Macro Evolution - Why Not?

[Guest Dog Boots]

Since both evolutionists and creationists agree that micro evolution exists (the evolutionists for obvious reasons/by definition, the creationists because it would render The Flood story even more improbable than it would be otherwise), I'd say the burden of proof with regard to macro evolution is on the creationists.

 

The creationists must explain what mechanism there is in place to stop micro evolution from becoming macro evolution, now that we all agree that micro evolution exists (and is considered by the creationists to be far more powerful and fast than the evolutionists say).

 

What stops a dog from becoming so different from other dogs, that it's not any longer a dog?

[Guest George R]

Interesting challenge that I often see posted on the atheists board.

 

It sounds like logic but it is actually a word definition switcheroo, posing as a challenge.

 

It is just a word-extension on the term evolution, not logic.

 

If I label "painting" to mean (A) painting buildings and ( painting artwork, does that really place a burden of proof on others who accept that Collego Pro painters do a great job on (A) that I don't need any proof to conclude that the same mechanisms also do something of an entirely different power (

 

.. and anyone who disagrees is forced to accept that a capability for (A) implies capability in ( ......... ... OR ELSE now THEY have the burden of proof?

 

Very droll. Lets see, in brief:

 

microevolution: lots of types of dogs - always within a limited range

 

macrevolution: includes entrely new organisms like wings and lungs... and everything from origin or multi-cellular organisms

 

 

Just because the challenger "morphs" a term by mental extension into one name meaning mutliple things doesnt place any bruden of proof anywhere.

 

I simply ask: if mutation and natural selection are so powerful and well understood mechanisms (so goes the claim) that they obviously do every kind of biological change no matter how large: lets do a practical experiment that shows in a lab one type of mammal that lacks a organ (such as a dog which lacks wings) become over time something like a population of flying dogs.. or aquatic dogs with gills ... or duck-billed dogs.... ONLY BY USING THE EVOLUTIONASRY MECHANISMS (sorry - Frankensteinian operations won't count)

 

 

That kind of challenge does not rely on word smithing - just on asking that a claim made be proven.

 

And that's the real nature of a burden if proof - to ask someone to back up one's stated claim ... for example with a lab experiment.

 

The original challenge may have been well intended: what stops me from starting with any small changes in population variatiation and then extrapolating this same mechanism to all changes involving added organs, added structures, added fucntions, etc.

 

Well, what stops you from calling it a fact is that extrapolations are not facts, they are just extrapolations .... and you shouid require confirming evidence of a form that clearly demonstrates the power of the mechanism. The burden of proof is with the claimant that the mechanism has great power... not with somebiody who accepts it has any minor power.

 

Even all that twiddling with fruit flies only gets normal and bizarre fruit flies - not dragon flies and giant clams.

 

 

 

.

[Guest Dog Boots]

Ofcourse, you know it's safe asking me to prove macro evolution, since it, perfectly predictable and in it's very definition, cannot be observed directly by human beings. (Indirectly is another story).

 

I do not see the problem in asking you to tell me why the extrapolation isn't valid. Surely, there must be some mechanism putting a limit to the capabilities of mutations, now what is it?

 

Besides, you're making an extrapolation of your own, which I think does not hold water; Just because twiddling with fruitflies hasn't yet produced any significant changes, it doesn't mean that it never could, given large amounts of time.

 

To my knowledge no good definition of the term "kind" (-of animal), used by creationists when speaking of f.inst. the Flood, has ever been provided or no such boundries have been observed. In your own words: "...always within a limited range." Where is that limit!? What gives? Surely, if such a limit exists, it should be known by now?

 

-Those who claim the existence of such boundries must be the ones bearing the burden of proof.

-Those claiming the existence of an, as of yet by science undiscovered, limitation to evolutionary changes in species must bear the burden of proof.

-Those who believe in a much more swift micro evolution (the one providing the current stock since/from The Ark) must bear the burden of proof as to why it suddenly stops.

 

 

Evidence exclusively for macro evolution:

 

- Tons of transitional fossils.

- A very near perfect theory that fits all evidence.

