Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[PixyMisa]

There actually is.
It is of little use, it is basically "evolution on a small scale", the one that is quick and easy to see.
Creationists initially rejected all of the theory of evolution but progressively had to admit a limited version of it, as it was observed all the time.
They then moved the goal-posts, latched on a small arbitrary term and blew up its significance... Somewhat changing its meaning.

Thanks, you would appear to be correct.

In real science, microevolution is small change at the species level. Macroevolution being change above that level. So, by definition, slower to appear.
Of course, both have now been demonstrated and observed. But creationists had, meanwhile, redefine 'microevolution' as: "evolution I can't lie and pretend does not exist" and now still hold the micro/macroevolution bareer as significant.

Of course, it is not, macroevolution is just microevolution on a larger scale, basically, the slow accretion of the tiniest microevolutionary changes...
The idea that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not makes no sense. It's like saying that a few steps can brings you to the door of our house, but it is absolutely impossible that many ones can bring you to from one house to the other...

Right. The creationist position is one of accepting the existence of inches while denying the existence of feet.

 

[randman]

I am willing to listen to other explanations. Do the explanations you are referring to begin with the claim that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that we should expect to see a genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago? Do the explanations include humans and dinosaurs living contemporaneously? Because if they do, then I am prepared to dismiss them immediately as being in conflict with mountains of evidence showing an ancient Earth.

Depends on which camp you ask. I think it's a good idea in science to understand someone's theories before dismissing them. If you don't, that's your business. I am just discussing the data.

 

[randman]

Thanks, you would appear to be correct.


Right. The creationist position is one of accepting the existence of inches while denying the existence of feet.

So your view is the inches keep adding up to the feet, miles and so on. How does that happen?

Mutations add genetic material which adds new physical traits, right? The genome evolves along with new physical traits, right?

 

[PixyMisa]

It's simple. Darwinism basically says mutations occur which result in new traits and these are selected if they confer an advantage generally and so new species evolve.

Essentially, yes. Of course, mutations are most often neutral, and are inherited regardless of selection.

The genome evolves along with these new traits.

Well, the species evolves. Allele frequencies change. I still don't know exactly what you mean when you say "the genome evolves". If you mean that there's a change in the distribution of genes across the species, then sure.

 

[PixyMisa]

So your view is the inches keep adding up to the feet, miles and so on. How does that happen?

What's 12 inches?

Mutations add genetic material which adds new physical traits, right?

Sometimes.

The genome evolves along with new physical traits, right?

I still don't know what you mean by that.

 

[randman]

Essentially, yes. Of course, mutations are most often neutral, and are inherited regardless of selection.


Well, the species evolves. Allele frequencies change. I still don't know exactly what you mean when you say "the genome evolves". If you mean that there's a change in the distribution of genes across the species, then sure.

This is really simple. A species or group of living creatures has within it a level of genetic material, it's genome.

You believe in evolution or Darwinism, right? So you believe the genome of any given species has evolved. Let's start there.

You accept that?

Ok, how does that evolve? How does the genome evolve? It evolves with mutations that confer novel traits according to Darwinism, and that produces new species with these traits. So the traits are connected with the evolution of the genome according to Darwinism aka evolution.

It's really simple. Just trying to get some agreement on what Darwinism does say and predict as a theory.

 

[randman]

What's 12 inches?


Sometimes.


I still don't know what you mean by that.

It's absolutely simple. You believe in evolution, right? So you must understand it, right?

Genetic material must have evolved. How do you think it happened?

 

[PixyMisa]

So no matter what the result, it must be evolution, right? totally elastic theory then?

No. That seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Mutations happen all the time. You will have a handful of new mutations yourself. In complex organisms, most of them are neutral, not even identifiable short of a complete genetic sequencing.

Others will affect the efficiency of biochemical processes, positively or negatively. These wouldn't be visible either, of course. But selective pressure can act on them.

 

[randman]

No. That seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Mutations happen all the time. You will have a handful of new mutations yourself. In complex organisms, most of them are neutral, not even identifiable short of a complete genetic sequencing.

Others will affect the efficiency of biochemical processes, positively or negatively. These wouldn't be visible either, of course. But selective pressure can act on them.

Mutations happen all the time. Ok, but what does the theory of evolution teach in regard to how mutations over time are selected and so evolve?

This is pretty simple. Genetic material does evolve in your belief, right? What is that process? How can it be tested in terms of whether it evolved in the first place?

 

[PixyMisa]

This is really simple. A species or group of living creatures has within it a level of genetic material, it's genome.

But there are genetic differences across the individuals of a species. Mutations arise in individuals, and then spread through the species (or not, of course). So we see changes in allele frequency as selective pressures act upon genetic variation.

You believe in evolution or Darwinism, right? So you believe the genome of any given species has evolved. Let's start there.

Well, a given species will have evolved, sure.

Ok, how does that evolve? How does the genome evolve? It evolves with mutations that confer novel traits according to Darwinism, and that produces new species with these traits.

Mutations may not confer any new trait at all, though certainly some do. Selective pressure acts upon genetic variation within the population, resulting in changes of allele frequency. Over time, those changes add up.

So the traits are connected with the evolution of the genome according to Darwinism aka evolution.

I still don't know what you mean by that.

 

[Ladewig]

Depends on which camp you ask.

