Evolution News

Why micro vs macro evolution matters

Spread the love

From Kirk Durston, here:

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a ‘grand scale’, or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact, not a theory. They say this in the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lays the second mistake … the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.

Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. More.

And macroevolution is the road to Arcturus, right?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

58 Replies to “Why micro vs macro evolution matters

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400 tried the ole micro-variation vs macro-evolution switcharoo the other day:

    “That’s pretty obviously evolution, isn’t it?”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-566267

    to which I referenced:

    The Meanings of Evolution – Stephen Meyer
    Excerpt: Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks
    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
    ,,, attempts to exclude scientific dissent (from neo-Darwinism) often employ ambiguous or shifting definitions of the term evolution. Many defenders of evolution #5 and/or #6 will offer evidence and argument for evolution in the first four senses of the term and then treat evolution in the latter two senses as equally well established. In the following section, we will show how educational policy statements and advocates for evolution often equivocate (the definitions of evolution) in their discussion of evolution,,,
    http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....php?id=305

  2. 2
    Seqenenre says:

    I always understood that microevolution was the proces (you can also call it just evolution) and that macro-evolution is not a biological proces at all, but just a human concept. i.e. the sum of a lot of micro-evolution. Like the example below: every birth is a bit of (micro) evolution and the sum of lots of these births can be called macro evolution

    1. Every living individual animal (and every animal that lived in the past) has at least one parent, let’s call her mother.
    2. Every mother is of the same species as her daughter. (Well, almost every mother.)
    3. Let’s assume an average generation time of 15 years.
    4. Me, my mother, her mother, her mother, etcetera, etcetera form a long family-line going back in time.
    5. The ten millionth mother in that line was not a human being, but she is my great great … grandmother.
    6. The twenty millionth mother in that line was not even a mammal, but she is my great great great … grandmother.
    7. The 35 millionth mother was probably an eel-like creature. Another one of my great etc grandmothers.

    (If the 10 millionth mother or the 20 millionth mother or the 35 millionth mother in that line would have died before her (their?) reproductive age me and my mother would not exist.)

  3. 3
    reverendspy says:

    bornagain77> Thank for your informative posts I have learned much from reading them. As a busy person who doesn’t have time to read peer reviewed studies I appreciate a place like this where opposite points of views are expressed. So here’s a question. The general view in science seems to be that evolution is a given fact. It is often said that there are mountains of evidence supporting it. And to deny it is the same as saying the world is flat. So if there really are mountains of evidence to support it: and it’s as obvious as gravity. Then where is the smoking gun so to speak? Where is the undeniable proof that we evolved from bacteria? Also: what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?

  4. 4
    mike1962 says:

    Seqenenre: I always understood that microevolution was the proces (you can also call it just evolution) and that macro-evolution is not a biological proces at all, but just a human concept.

    The problem is one of extrapolation. Can the micro-evolutionary mechanisms account for new cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans?

    For example, what kind of mutations does it take to turn something like a chimp’s brain into a human brain? Can the micro-evolutionary mechanisms we know of account for it? If you have solid grounds to believe so, run your putative progression up the flag pole and let’s see if anyone salutes.

  5. 5
    Box says:

    reverendspy,

    reverendspy: The general view in science seems to be that evolution is a given fact. It is often said that there are mountains of evidence supporting it. And to deny it is the same as saying the world is flat. So if there really are mountains of evidence to support it: and it’s as obvious as gravity. Then where is the smoking gun so to speak?

    There is exactly zero evidence for unguided evolution.

    what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?

    “Name me one example”. Chances are that they come up with one of the icons of evolution.
    There are several severe obstacles for evolution.

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    mike1962 @4

    Can the micro-evolutionary mechanisms account for new cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans?

    Well, unfortunately we are aware of at least one case of new cell types resulting from some (undesirable) micro-evolutionary mechanisms: cancer.
    If we consider all the developmental and adaptability mechanisms constantly operating within the biological systems as evolutionary, then we could say that those mechanisms produce different cell types that form different tissues and organs. That capability is built-in (programmed) within the systems.