- Potentially strong hereditary bias on the opposing side

- And to us laymen (me, at least) there is further: The fact that ALL major scientific institutes worldwide support this without exception.

 

Evidence exclusively against:

- Some old book says so

- People have believed so for ages

 

Evidence both for and against (neutral):

- Nobody has ever seen it (=perfectly predictable, fits the theory just fine)

 

You say you're just "asking that a claim made be proven". I say it's easier for you to prove us wrong, than it is for us to prove our theory right. Please do it. I promise you that every truly scientifically minded person will welcome it.

[Patches 0]

microevolution: lots of types of dogs -  always within a limited range

 

macrevolution: includes entrely new organisms like wings and lungs...  and everything from origin or multi-cellular organisms

So you would agree, then, that the relationship between humans and the other apes is an example of microevolution. After all, we have all the same organs and physical structures, just of different sizes and shapes, just like dogs and wolves.

 

For instance, take a pug. It differs from a wolf physically in its size, stature, skull formation, leg length, and fur. Humans differ from apes physically in the same areas.

 

So why is the wolf -> pug transition believable, but the ape -> human transition not?

[Guest George R]

One reason is that oftyen a species continues to have a capability of interbreeding in spite of a variety of types within the species.

 

Dogs and wolves do in fact interbreed.

 

Another reason is that it is a bizarre contention that apes have all the charcteristics of humans.

 

It is faddish to posit characteristics of animals that only humans have.

 

For example humans can argue about anthropomorphism. Animals cannot.

[Guest 92g]

-Those who claim the existence of such boundries must be the ones bearing the burden of proof.

 

-Those claiming the existence of an, as of yet by science undiscovered, limitation to evolutionary changes in species must bear the burden of proof.

-

 

The limitation is being born out by science. From what we know now, you just do not create functional proteins by good luck. The odds of getting one have been calculated, and reasonably verified:

 

The number of 1 in 10&%, arrived at by Sauer's experimental route, is virtually identical to the results obtained by Yockey's theoretical calculation and his deduction from natural cytochrome c sequences! It therefore strongly reinforces our confidence that a correct result has been obtained. Sauer's group obtained closely similar results for two different proteins: arc repressor (4) and lamda repressor (5,6). This means that all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are no ledges, no buttes, no stepping stones to cross the chasm. The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not been produced through a nondirected search.

Odds of getting functional proteins.[

 

Evidence exclusively for macro evolution:

 

- Tons of transitional fossils.

Really,.... where at? The Cambrian explosion????

 

- A very near perfect theory that fits all evidence.

A theory with no emperical evidence. Its a fable in the minds of men, and that's it.

 

- And to us laymen (me, at least) there is further: The fact that ALL major scientific institutes worldwide support this without exception.

If this is convincing to you, that's fine, but everyone belived Saddam had a huge WMD program, and they were all WRONG.....

 

Faith is Faith, and whether anyone believes in it or not, does not make it scientific evidence.

 

Terry

[SPQR 0]

Really,.... where at?  The Cambrian explosion????

If not there, then how about everywhere else?

 

I doubt the Cambrian Explosion issue has not been explained here before but if it hasn't, here it is for the first time:

 

The Cambrian Explosion was time period 542 to 530 million years ago in which complex multi-cellular macroscopic organisms appeared for the first time. The percieved lack of transtional fossils may be due to the fact that such organisms leave behind microfossils which are hard to distinguish.

 

Source

 

More on transitional fossils.

 

 

A theory with no emperical evidence.  Its a fable in the minds of men, and that's it.

See links above.

 

If this is convincing to you, that's fine, but everyone belived Saddam had a huge WMD program, and they were all WRONG.....

Please clarifiy what you mean by "everyone" and I would be happy to comment on this statement.

 

Faith is Faith, and whether anyone believes in it or not, does not make it scientific evidence.

Such as the faith it takes one to believe that the Earth was created in six days by an invisible, omnipotent being who then cursed his supposedly most beloved creations because one of them ate an evil piece of fruit after being tricked by a talking snake, perhaps? Once evidence for your creation story is presented, I will comment in your statement.

