Micro- vis-à-vis Macro-Evolution

[phank]

But why?
if it happened once ....

A start is something that can only ever happen once. After that, it's already started.

but, if "reversed direction" happens, like the talk origins horses link allows
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

so, if "branching event" occurs, and the 'daughter' species cannot breed with the parent one, its a new species.
but if reverse evolution occurs and the "two" species can interbreed again, what happens,

do you say , ok, now its the species it used to be

or what if I say, it was never a different "species" to begin with

I would agree with you. Think of a tree, where branches diverge from branches. You NEVER see two branches merging back into one branch later.

What you are doing is playing games with the notion of "species", which is necessarily not a clearly defined term. Generally, it refers to a population of interbreeding individuals. So if they do not interbreed, they are regarded as different species for practical purposes. If they are closely enough related to interbreed and interbreeding resumes, then they are lumped back together. Splitting and lumping happen at the margins, where the various notions of species get fuzzy.

So you are guilty here of black-and-white thinking. Two populations that CAN interbreed if they choose, are close enough that whether they are regarded in practice as different species depends on their current behavior rather than their genetic makeup. But this is not "reverse evolution", it's simply changing behavior. If enough time passes without genetic exchange, then differing mutations in the different populations will accumulate, eventually reaching the point where the populations are too genetically distinct for breeding to be successful. And beyond that point, there is no return.

[Pluto]

Maybe this is the wrong model. The anti-evolutionists see a world of baramins. Gene flow within a baramin is expected, gene flow between baramins is prohibited. And what determines a baramin? Ah, there's some considerable creationist "research" into this question. My understanding is, horses and zebras are in different baramins, but all bacteria are in the same one. In general, baramins are careful to distinguish among large mammals, less careful about insects. Baramins have no real correspondence to Linnaean taxonomic levels, and can divide subspecies familiar to us while including entire phyla not so familiar.

I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. You can see this in these two articles that we think horses and zebras are the same kind:

http://creation.com/zebra-or-horse-a-zorse-of-course (Popular level, explicit claim of being of being the same kind.)

https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ian-ark-kinds/ (More technical, search for "Horse" or "Equidae" for the horse section which states there is only one horse kind, of which I'd assume zebras are a subdivision.)

There might have been a bit of confusion previously though on whether infertile hybrids represented proof of the same kind, but my memory is fuzzy on that point. Ring species would put a damper on that sort of restriction though, and creationists do like to be as consistent as possible. I'm also pretty sure the standard creationist line is that baramins are typically family/order level, with some variation. If Klaus wishes to be entertained by what creationist do with these sorts of things (The 'research' mentioned), this

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-a...the-ark-kinds/

appears to be an overview of what they try to do, while

https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...kinds-results/
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ian-ark-kinds/

and the mammalian ark kinds paper mentioned above are some examples of it. I found a remarkably large amount of these sorts of papers, I didn't realize how many had been worked on. They are a bit lacking in the insect/plant/bacteria area though, I think they are starting with the low-hanging fruit before getting into the more messy categories.

[phank]

I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins.

Since a "baramin" is an entirely arbitrary category irrelevant to any natural taxonomy, the distinction is unimportant.

Your links to "AnswersInBozoland" lack any relevance to reality, so there's no reason to do anything but laugh at them. If you personally are married to such idiocy, then god bless you. Certainly no sane people will.

[HMS_Beagle]

I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. You can see this in these two articles that we think horses and zebras are the same kind:

http://creation.com/zebra-or-horse-a-zorse-of-course (Popular level, explicit claim of being of being the same kind.)

https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ian-ark-kinds/ (More technical, search for "Horse" or "Equidae" for the horse section which states there is only one horse kind, of which I'd assume zebras are a subdivision.)

