, I must say that was one of the clearest expansions in the history of expansions!
June28July 8 months ago
@meteor7331
Expand on this:
"the fossil record completely falsifies sequential/gradualistic processes"
June28July 8 months ago
@meteor7331
Universal common descent is impossible? How do you mean?
June28July 8 months ago
That outro was awesome. How did you make it? I just have to know.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
damn evolutionists watch?v=7A6qtrDGiXI
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
How did he move the goalposts? he said very clearly, several times, that micro-evolution is any changes no matter how large that do not create a change in species. he said macro evolution is any changes, no matter how small, that do change the species. he defined species as animals that cannot breed with each other to produce fertile offspring. he defined changes as species wide changes in allele frequency. if you paid attention to the video, he made no fallacy's of equivocation.
lazarouslive 9 months ago
@bestvalue
How did he move the goalposts? he said very clearly, several times, that micro-evolution is any changes no matter how large that do not create a change in species. he said macro evolution is any changes, no matter how small, that do change the species. he defined species as animals that cannot breed with each other to produce fertile offspring. he defined changes as species wide changes in allele frequency. if you paid attention to the video, he made no fallacy's of equivocation.
lazarouslive 9 months ago
Amazing how he accuses creationists of moving the goalposts and committing the fallacy of equivocation with the word "kind" while he just did it with "evolution," species" and "macroevolution."
bestvalue 9 months ago
i think i missed the first chapter,but it common for hard headed evolutionsts to skip all the good parts.im so sick of hearing about darwins stupid finches.
mchadron 9 months ago
Good video...do you have a version which does not show images of bible...make your case without bible references?
I would like to use this in school, but cannot do so with the overt bible criticism.
geotuc1 9 months ago
But before a new functional protein (or RNA for that matter) sequence has emerged and started to function, it is clear that natural selection is incapable of providing any guidance to the evolution that will (hopefully) lead to that new functional endpoint.
How do we then characterize evolution of that sort? We have no natural selection of relevance, so we are left with RANDOM MUTATION to do the job of finding new functions.
Can random evolution find new functions?
Think about it.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@tubewatch59 Evolution is not 'random process'. It is chemistry.
gimmepassword 10 months ago
@gimmepassword
Saying that evolution isn't a random process, but chemistry, is the same as saying that throwing dice isn't about random number generation, but about the laws of physics.
Evolution and dice throwing involve physics and chemistry (any physical process involves physics, and evolution (and dice) incorporate chemicals) but they're both random processes as well.
An all knowing entity could accurately predict the outcomes of each (thus theoretically non random) but we can't.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@gimmepassword
You might say that evolution is rather like throwing weighted dice. And thus non-random. But if you think about it, it is still a random process. When you throw 2 six sided dice, then the number of possible outcomes are pretty limited and weighted dice may skew the outcomes into just a few (most of the time). But what if a million weighted dice were thrown at once? Would the outcome look non-random? Definately not! And in any case evolution isn't always weighted.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@gimmepassword
It's simple to prove that evolution is only sometimes weighted (affected by natural selection) and other times is not affected by it. In addition, in order for new systems to evolve into existence (functional systems that didn't previously exist) then it is eeasily shown that evolution is purely random becausae natural selection cannot influence towards the selection for or against a function that doesn't exist (because NS depends on function comparison for selection).
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@gimmepassword
Since the kind of evolution that is interesting to people arguing for or against the notion that evolution "explains the appearance of biological functional systems that didn't previously exist beforehand", then the kind of evolution that's interesting and relevant to the Creation versus Evolution debate, is nothing more than a random process. As we know, random processes don't create sophisticated functional systems. That requires a designer. That idea scares some people.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@tubewatch59 Ah, I'll explain to you why it is not a random process, let's take an example, bacteria.
If you send a bacteria to a cold sea, most likely after few billion years the bacteria will have a good fur to survive better. If you send a bacteria to a worm place, most likely after few billion years the bacteria will have less fur.
It's the power of evolution, to make it better for your son's life.
gimmepassword 10 months ago
@gimmepassword
Evolution (of the kind you're talking of (that can use natural selection) can only make slight adjustments of biological systems that already exist. It doesn't create the new systems. It can only vary what exists a little. That doesn't explain where new kinds of life come from. It only explains how existing life adapts a little to changing conditions. That kind of adaption is too unlikely to evolve new systems. Also, specific systems already exist helping life to adapt.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@tubewatch59 Micro evolution, Micro evolution, Micro evolution, Micro evolution, Micro evolution, Micro evolution, Micro evolution and eventually you get macro evolution.
gimmepassword 10 months ago
@gimmepassword
You can walk to your room. Also, you can walk to your front door. You can walk to the next suburb and maybe even to the next city. You may even be able to walk to the coast or across the continent.
