Forums → WEPR → Long link

I may look into it with more detail later, but right now I overviewed the introducing paragraph and have three things to mention.
.
1) Overbreeding an animal or a plant into one very specific purpose-breed is not comparable with how we imagine natural changes would happen, for the very reason that breeding is artificial selection, not natural. Bananas are sterile because they have been breeded to have no seeds.
.
2) The distinction between micro- and macroevolution is something creationists like to dwell onto, because it allows them to acknowledge variation yet still deny speciation. The problem is that micro- and macroevolution (speciation) rely on exactly the same biological mechanisms, hence you cannot agree with one and disagree with the other.
As a sidenote, some scientists introduce a third degree, megaevolution. This is for the simple reason that, as mentioned, speciation does not need new mechanisms to be explained compared to microevolution, yet the big changes (like the shell of turtles (whose formation, NB, is now rather well understood thanks to recent finds)) may possibly need other mechanisms for explanation. I say 'may' because there is still a debate among scientists whether microevolutionary processes are sufficient explanation or not.

3) This passage here:

There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

Looping in @MageGrayWolf and @Freakenstein as I'm sure they'll be interested in having a look at this.

Overbreeding an animal or a plant into one very specific purpose-breed is not comparable with how we imagine natural changes would happen, for the very reason that breeding is artificial selection, not natural. Bananas are sterile because they have been breeded to have no seeds.

Artificial selection is often used as evidence that speciation can occur. Dogs, as the result of artificial selection, especially are treated as definitive proof. Because taxonomers classify dogs as a separate species from the wolves they were bred from they're seen as evidence of speciation visible within the brief confines of human existence. There's also a lab experiment mentioned later in the link where evolutionary biologists attempted to force speciation through selective breeding of fruit flies. And the site never used bananas as an example. It mentions cows, beats, and fruit flies but no bananas anywhere on the page.

What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.

The distinction between micro- and macroevolution is something creationists like to dwell onto, because it allows them to acknowledge variation yet still deny speciation. The problem is that micro- and macroevolution (speciation) rely on exactly the same biological mechanisms, hence you cannot agree with one and disagree with the other.

No, they do not rely on the same mechanism. To say they do is an outright lie. Microevolution is the varying of allele frequencies within an existing species. Macroevolution requires the introduction of new traits through mutation.

Obviously, unicellular life did at some point make the step to multicellularity

There is no proof, therefore it is not so obvious. You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than evolution is possible.

the niches are already filled by us, eukaryotes. Why would a unicellular bacteria enter into concurrence with eukaryotes if it is so good at what it is doing right now?

Because it doesn't have any control over its own genetic mutations. You're talking about it as if these creatures have a choice in what they become or as if there are only a set number of creatures that can exist within a given taxonomic grouping. If you're not willing to acknowledge that a creature can evolve into something similar to creatures that already exist, then you must not believe that convergent evolution is a real thing.

If we're bringing people in, I always appreciate input from @Moegreche on WEPR subjects.

they'll be interested in having a look at this.

Dogs, as the result of artificial selection, especially are treated as definitive proof.

And the site never used bananas as an example. It mentions cows, beats, and fruit flies but no bananas anywhere on the page.

No, they do not rely on the same mechanism. To say they do is an outright lie. Microevolution is the varying of allele frequencies within an existing species. Macroevolution requires the introduction of new traits through mutation.

There is no proof, therefore it is not so obvious.

You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than evolution is possible.

Because it doesn't have any control over its own genetic mutations. You're talking about it as if these creatures have a choice in what they become [...]

[...] or as if there are only a set number of creatures that can exist within a given taxonomic grouping.

If you're not willing to acknowledge that a creature can evolve into something similar to creatures that already exist, then you must not believe that convergent evolution is a real thing.

If there was a scientific theory that could give a reasonable alternative, it would have been considered long ago. Saying "God did it 6000 years ago" is not a valid theory.

In a choice between "Occasionally difficult to comprehend but more or less sound biological theory" and "complete defiance of the laws of physics", I will always choose the former unless some really good constructive evidence appears for the latter. The people who try to disprove Darwinian evolution always fail to offer a compelling alternative to the original theory, and this behavior just does not wash outside of physics.

Dogs are just an example of how artificial selection can bring up a whole range of morphologies relatively fast. That's it. Attacking this point won't make you the conqueror of evolutionary theory.

It's used by evolutionary biologists to show macroevolution is possible, it's used as an example of macroevolution in biology textbooks, and it's one of the most commonly brought up examples of "evidence" in any internet debate on the subject. The link brought up artificial selection as proof that macroevolution can't occur, and I brought up dogs because they are the most common example. Just because you can't actually form a coherent argument against that without using a strawman doesn't mean you can disown the whole concept from evolutionary theory to avoid talking about it.

