Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
34 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (7 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,486 Year: 20,522/19,786 Month: 919/2,023 Week: 427/392 Day: 43/74 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 5 of 785 (854640)
06-11-2019 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
06-11-2019 2:51 AM


Dredge writes:

I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

"I often hear people claim how they "know how to drive." If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, combustion engines work flawlessly with the electronics in a modern vehicle."

Your test doesn't align with the claim.
Although it's possible for someone to know how to drive as well as know how engines and electronics work - such a connection isn't required in any way.
That is - even if someone could explain your 'rodent-to-whale breeding' - it wouldn't necessarily mean that they understand how macroevolution occurs.
Such a misalignment only shows your own lack of knowledge about both the claim and the test.

If you want to learn how macroevolution occurs - you should start by asking how macroevolution occurs.
The answer begins relatively simply: Natural selection + mutations + time.

Please note there's no mention of breeding or producing anything specific.

The explanation of your test, however, also begins relatively simply:
1. Start with a very large population of rodents - equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
2. Provide an environment equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
3. Provide selection pressures equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
4. Wait for the populations to reproduce and evolve due to selection pressures and mutations.
5. If the progressive evolution of the rodent into a whale isn't matching what occurred the 1 time it previously happened at any point in the "unlimited time" available for the breeding - kill off all creatures and begin again at step 1.
-due to the random nature of mutations, this is expected to occur many, many times before it matches the 1 time it previously happened again.
6. Viola - a large population of whales.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 06-11-2019 2:51 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 11:57 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 785 (854735)
06-12-2019 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
06-11-2019 3:28 PM


Percy writes:

But you said "given unlimited time," so Stile suggested an experimental program (it would have to last for billions and billions of years) that could be repeated over and over and over again until a rodent evolved into a whale. But this program would never be successful because of several problems. First, whales didn't evolve from rodents but from a now extinct ungulate (a hoofed animal), i.e., it no longer exists. Second, even if this ungulate did exist, because mutations are random repeating the experiment is unlikely to produce whales, just as Stile suggested, except it's even more unlikely than that. I think the universe would end first. Third, even if this original ungulate did exist, we couldn't keep it unchanged from one run of the experiment to the next because it would evolve too. The only way to actually run the experiment is to begin with an infinite number of ungulates and run an infinite number of these experiments simultaneously. And Fourth, we don't know the details of the changing environments that occurred in sequence, including the now extinct plants and creatures that populated them. Even if we did, they don't exist anymore. That is, we don't know what the selection pressures were, and even if we did we couldn't reproduce them.

Absolutely.

I just didn't add in all the minor trifles to my explanation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 06-11-2019 3:28 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 104 of 785 (854835)
06-13-2019 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dredge
06-12-2019 11:57 PM


Dredge writes:

Stile writes:

Your test doesn't align with the claim.

The fact of the matter is, if you don’t know how to breed ancients “rodents” into a whale, you don’t know how whales evolved and you don't know how macroevolution occurs.

Of course not.
One can easily know how macroevolution occurs without knowing how to breed ancient "rodents" into a whale.

quote:
If you want to learn how macroevolution occurs - you should start by asking how macroevolution occurs.
The answer begins relatively simply: Natural selection + mutations + time.

By Stile in Message 5


Just as one can easily know how electricity works without knowing how to build a nuclear power plant (thanks, Tanypteryx!)

Your "fact" is contradicted by reality.
Really puts a damper on your credibility.

Dredge writes:

Point 1 makes some sense - except you have absolutely no idea how large the rodent population must be. So there’s problem No. 1 for any potential breeding program. If you don’t know how large the initial population must be, this means your knowledge of how macroevolution occurs is based on a certain degree of ignorance and guesswork.
Points 2-4 are irrelevant - artificial selection means you don’t need to reply on natural selection. If you don’t know how to artificially select the rodents you need to breed them towards whale-ness, this demonstrates that you don’t know how your alleged evolution occurred.

Point 5 indicates that you don’t know how an ancient “rodent” evolved to eventually become a whale. You’re just stabbing in the dark and hoping for the best.

Point 6 indicates that your so-called knowledge of whale evolution and how macroevolution occurs is childishly simplistic, based on blind faith and pseudo-science.

Your issues are all about specifics that don't matter for knowing how macroevolution works.
Your issues are about detailed specifics on the precise microevolution steps on how rodent-to-whale evolution happened. All of such detailed specifics aren't known, and aren't need to be known in order to understand the macroevolution involved.

You were the one who said "unlimited time" was available.
In "unlimited time" all these items can be figured out.
-population size not large enough? -start over with a larger initial population
-mutations not occurring to produce the following stages as the fossil record shows? -start over and allow the random mutations to try again
-just keep trying, over and over, until the random mutations duplicate what they did before -if it doesn't work, start over and try again
-use breeding-selection instead of natural selection to keep the large-enough populations that naturally mutate according to the fossil record
-voila - a large population of whales

Your credibility dives once again - this time caught by your own rule

Therefore, the answer to your question on the macroevolution involved in going from rodent-to-whale still stands, no changes required:

quote:
The explanation of your test, however, also begins relatively simply:
1. Start with a very large population of rodents - equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
2. Provide an environment equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
3. Provide selection pressures equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
4. Wait for the populations to reproduce and evolve due to selection pressures and mutations.
5. If the progressive evolution of the rodent into a whale isn't matching what occurred the 1 time it previously happened at any point in the "unlimited time" available for the breeding - kill off all creatures and begin again at step 1.
-due to the random nature of mutations, this is expected to occur many, many times before it matches the 1 time it previously happened again.
6. Viola - a large population of whales.

By Stile in Message 5


You need to work on your replies.
You very rarely make a reply that requires a change in the post you replied to.
You seem unable to point out any issues that actually matter.
Only issues that are made up. Such irrelevant protests are easily swept aside simply by repeating the correct answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 11:57 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019