Institute for Creation Research - No really, it's a thing.

a reply to: StalkerSolent
You think one species evolved at a time? A straight line sequence?
Interesting idea but pretty silly and simplistic.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
ETA: seriously, you're complaining about how people refuse to engage and deflect points and then doing it yourself. And, furthermore, I don't have a mission to paint science as a religious belief, nor do I have any desire to equate the two. Don't twist my words. I apologize if I am unclear sometimes; I have nuanced positions that may be difficult to understand. But they should be more than intelligible if you're genuinely interested in understanding them.

There is nothing difficult to understand in your false attempts to portray science as a religion. You didn't make a point, you just copied my paragraph and changed a few words. I'm not going to waste anymore time on that silliness. Either make a point, or don't. It doesn't bother me.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
My answer is still the same barcs. Macro evolution "could" have happened. I have said so many times before.
However, "could" does not mean it "did" happen. For a person with a Naturalistic mind it explains things very well.
Still, that does not mean it happened. There is no ACTUAL proof. Only lots people saying there is proof.
ETA: And no they are not the same.

Yes, they are defined the same by scientists. It's the same exact process, just over more years.

And thanks again, you just proved my point completely. As Quad clearly demonstrates here, he has deflected the question of mutation accumulation. You didn't address one single aspect of it. What you meant to say there was, "My non answer is the same." You just claimed it was faith based that mutations add up over time, which is blatantly wrong as we have witnessed speciation in a lab and in nature. You offer no explanation whatsoever for this, you just state it arbitrarily as if it is true. If the earth is traveling around the sun at a certain rate, it isn't faith based that this will continue unless some event happens and changes that rate. It's funny how these guys always pretend to be all about the evidence, when they believe their religion is absolute truth.

Micro evolution would be when the bill of the finches adapt to better catch food.
Macro evolution would be the finches eventually becoming lizards (just an example).

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You guys make stuff up, paint science as religion, but fail to address the physical evidence and just deny everything else. I asked WHY you think the mutations don't add up, despite the fact that they do in the short term. Why can't you answer the question without deflecting? I made an entire thread dedicated to that single question and not a single creationist even attempted to answer it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent
You think one species evolved at a time? A straight line sequence?
Interesting idea but pretty silly and simplistic.

Mmmm, no, of course evolutionary theory doesn't hold to linear evolution, but rather descent from common ancestors (the tree of life* and whatnot)–although I didn't take into consideration how that would alter the math, which was an oversight on my part. But I don't see how that would change the *average rate* of speciation needed to explain the diversity of life between the beginning of time and now. I just woke up, though, so perhaps it's eluding me. Please, feel free to enlighten me!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
ETA: seriously, you're complaining about how people refuse to engage and deflect points and then doing it yourself. And, furthermore, I don't have a mission to paint science as a religious belief, nor do I have any desire to equate the two. Don't twist my words. I apologize if I am unclear sometimes; I have nuanced positions that may be difficult to understand. But they should be more than intelligible if you're genuinely interested in understanding them.

There is nothing difficult to understand in your false attempts to portray science as a religion. You didn't make a point, you just copied my paragraph and changed a few words. I'm not going to waste anymore time on that silliness. Either make a point, or don't. It doesn't bother me.

I guess you're not willing to engage with anything I wrote beneath that paragraph. OK. Sure thing.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Here's a fun exercise for Barcs (and everyone else.)
1. Calculate the time between now and when the first life is supposed to have evolved (3.6 billion years.)
2. Calculate the total number of species supposed to have lived (around 1 billion.) (Link)
3. Calculate the needed rate of speciation per year to get from where we started to where we are now. Average rate: around 1 per every 3 years, if my math is OK...and it may not be.
4. Wonder how this meshes with the evolutionary doctrine that evolution is a slow process that takes place over time (as we've observed in species like the Hawthorne fly

This has to be a joke. Are you sure you understand what you are calculating there? Evolution isn't linear and doesn't follow a time table, nor does every species evolve one at time in order.

Once again, I appreciate you & Quad taking the time out of your busy schedules to prove my point. You folks don't even attempt to understand the opposing view. You know in your head that it is wrong, and have already made the conclusion.

