Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

[Desertphile]

Someone posted the following message on a Creationism group on Facebook.

"'A long jumper can train and add inches to his jump (micro) however even if he trains for years he will never be able to jump a mile (macro).'"

Argh! Ack! Yet another non-analogy from a Creationist. The laws of physics dictate the limits of both leaping apes and evolution. We know why us apes cannot leap one mile; we know many but not all of the physical limits of evolution. For the Creationist's assertion to be valid she or he must first demonstrate what the limits of evolution are--- not the limits of what apes can do.

Also, of course:

o) We observe evolution has happened and is happening;

o) If evolution ("macro") did not and does not happen, then we are left with no explanation for how life diversified;

o) The best example for demonstrating evolution did not and does not happen is to provide a superior explananatio, which Creationists have never done.

 

[*SD*]

The best example for demonstrating evolution did not and does not happen is to provide a superior explananatio, which Creationists have never done.

Whayu mean? Yeah them haves, Goddidit!

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think we need to distinguish between what scientists call macroevolution, and what creationists call macroevolution. A creationist's definition will be something like "Microevolution causes the diversity between different kinds of cats, macroevolution is when a common ancestor diverges into cats and dogs." Then I think the "macro is lots of micro" makes sense.

And the easiest route is to point out that they're talking about speciation, which is only one process correctly called macroevolution.

Of course, what they're really looking for is a cat giving birth to a dog in one generation, which would falsify evolution at a stroke. That is, of course, not evolution they're critiquing, it's Pokémon.

As for the analogy with jumping a mile: Who says you have to cover that mile in one jump? Just keep adding jump after jump till you've travelled a mile. Where in the analogy to evolution is the part that says it needs to be one jump? Unless you're saying the changes all need to happen in one generation?

There's a reason why I always cite Climbing Mount Improbable as Dawkins' single best book.

 

[JohnHeintz]

What you see as impossibility, I see as inevitability. I think the difference in perspectives may be a problem of scale. You're looking at one individual in one generation. I'm looking at differentiating populations over millennia, where it is impossible for them to stay the same as their ancestors were. For example, whales emerged from the sister lineage of artiodactyls. Do you accept that all of these animals are biologically related to each other? Meaning that they all evolved from a common ancestor?
View attachment 265


I don't intend to use my videos for a personalized explanation, but I did do one that covers this. So I will include it.



Evolution at every level is a matter of incremental, superficial changes being slowly compiled atop successive tiers of fundamental similarity. The adaptation you're talking about didn't begin until about the time that the cetaceans had already abandoned the land altogether.


A novel mutation will usually appear in a single individual. We don't consider it evolution unless that trait is passed through later generations until there is eventually a whole group with that modification.


Think of how dogs were derived from wolves, and how hounds were derived from dogs. We go from something like a bloodhound to something like a basset hound until we get something like a dachshund. Your question seems to be wondering why a wolf gave birth to a Weiner dog.


Remember that natural selection is based on whole populations over many generations. So we're talking about weighing population mechanics over long periods, where movement of the nostrils would be immediately advantageous, and so would tend to proliferate at the zoomed out scale.


Evolution is a theory of biodiversity. The law of biodiversity holds that one original population will become two then four, eight, sixteen and so on, except for those groups that go extinct. This is why some species that happen across a lucky improvement take quick advantage of that while others don't seem much different than their ancestors.


The same mutation isn't likely to occur independently in different lineages. That has happened, but it is extremely rare.


Different breeds of a single species can produce fertile offspring, which would often blend their differences. Different species can usually only produce infertile hybrids, and then only if they're in the same genus. Interbreeding species in different genera can't produce anything at all, even if they're both from the same taxonomic family.


They're not.


Look at the dramatic differences between skull shapes in modern dog breeds, and remember that most of that happened just within a couple thousand generations. Modern humpback whales take five to fourteen years to reach sexual maturity. The hippopotamus is the closest living relative to whales. A female hippopotamus reaches sexual maturity between five and six years old. Smaller animals tend to reach sexual maturity much faster than that. Pigs for example can reach maturity in only six months. This is what we should reasonably expect of Indohyus as well. But let's be conservative and estimate five years per generation. Indohyus dates back 50 million years. So that means ten million generations have passed since indohyus. Your question about moving the nostrils is the type of change that could happen in less than 1,000 generations, if it was something that breeders thought desirable in dogs.


It didn't. Every sibling in every generation is born with a suite of unique mutations. Humans, for example, are born with an average of 128 mutations per zygote. This is the formula for diversity. Subtle changes happen in every population. Split one population into two and even after as few as dozens of generations, we might already be able to tell the difference. If we found a lone wanderer in the no man's land between the two groups, we might be able to tell just by looking at it which group it came from, even if they were all the same group 100 generations ago.


Selective pressures apply to some environments depending on the lifestyle, the "niche". For example, sharks, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and even some mosasaurs and crocodiles have all adopted the same shape for high speed predation in the water. Similarly, a number of different lineages have adapted the crocodile shape as an ambush predator at the water's edge. The ancestors of whales occupied that niche for a while too. So did phytosaurs and a number of giant salamanders. Eventually environmental conditions will weed out which ones were best suited for that. Crocodilians won. But there were, as I said, one lineage of crocodilians that moved to a different niche in the open ocean, developing shark-like tail flukes. Whales did the same. The difference being that whales are warm-blooded and could develop blubber, where cold waters just killed crocodiles.
View attachment 266
Is this a product of evolution? Intelligent design? Something else?


Your questions are sincere. So I don't mind at all. I only suggest that we look at this scientifically, comparing two different hypotheses, biological evolution vs magical creation. Which one is born out by the evidence. Obviously creationism falls flat immediately. If you can think of another option that explains all this better than evolution, you'll be famous.

