Jump to content


Photo

"limiters" To Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 04 November 2017 - 01:02 PM

     I would like to start a new thread and one from an angle that I don’t think anyone has proposed thus far. And this is regarding known biologic “limiters” to evolutionary change. I have made the challenge several times in this forum to test what is suggested by the fossil record against what can be demonstrated by experimentation. Until that is done, all we have are assertions that macro-evolutionary change is possible and that intermediate or “transitional” forms can only be interpreted as the result of common descent. 

 

     Much can be said about the fossil record. In my opinion, I think that the fossil record is the best circumstantial evidence that appears to support a UCA model but the way it is presented is "cherry-picked" and misrepresented to strengthen the appearance of that support. For this comment thread, I would like to stay focused on the observable nature of biologic evolution.

 

     One undeniable fact of evolution, based on what is observed, is that change happens, but it doesn’t go far. Time is usually given as the excuse. We all know that after a hundred and fifty years of experiments and thousands of years of animal husbandry, organisms remain what they basically already were and are. Wolf/Dogs are still canines, Cattle are still bovines, chickens are still chickens, Fruit flies are still fruit flies, nematodes are still nematodes, and bacteria are still bacteria. A lot of variation can be produced due to the re-combining of existing genetic information, and some even by mutations - the corruption of that information. But the more mutations that happen, the more that macro-evolutionary changes are hampered, not progressed.

 

     There is a reason for this. It is not because not enough time has elapsed. It is because there are many named biologic “limiters”, although the literature will not call them as such. These limiting factors exist at all levels, from the large and obvious to the small and obscure. Yet, combined, they explain the reasons why we don’t observe macro-evolutionary change, nor evidence that it eventually will occur.

 

l_015_02_l.gif

.....and dogs are still dogs.


  • Blitzking likes this

#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 November 2017 - 04:48 PM

What would you class as macro evolutionary change ? Species ? Family ? Phylum ?

 

150 yrs is not a long time, even for bacteria, and obviously so since they've been existing very successfully for billions of years. Assuming evolution is true, what would you expect to happen in that time ?

 

Dogs are still dogs after 10,000 yrs of breeding but the observable feature of the fossil record is that Canidae is a very recent arrival relative to the geological time span. I'm not sure about your cherry picking charge, it seems that this is what creationists do, selecting higher level classifications such as "jellyfish" or "dragonflies" but they seem blind to the pervading message from the fossil record which is that life on earth becomes increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go. I don't know how you can ignore that. Neither can I understand how any intelligent person can accept the risible creationist explanations given for the fossil pattern, do you ?

 

You ought to excise the word 'evolutionist' from your description, it's not what you are, clearly.



#3 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 04 November 2017 - 06:40 PM

For this comment, I will only cover some macro-level – the large and obvious “limiters”.

 

Time is the most obvious macro-level limiter to evolution. While certainly it seems that millions, even billions of years may be a huge amount of time for evolution to act, is it really sufficient to produce the “mud to man” evolution? It is easy enough to imagine so…but science demands more than imagination.

 

I realize that the proponents of ToE will say that the 4.3 billion year age of the Earth is plenty of time to achieve all of the biologic diversity that we see today. I would say that is too simplistic. Without even going into the problems of abiogenesis, time is nothing more than a number. A very young Earth, of course, makes the ToE completely unworkable. But even an old Earth model provides a number which can be applied to various competing models. And this number is not infinite.

 

Population Size and Reproduction Rates work in conjunction with time. Population sizes will not be infinite. Organisms such as bacteria or nematodes are going to have potentially much larger number values than whales or pandas. Reproduction rates vary widely. Fast reproducing organisms such as bacteria should be able to achieve more through evolution than other organisms such as humans or elephants. Most people have heard about the evolution of the whale, from land dwelling mammal to fully marine organism in a matter of a few million years. But is this plausible given the historically low population numbers of whales and the slow reproduction rates? I think not. 



#4 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 04 November 2017 - 07:11 PM

Wibble,

 

What would you class as macro evolutionary change ? Species ? Family ? Phylum ?