  7. 7
    mike1962 says:

    Dionisio: Well, unfortunately we are aware of at least one case of new cell types resulting from some (undesirable) micro-evolutionary mechanisms: cancer.

    I wonder if anyone can come up with a cell type that isn’t a degeneration and destructive agent of another cell type.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    mike1962: I wonder if anyone can come up with a cell type that isn’t a degeneration and destructive agent of another cell type.

    Yes. Your body is full of them.

  9. 9
    Dionisio says:

    mike1962 @4 & @7

    addendum to post #6:

    The case of cancer is an example of what can happen when those established mechanisms are affected by different factors or conditions. Things turn really ugly.
    We want to understand things as they are, we want to know how they work, so we can find available ways to fix or prevent problems that affect the established systems.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    reverendspy you ask:

    So if there really are mountains of evidence to support it: and it’s as obvious as gravity. Then where is the smoking gun so to speak? Where is the undeniable proof that we evolved from bacteria?

    You are asking exactly the right question! I’ve been asking pretty much that same exact question for years and the responces I get from neo-Darwinists, (when they even try to answer the question instead of changing the subject), are always dishonest bluffs.
    They never admit the sheer poverty for their gradiose claims. And rest assured, if a hard-core Darwinist thinks he can pull the wool over your eyes, he will definitely try. I’ve seen it happen too many times and am shocked at how dishonest some hard-core Darwinists will be towards the evidence at hand.
    The prime example I use of this dishonest bluffing tactic by hard-core neo-Darwinists is Nick Matzke’s dishonest attempt to refute Behe’s claim that molecular machines cannot be had in a gradual step by step Darwinian manner:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Nick Matzke tried the same sorts of dishonest ‘literature bluffing’ tactics at the Dover trial, which he was instrumental in, and also more recently he literature bluffed when Stephen Meyer’s book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ came out:

    The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010
    http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

    “A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception”: Immunologist Donald Ewert on the Dover Trial – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_03-08_00

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

    As you can see somewhat from Matzke’s literature bluffs (bluffs which were widely applauded by rank and file neo-Darwinists by the way), the main question that needs to be answered by Darwinists, and never is, is “where does the functional information and/or complexity come from?”.
    Neo-Darwinists, once you get past their dishonest bluffing tactics, simply have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can generate any non-trivial functional information/complexity. Such as even one molecular machine or a single gene.
    As to a short, sweet, refutation to the ‘mountains of evidence’ claim by neo-Darwinists, I find Dr. Behe’s survey of the last four decades of laboratory evolution experiments to be extremely effective in countering that claim.

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Of course there is much more that could be said in regards of the impossibility of unguided material processes to create functional information and/or complexity, from Axe, Gauger, and many, many, others, but Behe’s preceding paper pretty much clearly illustrates that Darwinian claims are sorely lacking in ANY confirming evidence for their grandiose claims.

    i.e. They do not even have a molehill of evidence much less a mountain as many of them are apt to claim. 🙂

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    mike1962 @7

    Good question. Thanks.

    The mother of all stem cells is known as zygote.

    From it come all known types of cells in our bodies.

    The mechanisms behind all that are beyond my comprehension.

    Calling it fascinating would be a gross understatement.

    🙂

  12. 12
    tjguy says:

    Seqenenre says:

    I always understood that microevolution was the proces (you can also call it just evolution) and that macro-evolution is not a biological proces at all, but just a human concept. i.e. the sum of a lot of micro-evolution.

    You learned the story well. That is what we are told. Now, if we only could test that idea – you know, the idea you gave about your Mom – then we’d have some real experimental evidence to support the hypothesis.

  13. 13
    mike1962 says:

    Mung: Yes. Your body is full of them.

    Evolved from another cell types using micro-evolutionary mechanisms, not due to adaptive mechanisms or pre-programming. How far can the known micro-evolutionary processes take us?

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    reverendspy @3

    what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?

    Interesting question. Thank you.

