Study in Nature shoots down three basic claims of evolutionary theory

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

I’m sorry, Dredge, but that makes no sense at all.

[Dredge]

@T_aquaticus

@NonlinOrg

How about the fact that 30,000 years of worldwide dog domestication has not resulted in anything resembling a cat, a rat, or anything other than a canid?

In discussions like these, your reply tells us that you don’t understand how evolution works. You don’t understand how basic phylogenies work.

If evolution is true then all descendants of canids will be canids. THAT’S HOW IT SHOULD WORK. What can happen is that the diversity of canid species will increase over time.

The same applies to all lineages. The common ancestor we share with monkeys was a primate. Both us and monkeys are STILL PRIMATES. The common ancestor we share with bears was a mammal. We are still mammals. The common ancestor we share with fish was a vertebrate. WE ARE STILL VERTEBRATES. Do you see a pattern? You don’t evolve out of your ancestry, you just add to the diversity of descendants. Most of all, you don’t evolve into already existing species like cats and rats.

If all life evolved from a single-cell organism, how is that that single-cell organism not the common ancestor of all other creatures?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Dredge

Genetic limitations. That’s about as specific as this layman can get.

@Dredge

And so, you would be wrong. Chromosomes do not “know” when the population they are a part of will no longer be able to breed with a related, but separate, population.

There are no limitations. At some point, the average genetic configuration of one group becomes alien enough to the genetic configuration of another population, that breeding just doesn’t work often enough to keep a “mixing” interchange of genetic information flowing between the two populations.

That is how you end up with two populations that start to act very differently from each other and/or look very differently from each other.

[Dredge]

@gbrooks9

The post-Ark hyper-speciation is, by definition, hundreds of times faster (having to occur within 5000 years) than anything Evolutionists have proposed… which even for humanity took hundreds of thousands of years!

Is the God who created the universe and everything in it out of nothing confined to the laws of nature? How do know the hyper-speciation was not a act of God?

[Dredge]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

The claim that microevolution is just a small but seamless part of macroevolution is not the same as claiming there are no limits. All sorts of practical, environmental (and genetic) limits would exist I’m sure.

If all life on earth shares a common ancestor that resembled some kind of primitive bacteria, then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolution are ineffectively limitless, regardless of the tortured route imposed by the practical, environmental and genetic limits that exist?

[Dredge]

@T_aquaticus

@Dredge

For example, the claim is made that Lenski’s mutating E-coli is evidence that supports the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (according to this logic, human beings will one day run the 100m-sprint in one second!)Lots of repetitions of the mantra, “only evolution can explain this” always come in handy, too.

Who has ever claimed that Lenski’s experiment supports universal common ancestry?

I am somewhat confused: As I understand it, the theory of evolution involves the accumulative effects of “microevolution” and natural selection. In other words, without microevolution, there can be macroevolution and therefore no common ancestry. So since Lenski’s experiment demonstrated microevolution, why is it some kind of no-no to suggest that it is evidence that supports the theory of common ancestry? To me, this is a bit like saying the invention of the starter motor can’t be used as evidence to support the theory that cars have evolved from a very simple model to much more complex models.

[Lynn_Munter]

@Dredge

If all life evolved from a single-cell organism, how is that that single-cell organism not the common ancestor of all other creatures?

Umm………it is! All life is indeed descended from a single-celled organism.

You will note we are all made up of cells.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@Dredge

So since Lenski’s experiment demonstrated microevolution, why is it some kind of no-no to suggest that it is evidence that supports the theory of common ancestry?

As I’ve mentioned before, scientists must be very careful about drawing conclusions from their research. The peer review process isn’t perfect, but it does tend to do a very good job “policing” what is presented in the literature. Conclusions drawn from this piece of work are limited to what has actually been observed, heritable changes in genetics over time that allow the E. coli to adjust to their environment. If conclusions were made that were beyond the specific scope of this experiment (ie, common ancestry), editors would almost certainly require that those conclusions be withdrawn.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Dredge

Is the God who created the universe and everything in it out of nothing confined to the laws of nature? How do know the hyper-speciation was not a act of God?

@Dredge

Isn’t that what the BioLogos folks have been saying for years? Evolution is an Act of God.

However, if you are really asking "What if God performed a series of special acts of creation, making new species that are amazingly related to the Ark-vintage species - - then by definition you are not talking about Speciation or Hyper-Speciation - - and secondly you would be contradicting what some YEC groups are saying about speciation.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Dredge

…then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolution are ineffectively limitless,

@Dredge,

Forgive me sir, but in terms of grammar, you probably don’t mean “ineffectively” …

“… then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolutoin are Effectively limitless.”

And my response would be in agreement with that view. Genes know no barrier between micro- and macro- evolution. Given enough time, most micro-evolution seamlessly leads to macro-evolution.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@Dredge

Is the God who created the universe and everything in it out of nothing confined to the laws of nature?