It was a holiday long weekend in Australia. I was in a Royal National Park. No phone reception.
Will reply , properly, shortly.

 

[JohnHeintz]

I'm not Aron... but HI John!



With something that simple, it could arise in one generation, but there's no need to appeal to a 'hopeful monster' scenario because evolution confers advantage to a trait that offers any benefit (to reproduction) at all, so the nostrils can migrate over generations, each iteration moving gradually anteriorly until further mutations cease conferring any benefit and the trait fixes in the population becoming universal.




In this context, the primary reason is that it confers an advantage over not having that trait because it gives the possessor statistically better chances of successfully breeding.

From the perspective of selection, mutations are either detrimental, neutral, or advantageous to reproduction. Selection weeds out the deleterious or detrimental mutations: the individual with the mutation dies, fails to reproduce, or just statistically reproduces less than individuals absent that trait. Selection retains the rarer mutation which directly confers a statistical reproductive advantage in the possessors of that trait. Finally, there are neutral mutations - ones which confer neither advantage nor disadvantage, and those changes can in future generations become the basis of new mutations which can then in turn be selective.



Then it isn't passed on in that individual. But if the trait is offering reproductive advantage, then the individual with that trait may well be having substantially more offspring than its fellows without the trait, and thus again statistically, the trait will be favoured. Some percentage of its offspring will have the trait, and those offspring will also receive the same reproductive advantage, and their offspring with the trait will also statistically parent more offspring with that trait and so on - you probably know the power of exponential growth and that's what can occur with a highly favourable trait in a population.



There's no one answer to that: it's how long is a piece of string?

In a given litter, approximately 50% of the offspring will get that trait - 50% genes from each parent.

Those in possession of the advantageous trait have a reproductive advantage meaning that either they're more successful to breed, or just that they have more offspring over the course of their lives. Each consequent generation, this factor is compounded with the individuals of each generation which possess that trait leaving more offspring than the individuals absent that trait. Depending on the numbers you plug in here, it can take hundreds of generations, or it could take just a handful for that trait to become the norm among the entire population.




I think that answers itself. They didn't only get mutations (which are random) suited to aquatic life - they collectively got a bunch of mutations, many of which conferred no benefit to an aquatic lifestyle - but simply retained through selection those mutations which did benefit them in their aquatic lifestyle.




Presumably because, for their lifestyle, the particular whale's traits you're pointing to conferred no advantage. They live a different lifestyle, undergo different survival pressures, and so the environment in which mutations arise in their population is different. Evolution's not trying to push organisms towards a lifestyle, it's merely conferring potential advantage towards any lifestyle! There's no single target.




You ask all the questions you like - it's not a problem at all.

I'll ask some back.

If you deny common ancestry, then how do you account for the diverse lines of evidence that caused scientists to hypothesize this in the first place?

DNA, for example, evidences nested hierarchies of descent in which descendants share a preponderance of genes with similar species.

Those same genetic relationships are then corroborated by anatomy (homologous structures), their biogeographical distribution, and the fossil record providing examples of the path divergence took. On top of that, we've directly witnessed and recorded evolution occurring both in the wild and in the lab.

So I think you have to acknowledge that this isn't just a woolly idea held in possibility space, but an idea that arises directly from the available evidence - so even if evolution and common ancestry is wrong, we still need to explain the above set of facts. The best explanation we've come up with is evolution, and tens of thousands of researchers work in fields which implicitly assume or test evolutionary principles year in year out, and we've found no reason to believe it's a bad idea that doesn't work. Rather, it's an incredibly fertile field of discovery - Biology has its unifying theory, and you'd be hard pressed to find any biologists working in relevant fields that don't accept it as fact because they're surrounded by those facts all the time.

I understand all of your replies. Not sure how to word this but to me "this would all work on paper but I'm not so sure about in real life". I'm not saying that I know more. I think I need some more information.
Let's try a 2 part thing. One, maybe you could walk me through how these transitions actually happened. Pick a part of the evolution and go through it with some details.
Two. As said before my issue is more with the odds of it. So maybe a few additional questions.
1. How common are mutations ? Something that will alter the organism physically. ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage is against or it's less common.
2. How often are they in the germline ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage are against.
3. What are the odds of survival to reproduce in most animals? I'm figuring the odds /percentage is against.
4. If the animal gets a mutation, say to start the front limb to start becoming a fin, what are the odds percentage that future mutations will effect the front limb to further the transition?
I'm figuring the odds/ percentage is against.
5. If the animal that has the selected mutation does reproduce what are the odds the offspring will get that gene and not the other parents non mutated gene? Wouldn't it be at best 50%?
The way I see it , the odds are very much against the animal population changing. Very much in favour of it staying the same. It's like a casino. The odds are in favour of the house and the house wins mathematically. Since we are dealing with births in the millions , wouldn't the odds make the organisms stay the same mathematically?
I hope I worded this stuff clearly. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

 

[JohnHeintz]

What you see as impossibility, I see as inevitability. I think the difference in perspectives may be a problem of scale. You're looking at one individual in one generation. I'm looking at differentiating populations over millennia, where it is impossible for them to stay the same as their ancestors were. For example, whales emerged from the sister lineage of artiodactyls. Do you accept that all of these animals are biologically related to each other? Meaning that they all evolved from a common ancestor?
View attachment 265


I don't intend to use my videos for a personalized explanation, but I did do one that covers this. So I will include it.



Evolution at every level is a matter of incremental, superficial changes being slowly compiled atop successive tiers of fundamental similarity. The adaptation you're talking about didn't begin until about the time that the cetaceans had already abandoned the land altogether.


A novel mutation will usually appear in a single individual. We don't consider it evolution unless that trait is passed through later generations until there is eventually a whole group with that modification.


