[__ Science __ ] Is Natural Selection at Odds with Creation?

[AIG.com]

The young-earth creationist view has been so maligned in popular culture that many people think creationists deny basic facts of life.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

It's encouraging that AiG now acknowledges speciation and natural selection. They remain a bit confused about what "evolution" means. In biology, the scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population." More simply, it's what Darwin called it; "descent with modification."

If I remember correctly, AiG realizes that natural selection is not evolution. It's an agency of evolution. I'm not sure if they realize that common descent is not evolution, either. It's a consequence of evolution. And I do note that they acknowledge a limited amount of common descent, but not all of it.

 

[Black Reformer]

It's encouraging that AiG now acknowledges speciation and natural selection

AIG have always acknowledged that specie adaptation and variation is a scientific fact. What they will not acknowledge is that specie adaptation and variation is micro evolution.

Evolution is clearly and ONLY macro evolution, but there is zero evidence for macro evolution other than people's bias interpretations of the evidence, which forces evolutionists to coin the term "micro evolution" and include it, so as to lend credence to this scientific theory.

 

[Black Reformer]

They remain a bit confused about what "evolution" means

You do realize that AIG have scientists, and that some of those scientists use to be Atheists who believed that evolution was a scientific fact

 

[John Doe Smith]

Hi there. Just want to clarify something. By "macro-evolution", you're referring to speciation, right? Speciation is the process of one species splitting into multiple, "descending". A species is defined as a population which is capable of breeding and producing viable offspring with each other. That's it. The line is pretty weak. One species is only separated by another by this tenuous condition.

Mutations and allele are both causes of speciation. Interbreeding can be prevented by physical separation, physical and behavioral incompatibilities and chromosomal differences. A extra or missing chromosome(aneuploidy) wont necessarily make an animal at a disadvantage. We mostly pay attention to the disorders chromsonal abnormality causes, but these abnormalities often don't cause issues. Especially in non-humans. Over very long periods, the average number of chromosomes a member of a population has can change, which may effect which parent's genes can be transcribed in a way that produces viable offspring.

You also can't forget, Darwin was wrong about plenty of things and the current understanding of evolution isn't represented by his book.

Here's an intersting story about a man with 44 chromosomes and no symptoms. Except it wouldn't be easy for him to reproduce with a normal woman.

Ask a Geneticist - The Tech Interactive

genetics.thetech.org

 

[Barbarian]

You do realize that AIG have scientists, and that some of those scientists use to be Atheists who believed that evolution was a scientific fact

Odd then, that they don't know what "evolution" means. Darwin's definition is "descent with modification" which is true. The more precise modern definition is "change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Which is also directly observed.

My guess is that they've confused agencies of evolution, like natural selection, with the actual phenomenon of evolution. Possibly, they've confused evolution with consequences of evolution like common descent.

This is all the more puzzling, since AiG recognizes the fact of natural selection, and admits a limited amount of common descent, including new species, genera, and families.

Do you know of any AiG staff with doctorates in biology who don't recognize these facts?

 

[Barbarian]

AIG have always acknowledged that specie adaptation and variation is a scientific fact. What they will not acknowledge is that specie adaptation and variation is micro evolution.

I believe that they do recognize microevolution.

Evolution is clearly and ONLY macro evolution

No. The scientific definition is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So both microevolution (change within a species) and macroevolution (new species) is directly observed, and evolution.

but there is zero evidence for macro evolution other than people's bias interpretations of the evidence, which forces evolutionists to coin the term "micro evolution" and include it, so as to lend credence to this scientific theory.

As you will discover if you check their website, AiG admits new species, genera, and families form from existing species. They just don't want to use the "E-word" to describe it. But that is the scientific definition.

 

[Barbarian]

Hi there. Just want to clarify something. By "macro-evolution", you're referring to speciation, right?

That is what scientists mean by "macroevolution."

Speciation is the process of one species splitting into multiple, "descending". A species is defined as a population which is capable of breeding and producing viable offspring with each other. That's it. The line is pretty weak. One species is only separated by another by this tenuous condition.

Yes, and it's a serious problem for creationism. If creationism were true, there would be nice, definable boundaries between taxa. But there are all sorts of intermediate cases, as Darwin pointed out in his book. No creationist has found a satisfactory answer for this. And YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, it's almost as daunting a challenge as the many, many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Mutations and allele are both causes of speciation.

What do you think "allele" means? That sentence seems meaningless.

Interbreeding can be prevented by physical separation, physical and behavioral incompatibilities and chromosomal differences. A extra or missing chromosome(aneuploidy) wont necessarily make an animal at a disadvantage.

It's generally lethal or disabling in animals, but less so in other kingdoms. Aneuploidy is a common form of macroevolution in plants, for example.

There is one possible case of polyploidy speciation in mammals,but the evidence is ambiguous.

We mostly pay attention to the disorders chromsonal abnormality causes, but these abnormalities often don't cause issues. Especially in non-humans.[/quote]

It's usually a very bad thing, but can actually be an agency of evolution in some cases. Humans differ from other apes by a chromosome fusion, for example.

You also can't forget, Darwin was wrong about plenty of things

He thought inheritance was humoral, rather than particulate, for example.

and the current understanding of evolution isn't represented by his book.

His four basic claims remain validated as much as ever. But he had some things wrong. Most notably, he knew nothing of genetics, as Mendel's discoveries were not well-known until the 20th century. Too bad, since genetics cleared up a very difficult problem in his theory. Would you like to talk about that?

Here's an intersting story about a man with 44 chromosomes and no symptoms. Except it wouldn't be easy for him to reproduce with a normal woman.

Interesting case. He's not missing any genetic material; he's got both chromosome 14s fused with chromosomes 15. So he has the same genes as everyone else, but of course, at meiosis, the gametes wouldn't form a viable embryo with a normal human egg. Or rather are highly unlikely to do so.