Administrator2
New Member
[Administrator: The following thread goes off track rather quickly, but the exchange that continues is interesting and was left in for that reason.]
DAVEW
In [a pevious thread], garpier asked about observed instances of macroevolution through mutation. IMO, garpier really didn't get sufficient answers before the thread was closed.
The short answer, AFAIK, is no, macroevolution as garpier defined it (e.g. if bacteria become a different kind of bacteria, that's microevolution, not macro), has never been observed, mutation or no mutation. But to the best of my knowledge, no evolution, micro or macro, has ever been observed without mutation taking place.
There are two positions on evolution:
On the one hand, scientists believe that more-or-less gradual evolution on a small scale eventually adds up to substantial enough changes that we define (arbitrarily) as "macroevolution." Their explanation for why this has never been observed is that even when it works really fast (as it probably sometimes does), it still takes many thousands of years for something to emerge that is so different from its ancestors that we give it a significantly different name (e.g genus, family, etc.). In other words, the reason macroevolution has never been observed is that there have never been people around to observe and record it.
On the other hand, young-earth creationists believe that there were a few thousand created "kinds" (e.g. cats are considered common descendants from a single "kind"), and that the only evolution that has taken place has been microevolution within those "kinds" (although a process that produces lions, lynxes and leopards seems pretty "macro" to me).
Creationists further believe that all of this microevolution has taken place during the time that humans have lived on the planet. This raises the obvious question of why our historical writings show no record of any such microevolution going on, given that in this paradigm there were people around to observe it. This seems strange. I mean, if Noah and family got off the ark with a pair (or maybe 7 pairs) of cats, and a few generations later there are all kinds of different cats, from small, spotted lynxes to large, unspotted lions, somebody might have remarked upon it.
JOHN PAUL
On the one hand, scientists believe that more-or-less gradual evolution on a small scale eventually adds up to substantial enough changes that we define (arbitrarily) as "macroevolution." … it still takes many thousands of years for something to emerge that is so different from its ancestors that we give it a significantly different name…
This still confuses me. Why would it be time and not generations that would be needed to observe micro or macro? Why is that organisms that reproduce very quickly (bacteria and viruses come to mind) never appear to change their basic type even after many millions of generations but other organisms are said to evolve into a different type of organism in well less than a million generations?
This seems strange… somebody might have remarked upon it.
First question would be- did the people observe it? Next question would be- how would they know what they were observing (if they observed it) was of significance to write down? Were all these post-flood people scientists? It could also be the major variations took place away from human eyes.
DAVEW
Actually, the fast generation time for bacteria in labs is a big reason scientists use them a lot for evolutionary studies. The fact that bacteria haven't unanimously evolved into something else suggests that bacteria are really good at occupying their niches -- which they are.
First question would be- did the people observe it? … It could also be the major variations took place away from human eyes.
I didn't mean to suggest they would observe it happening in real time, but surely they'd notice a drastic increase in diversity of animals. They may not have been scientists, but they relied on a knowledge of animals for survival (knowing which animals to eat, and which animals would try to eat them).
If your ancestors warned you about a big spotted cat, you might lump leopards and cheetas together. But when lions and tigers and saber-tooth cats started showing up, woudldn't you get the impression that your ancestors didn't know about them? And warn your offspring about the new dangers?
DANEEL
Part of the answer is that as organisms change they change the environment they evolve in. What I mean by this is if there were only bacteria they could change in to other forms that could compete with bacteria and over time find a new niche. Today there are not many new niches. They are mostly full of fairly well adapted species although there is always room for a better species.
What we need is something like happened 65 million years ago that appeared to clear out the niches and allowed the mammals to fill them. Which group would it be? Maybe the big brained primates?
ECORI
i don't think it's very easy to categorize organisms that can reproduce asexually. speciation is not really a useful concept when dealing with bacterial evolution. for something as simple as a bacterium, it would probably be better to look for examples where the "information content of the genome" was increased, and not for instances of "macroevolution".
GARPIER
Would not macroevolution be essential to "prove" evolution. If there are no concrete evidences of it doesn't that pose a bit of a problem for the theory of evolution?