But you'll never "walk" across the ocean. And you'll never walk into orbit, or be able to walk to the moon. There are certain journeys which simply can't be made by walking. There are barriers in most complicated kinds of transitions. Why should that be false with life?
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@tubewatch59 What do you mean? evolution isn't :
day 1 nothing
day 2 cell
day 3 fish
gimmepassword 10 months ago
« It doesn't create the new systems »
What "new systems" are you speaking of? Consider: wings are just modified forelimbs. Forelimbs are just modified fins. Fins are just modified flaps of epidermis. Skin is just modified surface tissue. A multicellular organism is just a colony of single celled organisms adapted to coexist. And so on.
At what point did an entirely "new system" spring into existence?
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
@XGralgrathor
I suppose that the actual point in question is whether wings are just modified forelimbs (in an evolutionary sense). I'd think by now that if transitions from one to another were possible we'd be well on the way to showing that via artificial selection experiments. But they can also be variations on a design theme as well, which solves difficulties related to evolutionay transitions, since each would have been designed "from scratch", but using similar design patterns.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
« whether wings are just modified forelimbs »
We can see they are, can't we? We can see exactly how the various bones in the paws and hands of mammals relate to the bones in the wings of birds, and how their shape would have to be altered in order to make one into the other (or more accurately, how they might derive from the same precursor). The changes are not so large; they're mostly some tweaking of size and proportion. So what objection is there against the scenario?
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
« we'd be well on the way to showing that via artificial selection experiments »
Why? What purpose would such experiments have, if any? For one thing, nobody is proposing that such a transition happened in 50, 5000 or even 5 million years: while the difference between bone structure of wing and paw are minimal, the difference between bone structure of human hand and ape hand is even less significant, and even that took 6 mln years.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
« But they can also be variations on a design theme as well »
Which, again, is not a testable proposition. But I think we've been through all that.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
@XGralgrathor
There is some basis for thinking this might be the case for potential ID systems. In programming textbooks there are now often chapters given over to "Design Patterns". Programmers are encouraged to use well proven design patterns (solutions that are "known to work well") to solve frequently recurring problems. ie. A "Why reinvent the wheel?" approach to engineering. We've realized the utility of design patterns. They likely would work well for biological designs as well.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
« There is some basis for thinking [...] »
Sure, fine. But what "new systems" were you speaking of? Consider: wings are just modified forelimbs. Forelimbs are just modified fins. Fins are just modified flaps of epidermis. Skin is just modified surface tissue. A multicellular organism is just a colony of single celled organisms adapted to coexist. Each new form just a slight modification of the form before it. At what point is it required to introduce an entirely "new system"?
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
For theistic evolutionists (with whom I disagree) it is possible I suppose to fall back on the idea that evolution was somehow "guided by God" such that the correct mutations happenned in the correct order and that many other law of probability would likewise have to be "bent" in order for evolution to be able to do what it manifestly cannot.
But you and many others don't believe in evolution guided by God. You beleive in natural selection and random mutations (or various kinds).
tubewatch59 10 months ago
But what about when we have the requirement that evolution invent a new function? This requirement is everywhere in evolutions past. For proteins it must be the case that over and over again, the evolution of existing aa sequences with one function (or no function, or a lost function) evolved into proteins with a different function. New functions had to come from somewhere.
But BEFORE they emerged, natural slection is IRRELEVANT to the evolution that occurs on the way to such new function.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
Yes, I know that people claim over and over that EVOLUTION IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS!!!
That is the case (that it's not random) when you have a trait or function or systems that is ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING, and thus natural selection is able to select for or against changes that make neutral, beneficial or deleterious changes. Such evolution is (to a rather meagre extent) guided and non random. It is able to (mostly) prevent such changes that are very obviously deleterious.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
I know that irreducible complexity is supposedly dealt with (in particular by proffering the Matzke explanation of the evolution of the flagellum) however that explanation falls over by being unable to explain how each of the many steps of protein evolution were able to occur. If Matzke didn't know it then, he must know about it by now, that protein functionality is rare in sequence space. Far too rare for an unguided random process of evolution to be able to find such potential functionality.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
Therefore, what is key is how these poised response systems and adaptional networks came into existence in the first place? The book argues that evolution is capable of adapting to a certain extent because of these preexisting systems. But these completely depend on what they call the core conserved processes (the underlying and very sophisticated cellular machinery). Do the books authors explain how such machinery came to exist? No, they must resort to asserting that it just did evolve.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
The key issue of relevance, is how the macroevolution you decribe (which is really just "micromacroevolution") is capable of defeating for instance, the barriers of irreducible complexity and the rarity of functional protein sequences.
Cecal valves wouldn't seem to be a good example of the evolution of new structures since at the large scale in biology we already have (as described by Kirshner and Gerhardt in "the Plausibility of life") poised response networks capable of making such changes.
tubewatch59 10 months ago
One place where evolutionsts are fundamentally wrong is:
You correctly point out that cats cannot evolve into dogs because they both lie on separate branches of the "evolutionary tree". You can't cross from one node onto another completely different tree node. Yes.
