Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

[Sparhafoc]

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.

There's a big logical problem with your paragraph above.

If there is no scientific evidence (not proof) for God, then why would we just assume it exists and then try and work out how God did it. If the god is not apparent, why appeal to it?

That's basically how theological thought occurred in the European Medieval period and it's not really known for the heights of its technical innovation, nor of its moral reasoning.

In science, you can't just concoct an unobserved entity without evidence pointing to the existence of such an entity as yet undetected.

Can you provide any single aspect of the universe that necessitates enlisting an unobserved entity that would also necessitate a god ontology? I can't, honestly.

The other problem is that you wouldn't accept your own reasoning. I will show you:

-- So many people who view the world through a Christian lens like to say 'there's no convincing reason to believe in Siva' - but maybe they just haven't experienced Siva yet to realize that he exists! --

Are you Hindu now? Not even slighty, right? Your belief in Christianity hasn't been shaken by the idea that a Hindu could say to you that perhaps you would believe it if only you had reason to.... the point is that you have no reason to, whereas they believe they do.

That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Not the problem at all.

What it means is that neither you nor anyone else can say it did.

Meanwhile, absent appealing to this unobservable identity, we appear to be acquiring a formidable knowledge of the universe, how we came to be, and some glimmers of how we might honestly acknowledge our place in it.

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.

I'm sorry John, but you're not really trying, are you?

You've not engaged the substantial amount of evidence presented, and you're just trotting out trite little dismissals.

Why did I waste my time trying to help you understand the fact of evolution if you're were always just going to trot out your preconceived guff?

No, they cannot be explained by a 'common designer' because that offers bugger all explanation. The designer you're supposedly appealing to has literally no limitation on its ability, so it could have done anything - and we'd be none the wiser. Nothing at all suggests any degree of design in the universe, except for man-made things and a few tools made by other animals.

However, the fossil record is very compelling if correct.

How could it be incorrect? It's literally lumps of rock. You can't find a more empirical format for your data.

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".

I'm afraid this suggests you didn't read what I wrote earlier as I already explained to you that the idea of progress in that sense is wrong. Life doesn't need to become more complex - that's not a requirement of evolution, nor does it necessarily follow from anything within evolutionary theory. What evolutionary theory establishes beyond credible doubt is how species change over time. There's no directionality beyond the immediate environment.

That would be very difficult to explain. UNLESS. The creator did it in a way that we haven't discovered.

Such an easy cop-out, isn't it? How about Siva? Is it just as possible Siva did it?

Maybe the "religious text" that explains it all "is yet to be written".
What do you think ?

What I think is that you should worry less about trying to make a point to me about your belief in your god and engage what's already been written, considering the objective of the thread is to show you how evolution works, not engage in apologetics.

For example, I've asked you questions in each of my posts, but you've replied to none of them. I don't think it's really reasonable for me to take the time to answer all you questions substantively but you to completely ignore mine.

I'm not really inclined to engage in what ifs until we've established what factually is.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That's not going to get hair/ fur/feathers from where there were scales .

The theropods want a word with you. I wouldn't talk to them if I were you, the feathered beasties have big fookin claws.

 

[Deleted member 619]

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.

This paragraph is all wrong. The scare quotes are in the wrong place. They shouldn't be around 'common designer' but they should be around 'explained', because that's the one thing your fantasy most certainly cannot do, is to explain a damned thing.

 

[We are Borg]

The issue with God did it or created everything is that God was stupid then in it’s design there are so many flaws. Take all the junk that DNA has if it was removed then disease would not have not that many attack vectors. Why is rice more complex then humans for example. If you design something you keep it simple because the simpler it is the better it is.

Testing for God is impossible you can not test the super natural, by the word of man God can do anything he likes but that also mean it can’t be tested. Another thing is that the more powerful you make your God the more issues it will have. Lets say God exists you can task God twice if a tasks fails you will become God yourself. Now find a task that ensures you will become a God, remember what you say is what you say so no loopholes or twisting of words. So the words you speak are always 100% correct and there are no loopholes that God can exploit.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

In order to hold up a deity as a explanation, you would first have to do the following:

1) Prove that it's possible for any deity to exist;
2) Having proven 1, prove that the deity In which you believe exists to the exclusion of all others;
3) Having proven 1 and 2, prove that said deity has anything to do with Nature;

If you think about that, you'll realise that you're not going to be able to do that.

