Concerns About Macroevolution

[derrick09]

Hello again everyone, thank you all for responding and thanks to gman, for offering to help me out on this. Gman, here are the primary issues of macro evolution that are troubleing me currently...



1. Endogenous Retroviruses

From what I've heard from several atheists ERVs...

#1 Some ERV insertions disrupt important coding genes and are lethal to their host. Most insertions are into the other 98% of the genome where they are less likely to cause damage.

#2 ERVs most certainly are capable of causing disease. Certain strains of mice, like AKR, carry functional ERVs that are actively producing virus when the mice are born. The mice die of thymic lymphoma by 6-9 months of age.

#3 A few rare ERVs are responsible for resistance to further viral infection. This happens largely by interference. The viral proteins produced by the ERV compete for the cell receptors or other proteins needed for viral replication.


2. Ring species

3. Observed speciation

4. Faunal succession

5. Geographic distribution of closely related species

6. Fossil evidence for transitional forms such as archaeopteryx,Australopithecus afarensis, and Tiktaalik

7. Anything that is inherited and sequencible, i.e. DNA, genes, proteins, and amino acids.

8. Atavisms


9.Also I was wondering, has any OEC ever done a response to the claims offered by Douglas Theobald's 29 evidences for macro evolution? I know of the response done by Ashby Camp, but since he's a YEC I wondered if any responses eixsted from a OEC perspective.

Those are the primary issues I have at this time. Thanks again gman for your help and for anyone else who would like to help. God bless you all.

[derrick09]

Can anyone help me out with these gman, anybody? Thanks in advance.

[ageofknowledge]

We've addressed your #1 in this thread here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=180

[Gman]

Can anyone help me out with these gman, anybody? Thanks in advance.

Oops... Sorry I missed this.

Ageofknowledge gave us some good links on endogenous retroviruses. May I ask specifically what your concerns are for the other items? If you want to take them one by one that would be easier.

[derrick09]

Can anyone help me out with these gman, anybody? Thanks in advance.

Oops... Sorry I missed this.

Ageofknowledge gave us some good links on endogenous retroviruses. May I ask specifically what your concerns are for the other items? If you want to take them one by one that would be easier.

Let's see,

We will start off with ring species, many evolutionists claim they are a direct example (at least in my understanding) how you can get major macroevolutionary changes in animals like reptiles becomming birds per se. Here are some weblinks from pro evolution sources that describe what ring species are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... cept.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838767

What is the best counter response that us creationists can give for this? If we can't that's a major point for the evolution side and thus can easily shake people's faith unless they are easily able to accept theistic evolution, which for me, I'm not ready to as of yet. But thank you gman for offering to help, I thought previously every creationist here wanted to avoid this thread because the content would be too difficult to answer, which scared me into thinking that our view might have some very weak areas. But I'm glad at least that you are hoping to take a look at these. Thank you again gman and to anyone else who wants to help with these and God bless.

[Gman]

Let's see,

We will start off with ring species, many evolutionists claim they are a direct example (at least in my understanding) how you can get major macroevolutionary changes in animals like reptiles becomming birds per se. Here are some weblinks from pro evolution sources that describe what ring species are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... cept.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838767

What is the best counter response that us creationists can give for this? If we can't that's a major point for the evolution side and thus can easily shake people's faith unless they are easily able to accept theistic evolution, which for me, I'm not ready to as of yet. But thank you gman for offering to help, I thought previously every creationist here wanted to avoid this thread because the content would be too difficult to answer, which scared me into thinking that our view might have some very weak areas. But I'm glad at least that you are hoping to take a look at these. Thank you again gman and to anyone else who wants to help with these and God bless.

It's pretty much the same argument as the Darwinist's fruitfly fiasco. That might meet the scientific definition of a new species, but then again, they still are fruit flies or in this case salamanders or whatever. It's a case for microevolution but certainly not macroevolution..



As an example certain evolutionists examine the non-interbreeding behavior of salamanders, which are still visually salamanders that can still interbreed (even though they refuse to) and simply call it a new species. As it states "they look almost identical to one another, yet do not interbreed with each other—thus, they are separate species according to this definition." Well whoopdidoo for evolution... I happen to know some humans that act in the same way. White men may not be attracted to black women or visa versa.. So? How does this prove how Darwinian evolution can increase in complexity? It's really the same species and will always be the same species even though they choose not to interbreed. In this case once a fruitfly, always a fruitfly... And given enough time, they will probably learn (or in this case love) to interbreed with themselves later on. This proves nothing only that they are fussy in bed...

[derrick09]

Thank you gman, that helped greatly. On my list, from doing some further research, I'm going to earase #s 6 and 7 I already have good answers for those. But the next one observed speciation or events of observed speciation. I'm assuming evolutionists claim that they have indeed seen instances where one form of animal turns into another in the macro sense. Here are some links that go into detail on observed speciation....

