Is it even possible?

[YesIAMJames]

I've heard creationists say evolution is impossible. As laughable as this is though it got me thinking a while back....

Is a complex ecosystem even sustainable without evolution?

Let's assume for a second that a god actually made the earth and all creatures in their present form.

Species go extinct, this is an observable fact and surely over long periods of time habitats change enough to make survival impossible without species adapting. Surely this would cause enough species to go extinct that it would have a knock on effect and destroy the entire ecosystem.

It's far too late for me to go in to any more depth right now but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it and can you think how you would go about testing it?

 

[Andiferous]

Good points, but... if I were a Creationalist I'd be confundled about dinosaurs.

 

[Aught3]

God's magic sustains them, or, the planet has only been here for 6,000 yrs!

 

[Andiferous]

Or surely it is proof of successful shepherding by Adam's progeny who were so graciously given dominion over everything.

Seriously though, If a Creationalist won't even consider the theory of Evolution and fossil evidence, I'm not sure there is a scientific proof that couldn't be manipulated in some other way. I'd love to hear arguments though.

 

[YesIAMJames]

Lol. Even 6000 years without evolution I'd have thought would life would become nearly extinct.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm picturing Adam having dominion over a T-Rex at the moment.

 

[magicalpants]

Well I think a good portion of them don't deny evolution out right, they just don't like that it coincides with a time line that contradicts the bible or quran or what have you. They tend to redefine what they'll accept as micro evolution or adapation through natural selection and gloss over how if they accept those--then given a longer time scale then they're willing to accept then the speciation with drastic changes from what one "kind" (as they call it, but refuse to define) to another "kind" is an inevitability given coadapted evolution, predator prey, microbiological factors etc...

Coincidentally I was playing red dead redemption and that heroine junky professor said that Darwin disproved extinction or something...I had a good laugh.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Well I think a good portion of them don't deny evolution out right, they just don't like that it coincides with a time line that contradicts the bible or quran or what have you. They tend to redefine what they'll accept as micro evolution or adapation through natural selection and gloss over how if they accept those--then given a longer time scale then they're willing to accept then the speciation with drastic changes from what one "kind" (as they call it, but refuse to define) to another "kind" is an inevitability given coadapted evolution, predator prey, microbiological factors etc...

Honestly, I'm not sure which offends young Earth creationists more: the inconsistency in timeline or that humans are descendants of... anything other than a literal Adam and Eve!


Back to the original poster's point, I actually don't think that 6000 years is a significant amount of time in terms of evolution. So if you believe that the Earth is only six thousand years old then the existence of a functioning ecosystem is not evidence against your belief...

It's really weird that YECs can believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's not a long time at all. There's recorded history that's older than that! That's why old Earth creationists exist...

 

[RedYellow]

Is a complex ecosystem even sustainable without evolution?

The real question is, could an ecosystem contain every species that ever existed, all at once? Massive extinction would be inevitable

There were lots of different dinosaurs for one thing. How did the animals we have today survive the massive beasts of prehistoric times? How did lions and hyenas compete with tyrannosaurs and velociraptors? How did cows and giraffes compete with herds of massive sauropods for food? And there's no way humans would have survived a world teeming with giant flesh eating monsters that could easily outrun us, and werent going to be stopped by a couple puny spears. There had to have been enough dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures to fill just about every ecological niche.

 

[YesIAMJames]

[/quote] Back to the original poster's point, I actually don't think that 6000 years is a significant amount of time in terms of evolution. So if you believe that the Earth is only six thousand years old then the existence of a functioning ecosystem is not evidence against your belief...

It's really weird that YECs can believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's not a long time at all. There's recorded history that's older than that! That's why old Earth creationists exist...[/quote]

It was about 4 am when I wrote that so my brain wasn't functioning at it's best, 6000 years probably wouldn't matter that much but a lot can happen to micro organisms in 6000 years. Take Nylonase as an example. A whole new enzyme developed in just 40 years. Bacteria and viruses can change a lot in short periods of time. With humans alcohol tolerance, lactose tolerance and immune systems also developed pretty quickly to name just a couple of changes.

Yeah young earth creationists are beyond a joke, even old earth creationists laugh at them. We have a complete history of tree rings that goes back nearly twice that far.