    Since I’m not a scientist nor have the intelligence (or knowledge) to become one, I’d rather ask this simple question:
    Where’s the beef?*
    Followed (if necessary) by this courteous request:
    Show me the money!**

    (*) Wendy’s TV ad
    (**) Hollywood movie

  15. 15
    Dionisio says:

    reverendspy @3

    what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?

    Approach them in a childlike manner, i.e. any question is valid. Ask questions until everything gets explained clearly enough to be understood.

    Here’s an example of response:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567227

  16. 16
    Mung says:

    Human cell type diversity, evolution, development, and classification with special reference to cells derived from the neural crest

    An updated list of cell types is presented for a familiar, albeit overlooked model taxon, adult Homo sapiens, with 411 cell types, including 145 types of neurons, recognised.

    Yikes!

  17. 17
    Mung says:

    Some of the oldest cells on Earth are single-cell organisms called bacteria. … With a population of increasingly diverse bacterial life, the stage was set for some amazing things to happen.

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu.....rganelles/

    Does anyone still think eukaryotes evolved from bacteria?

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline.

    That’s rich, coming from a discipline that’s notorious for its impenetrable waffle

  19. 19
    Dionisio says:

    reverendspy @3

    what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?

    Approach them in a childlike manner, i.e. any question is valid. Ask questions until everything gets explained clearly enough for you to understand it.

    Here’s an example of response:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567227

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    reverendspy, although you asked for a short answer for the ‘mountains of evidence’ claim, and I gave it with the Behe paper, I still would like to expand just a bit more on the Behe paper so as to clearly illustrate just how sorely lacking Darwinists are in ANY confirming evidence for their grandiose claims:.
    Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up non-trivial functional complexity:
    How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance? Does it provide evidence for Darwinian claims?

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    In fact, antibiotic resistance is found to be ancient instead of a recent innovation as claimed by Darwinists:

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

    The following experiments agree with the negative result that the ‘fitness test’ on antibiotic resistance gave to Darwinian evolution:

    Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute’s Ann Gauger – podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper
    Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger’s paper, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,”.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....4_13-07_00

    Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009
    Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9951

    Epistasis between Beneficial Mutations – July 2011
    Excerpt: We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....t-benefit-

    Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
    Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....teria.html

    As well, 35 years of trying to ‘fix’ unconditionally advantageous alleles in fruit flies failed, spectacularly!

    Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies – October 2010
    Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ruit_flies

    Even saturating genomes with mutations failed to turn up evidence for Darwinian evolution:

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.html

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Even Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) failed to turn up any evidence for Darwinian evolution:

    Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski’s project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,,
    ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

    Moreover, when the top five beneficial mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined to see what would happen, the result was what is termed ‘negative epistasis, which is the completely opposite result as would have been predicted by Darwinian theory:

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    Dr. Behe went even further and surveyed, in his book ‘Edge of Evolution’, the worldwide ‘evolution’ and Malaria and HIV which, due to their immense population sizes, should give us a much better picture of what Darwinian processes are capable of. The results were dismal for Darwinists

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

    “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    Dr. Behe was mercilessly attacked by neo-Darwinists for daring to suggest that there could possibly be a limit to what unguided Darwinian processes could accomplish. But Dr. Behe’s 10^20 number has now been confirmed empirically:

    How Many Ways Are There to Win at Sandwalk? – Michael Behe – August 15, 2014
    Excerpt: ,, with chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum. The best current statistical estimate of the frequency of de novo resistance is Nicholas White’s value of 1 in 10^20 parasites. That number is now essentially fixed — no pathway to resistance will be found that is substantially more probable than that. Although with more data the value may be refined up or down by even as much as one or two orders of magnitude (to between 1 in 10^18-10^22), it’s not going very far on a log scale. Not nearly far enough to lift the shadow from Darwinism.
    What’s more, we can also conclude that the mutations that have already been found are the most effective available of any combination of mutations whose joint probability is greater than 1 in 10^20, since more effective alternatives would already have occurred and been selected if they were available.,,,
    The bottom line for all of them is that the acquisition of chloroquine resistance is an event of statistical probability 1 in 10^20.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....88981.html

    podcast – Michael Behe: Vindication for ‘The Edge of Evolution,’ Pt. 2
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_19-07_00