RUFUSATTICUS
According to evolutionary theory, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is evolution apparent within a population, and macroevolution is evolution apparent between populations. The same natural forces are at work in both cases. Both are simply evolution. Genetic differences between populations/species are of the same type as those between individuals of the same population/species. Macroevolutionary differences have been shown to be the result of the accumulation of microevolutionary changes.
We do not have to directly observe a macroevolutionary change to show that it did indeed happen. Such events leave behind clues. Just as forensic investigators are able to figure out a crime that has no witnesses, evolutionary biologists can figure out evolutionary relationships in extant organisms, correlate that with fossil lineages, and provide explanations for the diversity of life on earth.
Evolutionary Theory does not make predictions like "E. coli will evolve into a human in 'N' generations." It also does not make claims that a dog must give birth to a cat for macroevolution to occur. Such an event would actually be contradictorily to current science.
If a theory does not predict 'X' will happen in our lifetime, than the fact that 'X' has not been observed to happen in our lifetime is not a problem for the theory.
Macroevolution has been observed by humans. For example, the mosquitoes in the London Subway system are a distinct species from the above ground population. The new species is less than 200 years old, because the subway is only about that old. This is an observed instance of speciation, and speciation is macroevolution. Thus it is an observed instance of macroevolution.
Any questions?
GARPIER
You start with a mosquito and end with a mosquito. This is macroeveolution? I'm really confused now. This sounds like the same sort of thing that occurs to come up with a new breed of cat or dog or horse. But the bottom line is there is no new type of animal, just a variation on the original. I think at this pace evolution will need much more time than it has claimed!
RUFUSATTICUS
Except that, in this case, the underground mosquito population cannot readily breed with the above ground population. That is a clear instance of macroevolutionary change. Just look again at the definations I provided.
According to your reasoning though, human and chimp evolution from a common ancestor is just 'microevolution.' Just as the underground mosquitos are still mosquitos, humans and chimps are still apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, and animals. Nothing new. Just different types. Do you see your error?
DAVID COX
And in evolution, you start with the "DNA kind" and end with the "DNA kind". Look ma, no macro!
GARPIER
In the first place, I am not claiming that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. I happen to believe that we were created by God Almighty. Secondly, I do not see an error on my part. The definitions belong to others, not me. There is no proven direct link between apes and humans. Common features do not imply a common ancestor, but rather a common Creator. Do you see your error?
MILAN
Well, with that kind of science-fiction reasoning we could also say that common features imply several creators acting as a team with a common plan.
GARPIER
You could say whatever you wanted, but if it doesn't line up with the Word of God, you'd be wrong. And that in a nutshell is the problem with TOE. I know I'll be ridiculed and branded as unscientific and unlearned, but that doesn't bother me. I know what the Bible says and I believe it on faith. Not very scientific I guess, but then the alternative of not believing the Bible is not very safe.
DANEEL
I don't know why you said that not believing in the bible is very safe. The fact that you believe something does not change reality. It only changes your perception. Anyway, as you have figured out the bible is not a science book. Science uses logic and evidence to determine the way things work. If it doesn't agree with what the bible says that's the way it is. We use the science to learn new things we don't say, well the bible says something else so we can't use that. Where would we be today if that was the way we did science? Does "dark ages" ring a bell?
DAVEW
Garpier, thank you for your honesty in admitting that your objection to evolution is religious rather than scientific. I have no objection to those who have that belief and state it honestly. However, it is no help to efforts to remove science from public schools, or to give "equal time" to religious notions based on the Bible. http://www.mesozoic.demon.co.uk/dilemma.htm
[Administrator: in posting this link, DaveW seems to be invalidating his own argument, but we, also, thank him for his honesty in linking it. ]
MILAN
[...]the alternative of not believing the Bible is not very safe.
So the alternative is between believing in fairy tales or living dangerously. I'd rather live dangerously.
GARPIER
Thanks to all who have responded. It is obvious that you do not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of the living God. It has been called a "Fairy tale" by one and dismissed by others. Is the Bible a science book? Obviously not. But when it speaks about science, including origins, it speaks authoritatively and honestly. It has never been proven wrong a single time. I realize that some of you think it is wrong and that it is only myths and legends. I have seen the account of Noah's flood dismissed because to some of you it doesn't make sense or you believe that what is recorded is not scientifically possible. That is your choice to make. And although I know you don't believe it now, one day you will. That isn't some sort of a threat, merely a statement based on the Bible's teaching.