From a Y E creationists point of view though at least they have the "not enough time!" argument against evolution. I'm yet to hear a valid mechanism which prevents "macro evolution" from old Earth creationists.

 

[lrkun]

I've heard creationists say evolution is impossible. As laughable as this is though it got me thinking a while back....

Is a complex ecosystem even sustainable without evolution?

Let's assume for a second that a god actually made the earth and all creatures in their present form.

Species go extinct, this is an observable fact and surely over long periods of time habitats change enough to make survival impossible without species adapting. Surely this would cause enough species to go extinct that it would have a knock on effect and destroy the entire ecosystem.

It's far too late for me to go in to any more depth right now but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it and can you think how you would go about testing it?

Evolution, by definition alone, reflects what happens in nature. The lie claimed by creationists is way to simple to be taken seriously, because they've made the choice to ignore what they can observe. Of course, their ignorance can be explained by their lack of knowledge as regards sciences, however if they have been exposed to such information and they still choose to ignore it, then it can be concluded that they chose to remain ignorant.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You are correct in thinking that evolution has to take place in order for life to still be here on this ever changing planet. You have to remember that even with evolution, many creatures still go extinct, but without it, there would not be any new species to take their place.

As some people have already pointed out, most creationists use ad hoc rationale to get around this, by saying that the earth is not old enough for significant change to have occurred to any of the ecosystems. They have also allowed for micro-evolutionary changes to occur, but not macro-evolutionary changes, which would allow the system to run a little longer. However, if a creature is unable to adapt to a changing environment, it will go extinct.

Since evolution is a fact, I believe the only way to test this hypothesis would be using computer models. Create a selective algorithm that does not allow mutations to occur and let the environment change. The real interesting thing to see is how many generations it will take a creature to go extinct once the environment has change (slight change and large change). My predictions are that a slight change to the environment will allow the creatures to survive several generations, but with an ever decreasing gene pool and a large change would wipe out the species in three generations or less.

 

[lrkun]

You are correct in thinking that evolution has to take place in order for life to still be here on this ever changing planet. You have to remember that even with evolution, many creatures still go extinct, but without it, there would not be any new species to take their place.

As some people have already pointed out, most creationists use ad hoc rationale to get around this, by saying that the earth is not old enough for significant change to have occurred to any of the ecosystems. They have also allowed for micro-evolutionary changes to occur, but not macro-evolutionary changes, which would allow the system to run a little longer. However, if a creature is unable to adapt to a changing environment, it will go extinct.

Since evolution is a fact, I believe the only way to test this hypothesis would be using computer models. Create a selective algorithm that does not allow mutations to occur and let the environment change. The real interesting thing to see is how many generations it will take a creature to go extinct once the environment has change (slight change and large change). My predictions are that a slight change to the environment will allow the creatures to survive several generations, but with an ever decreasing gene pool and a large change would wipe out the species in three generations or less.

This hypothetical model that you speak off must use past data right? I previously saw shows in the discovery channel explaining why dinosaurs became extinct, likewise predictions of what animals might inhibit the earth in the future, however those that refer to the future are just guesses, it's not accurate, but may or may not happen (same with the predictions as to what must have happened in the past). It's best that if you want a computer model, it should be with regard to the past towards the present, but not towards the future. From past to the present, the time frame and the changes may reflect the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This hypothetical model that you speak off must use past data right?

One would not need to use any historical data to run a selective algorithm. One only needs to program the algorithm to not allow mutations.



Creating a program, similar to the one in the video, in my opinion, is the only way to test this idea. The reason being, one is eliminating the variable of mutations. Selection is still happening; however, there are no new genes to select.

After the program is created, allow it to run and see how many generations it takes before all the creatures go extinct.

 

[lrkun]

This hypothetical model that you speak off must use past data right?

One would not need to use any historical data to run a selective algorithm. One only needs to program the algorithm to not allow mutations.



Creating a program, similar to the one in the video, in my opinion, is the only way to test this idea. The reason being, one is eliminating the variable of mutations. Selection is still happening; however, there are no new genes to select.

After the program is created, allow it to run and see how many generations it takes before all the creatures go extinct.

