Why Macroevolution is a Dumb Idea - A Summary

[bob b]

I will try off the top of my head to sum up the major points in the argument against macroevolution.

1) The fossil record, according to paleontologists like Gould, Eldridge, Stanley, etc. is one of abrupt appearance of new types, followed by long periods of minor change, followed in many cases by extinction. In other words the previously expected trillions of gradually graded small changes between major types are essentially absent from the fossil record.

2) Even the simplist life forms known contain dozens of complex feedback control systems. Evolutionists avoid talking about such things by arguing that "evolution does not deal with abiogenesis", thus ignoring the most important questions such as "how did a coded information system like DNA first form?, and "how can a feedback control system evolve via small changes?" or even "how did that first protocell function without DNA or control systems?"

BTW, evolutionists would say that these two observations should be barred from the classroom, because "they are in effect teaching Intelligent Design, a religious idea".

 

[Johnny]

You may be delighted to know that both of these observations (1, and the first sentence of 2) are taught in General Biology 1. You also may be interested in knowing that possible answers are provided.

I'm not sure how much merit your "barred from the classroom" criticism has, because in my experience at a large public university, both observations were taught to me the first semester of my first year.

 

[bob b]

You may be delighted to know that both of these observations (1, and the first sentence of 2) are taught in General Biology 1. You also may be interested in knowing that possible answers are provided.

I'm not sure how much merit your "barred from the classroom" criticism has, because in my experience at a large public university, both observations were taught to me the first semester of my first year.

Too bad they are absent from grade and high schools, PBS, and the rest of the media.

So why not tell us what excuses are used to ignore my observations.

(Thank God we still have the internet).

 

[Johnny]

Too bad they are absent from grade and high schools, PBS, and the rest of the media.

To my (limited) knowledge, the theory of evolution is not taught in grade school in any detail. I'd be suprised if the subject received more than an honorable mention in an elementary school science classroom. Many of the concepts are not easy concepts, and I cannot see it being taught with any detail before the 8th or 9th grade.

With respect to public high school, my experience is limited to the experience of my friends, as I attended a private highschool which chose to teach me creationism. However, my best friend was taught about punctuated equilibrium in his high school biology class, which directly implies that #1 was taught. Furthermore, you'll find #2 mentioned in nearly every biology book ever written. In fact, feedback inhibition is one of the first regulatory concepts that is taught in biology. I would be very suprised if you could produce a high school level biology book which completely ignored the complex feedback control mechanisms at the cellular level.

PBS

I was responding directly to your "barred from the classroom" comment. Anything else is irrelevant. I do not know or care what PBS teaches, but I would also venture to say that they have, at some point in time, mentioned the complexity of the cell regulatory mechanisms, and even punctuated equilibrium.

and the rest of the media.

See above.

So why not tell us what excuses are used to ignore my observations.

Those are not soley your observations. Both observations were made by scientists quite some time ago. Before I was born. The bookstores, libraries, and scientific journals are chock full of books regarding the fossil record and "feedback control" systems. Do you honestly think that these have been ignored all this time? Would you like a list of resources on the topics?

 

[Lucky]

bob b:
So why not tell us what excuses are used to ignore my observations.

Johnny:
Those are not soley your observations. Both observations were made by scientists quite some time ago. Before I was born. The bookstores, libraries, and scientific journals are chock full of books regarding the fossil record and "feedback control" systems. Do you honestly think that these have been ignored all this time? Would you like a list of resources on the topics?

Well then, do you consider them bad observations or not enough to question Mac Evo?

 

[bob b]

To my (limited) knowledge, the theory of evolution is not taught in grade school in any detail. I'd be suprised if the subject received more than an honorable mention in an elementary school science classroom. Many of the concepts are not easy concepts, and I cannot see it being taught with any detail before the 8th or 9th grade.

Translation: I have no knowledge about this except my own experience and what I "feel" would be the case.

With respect to public high school, my experience is limited to the experience of my friends, as I attended a private highschool which chose to teach me creationism. However, my best friend was taught about punctuated equilibrium in his high school biology class, which directly implies that #1 was taught.

One example is not much of a case, Johnny. Are you sure you are a scientist?

Furthermore, you'll find #2 mentioned in nearly every biology book ever written.

I have not read nearly every biology book ever written, nor have you, but I believe you are not being truthful with such an inflated claim. Care to change your story?

In fact, feedback inhibition is one of the first regulatory concepts that is taught in biology. I would be very suprised if you could produce a high school level biology book which completely ignored the complex feedback control mechanisms at the cellular level.

