The evolution argument

[billydkid]

I have mentioned this before, but nobody seemed impressed by it. Either I didn't express myself clearly or it is something that is already obvious to most people or it could simply be not very interesting of intelligent observation. I have always thought that arguing the evidence with believers (in creation and what not - not believers in evolution which does not require any particular belief) was basically futile. I have always thought that an even more obvious argument and ultimately more persuasive is something like the following:

I think everyone, even religious folks, recognize that mutations happen all the time and are inevitable. Given a truly vast expanse of time (this argument would not work against young earthers who are just completely dim) it is also inevitable that the cumulative effect of millions of years worth of mutations would result in the formation of new species. There is no way it can not happen and not just because it did, but also as a thought experiment. It would require some sort of supernatural intervention to maintain the original integrity of a given gene pool to the extent that speciation does not occur.

It impossible for me to see how anyone could argue, in the absence of divine intervention, that there is any mechanism in nature that could completely prevent the inclination toward the formation of new species. It is impossible to even imagine a natural world in which the formation of new species does not occur. How could it possibly not? It just seems to me, ignoring evidence altogether, that any argument against the formation of new species is ridiculous on its face and not even worthy of consideration. I think it is ridiculous that science is on the defensive on this issue in as much as the counter position is completely unreasonable and no thinking person could reasonably defend it, all the evidence aside.

It seems to me, if we have the argument on this level rather than over the evidence which is conveniently ignorable and "open to interpretation", the creationists, ironically enough, would have a much tougher time defending their position. You wouldn't think so, but I believe the debate over the evidence gives the believers a footing they would not have if we were to argue purely in terms of the rationality of both position. It would become blatantly obvious that the creationist hold their positions purely as a matter of faith - something which creation "science" has done an effective job of obscuring. Does any of this make any sense or does anyone see what what I trying to get at?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It impossible for me to see how anyone could argue, in the absence of divine intervention, that there is any mechanism in nature that could completely prevent the inclination toward the formation of new species.

But fundies do in fact argue exactly this all the time. Indeed, such arguments, witless though they are, are the tinsel jewels in their cardboard crown.

Haven't you seen them babbling on about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and Information Theory, and how mutations "can't produce new information", and how "all mutations are harmful"?

If you could just get the point which you find so obvious into into their hyperossified skulls, that would be half the battle.

 

[Melendwyr]

Technically speaking, a population with enough interbreeding might never actually form new species, even if some members of the larger group might not be able to breed successfully with certain other members. It would require very idealized circumstances and becomes increasingly implausible as time passes.

 

[Taffer]

Haven't you seen them babbling on about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and Information Theory, and how mutations "can't produce new information", and how "all mutations are harmful"?

All of which shows they understand nothing about these things.

 

[Taffer]

Technically speaking, a population with enough interbreeding might never actually form new species, even if some members of the larger group might not be able to breed successfully with certain other members. It would require very idealized circumstances and becomes increasingly implausible as time passes.

Eh? Why wouldn't it? The only way it couldn't would be if there was no change in the environment at all.

 

[Melendwyr]

Eh? Why wouldn't it? The only way it couldn't would be if there was no change in the environment at all.

Not technically true.

Also: are we talking about speciation through time, or within a population?

 

[Taffer]

Not technically true.

Also: are we talking about speciation through time, or within a population?

I assume we are talking about speciation over time.

Although even not, I'd like to see your explanation as to why it isn't technically true?

 

[roger]

Actually, many creationists admit that microevolution occurs, but balk at what they call kinds, which is of course not a biological term. The idea being that of course a dog can be breed into a dalmation or bulldog, but a dog will never turn into a cat. It's a failure of either imagination or of examining the evidence, yes, but I can see why your argument wouldn't be persuasive to somebody who held that microevolution was possible, but not macroevolution.

 

[Melendwyr]

Although even not, I'd like to see your explanation as to why it isn't technically true?

One would expect genetic drift to slowly introduce changes into the population until later members couldn't breed with earlier members. But it's not inevitable, any more than it's impossible for a million tossed coins to all come up heads. It's merely extremely unlikely.

 

[Taffer]

One would expect genetic drift to slowly introduce changes into the population until later members couldn't breed with earlier members. But it's not inevitable, any more than it's impossible for a million tossed coins to all come up heads. It's merely extremely unlikely.

Naturally. If this is what you said in your original post, then I apologise. We are on the same page after all.

ETA: Woah, hang on here. Boy did I read that post badly.

Why is it unlikely? Given a very long time, would there not be an equal chance of speciation as no speciation? Given that mutations are completely random in nature, and happen equally throughout a genome, and that there is no selective pressure.