 

This is a good question. Species level change...definitely not. Speciation is merely the splitting of already existing genetic information. Phylum, yes because the difference between phyla is significantly unique body plans. Where the theoretical boundaries are, is yet to be determined. Science should be putting more focus on predictive evolutionary models and on genetic information in a "program" sense and not just a morphological sense. It is likely that the boundaries will reside at different taxonomic levels depending on some of the factors that I cite above, that is, given the age of the Earth, population numbers, reproduction rates, etc.

 

150 yrs is not a long time, even for bacteria, and obviously so since they've been existing very successfully for billions of years. Assuming evolution is true, what would you expect to happen in that time ?

 

 

Agreed, it is not a long time. And yet we have uncovered many "limiters" and not pathways that would allow continued progression in an evolutionary sense that would support a UCA model. One thing that we should see, are linear fitness pathways. But we don't. I will talk more about this in a later comment.


 

 

Dogs are still dogs after 10,000 yrs of breeding but the observable feature of the fossil record is that Canidae is a very recent arrival relative to the geological time span. I'm not sure about your cherry picking charge, it seems that this is what creationists do, selecting higher level classifications such as "jellyfish" or "dragonflies" but they seem blind to the pervading message from the fossil record which is that life on earth becomes increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go. I don't know how you can ignore that. Neither can I understand how any intelligent person can accept the risible creationist explanations given for the fossil pattern, do you ?

 

 

 

 

I want to keep this particular thread on biological limiters, and not on the fossil record. The point that is made regarding dogs is the amount of variation that is possible within a given species. There is a lot of insightful information that can be gleaned from dog breeding. From a reproductive perspective, Wolves, coyotes, jackals, dogs, etc can all be considered the same species. How many of the named species in the fossil record are actually just variations, juveniles, etc? These variations are only one part of the evolutionary picture. And NOT the macro-evolutionary part. 



#5 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:50 AM

Another large scale limiting factor for evolution is population dynamics. Here are a couple of named issues, Huldane’s Dilemma, Fixation problems, and Nash Equilibrium.

 

There has been a lot written about Huldane’s Dilemma, but it has not been debunked. A brief summary would be something like this. Assuming that mutations are the driving force of macro-evolutionary change, then obviously a large population has the potential for many more mutations occurring and thus for natural selection to act on. However, in large populations, the likelihood of “fixing” a mutation into the population is much lower than “fixing” it in a small population. So the two scenarios work against each other.

 

There are plenty of internet articles to for reading further into Huldane’s Dilemma. I found this cite provided a rather interesting comment on Huldane’s dilemma. http://alienryderfle...m/haldane.shtml

 

Fixation problems are very real to the evolutionary models. Just because a beneficial mutation occurs, there is no guarantee that it will ever become established in the population.

 

Nash Equilibrium basically deals with the complex interaction with other competing species. These interactions do more to stabilize evolution than to drive it. And when this equilibrium is disturbed, the result is more likely to be "coevolutionary avalanches" ....aka extinctions. 

http://www.sciencedi...022519305800943



#6 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 November 2017 - 09:44 PM

What would you class as macro evolutionary change ? Species ? Family ? Phylum ?

 

150 yrs is not a long time, even for bacteria, and obviously so since they've been existing very successfully for billions of years. Assuming evolution is true, what would you expect to happen in that time ?

 

Dogs are still dogs after 10,000 yrs of breeding but the observable feature of the fossil record is that Canidae is a very recent arrival relative to the geological time span. I'm not sure about your cherry picking charge, it seems that this is what creationists do, selecting higher level classifications such as "jellyfish" or "dragonflies" but they seem blind to the pervading message from the fossil record which is that life on earth becomes increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go. I don't know how you can ignore that. Neither can I understand how any intelligent person can accept the risible creationist explanations given for the fossil pattern, do you ?

 

You ought to excise the word 'evolutionist' from your description, it's not what you are, clearly.

 

"And obviously so since they've been existing very successfully for billions of years."

 

Obviously Nothing! The problem is, this is a fairytale.. you have ZERO  Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it.  You just keep repeating it because you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to believe it since the age of 10.