In contrast, we know Nature exists - so it is very easy to come up with naturalistic explanations for phenomena, from abiogenesis (chemistry), evolution (speciation through natural selection), etc.

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.

Only if you haven't thought about the questions I posed above.

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.

Ever-increasing complexity is not a requirement of the evolutionary process, as Sparhafoc explained above.

And we haven't found species out of order or in the wrong place.

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 ?

Why would a deity do all this?

Some apologists have claimed that God put fossils in the Earth "to test our faith".

If that's the case then God is duplicitous - he's trying to fool believers. This is not the act of a omnibenevolent being, is it?

When this is pointed out to them, they then claim that the Devil put them there "to lead believers astray".

It's just one off-the-top-of-my-head explanation after another, without any thought about the difficulty in explaining the existence of supernatural entities in the first place.

IF you actually think about the questions I posed earlier, you'll realise the difficulty.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Led Zeppelin]

The issue with God did it or created everything is that God was stupid then in it’s design there are so many flaws.

Well with that line of thinking I would say that we could call almost anything a flaw. Is gravity a flaw because I can fall down and get hurt? I can't say I would want to live in a world when my beer would just fly off the face of the planet every time I tried to set it down..

 

[Led Zeppelin]

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?

I was kinda wondering the same thing. I don't really understand it when Creationist argue probabilities.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well with that line of thinking I would say that we could call almost anything a flaw. Is gravity a flaw because I can fall down and get hurt? I can't say I would want to live in a world when my beer would just fly off the face of the planet every time I tried to set it down..

I think an example should serve, so maybe go and look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Especially spectacular is the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, which is such a hilariously shoddy example, if design is indeed what it is, that the designer really needs to put the fucking bong down.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I think an example should serve, so maybe go and look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Especially spectacular is the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, which is such a hilariously shoddy example, if design is indeed what it is, that the designer really needs to put the fucking bong down.

Well, I have to say that in my 20 years of my amature engangment in topics concerning creation vs evolution, I have never heard of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve before. Looks pretty crazy. I have no answer for it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'd be surprised if you had. It's far from being an isolated example.

Of course, it all makes perfect sense if you view it as having evolved from a small shrew-like creature where the route of the laryngeal nerve make sense given the necessary connections. From a design perspective, it smacks of utter incompetence.

Indeed, while the common view is that complicatedness is an indicator of deign (not complexity; complexity is something else, but whatevs), it's actually the opposite. The hallmark of design is simplicity. The least complicated solution to a problem is always the best design.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Of course, it all makes perfect sense if you view it as having evolved from a small shrew-like creature where the route of the laryngeal nerve make sense given the necessary connections.

Certainly worthy of consideration.

The least complicated solution to a problem is always the best design.

I think the same way. Sadly many of my co-workers do not. Especially when it comes to web design or the system of management where I work. But thats another story.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well, I have to say that in my 20 years of my amature engangment in topics concerning creation vs evolution, I have never heard of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve before. Looks pretty crazy. I have no answer for it.

*coughs discretely*

Life depends on matter, energy, and information

Life depends on the structural complex arrangement using - matter - energy - information - Matter has to be arranged into basic building blocks of life, selected and joined amongst myriads of different atoms, and chemical molecules. - Living systems need to recruit Gibbs free energy from its...

leagueofreason.org.uk

Right: it's just the teleological argument yet again. The problems with the teleological argument are that i) waving at the contemporary state of something and saying that it infers design ignores its past states - this is very apparent with evolution, but also clearly troublesome in many fields, ii) there's no actual metric of designedness - it just comes to down to an argument from incredulity (I can't imagine how this occurred without design), iii) there's an intrinsic oxymoron in claiming that nature is designed when the entire concept of designedness is specifically about being able to distinguish characteristics of an object which differ from natural characteristics, iv there's the problem of cherry-picking - so if the embryological process is exquisitely designed and necessarily infers a designer, then why not the 'design' of viruses, of cancer, of the proximity of the anus to the genitals, or the absurdly inefficient recurrent laryngeal nerve.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, I have to say that in my 20 years of my amature engangment in topics concerning creation vs evolution, I have never heard of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve before. Looks pretty crazy. I have no answer for it.

