Whatever-of-the-gaps?

[apothanein kerdos]

So my question is, why don't these micro-evolutionary steps stack up to produce macro-evolution? Essentially, why doesn't macro evolution work?

Because there is nothing within species that allow for utter adaptability.

I don't agree with that position entirely either, I was merely pointing out the flaw in your argumentation.

I would say, however, that natural selection has its limits. I do not believe that natural selection can lead to different species and that any change that is this drastic would be driven by God, not by natural selection.

Natural selection eliminates the weak an unadaptable, it doesn't, however, make a species stronger or lead to improvements within a species.

[rtwo]

Special creation

Theaetheistreview, I don't know you my friend. I don't know what events has shaped your world view. I would suspect, either on the surface or deep down you are looking for answers you have not yet found. Or perhaps you've found them yet they war against informational sources you've taken in during your life. I don't know. I do know that we are not here by accident. Neither you nor I are an accident. Neither is our conversation on this board at this time. Ask the Lord to make Himself known to you my friend. Think about this, I don't know you. I don't get a sum of money if you ask the Lord Jesus to forgive you of your sins. I don't get a bonus if you get saved and born again. I have nothing of material profit should you turn to your creator, talk with Him, get to know him, get to know His Word. I might never know unless we meet in heaven. The point is that I'm reaching out to you with what I've found to be true. Asking you to put your trust in something besides men's philosophy, men's ideas. Don't take my word. Ask the Lord for HIS Word to be revealed to you. He will because He loves you more than you yet realize.

We're discussing evolution, not religion.

In fairness, this is a Christian site. SC's main concern, as it should be, is not with how you believe we were created, but that you don't know Christ. In our world, we don't separate our faith from anything, nor do we lose sight of our commission.

[MorningGlory]

Christian site. SC's main concern, as it should be, is not with how you believe we were created, but that you don't know Christ. In our world, we don't separate our faith from anything, nor do we lose sight of our commission.

Very well said!

[apothanein kerdos]

This looks like it's on the right track in terms of answering my question. I'm not sure I understand what you mean though. Are you saying that macro doesn't happen because there's nothing that allows it to happen?

If so, then that's not a very good answer, because the idea behind macro is that it is simply micro that's been left a bit longer and I was asking why this doesn't work. And you answered that nothing allows it to happen. Well is there anything that disallows it from happening?

Hmm, I don't think that came out very clearly...

I think most would answer that micro evolution doesn't allow for perpetual progression. In many cases, the animal adapts to its environment, but when the environment changes back to its previous condition, the animal either changes back or dies.

Furthermore, natural selection does not allow for massive changes. If an environment changed immediately, no species could adapt to it (save for the cockroach). That is, natural selection allows for small changes, or changes within a species (different variances in the species), but it has a breaking point that eventually leads to the destruction of a species. A mastodon is a perfect example of this - akin to the elephant, it grew hair to live in the northern regions during the onset of the ice age. However, when the environment became too extreme, it died out instead of adapting or changing into an entirely different species.

The most damning evidence against macro evolution due to natural selection is the fossil record - not the lack of transitionary fossils, but the fact that most species existed 200 million years ago than they do now. Instead of the evolutionary tree progress (<) is it instead digressing (>). This seems to show that most species have a breaking point where they can no longer adapt and therefore become extinct. It shows that species, instead of evolving into another species, simply dies out.

Well why isn't macro also an inherent property of life? What's the difference between micro and macro evolution that causes this discrepancy?

See above. I would also add to look at Darwin's finches. He properly observed that their beaks grew during a drought season...but what we don't see is that when the wet seasons returned, their beaks would go back to the "normal" size. In other words, the changes were not perpetual - they fluctuated with the seasons.

I'm well aware that this is what you believe. But why doesn't natural selection lead to new species? (By the way, you don't actually mean species, do you? Because speciation has actually been demonstrated in the lab. Macro is on a bigger scale.)

By species I mean the taxonomy of the animal. In other words, an alligator and crocodile do share a common ancestor. They do not, however, share a common ancestor with a human. This idea of speciation has not been demonstrated in the lab. Changes within a species has been demonstrated, and if you take "breed" to mean "species," I see what you are saying. I, however, am referring to a much broader scale. Macro evolution has never been validated in a lab. If anything, it has been invalidated. When flies have been progressed via evolution, the new taxonomy of flies that came out were completely useless and worse than their original counter parts.