 

[Fun2BFree]

I would think a more "logical" argument for believers is to ask why they limit God by denying Him evolution as one of his Creations....God works in mysterious ways...the fact that they can't see how evolution could have led to life as we know it is just one of those mysterious ways God works (mysterious to them-just cool to the rest of us) How dare they say God could not evolve the world if that is what God wanted to do...(and apparently said God did-if he had anything to do with it at all-which is not something open to naturalistic investigation anyway...)

 

[kuroyume0161]

Naturally. If this is what you said in your original post, then I apologise. We are on the same page after all.

ETA: Woah, hang on here. Boy did I read that post badly.

Why is it unlikely? Given a very long time, would there not be an equal chance of speciation as no speciation? Given that mutations are completely random in nature, and happen equally throughout a genome, and that there is no selective pressure.

I would ignore these type of arguments. One cannot compare 'tossing of coins' with the interactions of thousands or millions of special members over tens of thousands or millions of years, with billions of molecules in DNA, with thousands of causal agents interacting, with environmental events. These probabilities show a great chance of continued evolution away from isolated predecessors.

Each individual in an interbreeding species has unique chromosomes. The combinatorics of random couplings of these alone is way beyond astronomical. Please argue with me about that - please. Show me that is false. Please....

 

[Taffer]

Um...what?

Are you saying mutation alone would create speciation or are you saying it wouldn't?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Um...what?

Are you saying mutation alone would create speciation or are you saying it wouldn't?

I was going to edit that first sentence. I'm saying that all of the factors, taken together, would more than justify speciation. Coin tossing would require quintillions upon quintillions of tosses to match the combinatorials of just one speciation.

Not just mutation, but mixing of genes, survival to procreate, generations, migration, climate, and many other factors. Melendwyr is trying to make the process simplistic - so much that it seems improbable. It is a definite probability.

ETA: To be perfectly clear, Taffer, I agree with you.

Why anyone can even deny evolution, especially speciation, is beyond me. Would someone who doesn't think that speciation occurs through evolutionary processes please explain the following to me. Why is it that DNA analysis shows that closely related species have closely related DNA and that as special relations diverge, so does the DNA relation? Why is it that closely related species (in the DNA sense) have similar structural forms and common ancestry? Can you find me, say, an insect that has 90% (even 75%) DNA matching to Homo sapiens sapiens (that'd be us - humans)? Why is it that you will never do so?

In other words, I'm throwing the evidence at you to find a reason why evolutionary theory fails to support evidence for evolution (which, by the way, is insurmountable).

 

[Taffer]

Ahh. I was a little confused as you were quoting my post.

I think, though, that Melendwyr is not considering selective pressure. I think his argument goes "by random mutation alone, speciation has a low probability of happening".

 

[kuroyume0161]

Ahh. I was a little confused as you were quoting my post.

I think, though, that Melendwyr is not considering selective pressure. I think his argument goes "by random mutation alone, speciation has a low probability of happening".

Sorry about that. Was trying to elaborate on your post, so included it.

Yes, Melendwyr is being narrow in the process of proving a point. Okay, if we were to remove all other factors, mutation alone may be insufficient to explain speciation (or, it could just take much more frequent mating and longer time periods). But mutation is just one factor among a vast number. I don't know what fallacy this may be, but focusing on one facet and ignoring all others doesn't make for a sound argument! Great hyperbole, but not convincing argumentation.

 

[Taffer]

Sorry about that. Was trying to elaborate on your post, so included it.

Oh. Ok, that makes sense.

Yes, Melendwyr is being narrow in the process of proving a point. Okay, if we were to remove all other factors, mutation alone may be insufficient to explain speciation (or, it could just take much more frequent mating and longer time periods). But mutation is just one factor among a vast number. I don't know what fallacy this may be, but focusing on one facet and ignoring all others doesn't make for a sound argument! Great hyperbole, but not convincing argumentation.

Indeed.

 

[Melendwyr]

Why is it unlikely? Given a very long time, would there not be an equal chance of speciation as no speciation? Given that mutations are completely random in nature, and happen equally throughout a genome, and that there is no selective pressure.

No, it would be far more likely that speciation would eventually take place. It's highly unlikely that it wouldn't - but not strictly impossible.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Technically speaking, a population with enough interbreeding might never actually form new species, even if some members of the larger group might not be able to breed successfully with certain other members. It would require very idealized circumstances and becomes increasingly implausible as time passes.

I'm beginning to suspect that fundies are showing signs of speciation, differentiating from homo sapiens. Evidence that evolution does not necessarily equal "improvement"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I just ask them whether the ID researchers are working to find the biological mechanism that prevents speciation. There's a Nobel for you!

~~ Paul