I've broken down the math before on the average mutation rate showing that from ancient ape to modern human works out perfectly and that after around 1 billion years of evolution there are enough potential mutations to completely rewrite a genome. Yes Stalker, it's real math, unlike the math above.

But, you may object, evolution is triggered by certain events and takes place rapidly! Does it, now? Then you have the junkyard tornado problem, which is dismissed because evolution happens slowly. If the evidence indicates that evolution is happening too slowly to explain the species we see today, then the theory has some problems.

This is why it is beneficial to research the other side. Genetic mutations, and the accumulation of them, is nothing like a tornado going through a junkyard, and honestly that is one of the oldest strawmans in the book. Genomes are blueprints for organisms. Changing a few code sequences via genetic mutation is more like updating a blueprint for a building schematic. It may not drastically change the building, but perhaps it will use different types of bolts. It is a modification of the design, not a physical morphological change. I'll say it again, evolution follows the environment, not a set timetable. Big environmental change leads to big evolutionary change because of extinctions, not because they suddenly sprout a 3rd arm. It doesn't just scramble the organism into thousands of pieces and reassemble it into something different. Tornado Junkyard = nonsensical camparison.

Mmmm, no, of course evolutionary theory doesn't hold to linear evolution, but rather descent from common ancestors (the tree of life* and whatnot)–although I didn't take into consideration how that would alter the math, which was an oversight on my part. But I don't see how that would change the *average rate* of speciation needed to explain the diversity of life between the beginning of time and now. I just woke up, though, so perhaps it's eluding me.
Please, feel free to enlighten me!

It would be a HUGE difference in the rate, are you kidding me? Numerous species evolve at the same time. Today there are something like 8.7 million species all currently evolving at once. Your calculation is an absolute joke based on big time ignorance of evolution. Please do us all a favor and do some reading on biology and evolution. Familiarize yourself with what you are attacking, so you don't come off as so blatantly dishonest. Not trying to put you down here or anything, but nobody is going to take you seriously with those type of "points".

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

This has to be a joke. Are you sure you understand what you are calculating there? Evolution isn't linear and doesn't follow a time table, nor does every species evolve one at time in order.

I'm aware of that. I was looking at *average* numbers we'd expect to see.

I've broken down the math before on the average mutation rate showing that from ancient ape to modern human works out perfectly and that after around 1 billion years of evolution there are enough potential mutations to completely rewrite a genome. Yes Stalker, it's real math, unlike the math above.

Feel free to break the math out. I'd be more than happy to see it ;-)

This is why it is beneficial to research the other side. Genetic mutations, and the accumulation of them, is nothing like a tornado going through a junkyard, and honestly that is one of the oldest strawmans in the book.

I'm aware that that argument is dismissed the by scientific community *because* of the long times supposed to be involved. That's why I brought it up: it's *only* relevant if one presumes evolution happens in massively short bursts. Am I right, or is there something else I'm missing?

Genomes are blueprints for organisms. Changing a few code sequences via genetic mutation is more like updating a blueprint for a building schematic. It may not drastically change the building, but perhaps it will use different types of bolts. It is a modification of the design, not a physical morphological change.

Then what does lead to physical morphological change?

I'll say it again, evolution follows the environment, not a set timetable.

Again, I was crunching *averages* not specifics. I'm aware evolution follows the environment.

It would be a HUGE difference in the rate, are you kidding me? Numerous species evolve at the same time.

That wouldn't change the *average* rate. If instead of 1/3 years, it's 100 suddenly evolve after 300 years, the rate remains the same. And realize, I am talking about speciation (observable) , not minor mutations (nigh undetectable.) The fact that numerous species evolve at the same time won't change the average rate. We know the amount of species we're looking at needing to have evolved, and the time it took to do it.

Suppose we have ten species that all evolved from a common ancestor over a period of ten years. If they evolved linearly, they evolved one per year, leading to an average rate of change of 1/year. In a non-linear evolution, where they go from 1 species to 3 species to six species to ten species, it may take them two years to evolve into different species, but the average rate remains the same: 1/year.