That is the good thing about websites like this, they expose the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth for the world to see, showing people that it is Satan's greatest lie since the garden of Eden... You remain on here however, kicking

against the goads... Is this some kind of macabre entertainment for you? One would think that you would most happy at one of the Atheist websites where they tell all of the myths that your itching ears want to hear, like the Bible predicted 2000 years ago..

 

 

 

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  2 Timothy 4:3-5

 

And Paul said, "About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice say to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15‘Who are You, Lord?’ I asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied.…



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:18 AM

 

Wibble: 150 yrs is not a long time, even for bacteria,

 

Bacteria can replicate in 20 mins. If I am to be generous and say they can reproduce twice an hour since there are about 8760 hours in one year that's roughly 17 thousand generations in one year or 2.5 million generations in 150 years.

 

Evolution isn't about time, it is about reproduction. If humans reproduce on average every 20 years, for humans to get 2.5 million generations it would take 50 million years.

 

So in 150 years, there has been 50 million years of bacteria evolution. 

 

150 years for bacteria is a fairly long time, as it's the equivalent of 50 million human years; (please read message one in the below link)

 

http://evolutionfair...od/#entry118340

 

150 years is not a long time, sure, but in terms of evolution, for bacteria it's pretty long.

 

But there is more bad news for your assertion, it gets a lot worse than this for they have found fossilised bacteria which is identical to todays and is "millions of years" old;

 

Quote

 

 

For instance, bacteria have been resuscitated from soils and vegetable matter trapped for a supposed 25 to 35 million years in amber (Anonymous, 1997). They have also been isolated from insects trapped in amber dated 25 to 135 million years old (Monastersky, 1995.....If this isn’t enough, a recent report claims to have isolated and revived salt-resistant bacteria from a salt inclusion dated 250 million years old, doubling the length of time bacteria can survive trapped in rocks 

 

So how many bacterial generations would there be in 250 million literal years?


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#8 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:55 PM

To get to the microscopic level "limiters" on evolution, I will start with an obvious one. 

 

The Nature of mutations and Rarity of beneficial mutations/Ratio of Deleterious to Beneficial mutations  

 

I don’t think we need to go much into the nature of mutations. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful/deleterious. They cause cancer, many diseases, inbreeding problems, aging, the degradation of genetic information. In rare cases a loss of genetic information can be beneficial under certain conditions. And the supposed “neutral” mutations are better understood as tolerated.

 

​We can go more into beneficial mutations, why they are only marginally so and only under specific conditions, and also why they represent a loss of information...but I think this has already been covered in this forum. There is not much to dispute.

 

Quite some time ago, I found this study. Sorry I don't think I can find the source anymore:

“One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt."

 

If these numbers are accurate, and I think they are in the "ballpark", it should hint at just how problematic it is to expect mutations to be a driving force for the "Bottom-up" model of the Theory of Evolution. 



#9 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:36 PM

Mutations Continued...

It is well known that beneficial mutations accumulating over time are thought to be the primary driver of evolutionary change. This leads to another named "limiter" that makes this assumption highly problematic.

Muller's Rachet

The main effect of Muller’s ratchet is the accumulation of slightly harmful DNA changes in a population over many generations. This can lead to the extinction of species and is thus of considerable biological interest.

Basically, beneficial mutations must accumulate in order to drive macro-evolution, but harmful mutations also accumulate and accumulate more rapidly than beneficial ones.

Also see Muller’s ratchet and Y chromosome.



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 November 2017 - 04:13 AM

Yes Muller's rachet is similar to genetic entropy. Basically the mutational load can't be removed by natural selection. Apparently negative selection can eventually weed out negative mutations but genetic rust is inevitably unstoppable because the net effect is there are too many "nearly neutral" mutations which have ever so slightly deleterious effect. Even if they don't have a negative effect on an individual, on their own, it seems if I understand it correctly, collectively they eventually will because it degrades the genome.