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Molecular-Bi ... iation.htm

I have a feeling that many of these instances would qualify for micro instead of macro, let me know what you think. Thanks again and God bless you Gman.

[godslanguage]

Let's see,

We will start off with ring species, many evolutionists claim they are a direct example (at least in my understanding) how you can get major macroevolutionary changes in animals like reptiles becomming birds per se. Here are some weblinks from pro evolution sources that describe what ring species are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... cept.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838767

What is the best counter response that us creationists can give for this? If we can't that's a major point for the evolution side and thus can easily shake people's faith unless they are easily able to accept theistic evolution, which for me, I'm not ready to as of yet. But thank you gman for offering to help, I thought previously every creationist here wanted to avoid this thread because the content would be too difficult to answer, which scared me into thinking that our view might have some very weak areas. But I'm glad at least that you are hoping to take a look at these. Thank you again gman and to anyone else who wants to help with these and God bless.

It's pretty much the same argument as the Darwinist's fruitfly fiasco. That might meet the scientific definition of a new species, but then again, they still are fruit flies or in this case salamanders or whatever. It's a case for microevolution but certainly not macroevolution..



As an example certain evolutionists examine the non-interbreeding behavior of salamanders, which are still visually salamanders that can still interbreed (even though they refuse to) and simply call it a new species. As it states "they look almost identical to one another, yet do not interbreed with each other—thus, they are separate species according to this definition." Well whoopdidoo for evolution... I happen to know some humans that act in the same way. White men may not be attracted to black women or visa versa.. So? How does this prove how Darwinian evolution can increase in complexity? It's really the same species and will always be the same species even though they choose not to interbreed. In this case once a fruitfly, always a fruitfly... And given enough time, they will probably learn (or in this case love) to interbreed with themselves later on. This proves nothing only that they are fussy in bed...

Exactly!

I heard Dawkins in one of his recent sideshow presentations state that artificial selection with dogs proves evolution. Well, he won't tell you that the wolf phenotype can easily be reverted back to the dog phenotype (ie: they are freely reversible). Same with the fruitflies example Gman has pointed out. These are all examples of micro-evolution, yet evolutionists fancy this up as something much more than that. Random mutations and Natural selection (or artificial selection) has nothing to do with it at all. The Darwinians have run out of ammo, IMO. They have nothing, not even the fossil record as it is completely discrete, as if lifeforms appeared abruptly. Amazingly, thats exactly what the evidence indicates, that most lifeforms had appeared abruptly withut any trace of a common ancestor. If it were continuous we would see hundreds if not thousands of hybrids between current forms and their supposed predecessors on the Darwinian tree of life.

[Gman]

Thank you gman, that helped greatly. On my list, from doing some further research, I'm going to earase #s 6 and 7 I already have good answers for those. But the next one observed speciation or events of observed speciation. I'm assuming evolutionists claim that they have indeed seen instances where one form of animal turns into another in the macro sense. Here are some links that go into detail on observed speciation....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Molecular-Bi ... iation.htm

I have a feeling that many of these instances would qualify for micro instead of macro, let me know what you think. Thanks again and God bless you Gman.

Derrick,

Those examples in talkorigins # 1,3, and 4 are pretty much what we talked about before except this time focusing on the interbreeding habits of cichlid fishes, mice, and drosophila (flies) fulfilling the definition for non-interbreeding species (after they have been separated for awhile), but essentially they are still the same species with peculiar mating habits... That's about it.. Again what we see here is micro-evolution in action not macro-evolution. Example #2 is referring to polyploidy in plants or in this case "fireweed" which pretty much only have a evolutionarily neutral effect for speciation with the exception of a few beneficial differences (resulting from genetic mistakes) giving the plant a contextual advantage over another. But it's still it's own species of plant..

Article here...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145019.htm

This is the response from God and Science on polyploidy...

"If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... TmnyE7cdde

[Gman]

The Darwinians have run out of ammo, IMO. They have nothing, not even the fossil record as it is completely discrete, as if lifeforms appeared abruptly. Amazingly, thats exactly what the evidence indicates, that most lifeforms had appeared abruptly withut any trace of a common ancestor. If it were continuous we would see hundreds if not thousands of hybrids between current forms and their supposed predecessors on the Darwinian tree of life.

Too true, just look at the evidence....

[ageofknowledge]

The older evolutionists I talk to that will speak rationally on this subject (many won't) always insist the reason why we aren't finding indisputable transitional fossils has to do with their decay due to too much age having passed. They then, of course, default back to traditionally held evolutionary views such as hominids that existed from 7 million to 2 million years ago are the transitional forms that gave rise to modern humans.

We hold that apes and all hominids have features that resemble humans but this is not an indicator of their transitional status. Human designers often combine two or more distinct designs in creating objects and devices. If people were created in God's image, wouldn't their Creator be expected to do the same?

Even evolutionists don't always interpret mosaic organisms as transitional intermediates. The duckbill platypus illustrates the point. This creature possesses a combination of mammalian and avian (birdlike) features.Yet evolutionists don't propose that mammals evolved from birds, with the duckbill platypus representing a transitional form between these two groups.

