Can macro evolution be replicated in a lab?

Faith & Science Conversation
22

I am so sorry. I was tired. I got the conversation topic mixed up. I was thinking of another topic. What I wrote sure did sound awful. That must have been frustrating. Thank you for kindly pointing it out. I am removing it.

I did not mean to be unkind.

They are definitely scientists of high caliber. However, Dr Ross’ excellent training is in astronomy. That is why he has no trouble with deep time, I think.

To illustrate that an astronomer might misunderstand biology, in medicine, there is a definite cutoff in expertise once one gets into areas one has not specialized in. For example, a neurosurgeon would not know much about vaccines.

If you get a chance to take an evolution course, the discussion above is correct. The definitions of species and differences discussed above are not what he understands them to be, if he would take a good course. Viewed as a whole, and especially with genetic evidence, the picture in favor of common ancestry appears overwhelmingly strong. It is fascinating.

I think the discussion misses the points a biologist would explain. I am not doing a good job, either, but there is a lot of detail. It is just amazing stuff, and really enjoyable, once you get a chance to read.

In regards to communication, I meant that we can communicate on other common ground, though, such as that of faith…and if the misunderstanding is cleared to show that it actually would be compatible with faith and God, that would be easier to accept. That is how it happened with me, though it started with taking first geology, and then biology and evolution courses led by very kind people who explained the science to me patiently, despite my YEC protests, which must have sounded somewhat (unintentionally) rude.

Also, interestingly, you are right. A conversation between the two groups is a good idea. There actually is a good rapport between Dr Ross and Biologos, and they wrote a book together, as I recall.
Here is one conversation between Dr Ross and Dr Haarsma

I will delete my post. I am so sorry. Thank you for correcting me!

To explain my thinking, I am a family doc. Yesterday, I was talking with some very kind people who were strongly anti vaccine for religious reasons. All the science in the world would not help them. However, thankfully, we were able to use our common faith and an illustration from one of Biologos’ papers on vaccines from a Christian perspective to clear away a huge misunderstanding in one case. That really seemed to help! I am still learning

4 Likes
23

Before I start, please forgive me if my reply is off since this is beyond me and I only use my imagination. What if we only need one species to prove that macroevolution is possible. Perhaps a species with a very short life span like a mayfly. Instead of random mutation, we can aim for controlled and purposeful mutation (microevolution) such as bigger wings, bigger body, longer lifespan and a stinger if possible. We aim to turn this mayfly to a bee. :smiley: if it is not possible, perhaps to something else that is not mayfly.

1 Like
24

Good question. What would you say is the definition of a species? That might help to clarify the goals. Thanks.

25

The creation of a new species (using the can only reproduce successfully with itself definition) has been observed in nature. It has been seen with plants and birds.

4 Likes
26

And we have discussed this triploid crayfish new species here in the past, but a good example how evolution is not solely dependent on mutations, and how new species can spontaneously arise in rapid fashion, even if not the norm. Clonal genome evolution and rapid invasive spread of the marbled crayfish | Nature Ecology & Evolution

2 Likes
27

There are many, many transitional fossils. There are compelling sequences for the evolution of man, horses, and whales, to name a few examples. Which natural history museums have you visited to see fossils for yourself?

28

Ever heard of selective breeding (artificial selection)? Just look at dog breeds. Or visit the produce section of a grocery store.

29

We have shown OEC’s examples of observed speciation events in the past. They shrug them off by claiming they are still in the same created kind, which they also refuse to define in any objective or meaningful manner. Yet another case of Lucy pulling the football away.

This has been done as well.

IMO, any fruitful discussion between EC and OEC is going to need to address some basic concepts. I have always leaned towards using chimps and humans as model organisms for these concepts since much of the debate ultimately boils down to the question of human evolution.

  1. What features would a fossil need in order to be evidence of common ancestry between humans and chimps?

  2. What shared or derived genetic features would the chimp and human genome need in order to evidence common ancestry?

In my experience, OEC’s don’t have a meaningful answer to these questions. They are focused on protecting a dogmatic belief which means they will come up with ad hoc reasoning to deflect any type of evidence that is put in front of them.

2 Likes
30

And always will-some deposits just haven’t been preserved. But what we have shows thing like a transition in morphology from Chesapecten jeffersonius to C. madisonius. Or from Limatula virginiana to L. hendersoni.

1 Like
31

Current changes in polyploidy of Campeloma, and sinistrality

are two examples in mollusks of very short-term speciation.

2 Likes
32

I am sorry if you misunderstand my post. That’s not me. I was quoting Hugh Ross.

33

I found some of the posts were really informational. Thank you for all the replies.

As I am not a scientist myself, I do rely on trustworthy sources on the subject of sciences. Biologos and RTB are actually the two sources of science info that I found to be trustworthy backed by qualified scientists with the same faith commitment as I am.

This is what I have gathered so far about speciation divergent evidenced in nature or lab.

  • OEC camp do not see two or more different species of finches , goatsbeard, or crayfish or orcas as different kind of animals because they look and function more or less the same. I went diving once on a lake at Kakaban island in Indonesia where I was among millions of non stinging Jellyfish. because of their isolation from the ocean, these jellyfish has lost their stinging abilities as it is no use to them anymore. But they look exactly the same as their counterpart in the ocean. They look like jellyfish.

