Achieving the Creationist's "Macro-Evolution"

[Wowbagger]

Many creationists try to challenge the Theory of Evolution by stating no "macro-evolution" has ever been observed. I use the following recent post as an example:

If you don't believe there are limits perhaps you should go and breed a completely new and viable life-form from a "previous" life-form. Maybe start with a kind of plant, and end up with a worm or a stick insect of your own creation.

Of course, scientists rightfully roll their eyes at such ill-informed requests. But, for the sake of argument let us assume that finding such a thing is a reasonable demand.

This thread will discuss possible shortcuts for achieving it. But, first I must describe the long method:

The Long Way of Doing It

According to theory, it took well over 500 million years (possibly a few billion years) for a common ancestor to branch off into plants and worms. Let us stick with '500 million' as a very liberal unit, for this argument.

That means that, if scientists started working today, and every future generation had scientists still devoted to this work, it would take roughly 1 billion years (2 times 500 million) before the plant will evolve into a worm. This is because the 'Long Way' would involve two stages of steps:

1. Breed a contemporary plant so that it evolves back into the common ancestor of 500 million years ago. Of course, it would be impossible to get an exact match. But, something close enough, so that future variability could lead into a worm, is good enough.

2. Then, spend a few hundred million years evolving that 'new common ancestor' into a worm.

Keep in mind that I am using very liberal time periods, here. In reality, it might take much, much longer.

It goes without saying that only someone immortal would be able watch the whole process, as it happens.

A Possible Shortcut Proposed

Start with something that is already as close to the 500-million-year-old ancestor, as we can find, that is still alive, today! This could be a species of sponge, fungus, bacteria, or something else like that. I shall use 'sponges' in this example, because they make cute cartoon characters. But, you can substitute in whatever you think would work better. Here is what you do:

Take two batches of exactly the same species of sponges. And, place two completely different selection pressures into each batch. And, keep this going for many, many, many generations.

Eventually, you could end up with sponges from one batch evolving into plants (or, very plant-like life forms), and the other batch evolving into worms (or, very worm-like entities).

This will not, strictly speaking, demonstrate how a plant can evolve into a worm. But, it will demonstrate how it is possible for a common ancestor to branch off into completely different life forms, such as plants and worms. This might be close enough to appease the Creationist challenge.

The only problem is that it still might take 500 million years for the process to be fully complete. But, at least it can achieve the beginnings of testable results within our life time. And, that certainly is better than the Long Way.

Another Shortcut Worth Mentioning
Use computers to simulate the process! Of course, the only problem, here, is that the creationists would consider that cheating. They demand real-life examples.

But, I mention the computer sim. as a temporary measure, for those who might not be around, millions of years into the future.


And now, your feedback would be much appreciated!

 

[bokonon]

I still say genetic engineering will provide the proof that the creationists are requesting, by generating viable intermediate organisms. This will demonstrate that the limits the creationists claim in their "variation within limits" model are purely imaginary. It may take a century or two before the science and the technology make it possible, but it's inevitable that the Discovery Institute will one day go the way of the Flat Earth Society.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Maybe this is a bit besides the point, but I don't think it is possible for a plant species to ever evolve into an animal species, they are two very different things.

Anyway, I thought that there was already an experiment like this taking place with nats (or flies maybe). I haven't really looked into it, but I do remember the creationist vlogger venomfangx mentioning it in a youtube video one time.

Great, I need to get to sleep and now I'm going to spend the next hour researching macro-evolution and experiments on nats.

Also, I do know that there are computer programs already that can simulate evolution. Youtube actually has quite a few videos on the subject. Check out the video titled "Simulation of Evolution by Natural Selection" and there are also a bunch in the 'related videos' field.

 

[joobz]

Maybe this is a bit besides the point, but I don't think it is possible for a plant species to ever evolve into an animal species, they are two very different things.

stupid cell walls....

 

[shadron]

dup

 

[shadron]

Also, I do know that there are computer programs already that can simulate evolution. Youtube actually has quite a few videos on the subject. Check out the video titled "Simulation of Evolution by Natural Selection" and there are also a bunch in the 'related videos' field.

Ohhhhh-ohhhhh!! Do the clock one!! The one where they say you can't get a clock by dropping the pieces in a box and shaking it!! It has cool music, too!!



(Thanks, cdk007.)

 

[Wowbagger]

I still say genetic engineering will provide the proof that the creationists are requesting, by generating viable intermediate organisms. This will demonstrate that the limits the creationists claim in their "variation within limits" model are purely imaginary.

It does not matter what genetic discoveries we make, the Creationists will still demand to see plants evolve into worms, and stuff like that. This thread is for discussing various ways (perhaps not all of them achievable in our life time) to do that.

it's inevitable that the Discovery Institute will one day go the way of the Flat Earth Society.

Yeah, both will still be around, but precious few will take them seriously.