*coughs discretely*

What else are you expecting from someone that argues in bad faith?

 

[We are Borg]

Well with that line of thinking I would say that we could call almost anything a flaw. Is gravity a flaw because I can fall down and get hurt? I can't say I would want to live in a world when my beer would just fly off the face of the planet every time I tried to set it down..

The issue with your example is that if there was no gravity you would be accustomed to that scenario. But we where talking about life it self and the more complex the more issues it gives. Lets say i’m a God I have unlimited power, vision and knowledge, what would go faster. Make up rules to create a universe from 0 and let it play out, including life forms or create everything by hand one piece at the time. The result should be 100% the same only with the first one i would spend less time then second one.

 

[AronRa]

Sorry for the late reply. Couple double shifts

Sorry for the late reply. A couple double shifts and some time difference and here we are.

When I didn't see any response for a few days, I assumed there wouldn't be one. Someone message me if Mr Heintz is still monitoring this thread.

It's a funny thing about believers vs non-believers. If you ask me a question, I will answer it as best I can. I will never ever try to duck or dodge or ignore it, like believers always do. When I ask a question, it is because I am either trying to understand your position or reason you out of it. But believers always ALWAYS duck and dodge or ignore my questions, which is why I have to repeat them over and over again. The only questions believers ever ask are things they don't want the answers to. When they hear that I have the answer, they don't care. They were hoping I couldn't answer, and they're going to ignore whatever answer I give. Because they don't want to understand the reality. They just want to make-believe in their fantasy.

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.

If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?

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.

No.

A St Bernard and a chihuahua are both breeds of the same species, Canus familiaris. This is what I explained to you before about the difference between micro and macroevolution. I will now have to repeat some or all of that. Microevolution is variation within a species (St Bernards and Chihuahuas) while macroevolution is variation between species, including the emergence of new species, (Canus familiaris from Canus lupus).

Now look at this chart again. Notice the blue cluster of the most closely-related species with wolves (Canus lupus) and domestic dogs (Canus lupus familiaris). Notice they both have the same first two names. Now, you see that the African painted dog (Lycaon pictus) is also part of that cluster, and visibly would be "just a dog" in the eyes of any child. But these are genetically so far apart from other dogs that they cannot interbreed to produce any living hybrids at all. Do you accept that they are still biologically related?



Now compare the blue clade to the green and red clades. Do you accept that they too are biologically related? That the bush dog (Speothos venaticus) and the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) are related to other species of wolves and dogs, even though they cannot interbreed?

Likewise, all domestic cat breeds (Russian blue, siamese, tabby, mancoon, etc.) are breeds of the same species, Felis catus. There are myriad species of wild cats that are very similar, but distinct. Some of them *can* still interbreed, but prefer not to. Thus the pallas cat (Otocolobus manul), the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) and the adorable margay (Leopardus wiedii) are all different species from Felis catus. All these cat species are felines as distinct from panthers; Lions (Panthera leo), tigers (Panthera tigris) and leopards (Panthera pardus) and jaguars (Panthera onca). Felines purr. Panthers roar.

When variations of animals within a single species are the product of artificial selection, they are called breeds.
When variations of animals within a single species are the product of natural selection, they are called subspecies.
There are, or rather were, seven species of tiger. Balinese tigers (Panthera tigris balica), Caspian tigers (Panthera tigris virgata), and Javan tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica) could all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Thus tigers to house cats are NOT like St Bernard to Chihuahuas, like you said they were. Tigers to TIGERS are like that. Tigers to house cats are more like wolves to wild dogs. Because we're not talking about different breeds of the same species [microevolution]; we're talking about different species, [macroevolution].

Now look again at the cat tree.