    Realistic computer programs, as opposed to jerry-rigged Darwinian programs, give the same negative result to Darwinian claims:

    Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
    MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
    Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
    http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf

    Moreover, the waiting time to convert just one protein of one function to another similar protein of a different function is prohibitively long, to put it mildly”

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....t-collide/

    More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said – July 2012
    Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
    You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
    Facing Facts
    But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....rwin-said/

    Although this post has been a bit long reverendspy, hopefully you can now see a bit more clearly just how grossly inadequate Darwinian explanations are for all the wondrous diversity of life we see around us.

    Verse and Music:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

    Hillsong – Mighty to Save – With Subtitles/Lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ

  22. 22
    reverendspy says:

    Thanks everyone for your answers to my question. I don’t think I’m wrong in believing that most contributors on here have some sort of faith in God, As I do:
    I know that many believers have turned to guided evolution as an explanation of how the diversity of life came to be on earth. I have struggled with this concept from a theological standpoint. For instance Christ whom I believe is and was the agent of creation spoke of that event as something that occurred at the time of Adam.
    Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    At least that has been my interpretation of the verse.
    So genealogically speaking the creation of living things should be measured in thousands of years not millions or billions.
    If this is the case, what room does that leave for evolution at all, guided or unguided. Was Jesus a YEC?
    The book of Genesis is intrinsically tied to Christs redemptive work. Sin and death entered with Adam and were dealt with through Christs death and resurrection. And all creation will one day be set free from the bondage of corruption.
    OK I don’t want to preach:) But these appear to me to be foundational questions that go to the very heart of the christian faith. Is there a way to reconcile these things?
    I am old enough and have had enough experiences with God to trust Him even though I don’t understand everything.
    But I also know those who are not as strong and have had their faith torn away by the theory of evolution.
    This bothers me:
    From the answers that were given to my question regarding actual proof for evolution. I am amazed that it holds the sway and power that it does in the world. Why are not more scientists and professors standing up to say “the emperor has no clothes”

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Though there are YECs in ID, I personally am not a YEC and I also personally don’t think scriptures teach a YEC point of view:

    Dr. Hugh Ross appeared on Fox News with Lauren Green to discuss Science and the Book of Genesis. (Long Days vs. 24 hour Days)
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/363...../#sp=show-

    Hugh Ross – Robustly Testing RTB’s (Old Earth) Creation Model against all the competing models – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlYzYMDpTwY

    ,,, ‘And if you’re curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events’
    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video
    https://vimeo.com/118304005

    Seven Days That Divide The World (John Lennox) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-AGFfKZFM

    Of related note:

    The Meaning and Purpose of Creation – John Lennox – video – 31:00 minute mark (in Genesis there is a sequence of creative acts that are not the same act)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rWUNbNsa-yA#t=1915
    55:18 minute mark quote:
    “According to Genesis you do not get from the non-living to the living without the words ‘And God said,,’. According to Genesis you not get from the animal to the human without the words ‘And God said,,,’
    – John Lennox

  24. 24
    reverendspy says:

    bornagain77> Thanks I’ll check these videos out

  25. 25
    Dionisio says:

    Mung @16

    An updated list of cell types is presented for a familiar, albeit overlooked model taxon, adult Homo sapiens, with 411 cell types, including 145 types of neurons, recognised.

    411 cell types?

    Check this out:

    There are probably well over 7,000 statistically distinct cell types with unique mRNA and protein expression profiles in brain.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567306

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    also of note, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, atheistic materialists have a far, far, worse problem than YECs have:

    Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor
    Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, quantum experiment confirms
    Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

  27. 27
    Dionisio says:

    reverendspy @22

    You brought up a very interesting point. Thank you.

    The biblical verse you quoted is from the below context (Mark 10:1-9), where Jesus appears teaching about divorce being against the true relationship between male and female within marriage, quoting Genesis 2:24

    I don’t see this passage being about the exact time of their creation, but rather about their equal positions from God’s perspective. But I could be wrong about this.