Maybe this is a bit besides the point, but I don't think it is possible for a plant species to ever evolve into an animal species, they are two very different things.

If they share a common ancestor, as the Theory implies, then it should be possible, in principal, to "de-evolve" (I hate that word, but I use for simplification sake) a plant back to its common-ancestor state, and then "re-evolve" it into a worm. That is the "Long Way" I describe.

Anyway, I thought that there was already an experiment like this taking place with nats (or flies maybe).

That would not appease the Creationists. They would say "but, they are still gnats" or "they are still flies".

Also, I do know that there are computer programs already that can simulate evolution. Youtube actually has quite a few videos on the subject. Check out the video titled "Simulation of Evolution by Natural Selection" and there are also a bunch in the 'related videos' field.

I happen to love evolution computer sims, and already know a decent amount about them.

However, for this thread, I think I would like to see "real-life" solutions discussed more.

Ohhhhh-ohhhhh!! Do the clock one!! TDo the clock one!! The one where they say you can't get a clock by dropping the pieces in a box and shaking it!! It has cool music, too!!

Yes, that is one of my favorites.

But, if we must bring up computer sims, please make them relevant to speciation and/or macro-evolution, in the context Creationists prefer.

I do realize that the emergence of complex features, through evolution, is important in establishing concepts of "macro-evolution". However, creationists do not see it that way.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If they share a common ancestor, as the Theory implies, then it should be possible, in principal, to "de-evolve" (I hate that word, but I use for simplification sake) a plant back to its common-ancestor state, and then "re-evolve" it into a worm. That is the "Long Way" I describe.

Actually I think it would be impossible because the common ancestor didn't have the mutations that would lead to the development of plants or worms. Once the plant was "de-evolved" to that point, it would have to evolve into an animal, not a plant, bilateral body plan, Protostome embryology, and then into whatever sort of specific worm you were trying to evolve it into. There's no guarentee that any of those mutations would occur in your "de-evolved" plant/worm common ancestor.

 

[Wowbagger]

Actually I think it would be impossible because the common ancestor didn't have the mutations that would lead to the development of plants or worms. Once the plant was "de-evolved" to that point, it would have to evolve into an animal, not a plant, bilateral body plan, Protostome embryology, and then into whatever sort of specific worm you were trying to evolve it into. There's no guarentee that any of those mutations would occur in your "de-evolved" plant/worm common ancestor.

It would be a matter of figuring out how to provide the right selection pressures. Not an easy task, of course. But, possible in principal.

The common ancestor between plants and worms was neither a plant nor a worm, but a much more "primitive" form of life. But, from that, both emerged (and, of course, lots of other types of life forms, as well!)

Keep in mind that we do not need to achieve the precise common ancestor, merely something close enough that it can "re-evolve" into another type of life form, in this case an animal such as a worm.

It should be noted that this is NOT an original idea. Richard Dawkins theorizes similar tasks, in a couple of his books.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

It would be a matter of figuring out how to provide the right selection pressures. Not an easy task, of course. But, possible in principal.

We could provide perfect selection pressures and it wouldn't matter one whit if the "de-evolved" plant didn't develop the necessary and proper mutations to turn it into, as I noted, an animal, a bilaterian, a protostome and a worm. That's where I think the achilles heel of this experiment lies.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

We could provide perfect selection pressures and it wouldn't matter one whit if the "de-evolved" plant didn't develop the necessary and proper mutations to turn it into, as I noted, an animal, a bilaterian, a protostome and a worm. That's where I think the achilles heel of this experiment lies.

I've been thinking about this I think I've found a way of overcoming my issues with this thought experiment. Let's say we do "de-evolve" a plant to a point where it's genetically similar to the likely LCA with other Eukaryotes by leaving intact but turning off those genes that make a plant a plant.

That would give us a base organism from which to allow two potential evolutionary tracks and this is where the Creationists will have to accept or reject the outcomes. Instead of trying to evolve the LCA type specifically into a worm, what if we wind up with, say, a radial-bodied, ambulatory being that can photosynthesize if the mutations turn those genes back on. The other track could produce an entirely novel body plan, embryology, source for metabolism, etc. but fits the niche occupied by worms in some way.

Would a Creationist accept that "macro-evolution" had occured if the "de-evolved" LCA type produced these sorts of outcomes instead of a known taxon (to keep it simple how about phylum Annelida)?

 

[Dancing David]

To get a worm I thought you started with a fungus!

 

[Wowbagger]

We could provide perfect selection pressures and it wouldn't matter one whit if the "de-evolved" plant didn't develop the necessary and proper mutations to turn it into, as I noted, an animal, a bilaterian, a protostome and a worm. That's where I think the achilles heel of this experiment lies.

The breeding batches would need to be large enough, so that the appropriate mutations are statistically likely to crop up, at each stage, at each generation.