OK, now that I've been chastised by you (who obviously has done the research) and Phage (who strikes terror into the minds of the ignorant) I'm going to be disappointed if I'm not proven wrong.

Today there are something like 8.7 million species all currently evolving at once. Your calculation is an absolute joke based on big time ignorance of evolution.

Then demonstrate it. So far you haven't taken the time to properly address my argument, which is probably because I was unclear. So try it again, please, now that I've clarified some things.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

This post is where I break down the math.

I'm aware that that argument is dismissed the by scientific community *because* of the long times supposed to be involved. That's why I brought it up: it's *only* relevant if one presumes evolution happens in massively short bursts. Am I right, or is there something else I'm missing?

The argument is dismissed by anybody who understands evolution because it shows ZERO resemblance to the way genetic mutations actually work. It's not relevant, no matter how you present it. Genetic mutations are not an entire organism scrambled into a thousand parts and reassembled. It is small changes to a blue print. Tornado Junkyard = Complete nonsense.

Then what does lead to physical morphological change?

I clearly already explained this above. Genetic mutations are like a blueprint being updated. If you do a tiny change here and there, nobody will notice any difference in the final product in comparison with the original. But after hundreds of years go by and the blueprint is updated over and over and over again, you begin to see a noticeable difference between that and the original product. Genetic mutations accumulating is what leads to the morphological changes.

Again, I was crunching *averages* not specifics. I'm aware evolution follows the environment.

What was your point, exactly?

First, the numbers are based on assumptions, as we do not know the complete evolutionary history of earth because fossilization is rare.

Second, the speciation rate changes constantly. There is no set rate. What are you trying to prove by giving an arbitrary rate of speciation on average for all history of life on earth?

I appreciate you clarifying what you are calculating, now please explain the point of the calculations.

originally posted by: Barcs

This post is where I break down the math.

Thanks! I just eyeballed it, and I liked what you did there. It was slightly different from my approach, and I'm not criticizing it.

The argument is dismissed by anybody who understands evolution because it shows ZERO resemblance to the way genetic mutations actually work. It's not relevant, no matter how you present it.

Sure, because genetic mutations don't happen all at once, which is what Hoyle was positing.

I clearly already explained this above. Genetic mutations are like a blueprint being updated. If you do a tiny change here and there, nobody will notice any difference in the final product in comparison with the original. But after hundreds of years go by and the blueprint is updated over and over and over again, you begin to see a noticeable difference between that and the original product. Genetic mutations accumulating is what leads to the morphological changes.

That's how I understood it as well. We're on the same page.

What was your point, exactly?

First, the numbers are based on assumptions, as we do not know the complete evolutionary history of earth because fossilization is rare.

Second, the speciation rate changes constantly. There is no set rate. What are you trying to prove by giving an arbitrary rate of speciation on average for all history of life on earth?

I appreciate you clarifying what you are calculating, now please explain the point of the calculations.

Thanks,

In short, my point is that it seems like life should be evolving faster now, given that it would have had to (on average) evolve quite rapidly in the past. The evidence of speciation we have today is that it takes a *long* time for a species to fully separate into two or more species, and we've never seen large-scale morphological change, so we don't have good current data on that. It seems unlikely that the diversity of life as we know it (we have around 10 million species now, we estimate that's about one percent of all species that have ever lived) could be formed by evolution as it is observed to be happening *today.*

But, as I pointed out in my previous post, my observation is premature. We haven't even mapped the number of species on our planet, we haven't had trained scientific observers watching and recording something cataclysmic, like an ice age, (which, as you pointed out, would be an evolutionary driver) and we haven't had enough time to observe speciation. Like I said in my previous post on this topic, I imagine what we witness in the next few hundred years will change our perception of this. Either we'll witness massive evolutionary shifts as new species arise, or we'll witness little change at all. Either way, we'll gain new insight into how evolution works, or doesn't work.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
In short, my point is that it seems like life should be evolving faster now, given that it would have had to (on average) evolve quite rapidly in the past.

LOL I knew this was what you were trying to say! Man I should become a physic.