There might have been a bit of confusion previously though on whether infertile hybrids represented proof of the same kind, but my memory is fuzzy on that point. Ring species would put a damper on that sort of restriction though, and creationists do like to be as consistent as possible. I'm also pretty sure the standard creationist line is that baramins are typically family/order level, with some variation. If Klaus wishes to be entertained by what creationist do with these sorts of things (The 'research' mentioned), this

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-a...the-ark-kinds/

appears to be an overview of what they try to do, while

https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...kinds-results/
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ian-ark-kinds/

and the mammalian ark kinds paper mentioned above are some examples of it. I found a remarkably large amount of these sorts of papers, I didn't realize how many had been worked on. They are a bit lacking in the insect/plant/bacteria area though, I think they are starting with the low-hanging fruit before getting into the more messy categories.

Hi Pluto, and welcome to the monkey house.

Is it your opinion that all extant equines evolved from the original horse "kind" on the Ark in the last 4500 years? What about all the extinct fossil horses we find? How do they fit into the YEC picture?

[Truthseeker]

Pluto, welcome. Sorry about your rocky start in TWeb.

[klaus54]

I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) think that zebras and horses are different baramins. You can see this in these two articles that we think horses and zebras are the same kind:

http://creation.com/zebra-or-horse-a-zorse-of-course (Popular level, explicit claim of being of being the same kind.)

https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ian-ark-kinds/ (More technical, search for "Horse" or "Equidae" for the horse section which states there is only one horse kind, of which I'd assume zebras are a subdivision.)

There might have been a bit of confusion previously though on whether infertile hybrids represented proof of the same kind, but my memory is fuzzy on that point. Ring species would put a damper on that sort of restriction though, and creationists do like to be as consistent as possible. I'm also pretty sure the standard creationist line is that baramins are typically family/order level, with some variation. If Klaus wishes to be entertained by what creationist do with these sorts of things (The 'research' mentioned), this

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-a...the-ark-kinds/

appears to be an overview of what they try to do, while

https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...kinds-results/
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ian-ark-kinds/

and the mammalian ark kinds paper mentioned above are some examples of it. I found a remarkably large amount of these sorts of papers, I didn't realize how many had been worked on. They are a bit lacking in the insect/plant/bacteria area though, I think they are starting with the low-hanging fruit before getting into the more messy categories.

I didn't ask about "baraminology", although that came up in the discussion. I asked what prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. Where is the boundary? What kind of boundary is it? Genetic?

The artificial and undefinable notion of a "baramin" simply evades the question. The genetic code is the same in all these baramins, so what would prevent evolution among separate baramins?

Getting back to reality, consider the good old Linnaean system. At what taxonomic level does micro-evolution run into its pons asinorum? And why? What mechanism prevents the bridge crossing?

If any the YEC "ministries" answer these questions, please provide the answer here in your own words. It should be simple enough.

Thanks!

K54

[Pluto]

Hi Pluto, and welcome to the monkey house.

Is it your opinion that all extant equines evolved from the original horse "kind" on the Ark in the last 4500 years? What about all the extinct fossil horses we find? How do they fit into the YEC picture?

I'm pretty sure you know that the standard creationist line is 'yes' to the first question, assuming the analysis provided is right and there is only one horse kind. My knowledge of fossils is too limited to give an exact answer, but if they occurred after the end-of-flood boundary, they would be considered descendants of the ark riders, and if they are before the end-of-flood boundary they are examples of the horse kind that died in the flood. I doubt either of these options are new to you. Guessing the obvious next question, the location of the end-of-flood boundary is a matter of dispute at the current time, and I haven't worked out where I think the best location is. My knowledge of geology is more limited than I'd like it to be, so most question on that topic will likely be met with fairly limited and boring responses that you've already heard before. I'm better equipped to deal with weirder theoretical questions(What is a baramin type question) than specific examples, though I'm willing to look up articles on random topics if you want a cursory overview of what YECs hold to. (Assuming this doesn't take too much time.)

And lol, looks like the monkey house has already started. Didn't even get the time of day before it began.

@Phank

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me), I'd guess that is a significant motivator for you as well. When I present a link to answers in genesis, I do it with the full knowledge that most people on the board think they are idiots. I furthermore would do it primarily to correct misunderstandings of the creationist positions. Wouldn't you rather demolish the stupidity of what I actually believe than the tent next door? If you do both (Have a good laugh and a slightly better understanding of YEC unorthodoxy), then I have served my humble purpose.