 

 

7869[/snapback]

[Guest 92g]

If not there, then how about everywhere else?

 

  I doubt the Cambrian Explosion issue has not been explained here before but if it hasn't, here it is for the first time:

  The Cambrian Explosion was time period 542 to 530 million years ago in which complex multi-cellular macroscopic organisms appeared for the first time.  The percieved lack of transtional fossils may be due to the fact that such organisms leave behind microfossils which are hard to distinguish.

"May" is correct. It also may be due to the possiblity that there existed n life prior to them, and that evolution is what is percieved, not the lack of any fossils....

 

"Complex"..... Ok, what did the Trilobyte eye evolve from? Why is it that billions of them are fossilzed, with no transitionals???? Answer: because they never existed....

 

I pretty sure that pre-cambrian fauna fossils have been discovered, so it not too convincing to argure that the pre-cambrain transitionals were not fossilizable. The one bad stroke of luck, in all the the billions of fortuitous events that evolutionists believe in...

 

 

Terry

[chance 1]

"Complex"..... Ok, what did the Trilobyte eye evolve from? Why is it that billions of them are fossilzed, with no transitionals???? Answer: because they never existed....

‘Billions’ were fossilised because they:

a. were very numerous

b. had a hard shell

c. moult their shell

d. live in the sea.

 

As for ancestors, from the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

 

Based on morphological similarities, it is possible that the trilobites have their ancestors in arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other trilobitomorphs of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian. There are many morphological similarities between early trilobites and other Cambrian arthropods known from the Burgess Shale and other fossiliferous locations. These are investigated further here: [1] It is reasonable to assume that the trilobites share a common ancestor with these other arthropods around 542 m.y.a. at the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary.

Which is about as good as one can do for creatures who’s only remains is a shell, do you agree?

How would it be possible to get much better?

[trilobyte 0]

Why won't MACRO-EVOLUTIONISM work?

 

The answer is simple. You need beneficial mutations to gradually add up in the future generations to produce the new body part, organ or appendage.

As an example the supposed evolution of the dolphins echo-location system.

 

But can beneficial mutations really add up?

 

Think about how many beneficial mutations would be required to develope the echo-location system of a dolphin.

You would need many many beneficial mutations occurring again and again repeatedly in just the right places of the proto-dolphins DNA.

 

Now think about how many places in the DNA a mutation can occur in...humans have around 3.2 Billion base pairs.

 

What are the odds of just one mutation adding to a previous?

[chance 1]

Why won't MACRO-EVOLUTIONISM work?

 

The answer is simple. You need beneficial mutations to gradually add up in the future generations to produce the new body part, organ or appendage.

As an example the supposed evolution of the dolphins echo-location system.

That is what evolution proposes.

 

But can beneficial mutations really add up?

 

Think about how many beneficial mutations would be required to develope the echo-location system of a dolphin.

You would need many many beneficial mutations occurring again and again repeatedly in just the right places of the proto-dolphins DNA.

 

Now think about how many places in the DNA a mutation can occur in...humans have around 3.2 Billion base pairs.

 

What are the odds of just one mutation adding to a previous?

The odds are reduced in a number of ways:

 

a. All life carries some form of mutation (or at the very least a new mix of what exists)

b. All life is playing the evolutionary game.

c. There is a lot of time.

d. Functions acquired can change to perform new functions, e.g. insulation can be a form of protective armour.

[trilobyte 0]

That is what evolution proposes.

The odds are reduced in a number of ways:

 

a. All life carries some form of mutation (or at the very least a new mix of what exists)

b. All life is playing the evolutionary game.

c. There is a lot of time.

d. Functions acquired can change to perform new functions, e.g. insulation can be a form of protective armour.

7951[/snapback]

The above really doesn't answer the question you are somewhat right. that is you said "All life carries some form of mutation"....you forgot to mention that almost all of them are harmful or neutral. Very few are beneficial....and there the ones that count.

 

Is all life really playing the evo game? Perhaps a mixing of already established genes..but I don't call this "real" evolution.