I've been asked why I would ask a question on science if I don't believe the scientific evidence. The fact is I do believe that science does support Creation. You folks think that science supports evolution. It's all a matter of which bias you are biased with. I know, I know, some of you think that from your perspective you are completely unbiased and are being very objective. I think if your honest with your self you would realize we all have some bias and it does affect the way we view things.
I could turn the question around and ask what completely objective persons who just happen to believe in evolution are doing here in a forum that obviously doesn't believe the same things you do. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that you go away, but rather understand that I ask questions so that I might better understand where you are coming from. Why do you ask questions of creationists? Are you attempting to win us over to your view point, or do you think that we are easy marks because we believe what you have decided (in a completely unbiased manner) is a bunch of myths?
As to the remark that what I believe would only keep us in the dark ages, I think you need to examine the history of science. Most scientists starting with Galileo and continuing through the middle of the nineteenth century were men and women who believed the Bible and were considered creationists. These are the people who helped bring a end to the dark ages.
Just because we can't answer all of your questions doesn't mean that we are in error. There are a lot of questions about TOE that you cannot answer also. And one thing that never seems to be brought out here is that while there maybe differences among creationists that you will exploit, why is it that nobody ever comments on the differences between evolutionists?
One last thought, although I don't have all the answers (and neither do any of you) it is comforting to me to know that my God has all the answers whether you choose to believe Him or not.
DAVID COX
The question is, is there a way to effectively remove that bias?
I submit that there is a way to effectively remove a considerable amount of bias.
Take your idea, whatever it is, and submit it to a forum of people with different biases than your own. If the forum is large enough and diverse enough, then your biases will be discovered and exposed by those with different biases. The common denominator in this large, diverse population, each member with their own biases, is reason and logic.
[Administrator: this then becomes ‘truth by majority’ and nothing else.]
JAYCWRU
Think about the following: Is it possible that evolution can be reconciled with a different intrepretation of the Bible? If so, tell my why your version is better. If not, tell me why not.
GARPIER
A literal interpretation of the BIble rules out evolution completely.
(I feel like I've stirred up a hornets nest)
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]
DAVEW
In [a pevious thread], garpier asked about observed instances of macroevolution through mutation. IMO, garpier really didn't get sufficient answers before the thread was closed.
The short answer, AFAIK, is no, macroevolution as garpier defined it (e.g. if bacteria become a different kind of bacteria, that's microevolution, not macro), has never been observed, mutation or no mutation. But to the best of my knowledge, no evolution, micro or macro, has ever been observed without mutation taking place.
There are two positions on evolution:
On the one hand, scientists believe that more-or-less gradual evolution on a small scale eventually adds up to substantial enough changes that we define (arbitrarily) as "macroevolution." Their explanation for why this has never been observed is that even when it works really fast (as it probably sometimes does), it still takes many thousands of years for something to emerge that is so different from its ancestors that we give it a significantly different name (e.g genus, family, etc.). In other words, the reason macroevolution has never been observed is that there have never been people around to observe and record it.
On the other hand, young-earth creationists believe that there were a few thousand created "kinds" (e.g. cats are considered common descendants from a single "kind"), and that the only evolution that has taken place has been microevolution within those "kinds" (although a process that produces lions, lynxes and leopards seems pretty "macro" to me).
Creationists further believe that all of this microevolution has taken place during the time that humans have lived on the planet. This raises the obvious question of why our historical writings show no record of any such microevolution going on, given that in this paradigm there were people around to observe it. This seems strange. I mean, if Noah and family got off the ark with a pair (or maybe 7 pairs) of cats, and a few generations later there are all kinds of different cats, from small, spotted lynxes to large, unspotted lions, somebody might have remarked upon it.
JOHN PAUL
On the one hand, scientists believe that more-or-less gradual evolution on a small scale eventually adds up to substantial enough changes that we define (arbitrarily) as "macroevolution." … it still takes many thousands of years for something to emerge that is so different from its ancestors that we give it a significantly different name…
This still confuses me. Why would it be time and not generations that would be needed to observe micro or macro? Why is that organisms that reproduce very quickly (bacteria and viruses come to mind) never appear to change their basic type even after many millions of generations but other organisms are said to evolve into a different type of organism in well less than a million generations?