 

I'm not sure this rachet thing is the same as Sanford's genetic entropy but it seems very similar;

 

https://creation.com...heory-in-crisis

 

A huge number of mutations are added to the germline of every baby born, and these are spread throughout the various chromosomes. Human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million, inherited in toto, and never break apart (p. 55, 81). A desirable trait will be accompanied by an undesirable trait, within the same individual (p. 79).

Therefore, within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise (p. 82). All of the individual 100,000–200,000 linkage blocks in genomes are deteriorating.

Furthermore, recombination appears to be primarily between genes rather than randomly between nucleotides. This means that an inferior gene is doomed to remain in that lineage, unless a back-mutation occurs, which is vanishingly unlikely. This means that the good mutations and the bad mutations cannot be separated, another example of the one-way direction of degradation known as ‘Müller’s ratchet’.

Being now clearly persuaded that the net effect of mutations will be loss of information-guided functionality, we are ready to digest another insight. Tragic as a devastating mutation may be to the affected and family, the effects of this ‘curse’ would be limited to the victim if no offspring survive. But for the population as a whole, the major damage turns out not to be the severe mutations.

Near neutrals 6102mutation-effect.jpgFigure 1. Far more mutations are deleterious than advantageous. Individually, most have too small an effect to be acted upon by natural selection (p. 32).The majority of deleterious mutations have individually a negligible effect on viability of the organism. This is especially true if the ‘competitors’ are also accumulating non-deadly but nevertheless undesirable mutations. This is like the rusting of a car, one iron atom at a time (p. 72). Even one extra unnecessary nucleotide is slightly deleterious—as it slows cell replication and wastes energy 

  • Gneiss girl likes this

#11 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:29 AM

 

Wibble: 150 yrs is not a long time, even for bacteria,

 

Bacteria can replicate in 20 mins. If I am to be generous and say they can reproduce twice an hour since there are about 8760 hours in one year that's roughly 17 thousand generations in one year or 2.5 million generations in 150 years.

 

Evolution isn't about time, it is about reproduction. If humans reproduce on average every 20 years, for humans to get 2.5 million generations it would take 50 million years.

 

 

20 minutes is under ideal conditions with no limiting factors (like food). In real world conditions bacteria do not consistently replicate every 20 minutes.
 



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:57 AM

 

 

Goku: 20 minutes is under ideal conditions with no limiting factors (like food). In real world conditions bacteria do not consistently replicate every 20 minutes.

 

How often do they then? It won't matter, it won't change that Wibble's assertion is guaranteed to be mathematically and logically INCORRECT, even if you can stretch it to them replicating once a month.



#13 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 November 2017 - 08:20 AM

     One undeniable fact of evolution, based on what is observed, is that change happens, but it doesn’t go far. Time is usually given as the excuse. We all know that after a hundred and fifty years of experiments and thousands of years of animal husbandry, organisms remain what they basically already were and are. Wolf/Dogs are still canines, Cattle are still bovines, chickens are still chickens, Fruit flies are still fruit flies, nematodes are still nematodes, and bacteria are still bacteria. A lot of variation can be produced due to the re-combining of existing genetic information, and some even by mutations - the corruption of that information. But the more mutations that happen, the more that macro-evolutionary changes are hampered, not progressed.

 

     There is a reason for this. It is not because not enough time has elapsed. It is because there are many named biologic “limiters”, although the literature will not call them as such. These limiting factors exist at all levels, from the large and obvious to the small and obscure. Yet, combined, they explain the reasons why we don’t observe macro-evolutionary change, nor evidence that it eventually will occur.

 

l_015_02_l.gif

.....and dogs are still dogs.

 

Dogs are a relatively new clade; why would you expect them to have evolved into something other than a canine in the time that they have been here? I assume by canine you mean the family Canidae, which would mean you would expect dogs to have evolve into something like a bear (or that dissimilar) since they genetically separated from wolves.