    Since God created time, the concepts “before time existed” or “before we were born” are not fully understandable to us (at least not to me), as it is in passages like Galatians 1:15 where Paul wrote: “But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by His grace,…” God set him apart before he existed physically?

    We should be very careful when reading the scriptures, so we don’t read more than what it says or less than what it says. When we are not sure, it’s better to humbly leave it like that, not sure, while asking God to reveal it to us, if that’s His will, for His glory.

    Mark 10:1-9 (ESV)

    1 And He left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to Him again. And again, as was His custom, He taught them.

    2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test Him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

    3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”

    4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.”

    5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.

    6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

    7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,

    8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

    9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

  28. 28
    Robert Byers says:

    Indeed change within kind etc must be true. Nature insists colour preserves creatures from being eaton. So it matters. Wrong looks equals extinction.
    Yet colour in people is not from this mechanism of micro evolution. its from some kind of innate triggering mechanism that changed our bodies upon migration to new areas post flood.
    Micro is minor. Macro demands mutations that change creatures enough to select a new population from it.
    Then more mutations. Bugs to buffalos.
    Naw. Thats wrong and flirting with stupid.
    Its alchemy with mutations. Evos are modern alchemists.

  29. 29
    reverendspy says:

    bornagain77>on 21
    So basically the term microevolution is a misnomer. The correct term should be adaptation. Species adapt to their environment yes. But does that mean new information is involved? My understanding of evolution from school was that less complex became more complex through beneficial mutations which added information to the genetic makeup.
    Here is the way new world encyclopedia spins it.
    http://www.newworldencyclopedi.....oevolution In the laboratory, biologists have demonstrated microevolution involving organisms with short lifecycles, such as fruit flies, guppies, and bacteria, which allow testing over many generations.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    reverendspy, yes, adaptation would be a more appropriate word to use instead of evolution.
    As well, Dr. Durston says that variation is also a more appropriate word to use rather than evolution since it is more specific as to what is actually happening.

    Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Two Mistakes – Friday, May 29, 2015
    Excerpt: The textbook for a genetics course I took at the University of Waterloo defined evolution as ‘changes in allele frequencies in a population over time’. An allele can be described as a variation of a particular gene. Defining evolution in this way can be misleading; it would be more accurate to call this variation. No new genes are required, just variation in existing genes or the loss of existing genetic information. This sort of variation is typically referred to as microevolution.
    Microevolution takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the Pepper Moth, Galapagos Finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and variations in Stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation.

    The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is something to the effect that evolution is rubbish/bunk/false. They are often astonished to learn that variation (which they completely agree with) is defined as evolution.
    http://p2c.com/students/blogs/.....o-mistakes

    And as pointed out in the Behe article I cited previously, the vast majority of beneficial variations/adaptations that occur are found to occur by loss of preexisting functional complexity/information in the genome rather than by a gain of function complexity/information. As Spetner puts the situation:

    “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.”
    Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics – MIT – Not By Chance)

    As John Sanford puts the situation:

    “Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense–but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes–hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.”
    John Sanford – “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”(pp. 26-27)

    Darwinists simply do not have any empirical evidence that beneficial mutations are occurring on a large enough scale to prevent the extremely rare beneficial mutations from being swamped in a vast ocean of detrimental mutations that degrade the genome to one extent or another.
    In other words, unambiguously beneficial mutations are not occurring at anywhere near a high enough percentage so as to make neo-Darwinism viable as a scientific theory.

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Dr. Sanford, who is more than qualified to speak on the subject of mutations and their overwhelming tendency to degrade genetic information, labels the degenerative tendency of mutations on genomes to be ‘Genetic Entropy’. In fact he wrote a book by the title, ‘Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome’. The book is a fairly easy book to read that was written with the lay audience in mind. If you are interested in building an airtight case against neo-Darwinism, this book should definitely be included in your list of books to read.