Think of how dogs were derived from wolves, and how hounds were derived from dogs. We go from something like a bloodhound to something like a basset hound until we get something like a dachshund. Your question seems to be wondering why a wolf gave birth to a Weiner dog.


Remember that natural selection is based on whole populations over many generations. So we're talking about weighing population mechanics over long periods, where movement of the nostrils would be immediately advantageous, and so would tend to proliferate at the zoomed out scale.


Evolution is a theory of biodiversity. The law of biodiversity holds that one original population will become two then four, eight, sixteen and so on, except for those groups that go extinct. This is why some species that happen across a lucky improvement take quick advantage of that while others don't seem much different than their ancestors.


The same mutation isn't likely to occur independently in different lineages. That has happened, but it is extremely rare.


Different breeds of a single species can produce fertile offspring, which would often blend their differences. Different species can usually only produce infertile hybrids, and then only if they're in the same genus. Interbreeding species in different genera can't produce anything at all, even if they're both from the same taxonomic family.


They're not.


Look at the dramatic differences between skull shapes in modern dog breeds, and remember that most of that happened just within a couple thousand generations. Modern humpback whales take five to fourteen years to reach sexual maturity. The hippopotamus is the closest living relative to whales. A female hippopotamus reaches sexual maturity between five and six years old. Smaller animals tend to reach sexual maturity much faster than that. Pigs for example can reach maturity in only six months. This is what we should reasonably expect of Indohyus as well. But let's be conservative and estimate five years per generation. Indohyus dates back 50 million years. So that means ten million generations have passed since indohyus. Your question about moving the nostrils is the type of change that could happen in less than 1,000 generations, if it was something that breeders thought desirable in dogs.


It didn't. Every sibling in every generation is born with a suite of unique mutations. Humans, for example, are born with an average of 128 mutations per zygote. This is the formula for diversity. Subtle changes happen in every population. Split one population into two and even after as few as dozens of generations, we might already be able to tell the difference. If we found a lone wanderer in the no man's land between the two groups, we might be able to tell just by looking at it which group it came from, even if they were all the same group 100 generations ago.


Selective pressures apply to some environments depending on the lifestyle, the "niche". For example, sharks, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and even some mosasaurs and crocodiles have all adopted the same shape for high speed predation in the water. Similarly, a number of different lineages have adapted the crocodile shape as an ambush predator at the water's edge. The ancestors of whales occupied that niche for a while too. So did phytosaurs and a number of giant salamanders. Eventually environmental conditions will weed out which ones were best suited for that. Crocodilians won. But there were, as I said, one lineage of crocodilians that moved to a different niche in the open ocean, developing shark-like tail flukes. Whales did the same. The difference being that whales are warm-blooded and could develop blubber, where cold waters just killed crocodiles.
View attachment 266
Is this a product of evolution? Intelligent design? Something else?


Your questions are sincere. So I don't mind at all. I only suggest that we look at this scientifically, comparing two different hypotheses, biological evolution vs magical creation. Which one is born out by the evidence. Obviously creationism falls flat immediately. If you can think of another option that explains all this better than evolution, you'll be famous.

Ok, this is embarrassing. I clicked on the wrong name to reply to you. Lol. Please read my
response to Sparhoc.

 

[AronRa]

I understand all of your replies. Not sure how to word this but to me "this would all work on paper but I'm not so sure about in real life". I'm not saying that I know more. I think I need some more information.
Let's try a 2 part thing. One, maybe you could walk me through how these transitions actually happened. Pick a part of the evolution and go through it with some details.

Brilliant idea. Here is my favorite way to start. Assuming that you understand microevolution well enough to accept all its mechanisms, including genetic drift, then do you accept that all the hundreds of domestic dog breeds are biologically related to each other? Do you accept that all domestic dog breeds are biologically related to wolves, having been derived from them? Do you accept that all domestic dog breeds and wolves are biologically related to the North American coyote, the South American bush dog, the Australian dingo, the Asian raccoon dog and the African painted dog?

To aid you, this illustration is from a study of "Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog" by Lindblad-Toh, et al, 2005.


Similarly, do you accept that domestic house cats are biologically related to each other, and to other species of feral felines? Do you accept that all feline species are related to each other? Do you accept that all panthers are related to each other? Do you accept all cat species, including the extinct scimitar cats, are all biologically related to each other?

To help with that, here is a similar chart that was published by Scientific American, although the original study requires a subscription. We only need the illustration. I've altered it to show the different distinctions between panthers and felines. There is a third category of cats, being Machairodontinae, the scimitar cats, which were actually a diverse group of several species, not just the "saber toothed tiger" that everyone knows about.

Two. As said before my issue is more with the odds of it. So maybe a few additional questions.
1. How common are mutations ? Something that will alter the organism physically. ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage is against or it's less common.

As I said before, every individual in every generation has numerous mutations. Humans have an average of 128 mutations per zygote.

2. How often are they in the germline ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage are against.

If we argue odds and percentages, then think about everything you did yesterday. What are the odds against you doing all of that in exactly that way in exactly that order at precisely those times? The argument from improbability fallacy is a popular one with creationists because it allows us to make yesterday impossible.

3. What are the odds of survival to reproduce in most animals? I'm figuring the odds /percentage is against.

While there do tend to be slightly more detrimental mutations than beneficial ones, the vast majority of them are neutral, and really don't matter at all. That's why genetic drift is actually a more important evolutionary mechanism to understand than natural selection.

4. If the animal gets a mutation, say to start the front limb to start becoming a fin, what are the odds percentage that future mutations will effect the front limb to further the transition? I'm figuring the odds/ percentage is against.

