100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[Myriad]

A question for the "evolution is stupid" advocates in this thread:

If as you claim evolution of distinct new "kinds" (or "macroevolution") has never occurred, what exactly has been stopping it?

Given the following facts:

1. Gene distributions in populations of organisms change with time.

2. Populations of the same species can become isolated from one another.

3. Gene distributions in populations that are isolated from one another change in different ways.

4. Genetic differences change the physical and behavioral characteristics of the organisms in a population.

5. Physical, behavioral, and genetic characteristics of organisms determine whether or not they can breed with one another.

... what force could possibly prevent all occurrences of a population becoming split into two or more isolated groups, the two groups micro-evolving in different ways, and eventually becoming unable to reproduce with one another between the groups?

Does God notice that the antelopes in the grasslands west of the lake are micro-evolving shorter legs because it gives them better concealment, while the ones in the patchy forest east of the lake are micro-evolving longer legs because it gives them better access to edible tree leaves, and say to Himself "Uh oh, if this goes on they won't be able to mate with one another any more, which would mean a difference in Kind which be an abomination in Mine eye," and smite one of the herds to prevent it? If not, what force does accomplish this feat of preventing microevolution from making two kinds out of one when populations become physically separated?

Observing that forests are filled with stuff that can burn, and that lightning can ignite stuff that can burn, and that lightning sometimes occurs in forests, it is reasonable to conclude that forest fires sometimes occur, even if no record existed of any having occurred. Unless one could propose a reasonable hypothesis for what stops them from occurring.

Observing that populations reproduce with genetic variation and recombination, and that they live in an environment where rivers sometimes change course, peninsulas sometimes become islands, lake levels sometimes change turning one lake into many, fertile areas sometimes turn into deserts, and so forth, it is equally reasonable to conclude that speciation occurs even if no record existed of it having occurred. When such records (including fossil and genetic) do exist, in abundance, denying it becomes utterly unreasonable. Unless one could propose a reasonable hypothesis for what stops it from occurring.

So, what prevents "macroevolution" from occurring? The floor is yours.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[joobz]

Hi David,
This is a complex subject and one that requires us to be fairly accurate in language and terms. As such I would like to address one simple point before we move on:

The Biblical "kind" suggests that an ape only produces apes and a man only produces men, not that an ape produced a men. Evolution says that apes are men. You see the conundrum?

This is false.

Evolution doesn't "say" apes are men. What evolution implies is that modern great apes* (e.g., gorillas, chimpanzees) and modern humans share a common ancestor. This is a completely different concept.

Do you understand this distinction?

 

[Skeptic]

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science

(Somewhat NSFW -- strong language):

 

[Robert Oz]

So, what prevents "macroevolution" from occurring? The floor is yours.

Also, at what point should genetic comparisons be rejected?

Genetic evidence of familial lineage - Accept.
Genetic evidence of relationship within a 'kind' - Accept.
Genetic evidence of relationship between 'kinds' - Reject, wicked child! Get behind me Satan!

 

[nvidiot]

Here's a curly one to get you thinking a bit Dave:

If you were to find a Great Dane and a Pug in the fossil record, would you classify them as the same species according to modern morphology? Assume it's a few million years old and no dna evidence can be retrieved from said fossils.

 

[Segnosaur]

I asked two questions, or made two points from a video which five pages of responses later I have yet to see having been answered or addressed.

Your points have been addressed, you just don't seem to like/understand the answer.

I have snuck a peek at page 15 of this thread and I see that it is claimed that they have been answered, but if I don't go through all of these some clowns will whine that I never answered their questions, even though none of them so far have anything to do with the OP.

Yet there have been questions asked specifically about your post that you have not dealt with, even if you've posted after that question was asked (suggesting you had the chance to read/view the question.)

In a basic sense the term "species" is "a sort; kind; variety." In biologic terms it is any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually having one or more distinctive characteristics, so there could be many species or varieties within a single division of the Biblical "kinds."

The Biblical "kind" suggests that an ape only produces apes and a man only produces men, not that an ape produced men.

Yet in post 168 of this thread, you yourself said A Biblical kind is the divisions life forms which allows for cross fertility within its own limits. Sounds like you defining the 'biblical kind' to have the same definition as "species" does. Are you now saying your previous statement was wrong?

You see that? You would agree that science constantly updates itself and so can change completely.

Most of those "changes" are not complete, wholesale changes. They are (at most) minor updates to details.

The theory of evolution has remained the accepted mechanism for biological change for over a century. That has not changed, nor will it likely change, since every discovery seems to be adding to the pile of evidence that supports it.

There may be disagreements over some of the minute details (for example, how 2 possible organisms were related), but that doesn't mean that the overall theory of evolution is wrong or is in danger of being overturned.

In other words until I agree with your interpretation of science I am wrong and laughable. And there you have it. I have explained why you collectively laugh at my statements.

We laugh at your statements because they tend to be based on the "science" of someone who got is diploma from the bottom of a crackerjack box (i.e. Honvind).