The longer two populations remain divided, the lower the probability of interbreeding to "bring forth after their kind". Once speciation happens, two closely-related species can only produce infertile hybrids. Think horses and donkeys producing mules, which are [almost] always sterile. The same thing happens when you mix lions and tigers to get a liger, a cat bigger than both of them. Or you get a tigon, which suffers dwarfism. But either way, it's sterile. It cannot produce any young of its own, and is therefore a genetic dead-end.



While people have forced several such hybrids, none have ever occurred between the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and any other species of cat. So, do you accept that all cat species are biologically related, even if they're no longer chemically interfertile?

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.

Then you would accept that every SPECIES of deer is biologically related, even if they cannot interbreed anymore? You accept that all of these evolved from a common ancestor?



And you would even accept that all of these, the common ancestor of every Cervid species and the ancestor of all these other species too also descend from a common ancestor at the base of Pecora, if not all of Rumanantia?

"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.

Supernatural = magic. Blessings and curses are positive and negative enchantments. The Bible is full of magic, the golem spell, elemental spells, necromancy, incantation, the list goes on. My point was, you were supposed to provide evidence to back your assumption. You didn't because there isn't any. Which means you don't have any reason to make the assumptions that you do.

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.

But we have reason, evidence to indicate that radiation exists, and we can prove that they do. We never had any reason to assume magical things like gods.

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.

So you accept macroevolution, the evolution of new species. You just don't know how far it goes, because you're not yet aware of either the paleontological nor genetic evidence backing up the emergence and development of hair and feathers and other such things. I can help with that too.

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.

You didn't understand what I said then, because that is not what I said at all. Indohyus only represents the first transition on that tree, much like each of the other trees given above.

 

[We are Borg]

@AronRa if you press on the name (left side where also avatar is) of the person you are discussing with a member card opens. On that card it says “follow” press that when he/she makes a post you get an alert (top right bell icon) and email, both are true if you did not alter any preferences. Another option is to press the watch button at the top of the thread but then you get warnings when someone posts. The email notifications works like this:

1. You will get an email when the person you are following makes a post (in any thread or forum where you have access to)
2. You will not get any emails from that thread he/she posted in unless you visit the forum.
3. You will always get a notification (bell icon on the right side).

The above is also how the “watch” button works top right but it for the thread it self.

 

[AronRa]

@AronRa if you press on the name (left side where also avatar is) of the person you are discussing with a member card opens. On that card it says “follow” press that when he/she makes a post you get an alert (top right bell icon) and email, both are true if you did not alter any preferences. Another option is to press the watch button at the top of the thread but then you get warnings when someone posts. The email notifications works like this:

1. You will get an email when the person you are following makes a post (in any thread or forum where you have access to)
2. You will not get any emails from that thread he/she posted in unless you visit the forum.
3. You will always get a notification (bell icon on the right side).

The above is also how the “watch” button works top right but it for the thread it self.

Thank you, Borg.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The only questions believers ever ask are things they don't want the answers to. When they hear that I have the answer, they don't care. They were hoping I couldn't answer, and they're going to ignore whatever answer I give. Because they don't want to understand the reality. They just want to make-believe in their fantasy.

I miss the QQOQQ awards.

Andy was funny.

 

[JohnHeintz]

When I didn't see any response for a few days, I assumed there wouldn't be one. Someone message me if Mr Heintz is still monitoring this thread.

It's a funny thing about believers vs non-believers. If you ask me a question, I will answer it as best I can. I will never ever try to duck or dodge or ignore it, like believers always do. When I ask a question, it is because I am either trying to understand your position or reason you out of it. But believers always ALWAYS duck and dodge or ignore my questions, which is why I have to repeat them over and over again. The only questions believers ever ask are things they don't want the answers to. When they hear that I have the answer, they don't care. They were hoping I couldn't answer, and they're going to ignore whatever answer I give. Because they don't want to understand the reality. They just want to make-believe in their fantasy.


If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?


No.

A St Bernard and a chihuahua are both breeds of the same species, Canus familiaris. This is what I explained to you before about the difference between micro and macroevolution. I will now have to repeat some or all of that. Microevolution is variation within a species (St Bernards and Chihuahuas) while macroevolution is variation between species, including the emergence of new species, (Canus familiaris from Canus lupus).