Hold on. I thought you agreed with micro evolution? I thought we were disputing macro evolution?

We do, I just failed to define my terms on "species." I am referring to changes into a different taxonomy.

If natural selection kills a weak member of the species, doesn't the average strength of the rest of the species go up? (like taking the average of 1, 2 and 3 and then removing the 1)

Isn't the next generation therefore going to carry on this extra strength? (assuming strength is caused by the genes and not environmental causes)

The strength is already inherent within the species that survives, this is why it was able to survive in the first place.

[apothanein kerdos]

Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence

Respectfully, this is not a true statement.

Actually it is.

I am a believer in the truth of the bible, but my day job is as a tenured faculty member in a medical school that works with the disciplines of genetics, molecular biology, and to some degree, evolution. While I have not figured out how to rectify the two, I am certain of both. What I do know is that when creationists try to refute evolution, they cannot do it without 1) mis interpreting data, 2) ignoring data, or 3) flat out lying about data. Creationists do tremendous damage to Christianity on a daily basis when they try to discount evolution. If anyone saw the recent Nightline debate, we should be thankful that the atheists were not up to the task because their opponents (Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort) were embarrassing.

With regard to "Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence", this support cuts across countless fields of applied and natural science, and multiple disciplines. It is unfortunate that Christians feel that God is not big enough to handle a search for the truth. There is only one truth and who cares how we get there. Christians should be looking at the voluminous data and trying to figure out how to fit our creation into it.

If you really want to read some factual evidence, read the book by Francis Collins (a Christian Nobel laureate who sequenced the human genome). He believes in both, and makes a rational argument, but concludes clearly that evolution is true.

And for those that insist that Genesis says what it says and it can only support creationism, why do we have bible studies?

Though I respect Collins, there is not a mountain of evidence for Macro Evolution via natural selection. I tend to follow Behe, Dembski, Wells, and others in this line of thinking.

[apothanein kerdos]

AK

Because there is nothing within species that allow for utter adaptability.

Well why isn't macro also an inherent property of life? What's the difference between micro and macro evolution that causes this discrepancy?

Simple. Because living organisms cannot absorb massive changes to their DNA sequence. Why? Because a change as slight as a single base pair out of tens of thousands can render a gene non functional. This can happen because you change one single amino acid sequence, which affects how a protein folds, and it no longer can bind a second protein because the nature of this interaction is so specific. If you change one protein, the second one has to change to accomodate the first change. How does it happen at all? One way is through the advantage of the heterozygote (you have two copies of a gene, one is free to vary). Another is that the changes are step wise and necessarily slow. The proof reading capability of DNA polymerases is something on the order of one mistake in 100,000,000 base pairs of newly synthesized DNA. Oher enzymes exist to catch those mistakes that do slip through.

His explanation is far better than my own.

[apothanein kerdos]

Though I respect Collins, there is not a mountain of evidence for Macro Evolution via natural selection. I tend to follow Behe, Dembski, Wells, and others in this line of thinking.

See my previous 1-3 points.

I have, but I must admit I am a bit confused. Where, on the whole spectrum of things, do you stand? "Evolution" is such a broad term that simply saying, "I believe in evolution" could mean any sort of thing without background information.

It looks like you embrace intelligent design and would deny natural selection as a legitimate reason for genetic mutations, and that you would accept special creation. Honestly, if you could explain where you stand, that would help me greatly.

And don't worry, I'm not one to jump after you for your beliefs on the issue.

[apothanein kerdos]

Short answer is that I believe God created and then used all of the laws of nature to set our whole creation in motion, knowing what would happen and how it would occur. I'm not sure if I am a full-blown intelligent design-er, I am partial to the randomness of the process, if not the outcome.

There is plenty that we don't know about evolution, but will learn, just as there is plenty we don't know about the bible (or would you argue we know everything there is to know about the bible?), but will learn--and the twain shall meet.

That's a fair assessment. I think, more than anything, I was interested in your stance on ID, especially with you having a tenured position. It seems ID proponents are an easily persecuted sect in the modern academic world (take ISU's short comings of late), so that is what I was primarily curious about. Plus, I keep up with some of the "leaders" of the movement and am very good friends with one of them, so I was wondering if we might know the same people.

