Jump to content


Photo

Microevolution Observed In Laboratory


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#41 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:48 AM

Thanks, but that link doesn't tell me anything about how organisms adapt within a creationist model. Random mutation plus a selection filter is a non-starter. So, could you explain, in your own words, how adaptation takes place?


I already told you,most adaptation is the result of protein replacement and i even gave you a link to verify an example.At least i was kind enough to give you a secular source.If you want a link or video to a creationists source,just let me know.

You can replace proteins to adapt to enviromental changes etc. until the cows come home,it will never produce new genetic information.Your only going to get a limited variation of proteins.

I can't understand why evolutionists think protein replacement can accumulate into new genetic information.And i don't understand why they think that the genetic variation in dogs can accumulate into new genetic information.The size and color of dogs has nothing to do with new organs,traits,etc. it's just a variation of whats there already.

I use to just accept that most scientists believe in evolution,so it must be true until i found out that they believe in it,but don't have any empirical evidence for it.They just call something evolution until it's proven to not be,then they change the theory and start calling something else evolution.LOL




Enjoy.

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 August 2009 - 02:45 PM

Are we singing from the same hymn sheet? Evolutionary computation isn't the same thing as CAD
How does life on Earth adapt? What's the process?

<edit> Let's call Evolutionary Computation something else. How about Adaptive Computation. So, me question is: does Adaptive Computation work?

View Post


The confusion comes in when the evolutionists attempt to prove macroevolution with adaptation (if you wand to call it microevolution that's fine) which it doesn't do. And to equivocate on the point is covered in the forum rules (I believe).

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 August 2009 - 02:49 PM

Hello Ron

What is the distinction between adaptation and evolution?

I thought all evolution was adaptation. I mean, I understood Darwin to mean evolution is just sort of long-term adaptation.

There's no other kind of evolution is there?

Thanks
SeeJay

View Post


It's pretty easy, just see my post above this one :lol:

#44 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 14 August 2009 - 06:13 PM

It's pretty easy, just see my post above this one  :lol:

View Post


Thanks Ron

I suppose I wasn't clear. I'm trying to avoid equivocation.

I've just finished reading Origin of Species, and the whole theory, as I understood it, boils down to small-scale adaptations plus lots of time equals large-scale evolution. I'm not suggesting this proves anything, although it does make sense to me.

What I'm asking is, if we assume for the sake of discussion that adaptation occurs (which all seem to agree on) and the earth is billions of years old (not so much agreement on this point), what extra things would need to be proved to show Darwin's theory is true?

Thanks
SeeJay

#45 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:30 PM

Thanks Ron

I suppose I wasn't clear. I'm trying to avoid equivocation.

I've just finished reading Origin of Species, and the whole theory, as I understood it, boils down to small-scale adaptations plus lots of time equals large-scale evolution. I'm not suggesting this proves anything, although it does make sense to me.

What I'm asking is, if we assume for the sake of discussion that adaptation occurs (which all seem to agree on) and the earth is billions of years old (not so much agreement on this point), what extra things would need to be proved to show Darwin's theory is true?

Thanks
SeeJay

View Post


We would expect to see more conclusive fossil evidence in the geological record so people wouldn't have to say, like you did, "it does make sense to me", or "I can imagine it being true". If I use my imagination it can make sense to me too. What people are doing is replacing God with Time, Time is their god, "plus lots of Time..." Since you just read The Origin of the Species you know that Darwin alluded to the lack of geological evidence, and that lack of evidence still exists today. That's because evolution is not true in my opinion.

One or two fossils that we aren't sure of don't prove evolution, we should expect to see billions of transitionary fossils if evolution by common ancestry of all species were true over billions of years. What we do have is evidence in the fossil record of animals with advanced eyes like extinct Trilobites that have thousands of lenses in one eye. Fossils that are found of the kinds of animal that are alive today look like the same kind of animal, no evolution found.

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:31 PM

Thanks Ron

I suppose I wasn't clear. I'm trying to avoid equivocation.

I've just finished reading Origin of Species, and the whole theory, as I understood it, boils down to small-scale adaptations plus lots of time equals large-scale evolution. I'm not suggesting this proves anything, although it does make sense to me.

What I'm asking is, if we assume for the sake of discussion that adaptation occurs (which all seem to agree on) and the earth is billions of years old (not so much agreement on this point), what extra things would need to be proved to show Darwin's theory is true?

Thanks
SeeJay

View Post


I don't believe so, because all things being equal, with millions or billions of years, and the diversity of animal life, Humans wouldn't be the only highly civilized creatures inhabiting this planet. It just makes no logical sense. :lol:

And there's nothing in Posted Image that can give an answer for, or change that fact.

And that's just the tip of the ice berg (but we won't get into the whole global warming fiasco) :lol:

#47 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:00 PM

Well technically that doesn't stop it. It would prevent the changes from being as big as an evolutionist might expect, but it wouldn't stop it altogether. I'm wondering if creationists reject macro evolution outright, or do they just reject the timescale being so large?