 

It seems the largest estimate for when dogs separated from wolves is 40,000 years. I think a two year generation time for wolves/dogs is more than fair towards creationism, and for an easy comparison let's take a human generation as 20 years, or 1/10 that of a dog. So since the wolf-dog split, that is approximately equal to 400,000 human years if you want to compare it to generations and convert it into years. 400,000 years ago our ancestral species was H. heidelbergensis, which could have probably passed as an eccentric human if you saw one walking down the street in normal clothes. In that same amount of 'evolutionary time' you think dogs should have evolved into something as dissimilar to them as a bear? That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Based on your examples you seem to expect evolution to dramatically change a species into a different family (or even higher taxonomic rank) in a few thousand years. This is not how ToE works. You have also mentioned whales and how fast they evolved, and that is true; scientists are amazed at how quickly whales evolved, but it still took several million years to make the transition.

 

Population Size and Reproduction Rates work in conjunction with time. Population sizes will not be infinite. Organisms such as bacteria or nematodes are going to have potentially much larger number values than whales or pandas. Reproduction rates vary widely. Fast reproducing organisms such as bacteria should be able to achieve more through evolution than other organisms such as humans or elephants. Most people have heard about the evolution of the whale, from land dwelling mammal to fully marine organism in a matter of a few million years. But is this plausible given the historically low population numbers of whales and the slow reproduction rates? I think not. 

 

As you know evolution doesn't have a goal, and if bacteria find a good niche there isn't any pressure for it to evolve into something dramatically different. Bacteria do 'achieve more' through gaining new food sources they can break down to antibacterial resistance.

 

Do you know how many mutations is thought to have taken place to evolve the whale? If so, we can run some basic calculations to see if it passes the smell test. We see the transitional fossils in a sequence over several million years, so contrary to your qualitative theory the empirical evidence suggests that there was enough time as it did happen.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 November 2017 - 08:35 AM

 

 

Goku: We see the transitional fossils in a sequence over several million years, so contrary to your qualitative theory the empirical evidence suggests that there was enough time as it did happen.

 

Well, no, we don't - in fact the, "candidates" for whale evolution have been debunked sufficiently now that it's almost hard to believe you can not see it.

 

Weak, circumstantial evidence of what you would call "transitions" seem far more likely to be extinct forms that had nothing to do with whales. The point being that Gneiss girl is talking about real life observable science, not stories about cows becoming whales.

 

This is the problem Goku, you just repeat the popularisms of evolution theory even when these things have all been shown to be wrong. Now if you say, "well I believe it is showing whale evolution the evidence", that's fine if you choose to see that but we don't see that at all. Phil Gingerich himself on video say that Rhodocetus didn't have a tail fluke but textbooks continue to show artwork of an evolution story.

 

 

 

Goku: As you know evolution doesn't have a goal, and if bacteria find a good niche there isn't any pressure for it to evolve into something dramatically different

 

Yes I've been waiting for this excuse to arise.

 

However if we are asking the question, "is macro evolution capable of creating all life on earth?" the evidence to satisfy the question, isn't to show bacteria becoming bacteria.

 

So if you think stating that evolution allows stasis means we can infer that evolution is capable of creating all life on earth, that would be the logical equivalent of saying this; "superman theory doesn't insist that the man we say is superman must perform like superman, therefore when you only see our man walking around and acting like a normal man, that's perfectly reasonable for our theory to predict, therefore we can infer that he is superman based on the fact that there is no evidence he is."

 

Is that what you're saying Goku? That bacteria becoming bacteria should convince us that molecules can become microbiologists?

 

 If we ask to see what evolution can do, and we demand something more than dogs becoming dogs and bacteria becoming bacteria, is your answer that this should satisfy us because things don't have to evolve?

 

Lol! So basically you have two answers;

 

1. There hasn't been enough time pass. 

2. If there has been enough time, evolution doesn't have to happen.

 

But what about 3 Goku, why do we never see three in real life?

 

3. We see evolution actually perform a small portion of what it claimed to have performed - which is create every miracle on the planet.

 

CONCLUSION: It's a hell of a weak hand you're playing.

 

(Though I appreciate you done the mathematics so as to avoid the mistake of believing evolutionary time frames are the same as they are for humans, across the spectrum of life, which is more than can be said of a lot of evolutionists, who would just ignore the maths. Fair play on that one.)