Now look at this chart again. Notice the blue cluster of the most closely-related species with wolves (Canus lupus) and domestic dogs (Canus lupus familiaris). Notice they both have the same first two names. Now, you see that the African painted dog (Lycaon pictus) is also part of that cluster, and visibly would be "just a dog" in the eyes of any child. But these are genetically so far apart from other dogs that they cannot interbreed to produce any living hybrids at all. Do you accept that they are still biologically related?

View attachment 306

Now compare the blue clade to the green and red clades. Do you accept that they too are biologically related? That the bush dog (Speothos venaticus) and the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) are related to other species of wolves and dogs, even though they cannot interbreed?

Likewise, all domestic cat breeds (Russian blue, siamese, tabby, mancoon, etc.) are breeds of the same species, Felis catus. There are myriad species of wild cats that are very similar, but distinct. Some of them *can* still interbreed, but prefer not to. Thus the pallas cat (Otocolobus manul), the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) and the adorable margay (Leopardus wiedii) are all different species from Felis catus. All these cat species are felines as distinct from panthers; Lions (Panthera leo), tigers (Panthera tigris) and leopards (Panthera pardus) and jaguars (Panthera onca). Felines purr. Panthers roar.

When variations of animals within a single species are the product of artificial selection, they are called breeds.
When variations of animals within a single species are the product of natural selection, they are called subspecies.
There are, or rather were, seven species of tiger. Balinese tigers (Panthera tigris balica), Caspian tigers (Panthera tigris virgata), and Javan tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica) could all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Thus tigers to house cats are NOT like St Bernard to Chihuahuas, like you said they were. Tigers to TIGERS are like that. Tigers to house cats are more like wolves to wild dogs. Because we're not talking about different breeds of the same species [microevolution]; we're talking about different species, [macroevolution].

Now look again at the cat tree.
View attachment 303

The longer two populations remain divided, the lower the probability of interbreeding to "bring forth after their kind". Once speciation happens, two closely-related species can only produce infertile hybrids. Think horses and donkeys producing mules, which are [almost] always sterile. The same thing happens when you mix lions and tigers to get a liger, a cat bigger than both of them. Or you get a tigon, which suffers dwarfism. But either way, it's sterile. It cannot produce any young of its own, and is therefore a genetic dead-end.

View attachment 299

While people have forced several such hybrids, none have ever occurred between the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and any other species of cat. So, do you accept that all cat species are biologically related, even if they're no longer chemically interfertile?


Then you would accept that every SPECIES of deer is biologically related, even if they cannot interbreed anymore? You accept that all of these evolved from a common ancestor?

View attachment 305

And you would even accept that all of these, the common ancestor of every Cervid species and the ancestor of all these other species too also descend from a common ancestor at the base of Pecora, if not all of Rumanantia?

View attachment 304

Supernatural = magic. Blessings and curses are positive and negative enchantments. The Bible is full of magic, the golem spell, elemental spells, necromancy, incantation, the list goes on. My point was, you were supposed to provide evidence to back your assumption. You didn't because there isn't any. Which means you don't have any reason to make the assumptions that you do.


But we have reason, evidence to indicate that radiation exists, and we can prove that they do. We never had any reason to assume magical things like gods.

So you accept macroevolution, the evolution of new species. You just don't know how far it goes, because you're not yet aware of either the paleontological nor genetic evidence backing up the emergence and development of hair and feathers and other such things. I can help with that too.


You didn't understand what I said then, because that is not what I said at all. Indohyus only represents the first transition on that tree, much like each of the other trees given above.

I just got this. There is a bit to take in and respond to. At the moment I'm off to work. I will respond in the next 24 hours.
Thanks again for taking the time.

 

[JohnHeintz]

cat

I understand what you are saying. Tiger and house cat may still be like St Bernard and chihuahua. Just because we draw a line between the two cats, calling them spectate species, because they can't interbreed, doesn't mean we should be drawing that line.
Perhaps , the correct way to view them is "some breeds of animals are the same. Some can interbreed and some can't". For example in ring species, two squirrel population can no longer breed but are still squirrels. Maybe tigers and house cat should be viewed this way.