That is a good question, and while it has been discussed here several times, my impression is that the separation of God’s interaction as being either “natural” or “supernatural” is an artificial construct we place upon reality. Laws of nature are not legislated or enforced by the Nature Police, and, as pirates say, "the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. "
When we consider ultimate reality, not just our physical understanding, God works within the framework of that reality, though it may differ from what the modern concept of nature is defined.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Dredge

If all life on earth shares a common ancestor that resembled some kind of primitive bacteria, then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolution are ineffectively limitless, regardless of the tortured route imposed by the practical, environmental and genetic limits that exist?

Impressive? Yes. That is still different than saying “Limitless”. A million is an impressively big number until you compare it to a billion. And “limitless” (effectively meaning ‘infinite’ to my mathematical mind) makes any such finite number dwindle to insignificance. But on your more colloquial use of “limitless” as just an expression for “astoundingly impressive” – yes, I take your point. But my point also still stands that limits do exist to even these most impressive processes. They won’t produce just anything our imaginations could conjure up.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Dredge

If all life on earth shares a common ancestor that resembled some kind of primitive bacteria, then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolution are ineffectively limitless, regardless of the tortured route imposed by the practical, environmental and genetic limits that exist?

No, not really. If people have walked all over North America, it doesn’t mean that the scope for walking is limitless. You can’t walk to Europe or to Mars.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@NonlinOrg

But make sure you don’t confuse evolution with genetics or any other unrelated field.

Laugh of the day.

[Chris_Falter]

Sure, God can do anything. Those who have worked extensively with the scientific disciplines of astronomy, geology, paleontology, and biology would wonder why God created the world in such a way that it looks like it’s billions of years old, though.

[Chris_Falter]

@NonlinOrg

While you’re at it, and since you mentioned stochastic processes, maybe you also want to take another look at random abuse: http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/ . Thanks.

You stand on the principle that randomness cannot be proven, if I am reading you correctly. And since it cannot be proven, it should not be assumed.

Well…I cannot prove that planetary motion is the result of gravity and not the result of angels. How can you prove that angels are not pushing when they are ordinarily invisible?

I cannot prove that electrons and protons really exist. Scientific instruments show certain readings that are consistent with electrons and protons, but that’s not proof. Have you ever seen an electron, @NonlinOrg? Have you ever seen a proton? Then how do you know…?

In fact, for all the talk about E. Coli, I suspect that you have never seen an E. Coli bacterium. How would you prove that E. Coli exist, @NonlinOrg?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@NonlinOrg

Either you have reproducible examples or you don’t. But make sure you don’t confuse evolution with genetics or any other unrelated field.

@NonlinOrg

How do you reproduce something that takes millions of years?..

Now compare that to the fact we have a whole planet full of the termination points of millions of species?

Can you reproduce Eden? Can you reproduce Samson? Can you reproduce … or even Find … the fish that swallowed Jonah.

This makes for Two (2) pips in one day … (the other one was from Mervin)

[NonlinOrg]

@Chris_Falter

You stand on the principle that randomness cannot be proven, if I am reading you correctly. And since it cannot be proven, it should not be assumed.

Well…I cannot prove that planetary motion is the result of gravity and not the result of angels. How can you prove that angels are not pushing when they are ordinarily invisible?

I cannot prove that electrons and protons really exist. Scientific instruments show certain readings that are consistent with electrons and protons, but that’s not proof. Have you ever seen an electron, @NonlinOrg? Have you ever seen a proton? Then how do you know…?

Good questions, Chris. Thanks.

Of course we haven’t seen an electron or a proton, but it doesn’t matter as we define them through their observable properties. What’s behind those properties is not essential for most people and for modern civilization to work. But can you say the same about evolution? Doesn’t it fall apart without randomness? At least the “blind, mindless, and purposeless” assertion (to which you may or may not subscribe)?

The second and more important point which you missed is that “randomness” is supposed to be responsible for the “appearance of design” in the universe. They even tried “infinite monkeys” experiments but never explained that random output remains meaningless until an educated reader assigns meaning based on his/her prior knowledge. And if the universe started randomly, how do we ever get to purpose - like you replying to my posts rather than writing a random text?

@gbrooks9

Can you reproduce Eden? Can you reproduce Samson? Can you reproduce … or even Find … the fish that swallowed Jonah.

Evolution is supposed to be an ongoing process, not an isolated event.

[Dredge]

@gbrooks9

@Dredge

…then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolution are ineffectively limitless,

@Dredge,

Forgive me sir, but in terms of grammar, you probably don’t mean “ineffectively” …

“… then surely it can be said that the cumulative effects of microevolutoin are Effectively limitless.”

And my response would be in agreement with that view. Genes know no barrier between micro- and macro- evolution. Given enough time, most micro-evolution seamlessly leads to macro-evolution.

Er … you’re right. Where did the “in-” come from? Bizarre. I did mean “effectively”.

[Dredge]

@jpm

@Dredge

Is the God who created the universe and everything in it out of nothing confined to the laws of nature?

That is a good question, and while it has been discussed here several times, my impression is that the separation of God’s interaction as being either “natural” or “supernatural” is an artificial construct we place upon reality. Laws of nature are not legislated or enforced by the Nature Police, and, as pirates say, "the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. "
When we consider ultimate reality, not just our physical understanding, God works within the framework of that reality, though it may differ from what the modern concept of nature is defined.

I wouldn’t like to guess what framework God works in.