All I want you to do is tell me what exploded in the Big Bang, how do you know that, could you be wrong, do you explain that you could be wrong in your propagandist curriculum and why has the space of the Big Bang gone from 2 trillion miles down to nothing in under 50 years.

First of all, as has already been explained (and will probably be explained to you many times in the future), the "big bang" has nothing at all to do with Biological evolution.

Secondly, the changes in the ideas surrounding the initial "big bang" are examples of the refinement in the details of science. The "big bang theory" does not appear to be in any danger of being over-ridden. We are just refining the details.

 

[David Henson]

You keeps saying things like that. Just to be clear, NOBODY is saying it works that way.

Try this, and tell me where you disagree. I want to find the part where the disconnect is.

Let's say I have a whole bunch of cats. Like, a lot of them. If you've met a lot of cats, you probably know that house cats often have a mutation that causes them to have extra toes.

1. Would you agree that, over time, if the cats with extra toes mate with other many-toed cats, this will become more common?

That doesn't matter until the claim is made that it is no longer a cat.

2. Would you further agree that this could happen (again, over time) with multiple mutations or variants?

You are talking about cats, correct? I would doubt it because mutation tends to be more harmful than good by far. But it doesn't matter because the cat isn't going to change into another kind. You could call it something else but it wouldn't be.

3. Would you agree that this can happen to multiple groups, such that cats in one area look significantly different from cats in another area?

So long as they are cats.

4. Would you agree that, through this process, two sets of cats might be different enough that interbreeding is very difficult (and impossible in the wild) due to things like size (picture a chihuahua and a great Dane trying to mate)?

Still doesn't matter because a chihuahua and a great Dane are still dogs.

So far this is observable (we have lots of breeds of cats) so I would think we're on the same page. If you disagree already we have some major confusion going on. Now onto the next step:

5. Would you agree that eventually through this same process it might get to the point where the myriad variations and mutations make interbreeding of the groups impossible, or result in sterile offspring?

I would argue that #5 is also observable (a real world example of this would be a mule).

I have pointed this out in a response to an earlier post. That response will appear much later in the thread than this post.

6. Once the two groups are not able to interbreed would you agree that you can say they are different species?

Note that at each step it's not a cat giving birth to a watermelon - it's a cat giving birth to a cat. It's just that, over time, they change and the two groups eventually can't really be called the same thing. It's slow, and subtle, but the end result is both new groups are descended from cats even if neither can be called cats themselves.

Yes, but it ends there. Can you give any examples of a cat under this hypotheses as giving birth to something else? The cat doesn't directly or indirectly produce anything new.

Evolution says they can and do. That isn't observable. It is poor speculation with no basis.

[ETA: If I'm wrong about that last point then we need to figure out where, if anywhere, exactly evolution disagrees with the Biblical kind.

 

[Robert Oz]

Here's a curly one to get you thinking a bit Dave:

If you were to find a Great Dane and a Pug in the fossil record, would you classify them as the same species according to modern morphology? Assume it's a few million years old and no dna evidence can be retrieved from said fossils.

My guess would be separate 'kinds'.

Likewise, under similar circumstances, I would bet that David would classify a dingo and a Tasmanian wolf as the same 'kind', even though a dingo is a canine and the poor Tasmanian wolf (Dog rest his soul) is a marsupial.

 

[David Henson]

It's been a joke since David Henson claimed to have an interest in "science" and that he concluded that Hovind was science educated.

Clarification - I'm interested in "science" only in that I see some problems with evolution and am interested in it possibly being religious in nature - and more importantly perhaps, peoples reaction to the religious nature in their belief in evolution.

I have nothing against science, but am not at all interested in it in and of itself. In fact it bores the piss out of me.

 

[excaza]

I think that they are both incredible and I think they are both unscientific. Religious.

You think evolution is incredible because you refuse to look at any of the evidence presented in favor of it. You're just trying to sensationalize your misunderstanding (dog makes a dog, nothing else) and lack of investigation into the subject as 'proof' that evolution doesn't exist. In light of this, I don't find it at all surprising that you believe Hovnid is a good scientist, you're both using the same method of 'debate'.

(Primarily using apes in the following)

You think evolution is incredible because you refuse to look at the fossil records that clearly show commonality between humans and the other great apes. The human bone and organ structure is incredibly similar to the currently existing great ape species. This similarity is also evident when looking at the fossils of species that predated humans. The change in some bone structures from the preceding humanoid species to what is present in humans clearly shows a progression over time. But I'm assuming you refuse to look at them because it doesn't show up on Google, page 1.

Following a similar vein, you think evolution is incredible because you refuse to look at the genetic and biological similarities between humans and the other apes. The similarities, both in genetic makeup and behavior are absolutely stunning.

You think evolution is incredible because you refuse to look at biodiversity and see how species, in general, are very obviously well prepared to live in the environments they are found in, and poorly prepared to live in dissimilar ones. This is very clear evidence for some sort of driving natural factor (some will say ID, I say natural selection) in the differentiation of both species and subgroups of said species (race, in the case of humans).