[klaus54]

I'm pretty sure you know that the standard creationist line is 'yes' to the first question, assuming the analysis provided is right and there is only one horse kind. My knowledge of fossils is too limited to give an exact answer, but if they occurred after the end-of-flood boundary, they would be considered descendants of the ark riders, and if they are before the end-of-flood boundary they are examples of the horse kind that died in the flood. I doubt either of these options are new to you. Guessing the obvious next question, the location of the end-of-flood boundary is a matter of dispute at the current time, and I haven't worked out where I think the best location is. My knowledge of geology is more limited than I'd like it to be, so most question on that topic will likely be met with fairly limited and boring responses that you've already heard before. I'm better equipped to deal with weirder theoretical questions(What is a baramin type question) than specific examples, though I'm willing to look up articles on random topics if you want a cursory overview of what YECs hold to. (Assuming this doesn't take too much time.)

And lol, looks like the monkey house has already started. Didn't even get the time of day before it began.

@Phank

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me), I'd guess that is a significant motivator for you as well. When I present a link to answers in genesis, I do it with the full knowledge that most people on the board think they are idiots. I furthermore would do it primarily to correct misunderstandings of the creationist positions. Wouldn't you rather demolish the stupidity of what I actually believe than the tent next door? If you do both (Have a good laugh and a slightly better understanding of YEC unorthodoxy), then I have served my humble purpose.

Monkey house indeed.

If equine fossils are post flood, you're talking VERY rapid evolution, much faster than evolutonists could imagine.

And if "baramins" are delineated at the order/class level that's WAY beyond the YEC notion of micro-evolution.

Inconsistency on steroids!

So assuming the "baramin" notion of micro-evolution, what's the evolutionary boundary between class and phylum?

I'd hate to conclude that Biblical Scientific Creationists are making this up as they go.

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm pretty sure you know that the standard creationist line is 'yes' to the first question, assuming the analysis provided is right and there is only one horse kind.

Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes
Common horses have 64 chromosomes
Donkeys have 62 chromosomes
Onagers have 56 chromosomes
Grevy's zebra has 46 chromosomes
Burchell's zebra has 44 chromosomes
Mountain zebras have 32 chromosomes.

How did they all get so wildly divergent in just 4500 years?

My knowledge of fossils is too limited to give an exact answer, but if they occurred after the end-of-flood boundary, they would be considered descendants of the ark riders, and if they are before the end-of-flood boundary they are examples of the horse kind that died in the flood. I doubt either of these options are new to you. Guessing the obvious next question, the location of the end-of-flood boundary is a matter of dispute at the current time, and I haven't worked out where I think the best location is. My knowledge of geology is more limited than I'd like it to be, so most question on that topic will likely be met with fairly limited and boring responses that you've already heard before.

Fair enough, but if you can't identify the end-of-flood boundary how can you know which were "kinds" on the Ark? Isn't that piece of data absolutely critical to baraminology?

I'm better equipped to deal with weirder theoretical questions(What is a baramin type question) than specific examples, though I'm willing to look up articles on random topics if you want a cursory overview of what YECs hold to. (Assuming this doesn't take too much time.)

Do what you can but be sure it's fun.

[klaus54]

...
@Phank

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me), I'd guess that is a significant motivator for you as well. When I present a link to answers in genesis, I do it with the full knowledge that most people on the board think they are idiots. I furthermore would do it primarily to correct misunderstandings of the creationist positions. Wouldn't you rather demolish the stupidity of what I actually believe than the tent next door? If you do both (Have a good laugh and a slightly better understanding of YEC unorthodoxy), then I have served my humble purpose.

Are you interested in finding truth or defending an inconsistent hodge-podge of ad hoc nonsense?

If you think that we think these YEC "ministries" are idiots, then why do you suppose we think that? Ideology? Or perhaps geologic, biogeographical, and genetic evidence? You DO realize that scientific method is based on observations and testing? How does the evidence fit baraminology? Heck, since "baramins" are undefined and arbitrary, science doesn't apply.