How do your numbers have anything to do with rate of speciation TODAY? I already told you that the rate changes depending on the environment, and how many species are roaming earth at the same time. Obviously the more creatures evolving at once, the higher your rate. There is no "on average" speciation rate because you are making it for all organisms in the history of earth. It is an extreme generalization that doesn't come close to proving anything. You have different environmental changes happening in different places. The speed of speciation is determined by the environmental changes and is usually limited to local areas, with the exception of course being of mass extinction events. You even said that is was just an average because it varies fast and slow, but you are using the average to make ridiculous claims that aren't true for example your quote above. How do you know how rapidly life should be evolving right now? How do you know that it isn't? How do you know that we're not in a slow or fast period right now? You can't use the average of all life on earth to determine it for each individual species or even all life today. It just doesn't work. Each environmental niche is its own thing.

The evidence of speciation we have today is that it takes a *long* time for a species to fully separate into two or more species, and we've never seen large-scale morphological change, so we don't have good current data on that. It seems unlikely that the diversity of life as we know it (we have around 10 million species now, we estimate that's about one percent of all species that have ever lived) could be formed by evolution as it is observed to be happening *today.*

It's not always long. Again, genetic mutations come with each reproducing generation and it depends on the organism and environment. We've observed speciation in a lab directly within a single human lifetime. The reason is because the organisms we study on average live a week or less, so we can directly observe numerous generations. With creatures like humans and chimps this is impossible because we have longer lifespans. It's all about the mutations per generation, not the average of the history of earth. Basically you aren't saying anything with that entire point. It is logically flawed to say that life should be evolving faster now just because it's more than your silly average which includes a time when there was barely any time at all on earth and obviously was very slow.

Plus your figure is off as well. It really adds up to 1 in 3.8 years, not 1 in 3. But still that could mean a billion years of evolution where specialization occurred once every 30,000 years, and then a big event changes the earth and you have the rate skyrocketing to 1 change every year for the next 500 million years. In no way should the average speciation rate of all life in the history of earth influence the rate at which it works today.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

LOL I knew this was what you were trying to say! Man I should become a physic.

You should

How do your numbers have anything to do with rate of speciation TODAY? I already told you that the rate changes depending on the environment, and how many species are roaming earth at the same time. Obviously the more creatures evolving at once, the higher your rate. There is no "on average" speciation rate because you are making it for all organisms in the history of earth.

That's how averaging works, definitionally.

It is an extreme generalization that doesn't come close to proving anything. You have different environmental changes happening in different places. The speed of speciation is determined by the environmental changes and is usually limited to local areas, with the exception of course being of mass extinction events. You even said that is was just an average because it varies fast and slow, but you are using the average to make ridiculous claims that aren't true for example your quote above. How do you know how rapidly life should be evolving right now? How do you know that it isn't? How do you know that we're not in a slow or fast period right now? You can't use the average of all life on earth to determine it for each individual species or even all life today. It just doesn't work. Each environmental niche is its own thing.

I don't recall claiming it proved anything, actually. I think it's an interesting thought that will become more relevant as we gather more data.

It's not always long. Again, genetic mutations come with each reproducing generation and it depends on the organism and environment. We've observed speciation in a lab directly within a single human lifetime. The reason is because the organisms we study on average live a week or less, so we can directly observe numerous generations. With creatures like humans and chimps this is impossible because we have longer lifespans. It's all about the mutations per generation, not the average of the history of earth. Basically you aren't saying anything with that entire point.

Sure, in a lab. In real life, even fruit flies and the like take decades to speciate, and even then they can still likely interbreed. (Hey, if lions and tigers can do it...)

It is logically flawed to say that life should be evolving faster now just because it's more than your silly average which includes a time when there was barely any time at all on earth and obviously was very slow.

Why is it obvious that the evolutionary rate was slow when there was barely any life on earth? Given what we know of smaller organisms, I honestly would expect that to be the fastest.

Plus your figure is off as well. It really adds up to 1 in 3.8 years, not 1 in 3.

I used conservative estimates (10 million species instead of 14 million) so I thought it was only fair to round it to 1 in 3.

But still that could mean a billion years of evolution where specialization occurred once every 30,000 years, and then a big event changes the earth and you have the rate skyrocketing to 1 change every year for the next 500 million years.

