The Creation/Evolution dividing line

The question that I’d like to try and get an answer for is one that I like to throw into discussions with creationists from time to time, so I thought I’d have a go at giving the issue a topic all of its’ own, as it has implications for a number of aspects of the debate from Intelligent Design to the definition of biblical ‘kinds’. Here goesMost creationists seem to accept that there is a certain degree of variability in life that can be easily explained by the processes of random mutation and selection. My question is this: Where is the line beyond which evolution can be said to have taken over from a creator’s handiwork?In other words, I’d like to try and find out the point at which you find the ToE insufficient to explain life’s diversity. In order to do this without slipping back to the well-worn paths of the micro vs macro debate I’d like people to tackle the question in a specific way: by tracing the phylogenic ‘tree-of-life’ backwards:

• Pick a mammal, any mammal (elephant, human, polar bear — doesn’t really matter)
  ​
• Trace the tree back to the first split in the branches, and ask yourself whether you can accept that a common ancestor could give rise to the species on both sides of the split.
  ​
• If the answer is yes, then proceed to the next split and ask the same question.
  ​
• If the answer is no, then explain why you find that step a problem

Try not to make too large a step each time — any attempt to say that the step between E.coli and P. Pygmaeus is too large will be frowned upon.My position is that when I do this exercise I get to no step at which there is a stumbling block, from man all the way back to the very first self-replicators. Others will obviously have a different view.Where do you draw the line?{This was message 5 of the original proposed topic thread. I am promoting it as the start of a new topic. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-26-2004 12:20 PM

OK, OK Adminnemooseus you were right, it's not even gliding from higher branches!!! Unless of course any creationists out there want to give it a shot?[Ooook sheepishly climbs back up his tree]

OK, let me try and clarify what I would like you to try:Firstly, you accept that Random Mutation and Natural selection have contributed (to some degree) to the variety of species on this planet, right? But being a creationist, you obviously think that there is a limit to what RM and NS can do. I'm trying to get you to define (with the help of the phylogenic tree), where that limit is.
Where do you stop and say, " I can't believe that something could give rise to that and that"Secondly, try (at least at first) to ignore all of the other aspects of the whole EvC debate, like the percieved lack of fossils and the age of the earth. Also try and put any preconcieved ideas about what a 'kind' is or isn't to one side before you start to trace backwards. I just want you to think about how powerful a tool for change RM and NS are.For example, you've mentioned elephants. Can you accept there was a population of 'proto-elephants' (if you like) that, through RM had enough variation to produce modern elephants and mammoths. What about a forerunner to that population which had enough variation to give rise to the whole lot of Elephantiformes (including mastodons etc)? Keep on going until you have to invoke special creation for species on either side of a split in the branches. You've effectively defined a kind. We can then discuss why you can't trace it back any further. Try it again with a number of different start points.Take your time to research it, I don't mind if this thread is a bit of a slow burner (within reason of course ).This message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-01-2004 03:14 PM

True, the tree-of-life website is not very detailed. If you (or anybody else for that matter) can think of a better site that we can use instead to clear up some of the confusion I seem to have seeded then I'd be glad to switch over to using that. Not necessarily. If we get people going "giraffe and no further", or "house mouse and no further", then yes we will need to go into more detail (with extra examples and more links etc), but if they accept for example that all even-toed ungulates shared a common ancestor, but there is no way that Artiodactyla and Cetacea could have arisen from the same stock then the job becomes a bit easier. Then (he says hopefully) people can provide fossil evidence and/or try and persuade others that there isn't that much of a difference.This is where I admit that I don't have the experience or knowledge to provide immediate examples so when someone does get to that stage they might have to wait a while for me to search the internet. Or I could ask for the help from others, who do have the experience and knowledge of course

OK, so you’ve started at whales and decided that they couldn’t have shared a common ancestor with giraffes et al in the Artiodactyla, fair enough — its now time for me to try and dig up a couple of examples of extinct land mammals that looked kind of like whales, and to search for a couple of websites that show the anatomy of whales (so you can try and explain why you think they are so different) — as I pointed out to the great spider-lover this may take some time.In the meantime, do the exercise in reverse. Start at giraffes and ask yourself — can I accept that deer, cattle, goats, sheep, antelopes, giraffe etc all shared a common ancestor and so on. Do you then get back to the same place?