Baraminology appeareth to me to be scholastic bellybutton pondering -- like how many angels can dance on the head of a brad.

Since you seem to be amused by our questions, here's another howler for ya: What is "consilience"? How does science use that concept?

K54

[Pluto]

I didn't ask about "baraminology", although that came up in the discussion. I asked what prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. Where is the boundary? What kind of boundary is it? Genetic?

The artificial and undefinable notion of a "baramin" simply evades the question. The genetic code is the same in all these baramins, so what would prevent evolution among separate baramins?

Getting back to reality, consider the good old Linnaean system. At what taxonomic level does micro-evolution run into its pons asinorum? And why? What mechanism prevents the bridge crossing?

If any the YEC "ministries" answer these questions, please provide the answer here in your own words. It should be simple enough.

Thanks!

K54

I'll do the best that I can to explain this, though it will involve propositions that I doubt you'd buy. I shall assume that the boundary of micro-evolution is the boundary of a YEC baramin for the purposes of this post, since cross-baramin jumping is what is forbidden in YEC biology.(I'll talk about this a little more deeply in a little bit)

First, since this is short, there is no hard and fast rule for where the cutoff is in comparison to Linnaen system. While a YEC will typically cite the family/order level, I'm pretty sure there are going to be very odd exceptions occasionally.

Before I get how you go about checking whether two things are a baramin or not, I'll briefly answer the boundary question. I'll write a second post after I've gone to sleep. There are actually two answers to this question, a what and a why. The why is the off-mentioned concept of information. I doubt this'll have any traction with you, other than linking together YEC concepts. The what is likely considerably more interesting to you.

I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of a fitness landscape? A massive description of the viability of any genetic/epigenetic combination in any particular situation? (Maybe this isn't an accurate assessment, but I'm willing to try and correct if it's confusing or I'm messing up terminology) Natural selection refers primarily to an organism's response to it's current position: If the viability is high, the population at that position will produce more children and become more prevalent, if the viability is low, more will die off and other positions will become more dominant. Mutation and other effects like horizontal gene transfer alter the total distribution of the population by permitting shifts in position. (Though typically only of their offspring for genetic cases)

More the most part, both of these work the same between YEC and non-YEC positions. The real battleground is the structure of the fitness landscape. It should be clear that mutations/etc and natural selection do not have unlimited power: They are not IWIN buttons that instantly take the organism to the point of highest viability. They are predominately local: not permitting huge jumps for the most part. Thus, the structure of the fitness landscape is important to understanding how an population will alter and shift. If you'll permit some analogizing... Is it composed of many islands of viability surrounded by large oceans of death? Or is it more like a continent covered in mountains with an occasion lake? I would claim that the former would preclude most forms of common descent, while the later would permit them. If there are large regions where nothing can survive between two viable points, no local shifts can get from one point to the other. If all known lifeforms are part of a continent(And it is sufficiently large), then given enough time the population will spread out over the whole thing, and evolution has occurred.

If I'm going to be a bit idiosyncratic about my definition of a baramin, then any island/continent that is mutationally/naturally selectionally locked is a baramin. This'll obviously imply that if you want to create an unholy fusion of common descent and baraminology, all life currently known is a single baramin. YEC's will clearly claim that there are many baramins, and thus many islands. (Typically arguing for this at least in part via an information-implies-death-gaps/my-religion-says-so sort of way.) I'm running out of time now, so I'll end this here. Before everybody goes to town on the YEC claim of many baramins, I'd like to have a discussion about my understanding of fitness landscapes. (Is is mostly right? Totally wrong?) If we can't get any good discussion there, any later discussion is probably pointless.

Note: Too many posts! Can't respond to them all at this time, sorry about that.