#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 November 2017 - 11:36 AM

Wibble: 150 yrs is not a long time, even for bacteria,

 
Bacteria can replicate in 20 mins. If I am to be generous and say they can reproduce twice an hour since there are about 8760 hours in one year that's roughly 17 thousand generations in one year or 2.5 million generations in 150 years.
 
Evolution isn't about time, it is about reproduction. If humans reproduce on average every 20 years, for humans to get 2.5 million generations it would take 50 million years.
 
20 minutes is under ideal conditions with no limiting factors (like food). In real world conditions bacteria do not consistently replicate every 20 minutes.


Real world conditions????

In special lab parameters of environmentally controlled and artificially manipulated extreme optimality of conditions we
cant stop the minute but slow, sure, microdegradation of biotissue

HOWEVER

Out in the wild of nature, Due to high iron content in their blood, Dinosaurs had the remarkable ability to completely STOP the process..

Amazing isnt it?

https://www.smithson...cker-115306469/


"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education

#16 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 08 November 2017 - 12:14 PM

Goku,

Good to finally have some interest from the "opposing" side on this thread.

 

Dogs are a relatively new clade; why would you expect them to have evolved into something other than a canine in the time that they have been here? I assume by canine you mean the family Canidae, which would mean you would expect dogs to have evolve into something like a bear (or that dissimilar) since they genetically separated from wolves

 

 

To say that they are a "new clade" is more of an assertion and rather meaningless. (We had a comment regarding clades in another thread. It is a vague term) In terms of genetic information and by the definition of species, Wolves and Dogs are the same species. They interbreed and can produce fertile offspring. They are different races/breeds only. The wolf population contained a larger quantity of genetic information that made the variation possible in the splitting off of the various other breeds. Mutations play some role in developing some characteristics of some of these breeds but not in a way that supports the ToE UCA model. Do you want to go deeper into why?

 

 

It seems the largest estimate for when dogs separated from wolves is 40,000 years...

 

For the purpose of this thread, let's keep it on biology and what is observable. The past and how much time has elapsed is not testable. Save it for another thread.

 

As far as bacteria go, or dogs for that matter, when in a stable environment, there is no selective pressure to evolve. Of course. this is predicted by any model. 

 

Mike has already addressed the whale scenario. I think that topic was already discussed in a separate thread. The hypothesis falls far short, I have a degree in paleontology. I don't believe it.

 

 

Based on your examples you seem to expect evolution to dramatically change a species into a different family (or even higher taxonomic rank) in a few thousand years. 

 

 

No, what I am saying is that the ToE asserts that this DID happen over millions of years. What I am also saying is that in order for there to be confirming evidence of this, there needs to be demonstrations, observations, or biological experiments which will show that mutations can accumulate such as to write significantly new and complex genetic code. We don't need to show dogs or any organism change all the way to a new family or order. Just a series of coordinating accumulating mutations of that nature that ToE claims. The many breeds of dogs show some change is possible. But there is a pattern and predictability to it and it is not support for the UCA model. Feel free to pick a breed, any breed....that you think is on its way to becoming something significantly "new" and not just an evolutionary dead end. Which breed of dog has genetic information that is significantly unique, more diverse, or complex than the starting ancestor...the wolf? If you can think of one, let's discuss it from a genetic information stand point.

 

As you know evolution doesn't have a goal....

 

 

.Of course it doesn't. The is only one criteria for organisms in regards to ToE or ID Theory, and that is to survive. However, ToE says that evolution proceeds in any "direction", which includes increasing complexity in its instructional information. ID Theory says that it can meander in a relatively lateral direction or degrade. But it will not move in any significant way "up." The many breeds of dogs demonstrates this.

 

 



#17 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:46 PM

Mike,

Yes Muller's rachet is similar to genetic entropy. Basically the mutational load can't be removed by natural selection.

 

Agreed. I have some more named "limiting" factors regarding evolution. But I also think that some of these are interconnected and are all part of the bigger problem with thinking that random mutations can "write" complex functional genetic code merely by having natural selection "save" the good and "weed" out the bad"



#18 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:17 PM

 

Goku: 20 minutes is under ideal conditions with no limiting factors (like food). In real world conditions bacteria do not consistently replicate every 20 minutes.