Variation is introduced into a species by factors like genetic drift and mutations. Species can form when two population are separated and drift apart so far that if they meet again and produce offsprings, those offsprings are sterile. This is an example of how species can form simply due to microevolutionary mechanisms and separation.

No it isn't. That never has and never will happen, because both populations are still the same species and still have the same DNA, just in different allele frequencies. That was something Darwin thought was possible, but has long since been disproven and abandoned.

Genetics prove that eukaryotes and unicellular organisms have a common ancestor, which makes the rest obvious.

No, it doesn't. The link covers that in detail under the sections regarding "orphan genes" and "the tree of life".

Seriously, you should long since be accustomed to the fact that when biologists say things like that, they do not imply a will behind the biological mechanisms. It is just easier to say it that way, usually educated people know what is meant.

Your statement directly implied an intelligence at work. Even if you were just referring to a natural force, I've been in this argument dozens of times on dozens of sites with people of varying levels of education including but not limited to; teachers, physicists, and biologists yet no one has ever been able to describe or define this force without personifying nature and/or random chance. Besides, you still have no proof that there is any kind of force stopping current bacteria from changing species.

Never claimed that.

Yes you did. You stated that the niches were already filled, directly implying a set limit to how many creatures can exist in a single niche.

See, I don't exclude that a unicellular can become multicellular.

Nothing in my statement indicates that's what I thought you were saying. You brought up the change from unicellular to multcellular and said it doesn't happen because there are already multicellular lifeforms. I brought up convergent evolution to show that you're picking and choosing what to believe within the theory for the sake of supporting your argument.

I was just replying to the article that seemed to take the fact that unicellulars don't turn into fishes overnight as a proof against evolution.

That was not what the article was saying and you know it. You're just trying to use a strawman to avoid a real discussion now.

More generally though, there is no reason to expect that any group of organism magically turns into something completely different; expecting this from evolutionary theory would be misunderstanding it through and through. Living beings do change, but they work with what they got, they have natural constraints.

According to evolutionary theory, all things evolved from an ancestral single-celled lifeform. According to the theory of evolution, aquatic life was the first to exist and over time aquatic aminals developed feet capable of moving on land. According to some evolutionary biologists, this occurs in leaps and bounds over brief periods of thousands of years followed by several million years with little to no change. According to evolutionary theory, new traits are developed within a population as numerous neutral mutations build up to gradually change one aspect of the population that helps it survive better. Everything about evolutionary theory directly contradicts what you just said in the above quote.

D'uh! It was just an example of why the argumentation of the article doesn't make sense. (It has even more relevance since creationists consider the banana to be "Darwin's nightmare" because apparently its form fits the human hand so perfectly )

So, you brought in a strawman that has nothing to do with anything I've ever said (in this thread, in these forums, in any forums, or in real life) just so that you could have a little laugh by comparing me to religious extremists that are more interested in "proving" intelligent design than in looking at evolution from a scientific perspective?

I brought up this link because I know there are plenty of evolutionists in the armorgames forums and I wanted to see their response after reading it. As far as I know, you still haven't even done that. Many of the arguments made in the article are ones I've made independently and with different sources, the article itself is just better written and more thoroughly cited than I would be in the midst of an actual debate on the subject. If you're not going to bother reading it or make a genuine attempt to discuss the matter, stop posting in the thread. I would expect this kind of behavior from Fish, which is why I've stopped reading all of his posts, but a Knight of armorgames really should strive to be better than that.

In a choice between "Occasionally difficult to comprehend but more or less sound biological theory" and "complete defiance of the laws of physics", I will always choose the former unless some really good constructive evidence appears for the latter. The people who try to disprove Darwinian evolution always fail to offer a compelling alternative to the original theory, and this behavior just does not wash outside of physics.

I'm not saying "God did it." I'm certainly not saying "God did it 6000 years ago". All I'm doing is trying to prompt a legitimate discussion on evolution as a scientific theory. Or, as I said in my first post, "...it cites enough academic sources and shows enough understanding of the subject that it can't simply be dismissed by anyone truly interested in the academics of evolutionary theory." You cannot simply accept that evolution is true because you don't have an alternative other than a deity. That is not a valid scientific argument, and if you truly want to believe in something scientific then you need to show it the same critical thinking you would any scientific theory. If you're just going to accept something regardless of its faults, then it's not real science it's just another religion asking for blind faith.