Sure. I pointed that out. But then you run into problematic territory when you try to explain how massive evolutionary shifts happened in a matter of years. Like you pointed out, with mammals it takes a long, long time.

In no way should the average speciation rate of all life in the history of earth influence the rate at which it works today.

I'd beg to differ. Unless you're saying that the laws of the universe are arbitrary, we should be able to make a link between the two, given enough time and research. I don't think we've had either yet.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Quadrivium
My answer is still the same barcs. Macro evolution "could" have happened. I have said so many times before.
However, "could" does not mean it "did" happen. For a person with a Naturalistic mind it explains things very well.
Still, that does not mean it happened. There is no ACTUAL proof. Only lots people saying there is proof.
ETA: And no they are not the same.

Yes, they are defined the same by scientists. It's the same exact process, just over more years.

And thanks again, you just proved my point completely. As Quad clearly demonstrates here, he has deflected the question of mutation accumulation. You didn't address one single aspect of it. What you meant to say there was, "My non answer is the same." You just claimed it was faith based that mutations add up over time, which is blatantly wrong as we have witnessed speciation in a lab and in nature. You offer no explanation whatsoever for this, you just state it arbitrarily as if it is true. If the earth is traveling around the sun at a certain rate, it isn't faith based that this will continue unless some event happens and changes that rate. It's funny how these guys always pretend to be all about the evidence, when they believe their religion is absolute truth.

Micro evolution would be when the bill of the finches adapt to better catch food.
Macro evolution would be the finches eventually becoming lizards (just an example).

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You guys make stuff up, paint science as religion, but fail to address the physical evidence and just deny everything else. I asked WHY you think the mutations don't add up, despite the fact that they do in the short term. Why can't you answer the question without deflecting? I made an entire thread dedicated to that single question and not a single creationist even attempted to answer it.

I have answered the same thing countess times barcs. You just refuse to accept my answer.
I do not look at it the same way. I interpret the "evidence" differently.
There is no proof that the mutations add up to cause macro evolution. Needed adaptation within a species...yes. Macro evolution. ...no.
I have told you before that I believe life was given the ability to adapt. As our climate and environmental conditions change we adapt. This also explains micro evolution and beneficial mutations.
If what you say about mutations is correct well that would mean that everything is mutating all the time. Except everything is not mutating. There are many creatures and organizims that haven't changed for "millions of years".
Why don't they mutate? Because they fit their environment. They have no need to adapt. If moved or their environment changes they would die or adapt.
This is not proven and it is my own interpretation but it fits the so called evidence as well.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

The response is, "But But punctuated equilibrium"

DNA & RNA permanently rewriting itself via a huge and fast mutation.
Problem is that doesn't seem to add benefit to the species but rather, makes genetic flaws.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The response is, "But But punctuated equilibrium"

DNA & RNA permanently rewriting itself via a huge and fast mutation.
Problem is that doesn't seem to add benefit to the species but rather, makes genetic flaws.

Psst, nonsense. Mutations are always beneficial! Haven't you seen the X-Men films?

Any fault with my math and/or reasoning, BlueJay?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

It's an interesting take on why evolution didn't happen as theorized that's for sure.

Just not enough time, as an old universe, old earth creation guy, I find that perspective most interesting.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: StalkerSolent

It's an interesting take on why evolution didn't happen as theorized that's for sure.

Just not enough time, as an old universe, old earth creation guy, I find that perspective most interesting.

Thanks.
I tend to be skeptical of scientific theories unless we can observe them happening in real time. But that's just me.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I tend to be skeptical of scientific theories unless we can observe them happening in real time. But that's just me.

What type of theories are you not skeptical about unless we can observe them happening in real time?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

How do you regard plate tectonics then?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

What type of theories are you not skeptical about unless we can observe them happening in real time?

None spring to mind.

I'm *less* skeptical of archeology in general, but it's had it's share of slip-ups in the past. Does that count?

Perhaps "skeptical" isn't the right word. I'm just more reserved about them because it usually takes us some time to get things right.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: StalkerSolent

How do you regard plate tectonics then?

As something to be avoided

What do you mean? We can observe plate tectonics in action.