Is the process observable?
Have all the transitional fossils been found?
Is the process repeatable?
And as you know, there are breeding bounderies. So as evolution supposetly happened, how did the evolving species always know who to breed with in order to continue?

View Post


I'm talking about mirco-evolution/adapting, so yes it is observable. Ditto to it being repeatable.

How did species know who to breed with? Well I guess it's a reasonable question, but we know that this process is still continuing today (humans don't breed with apes for example) so there must be an explanation for it. I assume it has something to do with instinct and attraction.

What I'm asking is, if we all agree that micro evolution happens, what is the process that prevents these small changes from accumulating? It's a purely theoretical question; you don't need to see macro evolution to be able to ask the question.

Regards,

Arch.

#48 TheJarJam

TheJarJam

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indy

Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:31 PM

Uncommon Descent's Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design has a great response to this question.

http://www.uncommond...faq/#macroismic

12] Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.


A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software.

Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.



I'm going to post the next entry as well, as it's another cliche I've seen the Darwinists spout off on a regular basis. They once again hit it out of the ballpark with their reply:

http://www.uncommond...faq/#macmictrms

13] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution

The best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:


Campbell’s Biology (4th Ed.) states: “macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.” [By contrast, this book defines “microevolution as “a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations”]

Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, “In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa.” (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts “microevolution” -- “slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.”]

In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that “[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, “[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” (pg. 39)

The scientific journal literature also uses the terms “macroevolution” or “microevolution.”

In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists’ understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” (Roger Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)

Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Science entitled “Paleontologists confronting macroevolution,” contending:

“The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. … apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.” (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)

So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, “microevolution,” and (B) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: “macroevolution.”


That last paragraph hit the nail on the head. If there were any solid proof of macroevolution via any Darwinian processes, Darwinists would happily drop their "macro is just lots of micro" canard.

#49 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 August 2009 - 05:05 AM

We would expect to see more conclusive fossil evidence in the geological record so people wouldn't have to say, like you did, "it does make sense to me", or "I can imagine it being true".  If I use my imagination it can make sense to me too.  What people are doing is replacing God with Time, Time is their god, "plus lots of Time..."  Since you just read The Origin of the Species you know that Darwin alluded to the lack of geological evidence, and that lack of evidence still exists today.  That's because evolution is not true in my opinion.


Hi Mankind

Well, very little of Darwin's book is about fossil evidence, and what there is points out the lack of it, that is true. Mostly Darwin's argument for evolution was derived from observations of living things.

One or two fossils that we aren't sure of don't prove evolution, we should expect to see billions of transitionary fossils if evolution by common ancestry of all species were true over billions of years.  What we do have is evidence in the fossil record of animals with advanced eyes like extinct Trilobites that have thousands of lenses in one eye.  Fossils that are found of the kinds of animal that are alive today look like the same kind of animal, no evolution found.

View Post


Since Darwin's time we have discovered many fossils, there's no doubt about that. Various evolutionist websites list hundreds and hundreds of fossils showing intermediate stages for, e.g. whales and their blowholes, lobe-finned fish transitioning to four-legged critters, jaw bones changing position to become the bones of the inner ear etc. Do you feel such fossils do not lend any weight to Darwin's overall theory?

Regards
SeeJay

#50 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 August 2009 - 05:32 AM

"A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events."

View Post


Hello TheJarJam

And thank you, this is the sort of thing I was looking for.

In my view, basic adaptation and an earth billions of years old are very probably true. So I was wondering what, then, stands in the way of Darwin's theory of evolution?

The argument above seems at first glace to be a stumbling block to large-scale evolution.

Darwin did address this exact question in a section called "Difficulties of the Theory: Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication". He refers back to his chapter on domestic animals, where he discussed how very slight changes from generation to generation can be "added up" by selective breeding into very large changes, such as cows with gigantic udders etc. He then explained that, just as small, successive increases in size can add up to a very large organ, small successive changes can also add up to a complex set of interrelated organs, providing every individual step is quite small and not detrimental. Overall this was an argument by analogy, which I found fairly convincing.

On the other hand, I have been reading about the mechanisms inside cells, and how fantastically complex they are, which gives me pause.

So in short, to demonstrate large-scale evolution, one would need to show:
1. Adaptation
2. Billions of years old earth
3. Proper explanation for complex interrelated organs

Perhaps there are more?

Regards
SeeJay

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:31 AM

He refers back to his chapter on domestic animals, where he discussed how very slight changes from generation to generation can be "added up" by selective breeding into very large changes, such as cows with gigantic udders etc.

View Post

If you think gigantic udders derived from smaller udders, through selective breeding, is a large scale change then what would you call fins turning into legs? Or a light sensitive patch turning into an eyeball? Or single celled organisms turning into worms?