I would consider real evolution the addition to a previous mutation in a beneficial way to the point that a new body part, organ or appendage is formed...this addition of mutations has never been demonstrated nor shown to work. So far it has only been assumed.

 

Time? Do you really think so? Can yo do the numbers? can you evolve a dolphin in 50 MY's with all of the needed changes?

 

"D" above just states a theory...no proof.

[chance 1]

Is all life really playing the evo game? Perhaps a mixing of already established genes..but I don't call this "real" evolution.

Certainly, if individuals are reproducing it opens the door to change, if you split DNA there is possibility for various forms of mutation when it come time to recombine.

As far as mainstream science is concerned there is only one type of ‘evolution’.

 

 

I would consider real evolution the addition to a previous mutation in a beneficial way to the point that a new body part, organ or appendage is formed.

..

 

That is exactly what happens in ‘real evolution’ just take time. but i hasten to add evolution does not prdict the sudden emergence of a liver in one generation, i hope that is not what you are suggesting?

 

this addition of mutations has never been demonstrated nor shown to work. So far it has only been assumed.

come on! hybridisation - from the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid

Plant species hybridise a lot more readily than animal species and they are generally fertile.

 

Time? Do you really think so? Can yo do the numbers? can you evolve a dolphin in 50 MY's with all of the needed changes?

 

"D" above just states a theory...no proof.

I would say the proof comes in various forms, i.e. the mutation mechanisms are known, there is fossil evidence, there is adequate time. 50MY is quite a stretch!

[trilobyte 0]

Chance, I get the feeling you are dodging the question with assumptions.

 

Do you have some sort of math..science that shows how mutations can add up?

 

Just saying 50 MY's is a long time doesn't explain much....It kinda sounds like you are taking the religion of evolutionism on faith.

[chance 1]

Chance, I get the feeling you are dodging the question with assumptions.

 

Do you have some sort of math..science that shows how mutations can add up?

?? I am perplexed by this question, if hybridisation can take one generation, the answer is one! Are you proposing that we can keep evolutionary theory for ‘simple’ stuff like plants, bacteriuria, as you seem to have ignored that example, and then require a different theory to explain slower mammalian reproduction?

 

 

Just saying 50 MY's is a long time doesn't explain much....It kinda sounds like you are taking the religion of evolutionism on faith.

I personally don’t know of what maths one could use, perhaps if you count the differences between two species say chimp and human and doubled by the number of years.

 

A quick google turned this up, but the math is a bit prohibitive http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jcollie/sle/index.htm

[Origen 0]

Since both evolutionists and creationists agree that micro evolution exists (the evolutionists for obvious reasons/by definition, the creationists because it would render The Flood story even more improbable than it would be otherwise), I'd say the burden of proof with regard to macro evolution is on the creationists.

 

The creationists must explain what mechanism there is in place to stop micro evolution from becoming macro evolution, now that we all agree that micro evolution exists (and is considered by the creationists to be far more powerful and fast than the evolutionists say).

 

What stops a dog from becoming so different from other dogs, that it's not any longer a dog?

7841[/snapback]

You are speaking philsophical assumptions. Have you ever observed a dog turn into a duck or another completely different species? If not, then evolution is not science, its more like the science of fiction...a fairytale.

[Guest 92g]

Billions’ were fossilised because they:

a. were very numerous

b. had a hard shell

c. moult their shell

d. live in the sea.

And becuase they were buried in a global cataclysmic event.

 

As for ancestors, from the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

Which is about as good as one can do for creatures who’s only remains is a shell, do you agree? 

Absolutely not.... If the eyes of the trilobytes evolved, then there should likewise be billions of trilobyte fossils with different level of eye, and shell formation.

 

Floating speculation as evidence does not demonstrating anything.

 

At this point, the fossil record strongly contradicts evolution, and that's the fact.

 

Terry

[trilobyte 0]

Chance posted:

 

if hybridisation can take one generation

Are you trying to say that a wolf like animal changed into a dolphin in one generation?

 

Are you saying there was no need for an accumulation of beneficial mutations to form the dolphin?

[chance 1]

chance>

if hybridisation can take one generation

 

trilobyte>

Are you trying to say that a wolf like animal changed into a dolphin in one generation?