Animals do what they can, just like people do. Sometimes we struggle at something we're not very good at, and sometimes we find something we happen to be particularly skilled at. Generally you keep doing what you do best. Not always though. Gary Larson was, in my opinion, one of the greatest cartoonists ever. But he only did that to pay the bills, preferring to be a musician, even though no one would know him for his music.

5. If the animal that has the selected mutation does reproduce what are the odds the offspring will get that gene and not the other parents non mutated gene? Wouldn't it be at best 50%?

Does it matter? Most mutations do tend to be absorbed back into the dominant gene pool as a matter of population genetics. Evolution pertains to those relative few that persist far enough to spread through the population. You know those happen because you can see them in every geographically isolated population.

The way I see it , the odds are very much against the animal population changing. Very much in favour of it staying the same. It's like a casino. The odds are in favour of the house and the house wins mathematically. Since we are dealing with births in the millions , wouldn't the odds make the organisms stay the same mathematically?
I hope I worded this stuff clearly. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

The way the system works favors staying the same, but it's not a perfect system, so it can't. Some forms hold out for a long time or change very little, but it's impossible to stay the same forever.

Now, we should be evaluating competing hypotheses, which is why I asked the following question, which you did not answer.

Which is the better explanation for this ocean adapted crocodilian? Does it make more sense to you that a lineage of saltwater crocodiles could evolve these adaptions? Or do you think a god decided to make a dolphin out of a crocodile?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I understand all of your replies. Not sure how to word this but to me "this would all work on paper but I'm not so sure about in real life". I'm not saying that I know more. I think I need some more information.

Well that's fine - that's how science works. We don't just hear a nice idea and say, well that's that then.... observation and experimentation are watch-words in the methodology.

Consequently, I can happily share you recorded observations either in the lab or in the wild. Obviously, you're going to need to be clear about your expectations going in - please forgive me if I am being uncharitable here, but it is often the case that Creationists expect to see something that would actually demolish evolutionary theory, such as one species giving birth to another. That's obviously not what occurs - no parent gives birth to offspring that is a different species - change happens gradually, iteratively over generations.

Because of this, for formal experimentation where data can be tracked and recorded, we have to use fast breeding species. We don't have 500,000 years to watch and record; we've only really had this idea for a century after all. Thus, in the lab, we use bacteria or fruit flies whose reproduction time is in hours or days rather than years.

The seminal experiment - one that's been going since 1988 - is the Lenski e-coli trials.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Over the course of the experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of phenotypic and genotypic changes in the evolving populations. These have included changes that have occurred in all 12 populations and others that have only appeared in one or a few populations. For example, all 12 populations showed a similar pattern of rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time, faster growth rates, and increased cell size. Half of the populations have evolved defects in DNA repair that have caused mutator phenotypes marked by elevated mutation rates. The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in E. coli, in one population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500.

As you can see just in the except, among the many quite substantial changes which have occurred in these isolated populations, one of them has evolved the entirely new trait allowing them to grow in an oxygen environment - bear in mind that oxygen is harmful to their growth in a citrate environment, and this is actually a fundamental characteristic of the species, one which typically allows researchers to readily spot the difference between e-coli and salmonella, yet in generation 31500 or thereabout, one of the populations evolved this entirely novel trait that none of its parents shared, and none of the other populations shared.

From the wild, the most famous modern series of observations is of Pod Mrčaru wall lizards. A population introduced to a new island in the 70's already exhibited obvious and apparent morphological differences in the 90's; with a shift in diet due to availability of new food sources, the Pod Mrčaru lizards diverged rapidly from their parent populations to the point that you can directly observe the differences after only a few generations.

The real world experiments show the process in action, and the fossil record shows that process in action but across much larger timescales letting us see what a little adaptation generation by generation can result in given tens of thousands of generations.

In all honesty, the amount of empirical evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming - there's no credible doubt left that it occurs, only discussion about details.

Am I right in thinking that in the past you've allowed non-scientists, perhaps people motivated by religious beliefs, to inform you about evolution? I ask because that was my experience as a teenager, and the absurd nonsense they told me made evolution untenable, but of course, it was their explanations which were at fault and thus absurd. I was also told about 'chances' as in statistical likelihood of X happening, and it took me many years to realize that the claims they presented to me as proof evolution was impossible were utterly specious, and like 87.4% of all statistics - just made up on the spot!

I'm afraid I have daddy duties, so I will come back and reply to the remainder of your post later.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ok, this is embarrassing. I clicked on the wrong name to reply to you. Lol. Please read my
response to Sparhoc.

At least you realized it. I had a conversation with one chap here who kept calling me Aron despite telling him each time that I wasn't Aron!

 

[Deleted member 619]

This was a beautiful quote from Aron's new vid that's apposite here. It pretty much encapsulates what we've been trying to get at.

"What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution; the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap."

Its worth noting that this has become clear in the intervening 40 years or so since the conference that quote comes from, and that the latter reflects the term as I've been using it from the off, which is generally how the term is used in the literature.

 

[JohnHeintz]

Brilliant idea. Here is my favorite way to start. Assuming that you understand microevolution well enough to accept all its mechanisms, including genetic drift, then do you accept that all the hundreds of domestic dog breeds are biologically related to each other? Do you accept that all domestic dog breeds are biologically related to wolves, having been derived from them? Do you accept that all domestic dog breeds and wolves are biologically related to the North American coyote, the South American bush dog, the Australian dingo, the Asian raccoon dog and the African painted dog?

To aid you, this illustration is from a study of "Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog" by Lindblad-Toh, et al, 2005.
View attachment 268

Similarly, do you accept that domestic house cats are biologically related to each other, and to other species of feral felines? Do you accept that all feline species are related to each other? Do you accept that all panthers are related to each other? Do you accept all cat species, including the extinct scimitar cats, are all biologically related to each other?