So which camp are you in? And how did you decide that that particular camp was better than the other?

I think it's a good idea in science to understand someone's theories before dismissing them. If you don't, that's your business. I am just discussing the data.

I am a member at the RaptureReady message board and have read AnswersInGenesis. I think I have a pretty good handle on the different flavors of Creationism.

In any case, yes, I agree with you: it is a good idea in science to understand someone's theories before dismissing them.. That's why I said IF you are talking about a 10,000 year old Earth, then I am prepared to dismiss that theory. I do understand the 10,000 year old Earth theory - it just happens to be wrong and worthy of dismissal. Discarding such a theory is not closed-mindedness in any way.

 

[randman]

I want to move this on .....

Mutations happen all the time

.

Ok, so you could have a bird lay an egg and a reptile be born or vice versa. Species can just mutate wholesale. Natural selection plays no part in it or is it key according to Darwinism?

 

[PixyMisa]

Mutations happen all the time. Ok, but what does the theory of evolution teach in regard to how mutations over time are selected and so evolve?

This is pretty simple. Genetic material does evolve in your belief, right? What is that process? How can it be tested in terms of whether it evolved in the first place?

Mutations don't evolve. Genetic material doesn't evolve.

Species evolve, through selective pressure acting on genetic variation.

 

[PixyMisa]

I want to move this on .....

Mutations happen all the time

.

Ok, so you could have a bird lay an egg and a reptile be born or vice versa.

No.

Species can just mutate wholesale.

No.

Natural selection plays no part in it or is it key according to Darwinism?

Species evolve through selective pressure acting on genetic variation.

 

[randman]

Over time, those changes add up.

Right. Darwinism as understood today involves in mutations gradually building up and when one of them confers a selective advantage, new species gradually evolve.

Right?

So the genome gradually evolves along with emergence of new species, along with the emergence of new traits in biota, right?

Simple question. Genomic evolution is a gradual process connected to emergence of new species and evolution of new traits. They go hand in hand over time.

That's what Darwinism predicts, right?

 

[randman]

Species evolve through selective pressure acting on genetic variation.

Ok, we are getting somewhere though taking a long time. Genetic variation? But you are using that in the sense of including mutations and adding genetic material, right?

My question is where does this genetic material come from? Mutations that confer selective advantage, right?

What I am getting it is Darwinism predicted that simple organisms, earlier evolved organisms, would have simpler genomes. I've debated this for a long time and this claim had been told by evos at least going back to the very early 90s. It makes sense too. Of course, as mutations occur, new species evolve that have selective advantage and so the genome becomes more complex with more evolution overall.

That's what I am asking you to address.

Human beings, for example, should have more complex genomes than an amoeba or simple organism.

 

[PixyMisa]

Right. Darwinism as understood today involves in mutations gradually building up and when one of them confers a selective advantage, new species gradually evolve.

Well, that statement is rather a mess.

Mutations happen to individuals. They become part of the genetic variability of the species. No individual can possibly have all the mutations present in the species. Selective pressures act on individuals, leading to changes in the allele frequencies in the species. Those changes accumulate. Sufficient change results in speciation.

 

[randman]

Selective pressures act on individuals, leading to changes in the allele frequencies in the species. Those changes accumulate. Sufficient change results in speciation.

Finally getting somewhere. "Those changes accumulate." Mutations are part of that, right? Those changes accumulate. Evolution predicts the slow accumulation of genes as species mutate and evolve. Mutation and the addition of genes is connected with the gradual, Darwinist process of evolution. It doesn't just happen all at once according to Darwinism.

You agree with that?

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok, we are getting somewhere though taking a long time. Genetic variation? But you are using that in the sense of including mutations and adding genetic material, right?

Certainly.

My question is where does this genetic material come from? Mutations that confer selective advantage, right?

And neutral mutations. And negative mutations - you'll have a number of those too.

What I am getting it is Darwinism predicted that simple organisms, earlier evolved organisms, would have simpler genomes.

That statement is full of problems. It's terribly vague. Very broadly, looking at the earlier epochs of evolution, yes, it's generally true.

But genetic duplication can and does result in very large genomes for outwardly simple organisms. There's no fixed relationship between the number of genes and the simplicity of an organism, unless you define simplicity by the number of genes.

I've debated this for a long time and this claim had been told by evos at least going back to the very early 90s. It makes sense too. Of course, as mutations occur, new species evolve that have selective advantage and so the genome becomes more complex with more evolution overall.

A new species can have a simpler genome than its predecessor and still have a selective advantage. So while very broadly true, it's not necessarily true in any specific case.

Human beings, for example, should have more complex genomes than an amoeba or simple organism.

Humans have far more complex biochemistry than amoebas, so yes, there must be a more complex genome to control that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Finally getting somewhere. "Those changes accumulate." Mutations are part of that, right? Those changes accumulate. Evolution predicts the slow accumulation of genes as species mutate and evolve.

Genes get eliminated along the way too. But as Simon said, gene duplication is one of the most important processes in producing genetic variation, so yes, the overall complexity of the genome of new species does tend to increase over time.

Mutation and the addition of genes is connected with the gradual, Darwinist process of evolution. It doesn't just happen all at once according to Darwinism.

You agree with that?

Except for the use of the word "Darwinist". It's evolution, or evolutionary theory. No-one who understands it uses the term "Darwinist".