 

How often do they then? It won't matter, it won't change that Wibble's assertion is guaranteed to be mathematically and logically INCORRECT, even if you can stretch it to them replicating once a month.

 

I don't know the average - I doubt anyone does. The growth rate under ideal conditions depends on the species. 20 minutes is on the fast side, but IIRC some species can cut it down to 15 or 10 minutes, and some species have an ideal growth rate measured in days. However, the main factor of growth rates are environmental conditions, which are rarely if ever ideal outside the lab. Once the population has reached equilibrium with its resources (space is a big one) then the population simply maintains the number of cells, only growing/dividing when there is a death, but even in these conditions the population will eventually start to die out where cells die and no reproduction is taking place.

 

The 20 minute ideal is no where close to reality. Simply put, if you have one cell (and its' subsequent daughter cells) divide every 20 minutes, the mass of this colony would be greater than the planet's in less than 2 days.



#19 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 November 2017 - 08:40 PM

To say that they are a "new clade" is more of an assertion and rather meaningless. (We had a comment regarding clades in another thread. It is a vague term) In terms of genetic information and by the definition of species, Wolves and Dogs are the same species. They interbreed and can produce fertile offspring. They are different races/breeds only. The wolf population contained a larger quantity of genetic information that made the variation possible in the splitting off of the various other breeds. Mutations play some role in developing some characteristics of some of these breeds but not in a way that supports the ToE UCA model. Do you want to go deeper into why?

 


For the purpose of this thread, let's keep it on biology and what is observable. The past and how much time has elapsed is not testable. Save it for another thread.

 

A clade is simply a group of organisms with a common ancestor, it is not vague or meaningless at all; although since there is inbreeding I am using the term loosely. By clade I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the group of wolves that genetically separated from the rest of the species eventually becoming dogs.

 

We can go deeper; I haven't read through all of your posts in this thread yet, so feel free to reference something that I have missed.
 

If you want to keep it on what has been directly observed, exactly what kind of change do you expect to see in dogs over the last few hundred years (maybe few thousand - is that observable/written-record?) if ToE is a valid theory?

 

 

As far as bacteria go, or dogs for that matter, when in a stable environment, there is no selective pressure to evolve. Of course. this is predicted by any model. 

 

So why expect bacteria, the most genetically diverse domain, to evolve into another domain in a few hundred years (since we had microscopes to observe them)? It's like saying we should be seeing humans evolving into something that is not eukaryotic.

 

Mike has already addressed the whale scenario. I think that topic was already discussed in a separate thread. The hypothesis falls far short, I have a degree in paleontology. I don't believe it.

 

I'm just saying it would be nice to show that the number of mutations required for whale evolution is highly improbable given the amount of time we have to work with before simply asserting that there is not enough time. You may have a degree in paleontology, but if we are going to look to expertise it would be prudent to note that the vast majority of paleontologists do conclude that whales evolved from land mammals, and the proposed transitional fossils are transitional fossils (this doesn't mean those transitional species are necessarily direct ancestors to extant whales due to the branching pattern of evolution, or that every initial characteristic thought of for a given fossil is accurate).

 

No, what I am saying is that the ToE asserts that this DID happen over millions of years. What I am also saying is that in order for there to be confirming evidence of this, there needs to be demonstrations, observations, or biological experiments which will show that mutations can accumulate such as to write significantly new and complex genetic code. We don't need to show dogs or any organism change all the way to a new family or order. Just a series of coordinating accumulating mutations of that nature that ToE claims. The many breeds of dogs show some change is possible. But there is a pattern and predictability to it and it is not support for the UCA model. Feel free to pick a breed, any breed....that you think is on its way to becoming something significantly "new" and not just an evolutionary dead end. Which breed of dog has genetic information that is significantly unique, more diverse, or complex than the starting ancestor...the wolf? If you can think of one, let's discuss it from a genetic information stand point.