Regardless, your question about the knowledge of the Bible. I believe we will always have to correct ourselves on some of our understand of the Bible. I tend to agree with Nietzsche (never thought a conservative evangelical would say that) when, in Beyond Good and Evil he says to "question everything." Though I do not take it to the level he does, I do think we should constantly question our notions about God and our interpretation of the Bible. I believe this keeps us on our feet and humble before God, knowing that we cannot understand Him completely. Though I believe certain doctrines must always remain a staple of our faith, I think other doctrines can be subject to change.

One such view is our view of creation. Though I deny 6 literal days, I accept a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall of man. I believe these are indispensable to our faith, but how they got there can be debated.

An excellent essay covering this issue would be Bill Dembski's "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science."

[apothanein kerdos]

So is it (in theory) physically possible that a large herd of the species gets separated and continues to adapt to an ever changing environment while the other stays put and evolves very little? (I don't care how unlikely it is or whether the fossils indicate it happened in the past. We're talking about theoretically)

It changes into a different type of the species, but it stays within the same species/taxonomy.

There are different types of elephants all around the world, but they are still elephants. There are different types of lions and tigers around the world, but they are still lions and tigers. If the environment becomes too drastic for the species, then it would die out before changing (this is consistent with fossil records and what we know about extinction processes).

Essentially what you're saying is that the limiting factor that stops a species from evolving any higher then minor speciation, is the environment. But the breaking point wouldn't occur without a sudden change of environment, would it?

This is really a false question. The environment changes quicker than macro evolution can occur. Whereas it might take 40,000 years a major evolutionary progression to occur, it could only take 200 years for the environment to change drastically. Thus, no matter what, the environment will be the equalizer in this.

If, however, we assume that a species is allowed to continue to grow without having to change to the environment, we would actually see an end of all types of evolution. If the species is progressing (that is, not becoming extinct) within a certain stable environment, it means it is already adaptable to that environment. There is no reason for change, not even micro changes, because it is perfectladaptable to the environment it is in.

Thus, minor changes in the environment beget differences within the species. Major changes in the environment beget extinction.

I would argue that it has (Wiki), but the difference in our opinions is only how species is defined and there's really not a lot of point getting into it.

I think that's where we're finding difficulty, is in our definition of species. With that experiment, nothing was proven - they were still flies.

How does that invalidate macro evolution?

It shows that major changes to a species are always negative. Though natural selection could play a part, random mutation would also be a vital component in macro evolution. When you combine the two, the inherent need to change in order to adapt, and random mutation, you will never progress a species. Random mutation within our genetic code always causes negative things and has never been proven otherwise - it leads to deformities.

Do you mean that the average strength wouldn't go up because no individuals have gotten stronger (since the death of the weak animal happened within the generation)? Well if I use my analogy again, the values of 2 and 3 haven't gone up when you take out 1, but the average has gone up from 2 to 2.5. Anyway, I'm sure you already know this stuff as it's the fundamental mechanism behind micro evolution.

The average might go up, but it doesn't really change anything except remove a competitor. In other words, if you have four students in a classroom, two score A's and two fail, the class average is a C. If you remove the bottom two students, the class average is an A. Does this mean the two A students are any smarter? Of course not, it merely means two "competitors" have been removed, so the group will look stronger, though nothing has changed.

[apothanein kerdos]

It shows that major changes to a species are always negative.

This statement, is of course false. Can you provide a reference from where you have come to this conclusion? You'll probably also need to define "major changes" since in my experience, creationists always move the goal posts once you rebut a claim.

Now you see where I get my points 1-3 from.

True. I must admit that I am arguing from a position that denies natural selection as a cause for any changes. In other words, I would have no problem accepting that birds and lizards share a common ancestor, but I would advocate this split did not occur via natural selection (as there would be no evidence to indicate such a change). This is what I mean by "major changes."

An elephant eventually turning into a Mastodon, to me, is not a "major change" from natural selection. A group of lizards eventually adapting to the point they become birds (again, I'm using this as a hypothetical), to me, could not be adequately explained via natural selection.