I'm not saying "God did it." I'm certainly not saying "God did it 6000 years ago". All I'm doing is trying to prompt a legitimate discussion on evolution as a scientific theory.

Or, as I said in my first post, "...it cites enough academic sources and shows enough understanding of the subject that it can't simply be dismissed by anyone truly interested in the academics of evolutionary theory."

You cannot simply accept that evolution is true because you don't have an alternative other than a deity. That is not a valid scientific argument, and if you truly want to believe in something scientific then you need to show it the same critical thinking you would any scientific theory.

Please excuse the double posting, but I thought there are some points which are too important to be left unaddressed.

No, it doesn't. The link covers that in detail under the sections regarding "orphan genes" and "the tree of life".

It's used by evolutionary biologists to show macroevolution is possible, it's used as an example of macroevolution in biology textbooks, and it's one of the most commonly brought up examples of "evidence" in any internet debate on the subject.

No it isn't. That never has and never will happen, because both populations are still the same species and still have the same DNA, just in different allele frequencies. That was something Darwin thought was possible, but has long since been disproven and abandoned.

Your statement directly implied an intelligence at work. Even if you were just referring to a natural force, I've been in this argument dozens of times on dozens of sites with people of varying levels of education including but not limited to; teachers, physicists, and biologists yet no one has ever been able to describe or define this force without personifying nature and/or random chance. Besides, you still have no proof that there is any kind of force stopping current bacteria from changing species.

Yes you did. You stated that the niches were already filled, directly implying a set limit to how many creatures can exist in a single niche.

That was not what the article was saying and you know it. You're just trying to use a strawman to avoid a real discussion now.

According to evolutionary theory, all things evolved from an ancestral single-celled lifeform. According to the theory of evolution, aquatic life was the first to exist and over time aquatic aminals developed feet capable of moving on land. According to some evolutionary biologists, this occurs in leaps and bounds over brief periods of thousands of years followed by several million years with little to no change. According to evolutionary theory, new traits are developed within a population as numerous neutral mutations build up to gradually change one aspect of the population that helps it survive better. Everything about evolutionary theory directly contradicts what you just said in the above quote.

So, you brought in a strawman that has nothing to do with anything I've ever said (in this thread, in these forums, in any forums, or in real life) just so that you could have a little laugh by comparing me to religious extremists that are more interested in "proving" intelligent design than in looking at evolution from a scientific perspective?

All I'm doing is trying to prompt a legitimate discussion on evolution as a scientific theory.

I've thought of a much more interesting and useful discussion: what is it about evolution that makes it such a controversial and discussed theory 156 years after it was first published? There are other theoretical ideas such as the standard model for physics, or quantum mechanics, which have much greater significance to the nature of reality but time and again evolution is the one wheeled out for arguments. I think I can put this down to several factors:

1) It's a simple enough concept to explain without hard science, so everybody can understand it.
2) It is extremely difficult, nay impossible, to perform valid experiments to test it.
3) It is directly tied to our nature as human beings.

If we compare that to quantum mechanics:
1) It's incredibly complex and involved.
2) Experiments, while hard to carry out, can be performed.
3) It does not directly connect to humanity in the minds of the public.

1) It's used as proof that no deity exists.
2) It is extremely difficult, nay impossible, to perform valid experiments to test it.
3) It is directly tied to our nature as human beings.
4) It's advocated by some of the most arrogant and hypocritical people on the planet.
5) There's enough complexity for its advocates to avoid admitting flaws by accusing others of not understanding.
6) Many of its advocates declare it to be absolute fact despite its flaws and the reality of the scientific method.

You certainly seem to have hit the nail on the head there 09philj. There's really not much point in arguing most other fields of science when evolution is already set up to be a punching bag. For every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist that annoyingly tries to convert someone to their religion, there's an evolutionist that does the same by trying to "disprove" the existence of gods. Then they turn around and complain about how annoying it is when someone tries to convert them to such an illogical belief system.

For every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist that annoyingly tries to convert someone to their religion, there's an evolutionist that does the same by trying to "disprove" the existence of gods.

Since this is clearly what you really what you wanted to talk about all along, let's do that. To say that evolution disproves God is utter tosh, and anyone espousing that opinion is an idiot. As Frederick Temple, the archbishop of Canterbury between 1896 and 1902 said "God doesn’t just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself". You'd also benefit from reading this transcript of a talk given by the bishop of Oxford. My religious beliefs (That either there is no God or the one we have is unworthy) aren't based on science, and neither are anybody else's. Calm down, relax, and understand that the love of your creator exists regardless of the mechanics behind the creation itself.