 

So we shouldn't expect to see macro-evolution in the amount of time since recorded observation, but we should be recording mutations that are near macro-evolution level in order to support UCA? I really don't get what you think we should expect in observation. We shouldn't expect dogs to be "on its way to becoming significantly new" in any measurable way for the amount of time that we have been observing/breeding them.

 

New species and sub-species/breeds are known to typically have less genetic diversity than the parent population; speciation (and it's lower level analogues) usually is divergent/branching rather than one population becoming significantly different from its ancestral population over time without any branching forming a new species/breed (i.e. cladogenesis vs. anagenesis). It takes time for the new population to accumulate genetic diversity again via mutations and fixation.

 

Of course it doesn't. The is only one criteria for organisms in regards to ToE or ID Theory, and that is to survive. However, ToE says that evolution proceeds in any "direction", which includes increasing complexity in its instructional information. ID Theory says that it can meander in a relatively lateral direction or degrade. But it will not move in any significant way "up." The many breeds of dogs demonstrates this.

 

What is increasing complexity in its instructional information? We see mutations that duplicate DNA, and others that change the bases to form new proteins. There is no theoretical limit (anymore so than there is in ID based on physics/chemistry), although there is a question of viability in going from stage A to stage B - i.e. each stage must be viable (not necessarily more fit; ironically losing fitness can sometimes be a good thing as it can position a population to climb a different "hill" in the fitness landscape reaching a higher local maximum than before).

 

I know you alluded to this, but just to make it abundantly clear: ToE doesn't say things must always proceed "up"; degradation is part of ToE too.

 

In essence direct observation gives us micro evolution, with genetics giving us known mechanisms for this change. Macro evolution is inferred from that plus other lines of evidence from genetic analysis to the fossil record to biogeography/paleobiogeography. You can come up with some 'interesting' ideas about UCA with direct observations of the type you are restricting us to here, but I don't think you can demonstrate it without the other lines of evidence.

 

One way two competing theories/hypotheses/models are resolved is to simply pit them against each other to see which one has the better explanatory power. So one thing to consider is what direct observation do we have of a designer designing life? What mechanisms have we directly observed this designer using to create life? I know this is beyond the scope of the thread, but it is something to consider for future discussion.



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 November 2017 - 03:54 AM

 

 

Goku: So why expect bacteria, the most genetically diverse domain, to evolve into another domain in a few hundred years (since we had microscopes to observe them)? It's like saying we should be seeing humans evolving into something that is not eukaryotic.

 

Yes but you keep conveniently missing the fact that they have revived identical bacteria from amber and the likes which are dated as many millions of years old. No matter how you stretch it out, the fact is this will represent many billions of evolutionary years for bacteria.

 

 

Yet one cannot ignore the persistent reports of ‘ancient’ microbes being revived from frozen water and sediments,5 and even from salt crystals said to have formed 250 million years ago!6 Note, too, that in each case, the researchers were meticulous in their efforts to prevent contamination.

So what’s the answer?

 

Then we have other small animals which reproduce fairly quickly which we will likely have fossils for. Tardigrada have been found in the cambrian. If you read my list of unchanges organisms and extrapolate the evolutionary years like you did for dogs, you will certainly find larger spans for evolution to work with.

 

https://creation.com...heory-cant-bear (a very good little article really, you may enjoy it, obviously you don't agree with the non-evolution part but as the author says, "thinking evolutionists" do acknowledge when facts are facts, and since you are a thinking evolutionist.........) (flattery will get Goku to read it mike. ;).. it's also pretty amusing, you've gotta love these micro bears; "At the other extreme, they were able to withstand boiling for up to 15 minutes! After only three hours on damp moss, these boiled bears were back on their feet again."

 

At the very least I think it is reasonable to say there is an unimpressive lack of any actual demonstration that macro evolution can occur or produce any small portion of it's claim, which is that it created everything. By comparison if someone claimed to be superman but couldn't even give a demonstration that he could beat any man in an arm wrestling competition....but instead just said, "but I don't have to do those things, I am in superman-stasis, that should be enough to convince you I therefore am superman!" ;)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users