One issue would be the organelles, such as chloroplasts, etc., which symbiotically merged with the outer cell, according to theory. But, I am sure that, with the right selection pressures, we can undo the relationship. Though, it would take a while.

It will be artificial selection, instead of natural selection, except we would be directly manipulating the environment, more so than the life forms directly.

But, as I state: The Long Way would take too long. I was also wondering if anyone could comment on the shortcut I proposed, or propose their own.

I've been thinking about this I think I've found a way of overcoming my issues with this thought experiment. Let's say we do "de-evolve" a plant to a point where it's genetically similar to the likely LCA with other Eukaryotes by leaving intact but turning off those genes that make a plant a plant.

That could work!

Instead of trying to evolve the LCA type specifically into a worm, what if we wind up with, say, a radial-bodied, ambulatory being that can photosynthesize if the mutations turn those genes back on. The other track could produce an entirely novel body plan, embryology, source for metabolism, etc. but fits the niche occupied by worms in some way.

That might be enough to appease them!

That might not even take quite as long as my Long Way. Though, not as short as the shortcut, either.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I used to be a very uncivilized plant.

 

[sphenisc]

I think most Creationists would insist that the chimpanzee v man divergence would be an example of macroevolution rather than microevolution. If you used this example it would cut your timescale by a factor of a hundred. (There are disadvantages in terms of generation length, but the "iconic" value might outweigh the use of faster reproducing species.)

Secondly rather than retracing all the way down and then up the other side, why not take the direct root. Start off with a population of humans and then select offspring on the basis of direct DNA pattern matching against chimp DNA, closest matches get to breed!

The risk here is that the intermediate abominations would be crossing a part of the fitness "terrain" previously unexplored and may require considerable maintenance to survive and reproduce successfully. This would be a vastly bigger problem in the plant - worm scenario.

 

[Dunstan]

If people want to have fun with this as a thought experiment, I don't mean to spoil it. But nothing will ever satisfy the creationist "leaders." Even if you turned a rose into an aardvark in the laboratory, the Discovery Institute would just say: "see, it takes an intelligent designer to do this -- nature could never pull it off randomly!"

 

[Wowbagger]

I think most Creationists would insist that the chimpanzee v man divergence would be an example of macroevolution rather than microevolution. If you used this example it would cut your timescale by a factor of a hundred. (There are disadvantages in terms of generation length, but the "iconic" value might outweigh the use of faster reproducing species.)

Good point. Though, there may be ethical issues in using chimps and/or humans in this manner. It could work, in principal.

Secondly rather than retracing all the way down and then up the other side, why not take the direct root. Start off with a population of humans and then select offspring on the basis of direct DNA pattern matching against chimp DNA, closest matches get to breed!

I thought about this. It might make a plausible shortcut.

However, I think the best this will demonstrate is convergent evolution: That two species could converge on similar survival solutions; Rather than the creationist macro-evolution: turning a plant into a worm.

I am not even certain the time period would be much shorter, given how many "radical" (but still gradual) changes would need to take place in the genes.

The risk here is that the intermediate abominations would be crossing a part of the fitness "terrain" previously unexplored and may require considerable maintenance to survive and reproduce successfully.

Yes, that would also be an issue.

Though, the reconstruction of past environments, that my long way would require, has also barely been explored.

But nothing will ever satisfy the creationist "leaders."

Yes, this is true. There will always be excuses. But, that does not mean we cannot formulate good answers, anyway:

Even if you turned a rose into an aardvark in the laboratory, the Discovery Institute would just say: "see, it takes an intelligent designer to do this -- nature could never pull it off randomly!"

Ah, but they don't think such a conversion is possible, even in principal. The rose/aardvark responded to selection pressures similar to those of the past: We did not design anything. It designed (and re-designed) itself!

"Randomness" (however you define it) is irrelevant. What prevents nature from achieving this, if it provided the necessary environments in the past?

 

[Jimbo07]

If people want to have fun with this as a thought experiment, I don't mean to spoil it. But nothing will ever satisfy the creationist "leaders." Even if you turned a rose into an aardvark in the laboratory, the Discovery Institute would just say: "see, it takes an intelligent designer to do this -- nature could never pull it off randomly!"

I think you've nailed it. The whole thing is a fundamentally dishonest exercise, anyway.

 

[Dunstan]

Ah, but they don't think such a conversion is possible, even in principal. The rose/aardvark responded to selection pressures similar to those of the past: We did not design anything. It designed (and re-designed) itself!

Oh, I think the IDists believe such a thing is possible, it's just that they think God intervenes.

The YECers perhaps don't, but they'll just move the goalposts, to the extent they don't just ignore it outright. (Witness the fact that we're still hearing "speciation has never been observed" as an argument.)

 

[Wowbagger]

Goalpost migration is not a concern, here. This thought experiment applies to its current placement.

When they move the post, later, we can point to the hole left from its old location, and ask them: How much progress have you made answering our challenges?