  • EC (biologos) see any different genetics composition in the same animal as different species as they might live in different kind of environment, eating different food or develop some different anatomies from their counterpart such as bigger beak, bigger wing etc even if these different species looks more or less the same.

That I think will be most helpful :

  • At what point, the differences in species can be considered as different animal? (no longer speciation I guess since it has been shown to occur in nature and lab)
34

“More or less the same” is an entirely subjective judgment that they constantly move around to fit whatever situation they find themselves in. That’s the problem.

For living species that sexually reproduce, the dividing line between species is reproduction. If there is no significant interbreeding between two populations then they are separate species.

For fossil species, scientists will apply statistical tests to physical characteristics to see if there are two significantly different populations. This method has major flaws, but since we can’t determine who bred with who this is the best we can do. The same applies for asexual organisms like bacteria.

More to the point, the theory of evolution predicts that the line between microevolution and macroevolution should be blurred because it is a continuous process. Species can be hard to define because evolution happens.

I would love to see OEC’s answer this question with some objective criteria that could be applied to actual data.

1 Like
35

No, because changes that are considered “macro” changes take millions of years. All evolution requires reproduction, which requires an organism to reach sexual maturity and gestate young. You can’t speed that up. You can model the genetics of it on computers. The evolutionary model works just fine for explaining how we got from the genome of an ancestor species to the genome of a descendant species. Also, the discipline of evo-devo which looks at embryos and how genetics controls different developmental pathways in different organisms has given lots of insights. Turning on or off certain genes leads to predictable developmental differences.

1 Like
36

Fair enough. But it wouldn’t hurt one bit for you to visit a natural history museum, view fossils for yourself, and take advantage of any educational resources it offers.

37

So, hypothetically speaking, it should be possible to replicate macroevolution in a lab if it is within the domain of science. Let’s just say that our scientific knowledge on evolution and what it entails has advanced another 1000 years from now and this is the difference I take on the view between OEC and EC.

OEC : yes, the science has advanced another 1000 years, and yet we still have no clue how macroevolution has occurred. Yes, we know the progression of microevolution within the species (animals) and yet they are still the same animal despite how much we tweak the genes. (without adding new gene from outside) We still don’t know how a dog can turn into a tiger. It is outside the domain of science. (like the question how life began in the first place, or how the first cell formed)

EC : Yes, the science has advanced another 1000 years, and science has uncovered how these microevolution can turned into macroevolution. Not only we know how to turn a dog to a tiger (with only the tweaking of genes) and to other animals, we can also prove that in a lab by speeding up the process.

My point is that both OEC and EC see the same evidences today and reach a different conclusion, not based on scientific facts or proof of science, but based more on presumption of what had happened or could have happened.

38

How so, without a time machine? You can’t speed up a process that by definition requires a defined amount of time. The time it takes for a species to mature and reproduce cannot be sped up, no matter how much you know about science.

We know a good deal right now how macroevolution has occurred. We don’t need 1000 years. And it’s a gross misrepresentation of evolution that dogs turn into tigers. An ancestor species gives rise to related but distinct descendent species over many generations. Even species that seem very much “the same” as their ancestors have evolved over time.

I don’t think it’s really true that they look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. I think there is a significant amount of ignoring evidence, misconstruing evidence, or denying evidence means what it clearly means going on. And when one scientist’s conclusions is based on where the evidence leads and another scientist’s conclusions are based on what they think the Bible requires, they aren’t both using science to come to their conclusions. It is simply not true that conclusions about evolution occurring are based mostly on presumption of what happened. A hypothesis maybe, but once that hypothesis is well-supported by observations and data and once that hypothesis makes testable predictions that are borne out by further investigation, it’s not in the realm of presumption anymore.

1 Like
39

So evolution isn’t based on scientific facts?

40

The problem is, as @Christy has pointed out, that your hypothetical OEC and EC have the facts wrong. As I pointed out earlier, in the case of many plants we can already say exactly how one species turned into another. In the case of most animals, we can already point to a large body of evidence showing that speciation occurred through the accumulation of mutations since two species shared a common ancestor.

2 Likes
41

Hi Christy, when I read a book authored by OEC, I didn’t get the impression that the bible required them to hold to their position. On the contrary, they seemed committed to base their conclusion based on where the evidence lead. They are pretty much on level with the advance of modern science. The evidence lead them to punctuated equilibrium. That unexplained explosion of divergent species that occurred in such a short span of them

Sorry for that simplification or gross misrepresentation of evolution as I am not a scientist nor an expert in evolution. Based solely on my common sense and my limited knowledge, if macroevolution had occurred for millions of years thru genes mutation, then perhaps someday we know the how to tweak the genes not only to reverse engineer to common ancestor, but to other animals and in this case to any animals that share that common ancestor. Do you think it’s possible?

As pointed by the posts above, it seems that this kind of speciation is not convincing enough to prove that macroevolution is in the domain of science. (for OECs I mean)