To help with that, here is a similar chart that was published by Scientific American, although the original study requires a subscription. We only need the illustration. I've altered it to show the different distinctions between panthers and felines. There is a third category of cats, being Machairodontinae, the scimitar cats, which were actually a diverse group of several species, not just the "saber toothed tiger" that everyone knows about.
View attachment 269


As I said before, every individual in every generation has numerous mutations. Humans have an average of 128 mutations per zygote.


If we argue odds and percentages, then think about everything you did yesterday. What are the odds against you doing all of that in exactly that way in exactly that order at precisely those times? The argument from improbability fallacy is a popular one with creationists because it allows us to make yesterday impossible.


While there do tend to be slightly more detrimental mutations than beneficial ones, the vast majority of them are neutral, and really don't matter at all. That's why genetic drift is actually a more important evolutionary mechanism to understand than natural selection.


Animals do what they can, just like people do. Sometimes we struggle at something we're not very good at, and sometimes we find something we happen to be particularly skilled at. Generally you keep doing what you do best. Not always though. Gary Larson was, in my opinion, one of the greatest cartoonists ever. But he only did that to pay the bills, preferring to be a musician, even though no one would know him for his music.


Does it matter? Most mutations do tend to be absorbed back into the dominant gene pool as a matter of population genetics. Evolution pertains to those relative few that persist far enough to spread through the population. You know those happen because you can see them in every geographically isolated population.


The way the system works favors staying the same, but it's not a perfect system, so it can't. Some forms hold out for a long time or change very little, but it's impossible to stay the same forever.

Now, we should be evaluating competing hypotheses, which is why I asked the following question, which you did not answer.
View attachment 267
Which is the better explanation for this ocean adapted crocodilian? Does it make more sense to you that a lineage of saltwater crocodiles could evolve these adaptions? Or do you think a god decided to make a dolphin out of a crocodile?

If I don't answer it's because I forgot to. So, evolved or God , on the salt water crocodilian.
At the moment I'd say either is possible, with a "creator" still in the lead.
Let's try another sticking point for the moment. If you don't mind. It will lead back to this anyway.
Life starts as single cell organisms and/or eukaryotic cells. I understand that we have biofilms, molds, colonies and such. These are "groups" of single cell organisms moving together and can also return to their individual state if I necessary.
However, I don't seem to be able to find an explanation of how "true multicellular" organisms evolved from these. I know there are more complex life forms in the fossil record after. It always seems to be "we think it went like this" or "possibly that happened". Is this something that is well understood? Is it a "gap" in our knowledge ? Can you walk me through this ?

 

[Sparhafoc]

At the moment I'd say either is possible, with a "creator" still in the lead.

I am not sure how you can think that the creator hypothesis is in the lead when it's entirely absent any empirical evidence whatsoever.

Try it - you try and match anything like the level of detail science can offer in the existence of crocodiles.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It always seems to be "we think it went like this" or "possibly that happened". Is this something that is well understood? Is it a "gap" in our knowledge ?

As opposed to "God did it"?

 

[AronRa]

If I don't answer it's because I forgot to. So, evolved or God , on the salt water crocodilian.
At the moment I'd say either is possible, with a "creator" still in the lead.
Let's try another sticking point for the moment. If you don't mind. It will lead back to this anyway.
Life starts as single cell organisms and/or eukaryotic cells. I understand that we have biofilms, molds, colonies and such. These are "groups" of single cell organisms moving together and can also return to their individual state if I necessary.
However, I don't seem to be able to find an explanation of how "true multicellular" organisms evolved from these. I know there are more complex life forms in the fossil record after. It always seems to be "we think it went like this" or "possibly that happened". Is this something that is well understood? Is it a "gap" in our knowledge ? Can you walk me through this ?

In order to say whether something is possible, there must be some precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists. So let's compare our hypotheses and the evidence for each.

Facts in support of Evolution as a possibility:
1. We know that random mutations occur, and that these can be selected if beneficial in that environment.
2. We know that crocodilians, phytosaurs and temnospondyls have all adapted the "crocodile" shape, and that ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs and cetaceans have all adapted the "shark shape", wherein what were once feet now have the toes bound together in a flipper, as with this croc. We know this because we have complete lineages for those transitions, as well as for whales and sirenians too.

Since this image was produced, paleontologists also found the earliest forms of both ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, versions that were obviously part of that lineage but still capable of walking about on land. We can now say the same for cetaceans and pinnipeds too.


3. We know that any subtle, incremental change in the toward this tail will be beneficial to a sea-going using a side-to-side undulation for propulsion. So after hundreds of generations, any lineage of sea-going crocodiles would adopt this shape, same as Mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs did.

So there is the precedent, the parallel, the verified phenomenon indicating evolution as a possibility. Then we also have direct evidence of transition, where we can see a clear transition happening, where the earliest forms just have regular swimming tails like any normal lizard would have, and the more adapted forms have developed flukes for optimal propulsion.

Facts in support of creation as a possibility:
1. People who don't know stuff like to believe in magic.

Am I missing something?

Remember that the reason you can't cite any scientific studies like I can is that there is absolutely no indication anywhere that anything "supernatural" ever happened or is even possible. Whenever we use the word "supernatural", we could just as accurately replace it with the words "magical" or "imaginary". So how can you justify a creator having the edge in explaining this crocodilian?

Do answer each of my previous questions about the molecular phylogenies of dogs and cats in your very next post, or this discussion stops here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ahh I forgot I promised to return and address the remainder of the post... which turns out to be basically all the post!

Let's try a 2 part thing. One, maybe you could walk me through how these transitions actually happened. Pick a part of the evolution and go through it with some details.