 

Are you saying there was no need for an accumulation of beneficial mutations to form the dolphin?

NO. I was answering your question and providing an answer related to the “speed of speciationâ€ÂÂ. Buy such an answer I was explaining that (for plants) speciation can be fast, one generation.

 

To get from a land living animal to a Dolphin would take many speciation events, hybridisation is only one of the mutation mechanisms.

[trilobyte 0]

NO.  I was answering your question and providing an answer related to the “speed of speciationâ€ÂÂ.  Buy such an answer I was explaining that (for plants) speciation can be fast, one generation.

 

To get from a land living animal to a Dolphin would take many speciation events, hybridisation is only one of the mutation mechanisms.

8053[/snapback]

 

I have to agree with you...sort of. That is I agree that speciation can be rapid.

i also do not think that mutations are required for speciation.

 

Now I do know for the evo model to work and change a wolf like animal into a dolphin many, many random mutations would be required to occur over and over again in just the right spots to form the complicated systems used by the modern dolphin.

 

What evolutionism fails to do is show that random mutation can and do add up over time to the point that something like the dolphins echo-location system is established.

 

The assumption that mutation can and do add up has never been demostrated to be fact.

 

i've been asking you for several days now if you have the ability to explain it...but you keep avoiding the topic.

 

If you don't know, that's OK.

[chance 1]

I have to agree with you...sort of.  That is I agree that speciation can be rapid.

i also do not think that mutations are required for speciation.

 

Now I do know for the evo model to work and change a wolf like animal into a dolphin many, many random mutations would be required to occur over and over again in just the right spots to form the complicated systems used by the modern dolphin.

 

What evolutionism fails to do is show that random mutation can and do add up over time to the point that something like the dolphins echo-location system is established.

 

The assumption that mutation can and do add up  has never been demostrated to be fact.

 

i've been asking you for  several days now if you have the ability to explain it...but you keep avoiding the topic.

 

If you don't know, that's OK.

8056[/snapback]

I have answered this in the “Dismantling Natural Selection†thread.

[Seth 1]

Trilobyte such an example does exist. You'll find your answer from the extensive work done on the fruit fly. Maybe you've heard of it. They have been bombarded or subjected to radiation and other toxic chemicals that produce many many mutations. You'll find wings growing out of their heads, abdomen, etc. Legs found in strange areas and even internal organs growing in other places. The list goes on. There's only one itty bitty itsy bitsy teeny weeny problem. The wings found on their heads are still fruit fly wings. The legs found sticking out of their heads are also still fruit fly legs. In fact, every deformity found and created is merely a bunch of fruit fly parts reassembled in other areas of the fruit fly.

 

Even if the argument was made that fruit fly legs on a fruit fly gives it some advantage you still run into the small itty bitty problem that it's still a fruit fly leg. Not even resembling a house fly leg, or perhaps a wasp leg or maybe even a new type of leg. So maybe this wasn't such a good example after all. However, if nothing else, I think it's an excellent example, a scientifically observed example, of why mutations can never make or result in anything new. Of course evo's probably don't think 30 years of study from a fly that produces a generation within days is sufficient.

[Seth 1]

My beginning sentence of the second paragraph meant to say, "Even if the argument was made that fruit fly legs on the "head" of a fruit fly gives it some advantage....."

[Guest CrisW]

If the eyes of the trilobytes evolved, then there should likewise be billions of trilobyte fossils with different level of eye, and shell formation.

 

There are three different types of trilobite eyes, Holochroal, Schizochroal, and Abathochroal. All very different variations on the eye.

[Guest 92g]

There are three different types of trilobite eyes, Holochroal, Schizochroal, and Abathochroal.  All very different variations on the eye.

 

Variations on an eye don't help very much.....

 

If a trilobyte evolved from a simple microbe, then given the billions of trilobite fossils that exist, then there is no reason not to assume that there should also be billions of fossils of the thousands of variations that must have existed between the soft shelled, no eyed version, to the shelled versions with eyes that we do know about.

 

Where are they?

 

Terry