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of a fitness landscape? A massive description of the viability of any genetic/epigenetic combination in any particular situation? (Maybe this isn't an accurate assessment, but I'm willing to try and correct if it's confusing or I'm messing up terminology) Natural selection refers primarily to an organism's response to it's current position: If the viability is high, the population at that position will produce more children and become more prevalent, if the viability is low, more will die off and other positions will become more dominant. Mutation and other effects like horizontal gene transfer alter the total distribution of the population by permitting shifts in position. (Though typically only of their offspring for genetic cases)

More the most part, both of these work the same between YEC and non-YEC positions. The real battleground is the structure of the fitness landscape. It should be clear that mutations/etc and natural selection do not have unlimited power: They are not IWIN buttons that instantly take the organism to the point of highest viability. They are predominately local: not permitting huge jumps for the most part. Thus, the structure of the fitness landscape is important to understanding how an population will alter and shift. If you'll permit some analogizing... Is it composed of many islands of viability surrounded by large oceans of death? Or is it more like a continent covered in mountains with an occasion lake? I would claim that the former would preclude most forms of common descent, while the later would permit them. If there are large regions where nothing can survive between two viable points, no local shifts can get from one point to the other. If all known lifeforms are part of a continent(And it is sufficiently large), then given enough time the population will spread out over the whole thing, and evolution has occurred.

If I'm going to be a bit idiosyncratic about my definition of a baramin, then any island/continent that is mutationally/naturally selectionally locked is a baramin. This'll obviously imply that if you want to create an unholy fusion of common descent and baraminology, all life currently known is a single baramin. YEC's will clearly claim that there are many baramins, and thus many islands. (Typically arguing for this at least in part via an information-implies-death-gaps/my-religion-says-so sort of way.) I'm running out of time now, so I'll end this here. Before everybody goes to town on the YEC claim of many baramins, I'd like to have a discussion about my understanding of fitness landscapes. (Is is mostly right? Totally wrong?) If we can't get any good discussion there, any later discussion is probably pointless.

A few quick points

1. Your description of the fitness landscape is a lot like the ID position put forth by Dembski. Unfortunately you are making the same mistake he does. You visualize the fitness peak as a 3-D structure with deep valleys between and no way to cross. But in the real world the fitness peaks are n-dimentional with n ranging in the hundreds if not thousands. Most paths may be too difficult for evolution to cross but it only takes 1 out of the n to provide a viable pathway.

2. You also assume the local fitness peaks are stationary. They are not. In a constantly changing environment the peaks are constantly shifting. There may exist a window of opportunity where two peaks converge closely enough to let an otherwise uncrossable gap be crossed.

3. It has been empirically shown that some individuals can sustain deleterious mutations which move them to a lower fitness level. However, at this lower level they now have new upward paths to different peaks that weren't accessible from the old peak. One step back two steps forward works fine in evolution.

Note: Too many posts! Can't respond to them all at this time, sorry about that.

I'm pretty bushed too and tomorrow is a long day. Interesting topic though.

[Jorge]

... looks like the monkey house has already started.

Yeah, "monkey house" ... but also a snake pit - watch yourself!

I'm here mostly for entertainment's sake (I doubt anybody is going to be convinced by me)

"Entertainment"? Yes, absolutely, listening to the unending nonsense of 'these' people can be highly entertaining, just as rattling their cage and watching them go ape-wild is funny as all can be.

"... anyone convinced by you"? There's always a chance, be it ever so infinitesimal. What 'they' are really interested in is convincing you that (1) you are wrong and, (2) they are right (in reference to their "science" and their worldview). I hope and pray that the chances of that are infinitesimal-squared.

Jorge

[klaus54]

I'll do the best that I can to explain this, though it will involve propositions that I doubt you'd buy. I shall assume that the boundary of micro-evolution is the boundary of a YEC baramin for the purposes of this post, since cross-baramin jumping is what is forbidden in YEC biology.(I'll talk about this a little more deeply in a little bit)

First, since this is short, there is no hard and fast rule for where the cutoff is in comparison to Linnaen system. While a YEC will typically cite the family/order level, I'm pretty sure there are going to be very odd exceptions occasionally.