This seems strange… somebody might have remarked upon it.
First question would be- did the people observe it? Next question would be- how would they know what they were observing (if they observed it) was of significance to write down? Were all these post-flood people scientists? It could also be the major variations took place away from human eyes.
DAVEW
Actually, the fast generation time for bacteria in labs is a big reason scientists use them a lot for evolutionary studies. The fact that bacteria haven't unanimously evolved into something else suggests that bacteria are really good at occupying their niches -- which they are.
First question would be- did the people observe it? … It could also be the major variations took place away from human eyes.
I didn't mean to suggest they would observe it happening in real time, but surely they'd notice a drastic increase in diversity of animals. They may not have been scientists, but they relied on a knowledge of animals for survival (knowing which animals to eat, and which animals would try to eat them).
If your ancestors warned you about a big spotted cat, you might lump leopards and cheetas together. But when lions and tigers and saber-tooth cats started showing up, woudldn't you get the impression that your ancestors didn't know about them? And warn your offspring about the new dangers?
DANEEL
Part of the answer is that as organisms change they change the environment they evolve in. What I mean by this is if there were only bacteria they could change in to other forms that could compete with bacteria and over time find a new niche. Today there are not many new niches. They are mostly full of fairly well adapted species although there is always room for a better species.
What we need is something like happened 65 million years ago that appeared to clear out the niches and allowed the mammals to fill them. Which group would it be? Maybe the big brained primates?
ECORI
i don't think it's very easy to categorize organisms that can reproduce asexually. speciation is not really a useful concept when dealing with bacterial evolution. for something as simple as a bacterium, it would probably be better to look for examples where the "information content of the genome" was increased, and not for instances of "macroevolution".
GARPIER
Would not macroevolution be essential to "prove" evolution. If there are no concrete evidences of it doesn't that pose a bit of a problem for the theory of evolution?
RUFUSATTICUS
According to evolutionary theory, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is evolution apparent within a population, and macroevolution is evolution apparent between populations. The same natural forces are at work in both cases. Both are simply evolution. Genetic differences between populations/species are of the same type as those between individuals of the same population/species. Macroevolutionary differences have been shown to be the result of the accumulation of microevolutionary changes.
We do not have to directly observe a macroevolutionary change to show that it did indeed happen. Such events leave behind clues. Just as forensic investigators are able to figure out a crime that has no witnesses, evolutionary biologists can figure out evolutionary relationships in extant organisms, correlate that with fossil lineages, and provide explanations for the diversity of life on earth.
Evolutionary Theory does not make predictions like "E. coli will evolve into a human in 'N' generations." It also does not make claims that a dog must give birth to a cat for macroevolution to occur. Such an event would actually be contradictorily to current science.
If a theory does not predict 'X' will happen in our lifetime, than the fact that 'X' has not been observed to happen in our lifetime is not a problem for the theory.
Macroevolution has been observed by humans. For example, the mosquitoes in the London Subway system are a distinct species from the above ground population. The new species is less than 200 years old, because the subway is only about that old. This is an observed instance of speciation, and speciation is macroevolution. Thus it is an observed instance of macroevolution.
Any questions?
GARPIER
You start with a mosquito and end with a mosquito. This is macroeveolution? I'm really confused now. This sounds like the same sort of thing that occurs to come up with a new breed of cat or dog or horse. But the bottom line is there is no new type of animal, just a variation on the original. I think at this pace evolution will need much more time than it has claimed!
RUFUSATTICUS
Except that, in this case, the underground mosquito population cannot readily breed with the above ground population. That is a clear instance of macroevolutionary change. Just look again at the definations I provided.
According to your reasoning though, human and chimp evolution from a common ancestor is just 'microevolution.' Just as the underground mosquitos are still mosquitos, humans and chimps are still apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, and animals. Nothing new. Just different types. Do you see your error?
DAVID COX
And in evolution, you start with the "DNA kind" and end with the "DNA kind". Look ma, no macro!
GARPIER
In the first place, I am not claiming that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. I happen to believe that we were created by God Almighty. Secondly, I do not see an error on my part. The definitions belong to others, not me. There is no proven direct link between apes and humans. Common features do not imply a common ancestor, but rather a common Creator. Do you see your error?