I think it best to leave this to Aron; my area of expertise is human evolution, so if you wanted detail, that's really the only place I'd be truly in a position to comprehensively inform you. When it comes to whales, giraffe or other animals - I can only repeat back to you what I've read in my own time, albeit most of what I read on the subject are from scientific journals.

I will say I don't really get your first question: how do what 'transitions' happen? I expect one answer that will remain true regardless is 'gradually'. So if you're talking about the evolution of tetrapods and how they first came to land, then the answer would be in stages. First, a species of fish lived, fed, bred, or laid eggs in the shallows. Doing so may have helped it avoid predators, or it may have specialized in that micro-environment. By adapting to this environment, new opportunities arose for later mutations to become beneficial. For example, most fish have no need of raising or lowering their heads - any mutation that came along and managed to change all the parts to let them nod wouldn't be at all favourable statistically in increasing the reproductive success, but perhaps a fish living in the shallows can benefit from lifting its head out of water, spotting danger or feeding opportunities. Each consequent adaptation to partially leaving the water offered sufficient reproductive benefit to cause it to become widespread in the population, and because of this new adaptation to the environment, further opportunities were available to it which it then exploited, eventually accruing yet more favourable mutations to exploit that niche.

I can cite links corroborating the points above, but as I said, I'd rather leave the details like this to someone who actually is qualified and knowledgeable enough to comprehensively educate.

Two. As said before my issue is more with the odds of it. So maybe a few additional questions.

Feel free, but I think your idea of odds is very unlikely to be one I would accept - my experience is that Creationist outlets teach their followers to believe in silly contentions about statistics. I personally experienced this as a kid when I did some bible studies with the Jehovah's Witnesses; they were so thrilled with making up big numbers to imply something was impossible - but even as a kid I found their arguments ephemeral and substance-free.

1. How common are mutations ?

Super common.

Something that will alter the organism physically. ?

Is that a question?

I assume you mean how common are mutations that produce a visible change in phenotype?

I guess we'd need to be specific: for example, is a 1 millimetre growth in fur length sufficient physical change to suit your question, or did you have some other specific metric in mind?

I'm figuring the odds/percentage is against or it's less common.

That's no use to me or you. Stating that you just thought about statistics and decided something can or can't work isn't a point I can address. You'll need to provide actual numbers and/or data to support any statistical argument.

2. How often are they in the germline ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage are against.

Again, struggling with your question. The first part asks for frequency, then you comment about statistics.

Further, we'd need to be specific. What species are we talking about? There's a huge variety of organisms on this planet, and we can't treat them all the same in the abstract.

3. What are the odds of survival to reproduce in most animals? I'm figuring the odds /percentage is against.

I'm going to need to ask you to set forth your questions more clearly as I am struggling to understand what you want of me.

How can the odds be against survival?

And of course, what animal are we talking about? Some animals give birth to only one infant and invest masses of time and energy in protecting that child through its infancy and juvenile period. Other species just spurt out tens of thousands of eggs/young and leave it up to the tides and numbers to succeed.

We can't treat all animals the same to answer such specific questions.

4. If the animal gets a mutation, say to start the front limb to start becoming a fin,

No mutation occurs in order for one thing to become something else. This is a fundamental misunderstanding because you're introducing teleology - the mutation doesn't know what will be helpful to the animal in a hundred generations, natural selection isn't operating on a future desired outcome. All that matters in terms of adaptation is what provides a benefit now.

what are the odds percentage that future mutations will effect the front limb to further the transition?

It's very difficult to answer. Some stretches of genes are more evolvable than others. Some stretches of genes are so intertwined with other systems that the chances are a mutation here would cause far too much effect and would likely be deleterious. It's basically impossible to answer from an abstracted, generalized perspective. I think you need to talk about a specific species if you want to receive such particular answers.

I'm figuring the odds/ percentage is against.

I want to be clear John - this is an argument from incredulity. You have no justification to hold an opinion on the chances either way; the only justification would be a statistical analysis of a large data set.

5. If the animal that has the selected mutation does reproduce what are the odds the offspring will get that gene and not the other parents non mutated gene? Wouldn't it be at best 50%?

Yes; each offspring would have a 50% chance of inheriting that gene. As I explained above though, you've got to recall that the context is that the heritable trait is conferring a reproductive advantage to its possessor, so its leaving more offspring than its fellows absent that trait. You can do the math yourself here on the back of an envelope. Or, perhaps you already know the power of exponential growth. If not, then it's counter-intuitive, but you can work through it yourself so you can see that the outcome necessarily results in many, many more of the population possessing that trait within just a handful of generations.

The way I see it , the odds are very much against the animal population changing.

I'm sorry, but your position contains no value at all because you're just emoting at it. You're not basing your skepticism here on actual data, but on your preconceived preferences. This doesn't help you understand evolution - probably quite the contrary - and it certainly can't help anyone else if you're going to draw statistical conclusions while simultaneously asking for the data you'd need to be able to calculate the chances.

Very much in favour of it staying the same. It's like a casino. The odds are in favour of the house and the house wins mathematically.

It's not at all like that because the odds are intentionally stacked by the casino. The odds are calculated based on actual data, not just preconceptions else casinos would go bust quickly.

Since we are dealing with births in the millions , wouldn't the odds make the organisms stay the same mathematically?

You're going to need to unpack that because it doesn't follow at all.

Unless of course you're not understanding the core point about selection retaining traits that confer a reproductive advantage, and that reproductive advantage is itself inherited, so the advantage is compounded by each successive generation bearing that trait.

Try the old story out:

If you take a chessboard and put one grain of rice on the first square, then double it on each consecutive square.

How many grains of rice are there on the final square of a 64 tile board?

I expect you haven't seen this before or else you'd already have understood.