Before I get how you go about checking whether two things are a baramin or not, I'll briefly answer the boundary question. I'll write a second post after I've gone to sleep. There are actually two answers to this question, a what and a why. The why is the off-mentioned concept of information. I doubt this'll have any traction with you, other than linking together YEC concepts. The what is likely considerably more interesting to you.

I'm assuming you are familiar with the concept of a fitness landscape? A massive description of the viability of any genetic/epigenetic combination in any particular situation? (Maybe this isn't an accurate assessment, but I'm willing to try and correct if it's confusing or I'm messing up terminology) Natural selection refers primarily to an organism's response to it's current position: If the viability is high, the population at that position will produce more children and become more prevalent, if the viability is low, more will die off and other positions will become more dominant. Mutation and other effects like horizontal gene transfer alter the total distribution of the population by permitting shifts in position. (Though typically only of their offspring for genetic cases)

More the most part, both of these work the same between YEC and non-YEC positions. The real battleground is the structure of the fitness landscape. It should be clear that mutations/etc and natural selection do not have unlimited power: They are not IWIN buttons that instantly take the organism to the point of highest viability. They are predominately local: not permitting huge jumps for the most part. Thus, the structure of the fitness landscape is important to understanding how an population will alter and shift. If you'll permit some analogizing... Is it composed of many islands of viability surrounded by large oceans of death? Or is it more like a continent covered in mountains with an occasion lake? I would claim that the former would preclude most forms of common descent, while the later would permit them. If there are large regions where nothing can survive between two viable points, no local shifts can get from one point to the other. If all known lifeforms are part of a continent(And it is sufficiently large), then given enough time the population will spread out over the whole thing, and evolution has occurred.

If I'm going to be a bit idiosyncratic about my definition of a baramin, then any island/continent that is mutationally/naturally selectionally locked is a baramin. This'll obviously imply that if you want to create an unholy fusion of common descent and baraminology, all life currently known is a single baramin. YEC's will clearly claim that there are many baramins, and thus many islands. (Typically arguing for this at least in part via an information-implies-death-gaps/my-religion-says-so sort of way.) I'm running out of time now, so I'll end this here. Before everybody goes to town on the YEC claim of many baramins, I'd like to have a discussion about my understanding of fitness landscapes. (Is is mostly right? Totally wrong?) If we can't get any good discussion there, any later discussion is probably pointless.

Note: Too many posts! Can't respond to them all at this time, sorry about that.

Thanks for the thoughtful and polite response.

I understand fitness landscapes pretty well, but don't get your point, which still seems not to address mine.

Speciation occurs within a fitness landscape either sympatrically or with geographical boundaries. Speciation is ALL that occurs. No one claims (AFAIK) than new genera form without first speciation events.

My question still is, what prevents evolution, given enough time, from producing new genera, orders, classes, and phyla?

The baramin concept doesn't help with this question. It just makes the issue more confusing.

Also keep in mind that Earth has been geologically active for at least 4 billion years. Land bodies and oceans have dramatically changed position and elemental proportions, the atmosphere has changed it percents of gases, oceans have changed amounts of dissolved gases, climate has dramatically changed, and types of producers have changed -- over the billions of years timeframe.

The fitness landscapes have changed over time, sometimes very slowly (on the order of several millions of years) or drastically (like in a meteor impact, etc.)

Thanks again!

K54

[klaus54]

Yeah, "monkey house" ... but also a snake pit - watch yourself!




"Entertainment"? Yes, absolutely, listening to the unending nonsense of 'these' people can be highly entertaining, just as rattling their cage and watching them go ape-wild is funny as all can be.

"... anyone convinced by you"? There's always a chance, be it ever so infinitesimal. What 'they' are really interested in is convincing you that (1) you are wrong and, (2) they are right (in reference to their "science" and their worldview). I hope and pray that the chances of that are infinitesimal-squared.

Jorge

Pluto is doing well on his own. He doesn't need your caveats.

I'm VERY pleased that he is engaging the topic in polite and thoughtful conversation. I.e., he's trying to deal with the topic on a level other than Bible-thumping and insults.

K54