I appreciate the video, the creatures are very cute, however, I'd prefer if there is something in our world where we can compare with that model. ^^

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I appreciate the video, the creatures are very cute, however, I'd prefer if there is something in our world where we can compare with that model. ^^

I do not understand what you are asking. Natural selection and mutations are a fact. We cannot run an experiment in the real world without mutations occurring. A computer program allows one to remove mutation from the equation, thus removing new genes. It seems to be the only way to test the ideas that the original poster was asking. Unless you know of away to test this idea in the real world.

 

[lrkun]

I appreciate the video, the creatures are very cute, however, I'd prefer if there is something in our world where we can compare with that model. ^^

I do not understand what you are asking. Natural selection and mutations are a fact. We cannot run an experiment in the real world without mutations occurring. A computer program allows one to remove mutation from the equation, thus removing new genes. It seems to be the only way to test the ideas that the original poster was asking. Unless you know of away to test this idea in the real world.

I'm not saying that your idea is wrong. I also adhere to those principles. What I'm saying is that it'd be more convincing if we can actually show how it works where it can reflect something in the real world as an example. That's why I suggested something from the past to the present. However, if something from the present to the future, I don't think my idea will work, unless there is a group of scientist willing to do a study, like the one where they experimented with the fox for purposes of taming them. It will take years, in the case of evolution maybe millenia. >.< It's wishful thinking really.

Although I think there's an experiment where they took a certain organ from a tadpole where it grew into a big tadpole instead of becoming into a frog. I don't recall what's the title of that video, because I was in high school then, that's decades ago.

 

[theatheistguy]

Lol. Even 6000 years without evolution I'd have thought would life would become nearly extinct.

Something like 99.999% of all species are extinct.

 

[YesIAMJames]

You are correct in thinking that evolution has to take place in order for life to still be here on this ever changing planet. You have to remember that even with evolution, many creatures still go extinct, but without it, there would not be any new species to take their place.

As some people have already pointed out, most creationists use ad hoc rationale to get around this, by saying that the earth is not old enough for significant change to have occurred to any of the ecosystems. They have also allowed for micro-evolutionary changes to occur, but not macro-evolutionary changes, which would allow the system to run a little longer. However, if a creature is unable to adapt to a changing environment, it will go extinct.

Since evolution is a fact, I believe the only way to test this hypothesis would be using computer models. Create a selective algorithm that does not allow mutations to occur and let the environment change. The real interesting thing to see is how many generations it will take a creature to go extinct once the environment has change (slight change and large change). My predictions are that a slight change to the environment will allow the creatures to survive several generations, but with an ever decreasing gene pool and a large change would wipe out the species in three generations or less.

Yep that is exactly what I was thinking about. Although any computer model wouldn't be proof, it could add weight to the argument and would be a fun experiment. As of yet I haven't seen any evolution program with even 1% of the complexity needed for this idea.

The processing power needed would be absolutely immense, simulating the behavior of all the organisms in the system would be the main drain on system resources I would guess.

You would need to start the simulation with about 12 set species with a small population size and a few characteristic differences between each organism. They would be either plants, herbivores, or carnivores (carnivores would need to be split in to scavengers and predators). Also creatures would have to have their own digital genetic code and reproduce either sexually or asexually. For the purpose of the "no evolution" experiment genes should be mixed between parents but no mutations are aloud to occur. I think you would need aquatic, amphibious and land animals.

The environment should large enough to hold at least 200 organisms and complicated enough to account for weather changes and natural disasters (one of the main forces driving extinction in the simulation). Newtonian physics are vital (no set animations, muscle contractions are controlled by the organism's "brain") and energy must be treated as a limited resource (energy will come from the sun and is transferred to other organisms through feeding, an organism MUST be getting more energy from feeding than it is expending between feeds or it will die).

If anyone could think of a simpler way to simulate the idea I'd love to hear it.

 

[YesIAMJames]

Although I think there's an experiment where they took a certain organ from a tadpole where it grew into a big tadpole instead of becoming into a frog. I don't recall what's the title of that video, because I was in high school then, that's decades ago.

That's pretty interesting

Sounds pretty similar to what happens to the Axolotl (one of my favorite animals). It's an amphibian very closely related to the tiger salamander but stays in it's larvae stage for it's entire life. They can regrow limbs which I guess gives them a good evolutionary advantage and if you inject them with iodine they turn in to salamanders (probably the closest thing we have to a real life pokemon). With the tadpole I guess must be a chemical produced in said organ which triggers metamorphosis.