MILAN
Well, with that kind of science-fiction reasoning we could also say that common features imply several creators acting as a team with a common plan.
GARPIER
You could say whatever you wanted, but if it doesn't line up with the Word of God, you'd be wrong. And that in a nutshell is the problem with TOE. I know I'll be ridiculed and branded as unscientific and unlearned, but that doesn't bother me. I know what the Bible says and I believe it on faith. Not very scientific I guess, but then the alternative of not believing the Bible is not very safe.
DANEEL
I don't know why you said that not believing in the bible is very safe. The fact that you believe something does not change reality. It only changes your perception. Anyway, as you have figured out the bible is not a science book. Science uses logic and evidence to determine the way things work. If it doesn't agree with what the bible says that's the way it is. We use the science to learn new things we don't say, well the bible says something else so we can't use that. Where would we be today if that was the way we did science? Does "dark ages" ring a bell?
DAVEW
Garpier, thank you for your honesty in admitting that your objection to evolution is religious rather than scientific. I have no objection to those who have that belief and state it honestly. However, it is no help to efforts to remove science from public schools, or to give "equal time" to religious notions based on the Bible. http://www.mesozoic.demon.co.uk/dilemma.htm
[Administrator: in posting this link, DaveW seems to be invalidating his own argument, but we, also, thank him for his honesty in linking it. ]
MILAN
[...]the alternative of not believing the Bible is not very safe.
So the alternative is between believing in fairy tales or living dangerously. I'd rather live dangerously.
GARPIER
Thanks to all who have responded. It is obvious that you do not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of the living God. It has been called a "Fairy tale" by one and dismissed by others. Is the Bible a science book? Obviously not. But when it speaks about science, including origins, it speaks authoritatively and honestly. It has never been proven wrong a single time. I realize that some of you think it is wrong and that it is only myths and legends. I have seen the account of Noah's flood dismissed because to some of you it doesn't make sense or you believe that what is recorded is not scientifically possible. That is your choice to make. And although I know you don't believe it now, one day you will. That isn't some sort of a threat, merely a statement based on the Bible's teaching.
I've been asked why I would ask a question on science if I don't believe the scientific evidence. The fact is I do believe that science does support Creation. You folks think that science supports evolution. It's all a matter of which bias you are biased with. I know, I know, some of you think that from your perspective you are completely unbiased and are being very objective. I think if your honest with your self you would realize we all have some bias and it does affect the way we view things.
I could turn the question around and ask what completely objective persons who just happen to believe in evolution are doing here in a forum that obviously doesn't believe the same things you do. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that you go away, but rather understand that I ask questions so that I might better understand where you are coming from. Why do you ask questions of creationists? Are you attempting to win us over to your view point, or do you think that we are easy marks because we believe what you have decided (in a completely unbiased manner) is a bunch of myths?
As to the remark that what I believe would only keep us in the dark ages, I think you need to examine the history of science. Most scientists starting with Galileo and continuing through the middle of the nineteenth century were men and women who believed the Bible and were considered creationists. These are the people who helped bring a end to the dark ages.
Just because we can't answer all of your questions doesn't mean that we are in error. There are a lot of questions about TOE that you cannot answer also. And one thing that never seems to be brought out here is that while there maybe differences among creationists that you will exploit, why is it that nobody ever comments on the differences between evolutionists?
One last thought, although I don't have all the answers (and neither do any of you) it is comforting to me to know that my God has all the answers whether you choose to believe Him or not.
DAVID COX
The question is, is there a way to effectively remove that bias?
I submit that there is a way to effectively remove a considerable amount of bias.
Take your idea, whatever it is, and submit it to a forum of people with different biases than your own. If the forum is large enough and diverse enough, then your biases will be discovered and exposed by those with different biases. The common denominator in this large, diverse population, each member with their own biases, is reason and logic.
[Administrator: this then becomes ‘truth by majority’ and nothing else.]
JAYCWRU
Think about the following: Is it possible that evolution can be reconciled with a different intrepretation of the Bible? If so, tell my why your version is better. If not, tell me why not.
GARPIER
A literal interpretation of the BIble rules out evolution completely.
(I feel like I've stirred up a hornets nest)
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]