    The overall body of evidence for Genetic Entropy, and the obvious Theistic implications associated with that degenerative tendency, are discussed in the following short interview (which I personally found to be a very informative interview):

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/35088933

  31. 31
    drc466 says:

    Macro-evolution as a result of repeated micro-evolution is the evolutionary theory that if you dig a hole deep enough, one shovel-full at a time, you will eventually reach the moon.

  32. 32
    logically_speaking says:

    Reverendspy,

    Hi I am a YEC, and yes Jesus was a YEC too, as was Moses.

    The bible clearly says days in Genesis, all Old earth creationists have to come up with silly reasons why a day doesn’t mean a day lol.

    It’s so important to God infact that he talks about it in the Ten commandments.

    I’ll top bornagain77’s Dr Ross with my favourite Dr Walt Brown,

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

  33. 33
    Zachriel says:

    Kirk Durston: {Macroevolution} has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being.

    There is substantial evidence of the common descent of humans and eel-like organisms, through a process of relatively gradual change.

  34. 34
    Dr JDD says:

    If you say “there is substantial evidence” enough times it must become true.

  35. 35
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: If you say “there is substantial evidence” enough times it must become true.

    No, however, it is true. We can start with the nested hierarchy or the fossil succession.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Nested Hierarchy and Fossil Succession only exist in your unrestrained imagination.

    Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism – May 14, 2013
    Excerpt: In sum, the nested hierarchies in taxonomy don’t need Darwinism, in fact, Darwinism distorts the ability actually see the nested hierarchies, and finally nested hierachies based on taxonomy are evidence against Darwinism.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....darwinism/

    Evolution Professor: “Biological Designs Fall Into a Nested Hierarchy” – May 14, 2014
    Excerpt: phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits.,,,
    And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. Velasco’s claim is typical. For example, Richard Dawkins explained that gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....signs.html

    “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
    – Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html

    podcast – Has Science Shown that We’re Related to Apes? – June 3, 2015
    On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin shows how the human fossil record contradicts the expectations of neo-Darwinian evolution. Luskin takes a close look at the technical literature surrounding human origins and explains why the evidence does not, despite common claims to the contrary, indicate that humans evolved from ape-like precursors.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....d-to-apes/
    Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures? by Casey Luskin – article
    http://salvomag.com/new/articl.....atures.php

    Perhaps, instead of relying on your imagination to try to make your case that you are an accident of unguided Darwinian processes, you can provide some real experimental evidence?

    Or is imaginary evidence good enough for you to reject all the promise that is held in the possibility of being made in the ‘image of God’?

    Personally, I certainly would require some pretty stiff evidence, instead of such flimsy evidence as you eagerly accept, before I rejected such a priceless treasure that is held in Christianity in our being children of almighty God!

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Verses:

    1 Corinthians 2:9
    However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him–

    Genesis 25:34
    Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left. So Esau despised his birthright.

  37. 37
    Querius says:

    Dr JDD,

    Government scientist: We have top people working on it recovering mountains of evidence.
    Querius: What people? What evidence?
    Government scientist: Top people. Mountains of evidence.
    Querius: Oh, I see. (pause) Mountains of evidence?
    Government scientist: Mountains . . . of evidence.

    lol

    -Q

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    bornagain77,

    What astounded me was learning about all the modern-looking organisms that were contemporaneous (after being dutifully reclassified on principle) with well-known fossils.

    What we need is a worthy successor to Dr. Ohno to write a paper titled, “So Many Living Fossils in Our Biome.”

    -Q

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: What astounded me was learning about all the modern-looking organisms that were contemporaneous (after being dutifully reclassified on principle) with well-known fossils.

    The theory of evolution posits that organisms are descendants of previous forms, so an organism can’t precede any plausible ancestor. However, there’s nothing in the theory of evolution that says that a form can’t persist. What you might consider a form depends on your perspective. After all, people are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. And deuterostomes have been around for half-a-billion years.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    “After all, people are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. And deuterostomes have been around for half-a-billion years.”