The answer is more than 18 quintillion grains of rice, or 18446744073709551615 grains of rice. That's probably more grains of rice than there are in existence.

Now, let's assume that your intuition didn't produce that result - would you agree that your intuition is therefore of zero use in determining these 'odds' you keep referring to?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As this was addressed to Aron - or Sparhafoc - I held off responding to it until they'd had an opportunity to do so. Now that they have...

I understand all of your replies. Not sure how to word this but to me "this would all work on paper but I'm not so sure about in real life". I'm not saying that I know more. I think I need some more information.
Let's try a 2 part thing. One, maybe you could walk me through how these transitions actually happened. Pick a part of the evolution and go through it with some details.
Two. As said before my issue is more with the odds of it. So maybe a few additional questions.
1. How common are mutations ? Something that will alter the organism physically. ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage is against or it's less common.
2. How often are they in the germline ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage are against.

In humans, it's been estimated that there are some 200 mutations per generation - depending on how one counts the mutations, One study I saw argued an average of 70 mutations per generation.

All of us then have an average of around 70 mutations.

How many of us are alive? Over 7 billion at present - and counting.

How many of us have offspring - and, of those, how many survive?

Lots - as the ever-increasing human population testifies.

IF you have a child, your child will get 50% of your genes - including half of your 70 mutations = 35 mutations from you. However, your partner also has some 70 mutations, and will contribute half of those (along with half of her genes). All told then, your child will receive 70 mutations from the both of you - the same number but a random mixture from you both.

However, your child will also suffer around 70 mutations of its own - making around 140 mutations in total.

You can see where this is going.

As each generation passes, there are more and more mutations. At some point in the line of descendants, a generation will be reached where half the genes will be mutations - and it won't stop there. At some point further down the line, all the genes will be mutations.

The resultant far-distant-future off-spring will bear no relation to its ancestors - you and your partner.

So it is with us - If you looked back at our early ancestor hominids, you'd wonder how we got from that to us.

Does this make sense?

This is basically what Dawkins attempted to explain in Climbing Mount Improbable - a book well worth reading.

3. What are the odds of survival to reproduce in most animals? I'm figuring the odds /percentage is against.

Evolution is geared towards survival for all life.

Let's look at domestic cats as a example.

How many kittens does a first-time mother cat have?

Two.

Why?

A single kitten has only a 50% chance of survival.

The more kittens, the better the chance that - at least - one will survive. However, the more kittens a first-time mother has, the less likely she is to be successful at raising them - she is a first-time mother after all.

Two kittens means that there are four possibilities: both survive, either one of them survives or none survive.

This means that with two kittens, there's a 75% chance that at least one will survive.

Through trial and error, evolutionary processes have resulted in the optimum number of kittens born to a first-time mother: two.

In subsequent litters, the number of kittens increases up to a maximum of eight.

Why?

Because that's the number of teats the mother cat has.

4. If the animal gets a mutation, say to start the front limb to start becoming a fin, what are the odds percentage that future mutations will effect the front limb to further the transition?
I'm figuring the odds/ percentage is against.

No - it's at least 50%.

Other factors may increase this, since genes tend to be passed on in groups, rather than on their own. If this mutation happens to be in a beneficial or, at least, neutral group, it is highly likely to be passed on

5. If the animal that has the selected mutation does reproduce what are the odds the offspring will get that gene and not the other parents non mutated gene? Wouldn't it be at best 50%?

Yes, as noted above.

The way I see it , the odds are very much against the animal population changing. Very much in favour of it staying the same. It's like a casino. The odds are in favour of the house and the house wins mathematically. Since we are dealing with births in the millions , wouldn't the odds make the organisms stay the same mathematically?
I hope I worded this stuff clearly. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

As I explained in the first part, mutations will accumulate over generations to the point where there's no relationship between the first and last specimen in the lineage.

It's why we don't look like our ancestors - monkeys - even though, technically, we are monkeys;

I urge you to read Dawkin's book.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm figuring the odds /percentage is against.

Sorry for butting in. I am a Young Earth Creationist but I think I agree with the rest of the guys here that figuring odds is kinda pointless concerning evolution. It either happened or it did not.

If I were an evolutionist, I would ask you what are the odds of God creating life that could not evolve to gradually better survive in different enviroments. It kinda seems like a good idea...doesnt it?

 

[JohnHeintz]

I understand all of your replies. Not sure how to word this but to me "this would all work on paper but I'm not so sure about in real life". I'm not saying that I know more. I think I need some more information.
Let's try a 2 part thing. One, maybe you could walk me through how these transitions actually happened. Pick a part of the evolution and go through it with some details.
Two. As said before my issue is more with the odds of it. So maybe a few additional questions.
1. How common are mutations ? Something that will alter the organism physically. ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage is against or it's less common.
2. How often are they in the germline ? I'm figuring the odds/percentage are against.
3. What are the odds of survival to reproduce in most animals? I'm figuring the odds /percentage is against.
4. If the animal gets a mutation, say to start the front limb to start becoming a fin, what are the odds percentage that future mutations will effect the front limb to further the transition?
I'm figuring the odds/ percentage is against.
5. If the animal that has the selected mutation does reproduce what are the odds the offspring will get that gene and not the other parents non mutated gene? Wouldn't it be at best 50%?
The way I see it , the odds are very much against the animal population changing. Very much in favour of it staying the same. It's like a casino. The odds are in favour of the house and the house wins mathematically. Since we are dealing with births in the millions , wouldn't the odds make the organisms stay the same mathematically?
I hope I worded this stuff clearly. Anyway, looking forward to your reply.

In order to say whether something is possible, there must be some precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists. So let's compare our hypotheses and the evidence for each.