The evidence is there, you just need to look at it. Stop pretending the only evidence is sitting in a lab and watching a 'dog' somehow evolve into 'notadog' overnight. The process takes hundreds, if not thousands of generations to produce the 'noticeable' change you're trying to see. In the short term, the changes are much more subtle.

 

[Twiler]

Clarification - I'm interested in "science" only in that I see some problems with evolution and am interested in it possibly being religious in nature - and more importantly perhaps, peoples reaction to the religious nature in their belief in evolution.

I have nothing against science, but am not at all interested in it in and of itself. In fact it bores the piss out of me.

What, all of it?

For comparison, what does interest you?

 

[Segnosaur]

Would you further agree that this could happen (again, over time) with multiple mutations or variants?

You are talking about cats, correct? I would doubt it because mutation tends to be more harmful than good by far.

This is a perfect illustration of your ignorance, and why you don't seem to be receiving much respect around here.

The fact that "mutation tends to be more harmful than good" is irrelevant. Even if 99% of mutations hurt and only 1% of mutations are beneficial, Those 99 'bad' mutations are going to result in animals likely to die. The 1% will thrive however, and will be more likely to pass their genes on to offspring. The result is that the 'good' mutation will end up being widespread throughout the population.

Its a concept that creationists don't seem to grasp.

. Once the two groups are not able to interbreed would you agree that you can say they are different species?

Yes, but it ends there.

Ummm... Why?

This question has been raised in the thread before, but nobody seems to have answered it...

If you have one species that 'splits' into 2 (where they cannot interbreed) then what keeps them from changing in appearance any further? Is there some magical limiting factor that limits how much a species can change?

 

[David Henson]

Hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliformia

Well, duh.

What seems never to be pointed out in this type of argument, is the just enormous spans of time that are required for a species to evolve into something for which another word is used to describe it. Hundreds of millions of years is a long time when incremental changes are constantly occurring perhaps every 20-100 years.

What I have always wondered is why is it thought that not within the short period of time of the global flood could have all of the necessary variations within each kind could have been produced.

What about that?

 

[excaza]

Yes, but it ends there. Can you give any examples of a cat under this hypotheses as giving birth to something else? The cat doesn't directly or indirectly produce anything new.

So your saying genetically, you're identical to your parents?

hint: the answer is no

Evolution says they can and do.

Yes, and given enough time, the changes could be significant.

That isn't observable.

Yes it is. Again, genetics.

It is poor speculation with no basis.

Because you're ignoring it.

 

[excaza]

Well duh.

Why is this so obvious to you? Why, for you, does this not indicate 'cats' and hyenas shared a common ancestor before they shared one with 'dogs'?

What I have always wondered is why is it thought that not within the short period of time of the global flood could have all of the necessary variations within each kind could have been produced.

What about that?

Your question is answered in the very post you quoted. Emphasis mine.

What seems never to be pointed out in this type of argument, is the just enormous spans of time that are required for a species to evolve into something for which another word is used to describe it. Hundreds of millions of years is a long time when incremental changes are constantly occurring perhaps every 20-100 years.

There is absolutely no evidence that the biodiversity we see today could have happened in such a short period of time (what is it...a couple hundred years?). However, there is plenty of evidence in fossil records that shows clear progressions over hundreds of thousands of years (millions as well), of which apes I'm most familiar with.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, duh.

If you don't believe species are still being produced, then what do you understand by hyenas being closer to cats than dogs?

What I have always wondered is why is it thought that not within the short period of time of the global flood could have all of the necessary variations within each kind could have been produced.

What about that?

Because it's not enough time. Duh!


What global flood, by the way? You have any evidence for that?

 

[Robert Oz]

Yes, but it ends there. Can you give any examples of a cat under this hypotheses as giving birth to something else? The cat doesn't directly or indirectly produce anything new.

Please define 'cat' biblically. Did Noah only need a pair of lions on the ark to account for lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, wildcats, domestic cats, etc.?

The shared common ancestor of all these cats is believed to have existed 10-15 million years ago (evidence based on 16S rRNA and NADH-5 mitochondrial genes). The Chinese Mountain Cat and the African Wildcat can readily interbreed with the domestic cat, but not with lions. Tigers can interbreed with lions. Does that mean Noah covered tigers and lions by taking a pair of lions on the ark? Did he need a pair of wildcats to account for domestic cats? Which would he have taken - the Chinese Mountain Cat, the African Wildcat or another wildcat? Please split these cats into 'kinds'.

 

[Olowkow]

Can you give any examples of a cat under this hypotheses as giving birth to something else?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15766505/:D

 

[slingblade]

I have nothing against science, but am not at all interested in it in and of itself. In fact it bores the piss out of me.

Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy. [Carl Sagan]

 

[Segnosaur]

What I have always wondered is why is it thought that not within the short period of time of the global flood could have all of the necessary variations within each kind could have been produced.

What about that?

Ummm... because generally it requires thousands of generations for enough variations to occur between isolated groups of individuals for them to diverge enough genetically to make them separate species, and since many species require at least a year or 2 (if not decades) to reach sexual maturity then the thousands of generations would have required tens of thousands of years for the required species to diverge, much more than the 6000 years assumed by many young earth creationists.