    LOL, that joke, which you have repeated numerous times, never gets old Zach:

    But I think you just might be missing an important step or two in your nonchalant ‘just modified deuterosomes’ claim which you toss out repeatedly:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Perhaps you could get a little more explicit, i.e. ‘scientific’, as to how that ‘beyond belief’ complexity came about rather than just ‘hand-waving’ that it’s the result of ‘modified deuterosomes’.

    A lot of computer engineers would like to know exactly how unguided material processes produced something that far outclasses all their combined efforts thus far in computer engineering.

    I’m pretty sure that referring to hypothetical nested hierarchies and ‘just modified deuterostomes’ as the explanation for such ‘beyond belief’ complexity will not be a satisfactory answer for those computer engineers.

    In fact, I’m fairly certain that they will require you to give an actual demonstration of your extraordinary claim that unguided material processes can easily produce such ‘beyond belief’ complexity!

  41. 41
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: LOL

    It’s a serious point. Depending on the level of analysis, there hasn’t been much evolution in the deuterostome line. An alien might have trouble telling the difference. Still a tube.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_A

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, I do not take your Star Trek imagination seriously.

    Even Picard himself does not take your Star Trek imagination seriously.

    Picard’s Epic Double Facepalm
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

    Your extraordinary claim is that unguided material processes can produce complexity that far outclasses anything man has ever built by concerted effort.

    As far as real science is concerned, and not science fiction, It will take a far more than your imagination that it may be remotely possible for ‘beyond belief’ complexity to arise by unguided material processes, to actually prove your extraordinary claim that it is actually possible for unguided material processes to out-engineer our best engineers.

    And in regards to ever providing real world evidence to make payment on your extraordinary claim, you are in sheer poverty!

  43. 43
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Your extraordinary claim is that unguided material processes can produce complexity that far outclasses anything man has ever built by concerted effort.

    No. Our claim is that a sufficiently advanced alien may not recognize any significant differences in deuterostomes that you take for granted. So, being helpful as you always are, you point out that they think with their meat and link to a helpful video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQ

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Zach, to simplify, you are really saying you are an idiot as opposed to an IDiot?

  45. 45
    mike1962 says:

    After all, people are just modified deuterostomes

    Haha

  46. 46
    Mung says:

    Zachriels spouting their usual nonsense.

    After all, people are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end.

    Actually, people just are deutorostomes.

    And people just are chordates.

    People are not modified primates, people just are primates.

  47. 47
    Querius says:

    bornagain77 @ 42,

    Science fiction is a good term for the theory of evolution. It’s as if it was argued that a meteorite slamming into an iron ore deposit resulted in a fully functional fighter jet.

    To counter the insane probabilities against this, the anthropic principle is invoked, with the claim of billions of events in billions of worlds over billions of years, on one of which we are the observers.

    Of course that the emergence of a fighter is trillions of times more likely than life emerging on earth doesn’t seem to bother Darwinists at all.

    They must have evolved an extra thick skull. 😉

    -Q

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: Actually, people just are deutorostomes.

    You’re right!

  49. 49
    Box says:

    Querius:

    Of course that the emergence of a fighter is trillions of times more likely than life emerging on earth doesn’t seem to bother Darwinists at all.

    Notably the continued existence of fighter jet is a zillions of time more likely than the continued existence of an organism. The fighter jet’s equilibrium is not a daunting affair: if the parts maintain their relative position towards each other everything will be fine.
    IOW once the fighter jet is created it can be left ‘on its own’.
    For an organism things are entirely different: it is safe to say that no cell ever again regains precisely the structure it had one moment before—somehow it is a dynamic equilibrium.

    But the same mystery plays out in the mature organism, which must continually work to maintain its normal form, as well as restore it when injured. It is difficult to bring oneself fully face to face with the enormity of this accomplishment. Scientists can damage tissues in endlessly creative ways that the organism has never confronted in its evolutionary history. Yet, so far as its resources allow, it mobilizes those resources, sets them in motion, and does what it has never done before, all in the interest of restoring a dynamic form and a functioning that the individual molecules and cells certainly cannot be said to “understand” or “have in view”.