No, they do not rely on the same mechanism. To say they do is an outright lie. Microevolution is the varying of allele frequencies within an existing species. Macroevolution requires the introduction of new traits through mutation.

There is no proof, therefore it is not so obvious. You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than evolution is possible.

Because it doesn't have any control over its own genetic mutations.

You're talking about it as if these creatures have a choice in what they become [...]

The link brought up artificial selection as proof that macroevolution can't occur, [...]

Just because you can't actually form a coherent argument against that without using a strawman doesn't mean you can disown the whole concept from evolutionary theory to avoid talking about it.

Overbreeding an animal or a plant into one very specific purpose-breed is not comparable with how we imagine natural changes would happen [...]

Artificial selection has nothing at all to do with speciation.

No it isn't. That never has and never will happen, because both populations are still the same species and still have the same DNA, just in different allele frequencies.

The link covers that in detail under the sections regarding "orphan genes" and "the tree of life".

de novo mutation
Synonyms: de novo gene mutation, new gene mutation, new mutation

An alteration in a gene that is present for the first time in one family member as a result of a mutation in a germ cell (egg or sperm) of one of the parents or in the fertilized egg itself

The tree of life argument isn't even supporting any of his assertions. Horizontal gene transfer is a thing. In fact, it's a source of genetic diversity.

Your statement directly implied an intelligence at work.

Even if you were just referring to a natural force, I've been in this argument dozens of times on dozens of sites with people of varying levels of education including but not limited to; teachers, physicists, and biologists yet no one has ever been able to describe or define this force without personifying nature and/or random chance.

Besides, you still have no proof that there is any kind of force stopping current bacteria from changing species.

That was not what the article was saying and you know it. You're just trying to use a strawman to avoid a real discussion now.

Everything about evolutionary theory directly contradicts what you just said in the above quote.

I would expect this kind of behavior from Fish, which is why I've stopped reading all of his posts, but a Knight of armorgames really should strive to be better than that.

You cannot simply accept that evolution is true because you don't have an alternative other than a deity.That is not a valid scientific argument, [...]

You certainly seem to have hit the nail on the head there 09philj. There's really not much point in arguing most other fields of science when evolution is unfairly targeted as a punching bag. For every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist that annoyingly tries to convert someone to their religion, there's a sane person discrediting their inept attempts at "proving" the existence of gods. Then they turn around and complain about how annoying it is when someone tries to attribute something to them that isn't even vaguely similar to what they actually said.

Since this is clearly what you really what you wanted to talk about all along, let's do that.

This is not what I want to talk about. You asked a question, I gave an answer. As long as evolution is presented as fact, as long as people use it as an attack on religion, as long as religious belief is treated as a delusion for the unintelligent, and as long as the theory is filled with more holes than swiss cheese it's going to be debated. Although the Frederick Temple quote was pleasant, I've held a similar view for years and never seen that quote.

Sorry for the comment in brackets, that was actually for the author of the text and not you. I got to understand already since our last debate that you are not a religious extremist. However, using the banana is absolutely no strawman. The article tries to use some unadvantageous developments in bred lines as argument for 'limits' to macroevolution; but as I said with the example of the banana, characteristics of breed lines (wanted or not; wanted like the seedlessness of bananas, unwanted like all anatomical problems that high-breed dogs suffer from) cannot be used in this sense, since you try to compare artificial and natural selection in a way that does not work.

As far as I know, the author of the article isn't here to read what you wrote. I admitted it was biased, I was unhappy with how much that bias showed in the writing. But it's also detailed and covers a far wider array of topics than any sane person would in a single forum post.

And if my comparison of artificial and natural selection isn't working for you, how about when biologists do it? It's one of the experiments mentioned in the article that failed to produce the expected results. Here's the actual results so that you can look at it without the article's bias.

On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment...We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.

as long as people use it as an attack on religion,

Nobody should be using it to attack religion. Religion has nothing to do with it. It has something to do with theism, but as has been pointed out, it is compatible with evolution. The only major point of theology it contradicts is pan species creationism (IE Every species was placed individually by a creator), which must be examined closely because it's not just a philosophical idea, it's a scientific theory. Yes, we should scrutinise evolution, but not from any kind of religious standpoint because the two things are separate debates.

It's also important to remember that merely because our understanding of the mechanics of an idea is wrong or incomplete, it does not mean that the idea itself is. When Ignaz Semmelweiss introduced the idea of hygiene into hospitals, germ theory was still a decade from discovery. When Mendel discovered the existence of dominant and recessive traits, the discovery of the purpose of DNA was still about a century away.