[DannyM]

I heard Dawkins in one of his recent sideshow presentations state that artificial selection with dogs proves evolution. Well, he won't tell you that the wolf phenotype can easily be reverted back to the dog phenotype (ie: they are freely reversible). Same with the fruitflies example Gman has pointed out. These are all examples of micro-evolution, yet evolutionists fancy this up as something much more than that. Random mutations and Natural selection (or artificial selection) has nothing to do with it at all. The Darwinians have run out of ammo, IMO. They have nothing, not even the fossil record as it is completely discrete, as if lifeforms appeared abruptly. Amazingly, thats exactly what the evidence indicates, that most lifeforms had appeared abruptly withut any trace of a common ancestor. If it were continuous we would see hundreds if not thousands of hybrids between current forms and their supposed predecessors on the Darwinian tree of life.

Yeah, and aren't different species of dog just a "cursed" copying of genes? Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated, right? Some Darwinians are saying that lots of micro = macro. Is this yet more waffle?

[derrick09]

Derrick,

Those examples in talkorigins # 1,3, and 4 are pretty much what we talked about before except this time focusing on the interbreeding habits of cichlid fishes, mice, and drosophila (flies) fulfilling the definition for non-interbreeding species (after they have been separated for awhile), but essentially they are still the same species with peculiar mating habits... That's about it.. Again what we see here is micro-evolution in action not macro-evolution. Example #2 is referring to polyploidy in plants or in this case "fireweed" which pretty much only have a evolutionarily neutral effect for speciation with the exception of a few beneficial differences (resulting from genetic mistakes) giving the plant a contextual advantage over another. But it's still it's own species of plant..

Article here...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145019.htm

This is the response from God and Science on polyploidy...

"If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... TmnyE7cdde

Thank you again gman for responding,

I was going to ask you also about faunal succession and geographic distribution of species. These are some other major arguements that I've seen evolutionists use that I've had trouble finding answers for. Here are some web links that better describe them...


http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... ution.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_ ... succession

Thanks and God bless G.

[godslanguage]

I heard Dawkins in one of his recent sideshow presentations state that artificial selection with dogs proves evolution. Well, he won't tell you that the wolf phenotype can easily be reverted back to the dog phenotype (ie: they are freely reversible). Same with the fruitflies example Gman has pointed out. These are all examples of micro-evolution, yet evolutionists fancy this up as something much more than that. Random mutations and Natural selection (or artificial selection) has nothing to do with it at all. The Darwinians have run out of ammo, IMO. They have nothing, not even the fossil record as it is completely discrete, as if lifeforms appeared abruptly. Amazingly, thats exactly what the evidence indicates, that most lifeforms had appeared abruptly withut any trace of a common ancestor. If it were continuous we would see hundreds if not thousands of hybrids between current forms and their supposed predecessors on the Darwinian tree of life.

Yeah, and aren't different species of dog just a "cursed" copying of genes? Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated, right? Some Darwinians are saying that lots of micro = macro. Is this yet more waffle?

An okay analogy would be that you can easily make changes to the software without affecting the hardware, the only way Macro-evolution works is when "can't undo" changes occur to the hardware, these types of irreversible changes are RM & NS independent. Lets take it another way, an undo feature can be implemented using a stack or a LIFO (last in first out) data structure. When you make a mistake you can easily revert back to the previous state by first popping off the most recent state (the mistake) and that will take you to the previous state. Micro-evolution is sort of like that, it can easily be popped on and off without discrimination. These may produce notable changes to the software but never the hardware. Hence, they are easily reversible, easily taken back to any of the previous states. But we know that a biological system would simply deal with the mutation in its own way through adaptation (this is another design feature IMO, simply that biological systems have their own way of dealing with changes or errors without terminating the host), however, an accumulation of these mutations propogating into the population will inevitably lead to extinction, its as if I mutated the operating system kernel so many times that it comes to a point where it wasn't able to I/O with the hardware and shell, it becomes irrelevant since hardware alone is useless without a significant degree of software running on top (ofcourse, in reality we have hardware that is independent of software, but never the reverse). This is in no way an accurate model or representation as far as the analogy goes, but I find its one way of thinking about it.

[Gman]

Thank you again gman for responding,

I was going to ask you also about faunal succession and geographic distribution of species. These are some other major arguements that I've seen evolutionists use that I've had trouble finding answers for. Here are some web links that better describe them...


http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... ution.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_ ... succession

Thanks and God bless G.

Faunal succession is probably more of a problem for young earth creationists than the old earth creationists (like me). Frankly, I see no real problem with it scientifically or for the Bible. However, if someone wants to claim this a victory for evolution I fail to see the point. Perhaps jlay or godslanguage would like to chime in here for the YEC viewpoint... I'll back away..

A good reply for it is here.. http://www.answersincreation.org/argume ... cience.htm