Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

[JohnHeintz]

do

We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery

 

[JohnHeintz]

either

Could you please explain the genetic evidence? This is something I could 100% be missing.

 

[JohnHeintz]

the

Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.

 

[JohnHeintz]

@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.

Yes, thanks Borg. I did not know this either.
Should be a big help

 

[Sparhafoc]

For example in ring species, two squirrel population can no longer breed but are still squirrels.

But they're not 'squirrels' - they have a species name.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.

If it's a sticking point, then I am sure you can explain in detail what you consider to be the difficulty here, substantiate why it's a problem, then establish it as something worthy of being a challenge to the evolution of eukaryotes because just saying you can't imagine an explanation isn't really much use to anyone.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.

Wikipedia: Multicellular organism: Origin hypotheses

 

[Deleted member 619]

This is another major sticking point.

A couple of things:

1. The notion of a sticking point is one of those things that appeals to me, so I always like to see if I can wedge some thought in there.

Why is it a sticking point? What's it sticking on, exactly? Are you saying you have to understand how it all works in every detail before you'll accept it? Is this a common stance for you? How familiar are you with the inner workings of the device with which you're communicating your concerns with us? Are you aware that the science underpinning that is not only considerably less complete but also massively less well-evidenced than evolution, which has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory?

2. (which is really a riff on 1) In general, when somebody is searching for these kinds of answer, it's because they have some other conclusion that they want to insert rather than the one being offered. Is that the case here? Does the fact that evolution occurs cause some cognitive dissonance with other things you accept as true?

It's perfectly possible to adhere to even very strict iterations of most religions while still accepting the fact that evolution occurs and has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory.

 

[Mithcoriel]

Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.

Your quotes are a bit weird. They only reference a single word from Aron's post. That's gonna be hard to follow later. Why not add the complete (relevant part of the) quote?

 

[AronRa]

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.

Your Bible says that's where you're supposed to draw that line. The Biblical definition of the Hebrew word [min] for "kinds" is effectively identical to the biological species concept, referring to whether two organisms can interbreed productively to "bring forth [fertile offspring] after their kind". That point of division is also referred to as macroevolution because it is the most significant division in all of taxonomy.

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.

I have to repeat myself again. There is no such thing as a "kind". There was never any point in evolutionary history where one kind of animal changed into a fundamentally different kind of animal. That is a creationist straw-man. Evolution doesn't teach that and doesn't even allow it.

 

[AronRa]

We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery

No, it wouldn't.

 

[AronRa]

Could you please explain the genetic evidence? This is something I could 100% be missing.

I just showed you illustrations taken from two genetic studies. Those are what I was asking you to comment on.

Canid Phylogeny
Lindblad-Toh, K., Wade, C., Mikkelsen, T. et al. Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438, 803–819 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04338
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04338

Felid Phylogeny
Source: O’Brien, J. S. and Johnson, W. E. (2007). The evolution of cats. Scientific American July 2007: 68-75.
http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/O'brien2007EvolutionCats.pdf

 

[AronRa]

Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.

You're going at it backwards. We're going to start where we are and peer deeper into time, examining subspecies/breeds first, then species, then genus and so on, according to the Phylogeny Challenge.

 

[AronRa]

We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery

Since you STILL didn't answer ANY of my questions, I'll have to repeat them all AGAIN.

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.

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?

Now look again at the cat tree.
View attachment 303

While people have forced several 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?

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

 

[JohnHeintz]

Your Bible says that's where you're supposed to draw that line. The Biblical definition of the Hebrew word [min] for "kinds" is effectively identical to the biological species concept, referring to whether two organisms can interbreed productively to "bring forth [fertile offspring] after their kind". That point of division is also referred to as macroevolution because it is the most significant division in all of taxonomy.

I have to repeat myself again. There is no such thing as a "kind". There was never any point in evolutionary history where one kind of animal changed into a fundamentally different kind of animal. That is a creationist straw-man. Evolution doesn't teach that and doesn't even allow it.

One never changed into a fundamentally different kind? The theory doesn't teach that ?
NONSENSE Aron. It most certainly teaches that living cells became every other living organism on the planet. Many are fundamentally, completely and absolutely different from each other. Except for the fact that they are all made of cells, DNA and such.
It doesn't teach it happened in one generation. It teaches it happened in small increments over vast amounts of time. But it DOES teach it

 

[JohnHeintz]

be

The African wild dog probably is related.
We know the wolf and dog are. Seriously, with the dog and wolf it's really just wild vs domestic.
I hope this answers your question

 

[JohnHeintz]

and

They are biologically similar I'm sure. Whether or not they evolved from a common ancestor, I don't know.

 

[JohnHeintz]

cat

Cats are probably related. Again, whether or not they evolved from one common ancestor, I'm not sure. I don't put so much importance on "interbreeding" as earlier stated. In the ring species scenario animals can no longer breed with some populations of the same animal.

 

[JohnHeintz]

You're going at it backwards. We're going to start where we are and peer deeper into time, examining subspecies/breeds first, then species, then genus and so on, according to the Phylogeny Challenge.

Ok. We can start wherever you like.
I was just trying to give you more information about how I think and view this topic.

 

[JohnHeintz]

A couple of things:

1. The notion of a sticking point is one of those things that appeals to me, so I always like to see if I can wedge some thought in there.

Why is it a sticking point? What's it sticking on, exactly? Are you saying you have to understand how it all works in every detail before you'll accept it? Is this a common stance for you? How familiar are you with the inner workings of the device with which you're communicating your concerns with us? Are you aware that the science underpinning that is not only considerably less complete but also massively less well-evidenced than evolution, which has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory?

2. (which is really a riff on 1) In general, when somebody is searching for these kinds of answer, it's because they have some other conclusion that they want to insert rather than the one being offered. Is that the case here? Does the fact that evolution occurs cause some cognitive dissonance with other things you accept as true?

It's perfectly possible to adhere to even very strict iterations of most religions while still accepting the fact that evolution occurs and has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory.

My disbelief in universal common ancestry has nothing to do with religion , beliefs or religious texts of any kind.
I don't need EVERY detail. However, this is one I need. If there is no possible way to explain how the cells became true multicellular reproductive organisms, then it's pretty much a deal breaker, in my opinion