But tree nodes being connected vertically in these diagrams is a fictional construct! The branch points located lower down are also fictional, save for the simple known cases of (so called) macroevolution (the mosquitos).
tubewatch59 10 months ago
@meteor7331 Correct. But these folks actually believe it is. Not because it is demonstrated empirically, they just assume "evolution" is true. Rather than considering what needs to be investigated, speciation necessarily proves what they already assume to be true. No need for them to inquire further about ancestral links or whether natural selection can really do the job. That just annoys them, because the thought it might NOT be true is unacceptable to their atheistic religious preference.
GospelHouseKat 11 months ago
Actually, it is. If it isn't, then you need to create some third arbitrary division. The distinction rests on the level of the species by definition. You're wrong, meteor.
seanc97007 11 months ago
Microevolution is possible..like breeding different dogs...Lots of people like to believe that macroevolution is true yet, it's imppossible....and with all the problems evolution has....its just not really a solid belief/base. and with science changing all the time..there is only gonna be more problems...
ThePlazimiciron 1 year ago
@ThePlazimiciron Well said, my friend...
Thaer35 1 year ago
@ThePlazimiciron How is it impossible? Why is it impossible? You must have an intimate familiarity with evolutionary theory and mechanisms of speciation to make such a claim, and something tells me you do not. What are these so-called "problems?"
seanc97007 11 months ago
@seanc97007 It is impossible because macroevolution is based on mutations..And mutations are harmful to organisms. It's quite simple.
ThePlazimiciron 11 months ago
@ThePlazimiciron Microevolution is ALSO based on mutations. The vast majority of mutations that take place are completely neutral with respect to their effect on the organism. This is due to redundancy in the genetic code and vast areas of non-coding regions. However, to say that all mutations are "harmful" to organisms is simply dishonest and/or ignorant. It also ignores the fact that mutations can lead to novel phenotypes that can, in fact, increase Darwinian fitness.
Your'e simply wrong.
seanc97007 11 months ago
@seanc97007 Then how come when people add or subtract chromosmes from a organisms they always turn up half dead or don't look right or dead?
ThePlazimiciron 11 months ago
@ThePlazimiciron Polyploidy in plants destroys your argument about variance in the number of chromosomes (plants can double, triple, even quadruple their number of chromosomes with no ill-effects). The removal of an entire chromosome would very likely cause harm to an organism, only because necessary coding regions would be removed.
However, mutation isn't limited to the addition/subtraction of entire chromosomes. You're ignoring entire categories of mutation with your example.
seanc97007 11 months ago
@seanc97007 Well, your mother ignored the fact that I evolved my dick with super dick growth mutations...And she didn't notice. :((((
ThePlazimiciron 11 months ago
@ThePlazimiciron Really?
cee12340 11 months ago
@cee12340 Yes, I was so mad..
ThePlazimiciron 11 months ago
@ThePlazimiciron Ah, the juvenile insult. The last refuge of a man who has been intellectually destroyed. Nice work.
seanc97007 10 months ago
Funny how every creationist is an expert on the differance between micro evolution and macro evolution, little evolution and big evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Very Good!!! Yes some creationists just switch out terms and definitions to make evolution "invalid"
zellfalcon31 1 year ago
I refuse to use the terms Macroevolution/Microevolution. I just say evolution. The whole "micro/macro" statement was just some bullcrap creationists came up with the explain away variation.
paulalex19 1 year ago
@paulalex19 no, actually this guy explained the two very well. it's not bullcrap it's logic. to just say evolution is relatively broad.
1pixle 1 year ago
@1pixle You can just use "variation" to describe small changes, like we have until now, and evolution for special transitions.
paulalex19 1 year ago
@paulalex19 but variation is commonly used when discussing a population. and it does not really explain a slight change but rather a differance(hence using it for population). evolution is the change of the species as a whole. micro and macro really just come down to classifying either of 2 different types of evolution.
1pixle 1 year ago
The fact that no new specie families are popping up can be used to support the idea that evolution takes a while - nothing more.
Check out Amphicyonids (bear-dog) if you wish to see where dogs evolved from.
bonjohen 1 year ago
It is impossible to believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. The only difference is timescale. Macroevolution is just repeated microevolution.
Meex1989 1 year ago
And they are all still dogs
HodEnoch 1 year ago
Speciation of one mosquito into another is an example of natural selection not “goo to you evolution”, this is known as an equivocation fallacy.
Natural selection is a sorting and actual loss of information that may indeed lead to speciation.
You may be able to start out with a wolf like ancestor of modern dogs and thru natural selection and selective breeding end up with hundreds of breeds of dogs yet you will never take one of those genetically depleted breeds and reverse the process .
HodEnoch 1 year ago