Hello again General, So you did - ooops!I must have misunderstood what you were doing. Can I be presumptious and ask you to backpedal a bit? The idea was to pick one animal and work backwards, not to pick two that you think are totally different and see where the split occurs. That may seem like splitting hairs but it does make a big difference, especially if you do the opposite and start from giraffes. Let me try and explain again:If you've started at dolphins and got to the split between Cetacea and Artiodactyla before answering "nay!" then you've already accepted that whales, dolphins and porpoises came from common stock. If you don't think that this is the case then what are the fundamental differences between them that you think could not have been the product of RM and NS?If you do accept that (at least in theory), then my next question would be why is it so difficult to accept an equatic mammal evolving from a semi-equatic one like the hippopotamus (which is -I think - the closest living relative to whales etc)? Especially as there seems to be evidence of transitional ancestors of whales: talkorigins
Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales
Origins.tvI hope these are alright. Again, if anyone has any better examples (or if these ones are out of date) I would be glad to see them.Sorry about the lack of websites for more general research (I am still looking), for now I would suggest talkorigins for a start point and google if you see something there (or in the original link) that you want to know more about.

Okey Dokey. This is probably the time for me to ask you what you think the limit of random mutation is. For starters would you say that a change in the shape or size of bones and teeth is beyond the reach of simple mutation? Right. Does this mean that you don’t think that deinotherium , trilophodon and gomphotherium could not have evolved from the same population as the ancestors of elephants? If you don’t think that they could, what intrinsic characteristic of each one is beyond the scope of simple mutation?Or can you safely lump together all of Proboscidea as ‘proto-elephants’? In which case we have to go back to the next step. Edit:for missing a word off a quote. Nothing major, but it did cut Robert off in his primeThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-06-2004 06:43 PM

Rob, OK, you know what I'm going to ask next don't you? Let's go back a step. Do you think that Arsinoitherium is from the same animal stock that produced the probiscidea (ie is it a proto-elephant)? If not why not? This is from another of your posts (to Gary), but I want to highlight it because it's quite an interesting position to take. Especially as, if you accept Embrithopoda as being derived from 'proto-elephant' stock (and it looks pretty elephanty to me!), then the next splits are for the extinct Desmostylia, and the not so extinct Sirenia (manatees and sea cows) - both of which are equatic. Would you find this land-to-sea transition acceptable? Again, another interesting statement. In a seminar I recently went to the speaker, as an introduction, started talking about the evolution of skulls and jaws. The take-home message from this was that although there is great variation in skull shapes, all of the examples he showed us (from fish to hippos) are built on the same basic plan, with the same basic parts. The variation was provided by slight changes in size and shape of the different skull parts. It's this kind of change that is suggested by the ToE, and what I hope to try and convey by doing this exercise is that 'micro' and 'macro' changes are one and the same thing, just separated by the timescale involved.ThanksOoook!

Thanks,Darwin's Terrior (I think) suggested this book ages ago, but I never got around to buying it (maybe my avatar should be a three-toed sloth). I'll try and get my arse into gear this time

Does that mean you accept the example in the link I gave you is from 'proto-elephant' stock? I don't think you did follow me, again probably caused by my switching between examples.I noticed that you've accepted that whales came from land mammals in another post and this was especially topical because the next examples after Arsinoitherium-type creatures were equatic as well (manatees being the next living example). We've got quite a way to go before I start bringing whales into the reckoning as they are related to hippos, not elephants (check out the link from the original post). As I keep on trying to say: let's try and keep this going back a step at a time. But lots of small changes accumulating over time is exactly what ToE describes, and what I am trying to get across to you here. You haven't come across any huge changes in shape in our path back from elephants yet have you?

Time to stop being lazy then . Where is the dividing line? Can you do the same with other mammals? When you get to the point where you can't accept small changes were responsible, (and this, I think is the most important thing)...why do you think that? Be specific about the features you have a problem with. But that's exactly my point, when you get so far back, you're not looking at elephant-like, or mannatee-like, you're looking at 'starting-to-look-elephant-like', and 'starting-to-look-manatee like'