    We can frame the problem of identity and context with this question: Where do we find the context and activity that, in whatever sense we choose to use the phrase, does “have in view” this restorative aim? Not an easy question. Yet the achievement is repeatedly carried through; an ever-adaptive intelligence comes into play somehow, and all those molecules and cells are quite capable of participating in and being caught up in the play.

    [S.Talbott]

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    Box: IOW once the fighter jet is created it can be left ‘on its own’.

    This just a quibble, but fighter jets have parts replaced throughout their lifespan. However, this doesn’t affect your larger point.

    Box: For an organism things are entirely different: it is safe to say that no cell ever again regains precisely the structure it had one moment before—somehow it is a dynamic equilibrium.

    In a complex dynamical system, the system is constantly changing, but when properly damped, will hover around a stable point. These sorts of systems are found not only in biology, but in fluid mechanics, such as weather systems.

    Then there’s a subset of dynamical systems called complex adaptive systems, which are capable of learning, such as stock markets and bee hives.

  51. 51
    Box says:

    Zachriel: These sorts of systems are found not only in biology, but in fluid mechanics, such as weather systems.

    Irrelevant. A weather system doesn’t exist as a coherence that preserves itself. There is no whole that perseveres.

    Zachriel: Then there’s a subset of dynamical systems called complex adaptive systems, which are capable of learning, such as stock markets and bee hives.

    What is your point? These are not examples outside of biology. And again the same mistake: the “stock market” is not a whole. It doesn’t make sense to say that ‘the stock market is learning’, unless one speaks metaphorically.

  52. 52
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: You’re right!

    Bound to happen sooner or later.

    😀

  53. 53
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: In a complex dynamical system, the system is constantly changing, but when properly damped, will hover around a stable point.

    Microtubule dynamic instability

    Dynamic instability, not dynamic stability.

    Zachriel: These sorts of systems are found not only in biology, but in fluid mechanics, such as weather systems.

    Are not.

  54. 54
    bFast says:

    Zachriel, “An alien might have trouble telling the difference.” Stupid alien.

  55. 55
    Querius says:

    Box @ 49,

    Notably the continued existence of fighter jet is a zillions of time more likely than the continued existence of an organism.

    Excellent point! A spontaneously generated fighter jet might last billions of years, all without any chance of extinction in a biological sense. Certainly there will be some amount of degeneration depending on the rate of oxidation.

    Maybe this explains exactly what happened on Mars to all the fighter jets that “must have” spontaneously generated on its surface! Certainly this is at least as plausible and likely as evolutionary mythology. 😉

    -Q

  56. 56
    Zachriel says:

    Box: Irrelevant. A weather system doesn’t exist as a coherence that preserves itself.

    You used the term dynamic equilibrium, which can refer to a simple reversible reaction in stasis. An example would be an acid in aqueous solution.

    You presumably meant a complex dynamical system, which, when dampened, can hover over a mean or a strange attractor. Weather is such a system. A weather system does have a lifespan of persistence.

    If you meant something else, then you might want to clarify your position.

    Mung: Dynamic instability, not dynamic stability.

    Complex dynamical systems can be stable or unstable. Many times it is not possible to determine whether a given system is stable over the long run, and they can exhibit chaotic behavior or sudden collapse. Box was referring to apparently stable dynamical systems.

    bFast: Stupid alien.

    “They’re made out of meat.”

  57. 57
    Querius says:

    Mung,

    The dynamic instability of genomes is directly observed in the fossil record. This and the alarming rate of accumulation of mutations portends the genetic collapse and extinction of Homo sapiens as well.

    It seems that we weren’t meant to last. I suppose we could consider genomic repair, but Darwinists have wasted so much time and money on a stupid, failed, 19th century theory that we’re probably too late now.

    -Q

  58. 58
    Mung says:

    Q, Hope is a powerful thing.

    But it’s not a property of particles or the void.

    Can it change what seems to be our inevitable future?

    Let’s hope so. 🙂

Leave a Reply