So in short, to demonstrate large-scale evolution, one would need to show:
1. Adaptation
2. Billions of years old earth
3. Proper explanation for complex interrelated organs

View Post

This is the simplistic confirmation that Darwin himself sold his idea on. The problem is that we can demonstrate adaptation, we can't scientifically verify the earth's age so we can pretend it's as old as our imaginations are willing to stretch, and the third is actually the question that has the most viable pursuit. Evolutionists believe that evolution is this proper explanation. Others say it is a demonstration of the creator to reveal His handiwork by design.

If evolution wants to be taken seriously it must first be recognized for its own deeply rhetorical nature:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2335

And second it must be able to contend legitimately with the rational protests of those who thoughtfully reject it on scientific grounds.

This second one actually reveals the religious implications of those who seek to defend Darwin versus those who are willing to recognize the legitimacy of the current information coming from ID/Creationism.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:41 AM

If you think gigantic udders derived from smaller udders, through selective breeding, is a large scale change then what would you call fins turning into legs? Or a light sensitive patch turning into an eyeball? Or single celled organisms turning into worms?

View Post


Oh, come now Adam. How could any of that be any less far-fetched than whales climbing out of the sea, not liking what they saw, then climbing back into the sea :lol:

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:49 AM

What really gets me is that some here keep arguing the same macroevolution tripe, and don’t even read the rules before doing so :lol:


The following are disallowed:

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

View Post



#54 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:07 AM

If you think gigantic udders derived from smaller udders, through selective breeding, is a large scale change then what would you call fins turning into legs? Or a light sensitive patch turning into an eyeball? Or single celled organisms turning into worms?


Hi Adam Nagy

No, I don't think large udders adapting from small ones is large-scale change. That was an example of Darwin's argument by analogy as to how complex, interrelated sets of organs could arise by numerous, slight, successive changes.

I also wouldn't call fins to legs a "large scale" change. They are both propulsive organs, appearing in roughly the same positions relative to the backbone, with similar bones, muscles etc. And there are a number of fossil and living creatures with these organs in quite a variety of intermediate steps.

Light-sensitive patch to eyeball I guess is similar to the fins-to-legs situation. Once you've got an organ that can detect light, the rest of the variety of eyes we see in living things are just like variations on a theme.

Single-celled to worms I would call large-scale change. There is kind of a big jump in organisation between single-celled and multi-celled organisms.

This is the simplistic confirmation that Darwin himself sold his idea on. The problem is that we can demonstrate adaptation, we can't scientifically verify the earth's age so we can pretend it's as old as our imaginations are willing to stretch, and the third is actually the question that has the most viable pursuit. Evolutionists believe that evolution is this proper explanation. Others say it is a demonstration of the creator to reveal His handiwork by design.


Well, perhaps we can't precisely pinpoint the earth's age in years. But there are many things I have seen with my own eyes that demonstrate that its very old, so personally I have not needed imagination in that area.

I agree that question 3 is the most interesting. It seems unlikely to me that matter has the inherent ability to organise itself into life.

View Post


Regards
SeeJay

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:14 AM

SeeJay,

You wouldn't consider this a large scale change:

Posted Image

To this:

Posted Image

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:23 AM

I also wouldn't call fins to legs a "large scale" change. They are both propulsive organs, appearing in roughly the same positions relative to the backbone, with similar bones, muscles etc. And there are a number of fossil and living creatures with these organs in quite a variety of intermediate steps.

View Post

Would you be willing to offer a convincing line up of these appendages in their different intermediate stages?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2474

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:27 AM

Light-sensitive patch to eyeball I guess is similar to the fins-to-legs situation. Once you've got an organ that can detect light, the rest of the variety of eyes we see in living things are just like variations on a theme.

View Post

Evolutionists would love for it to be this simple. :lol:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2089

#58 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:37 AM

I agree that question 3 is the most interesting. It seems unlikely to me that matter has the inherent ability to organise itself into life.

View Post

Life and all its complexities are not simply an evolutionary tale to be told but a sign to be understood with very deep philosophical implications.

#59 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 August 2009 - 05:43 PM

SeeJay,

You wouldn't consider this a large scale change:

Posted Image

To this:

Posted Image

View Post


Hi Adam Nagy

Yes I would consider that to be a large-scale change. However, that fish fin (parrot fish, a ray-finned fish) is not the sort of fin that evolutionists propose adapted into legs. Rather, they propose that lobe-finned fish are the ancestors of four-legged critters. As you can see, this is much less of a jump:

Posted Image

Regards
SeeJay

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 05:53 PM

Hi Adam Nagy

Yes I would consider that to be a large-scale change. However, that fish fin (parrot fish, a ray-finned fish) is not the sort of fin that evolutionists propose adapted into legs. Rather, they propose that lobe-finned fish are the ancestors of four-legged critters. As you can see, this is much less of a jump:

Posted Image

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


Nice drawings




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users