Facts in support of Evolution as a possibility:
1. We know that random mutations occur, and that these can be selected if beneficial in that environment.
2. We know that crocodilians, phytosaurs and temnospondyls have all adapted the "crocodile" shape, and that ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs and cetaceans have all adapted the "shark shape", wherein what were once feet now have the toes bound together in a flipper, as with this croc. We know this because we have complete lineages for those transitions, as well as for whales and sirenians too.
View attachment 277
Since this image was produced, paleontologists also found the earliest forms of both ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, versions that were obviously part of that lineage but still capable of walking about on land. We can now say the same for cetaceans and pinnipeds too.

View attachment 278
3. We know that any subtle, incremental change in the toward this tail will be beneficial to a sea-going using a side-to-side undulation for propulsion. So after hundreds of generations, any lineage of sea-going crocodiles would adopt this shape, same as Mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs did.

So there is the precedent, the parallel, the verified phenomenon indicating evolution as a possibility. Then we also have direct evidence of transition, where we can see a clear transition happening, where the earliest forms just have regular swimming tails like any normal lizard would have, and the more adapted forms have developed flukes for optimal propulsion.

Facts in support of creation as a possibility:
1. People who don't know stuff like to believe in magic.

Am I missing something?

Remember that the reason you can't cite any scientific studies like I can is that there is absolutely no indication anywhere that anything "supernatural" ever happened or is even possible. Whenever we use the word "supernatural", we could just as accurately replace it with the words "magical" or "imaginary". So how can you justify a creator having the edge in explaining this crocodilian?

Do answer each of my previous questions about the molecular phylogenies of dogs and cats in your very next post, or this discussion stops here.

Sorry for the late reply. Couple double shifts

In order to say whether something is possible, there must be some precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists. So let's compare our hypotheses and the evidence for each.

Facts in support of Evolution as a possibility:
1. We know that random mutations occur, and that these can be selected if beneficial in that environment.
2. We know that crocodilians, phytosaurs and temnospondyls have all adapted the "crocodile" shape, and that ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs and cetaceans have all adapted the "shark shape", wherein what were once feet now have the toes bound together in a flipper, as with this croc. We know this because we have complete lineages for those transitions, as well as for whales and sirenians too.
View attachment 277
Since this image was produced, paleontologists also found the earliest forms of both ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, versions that were obviously part of that lineage but still capable of walking about on land. We can now say the same for cetaceans and pinnipeds too.

View attachment 278
3. We know that any subtle, incremental change in the toward this tail will be beneficial to a sea-going using a side-to-side undulation for propulsion. So after hundreds of generations, any lineage of sea-going crocodiles would adopt this shape, same as Mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs did.

So there is the precedent, the parallel, the verified phenomenon indicating evolution as a possibility. Then we also have direct evidence of transition, where we can see a clear transition happening, where the earliest forms just have regular swimming tails like any normal lizard would have, and the more adapted forms have developed flukes for optimal propulsion.

Facts in support of creation as a possibility:
1. People who don't know stuff like to believe in magic.

Am I missing something?

Remember that the reason you can't cite any scientific studies like I can is that there is absolutely no indication anywhere that anything "supernatural" ever happened or is even possible. Whenever we use the word "supernatural", we could just as accurately replace it with the words "magical" or "imaginary". So how can you justify a creator having the edge in explaining this crocodilian?

Do answer each of my previous questions about the molecular phylogenies of dogs and cats in your very next post, or this discussion stops here.

Sorry for the late reply. A couple double shifts and some time difference and here we are.
Anyway. Let's answer your questions about dogs , cats and the deer.
Of course I believe that dog breeds are related to each other and wolves. They probably are related to coyotes and wild dogs and dingoes. The same with breeds of cats. A tiger to a house cat is probably like a st Bernard to a Chihuahua. All different shapes and sizes of the same sort of animal. Deer species are related. Not sure if a giraffe is part of it. Though I could see a long necked , long legged , short antler deer wouldn't be impossible.
"People who don't understand stuff like to believe in magic". Maybe. Or maybe people always refer to what they don't understand as magic or supernatural. Just because we can't figure out how a God/creator uses their power. In no way means it isn't there. In the 1700's they wouldn't have been able to detect or understand radiation or microwaves. Doesn't mean that those things were impossible to exist.
The crocodilian that you have shown are crocodilian. Again different shapes , sizes and features. The tail changed shape for example. Ok fine. We know that happens. That's not going to get hair/ fur/feathers from where there were scales . It's not single cell colonies, biofilms or molds becoming fish in small increments over vast amounts of time.
Also. I forgot to respond to one other comment that you made.
You were talking about Indohyus and whales. You were talking about how many offspring each in the lineage may have had. You stated that Indohyus probably had a litter of offspring. I agree. However, you stated in the 50 million years of transition, Indohyus had millions of generations. So what ? Indohyus didn't give birth to every animal in the lineage.

 

[JohnHeintz]

As opposed to "God did it"?

Sorry for not replying sooner. I wrote this to Aron as well. So many people who view the world through a naturalistic lens like to say "there is no scientific proof for God /creator or his power". Ok. Maybe we just don't have the capability yet to detect or understand how God did it. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
From what I see, most of the proof of universal common ancestry is comparative anatomy and commonality in DNA. Both of these can be explained by a "common designer" scenario.
However, the fossil record is very compelling if correct. If it is a succession of more complex life forms as we get closer to modern times and if we don't find species "out of order or in the wrong layers". That would be very difficult to explain. UNLESS. The creator did it in a way that we haven't discovered. Maybe the "religious text" that explains it all "is yet to be written".
What do you think ?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

This conversation has me confused about probability, to be honest. When discussing the probability of the likelihood of [X] changes that result in, for example, the French Bulldog, wouldn't the probability of those changes be equivalent to 1, since the French Bulldog exists?