Since you were not truthful with your previous claim, why should anyone believe you with this one?

I was responding directly to your "barred from the classroom" comment. Anything else is irrelevant. I do not know or care what PBS teaches, but I would also venture to say that they have, at some point in time, mentioned the complexity of the cell regulatory mechanisms, and even punctuated equilibrium.

My point was that the media has completely bought into macroevolution despite the obvious problems with it. Do you seriously deny this?

Those are not soley your observations. Both observations were made by scientists quite some time ago. Before I was born. The bookstores, libraries, and scientific journals are chock full of books regarding the fossil record and "feedback control" systems. Do you honestly think that these have been ignored all this time? Would you like a list of resources on the topics?

I would rather you first prove your above inflated claims. If it turns out that you are truthful about them (which I doubt) perhaps then we could consider the other ones. However, none of this is relevant unless macroevolution is true, which of course it isn't.

 

[hatsoff]

Too bad they are absent from grade and high schools, PBS, and the rest of the media.

So why not tell us what excuses are used to ignore my observations.

(Thank God we still have the internet).

You're quite obviously not interested in explanations, instead calling them "excuses" before they've even been presented to you. No, you just want to mock an idea that you feel runs counter to your faith, probably because you feel mocked by it.

Intelligent design is a poor philosophy based on the flawed logic of "if we can't figure out exactly what happened, it must have been God's hand."

Also, they're not your observations, but those of scientists with obviously greater education--and probably intellectual abilities, too--than yourself.

 

[Johnny]

Translation: I have no knowledge about this except my own experience and what I "feel" would be the case.

You're exactly right. No translation was necessary. I explicitly stated that my experience was limited. I made a best guess based on available information. I do not think I was far off when I claimed that such things were beyond an elementary education.

One example is not much of a case, Johnny. Are you sure you are a scientist?

I am fully aware of that, which is why I explicitely stated that my experience was limited. I'm not trying to pass it off as conclusive proof.

I have not read nearly every biology book ever written, nor have you, but I believe you are not being truthful with such an inflated claim. Care to change your story?

You're so desperate to call me a liar it hurts, and you know it. You are quite correct. I have not read every biology book. However, I am confident that nearly every high-school level general biology book which deals with any detail in the cell will mention that many processes are regulated by feedback mechanisms. Why am I so confident? This is a fundamental aspect of biology. A biology book that doesn't mention the process regulation is like a general physics book which doesn't mention newtonian mechanics. It's a fundamental part of biology, and any book worth its weight in paper will mention it.

Since you were not truthful with your previous claim, why should anyone believe you with this one?

That's your choice. I simply stated that I'd be suprised if you could produce a book which would ignore that concept. Suprise me.

My point was that the media has completely bought into macroevolution despite the obvious problems with it. Do you seriously deny this?

Nope. Much of the media has bought into macroevolution, despite whatever problems you think there are. I'm not denying that there are problems, but the list of problems you come up with and the list of problems I come up with would probably be different.

I would rather you first prove your above inflated claims. If it turns out that you are truthful about them (which I doubt) perhaps then we could consider the other ones.

See above.

Well then, do you consider them bad observations or not enough to question Mac Evo?

I agree with Gould's observation in #1. I do not agree with "expected trillions of gradually graded small changes" statement. I agree with the first sentence of #2. Are they enough to make you question macro evolution? Sure. I questioned macro evolution for a long time. But there are answers for those who are inclined to find them. The hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium came about as a result of #1. There is a lot of material written about this topic. There is also volumes of material written about #2, for those inclined to read it.

 

[bob b]

I agree with Gould's observation in #1. I do not agree with "expected trillions of gradually graded small changes" statement.

Why not?

I agree with the first sentence of #2. Are they enough to make you question macro evolution? Sure. I questioned macro evolution for a long time. But there are answers for those who are inclined to find them. The hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium came about as a result of #1.

Punk eek is nothing more than a rationalization, i.e. evolution happens so fast it left no record in the way of fossils, but in the case of what we see happening today it is so slow that we can't see it either. Sounds like "now you see it now you don't". No evidence means no evidence in my book.

There is a lot of material written about this topic.

Lots written but no science.

There is also volumes of material written about #2, for those inclined to read it.

Lots written, but no recognition that there is even a problem. No science here either. Biologists who believe in macroevolution have no explanation for how a control system could arise by tiny changes. Many mathematicians, physicists and engineers have looked at this dilemma and come away scratching their heads that most biologists appear to be oblivious to the difficulty (ref: The 1960 Wistar Symposium).

 

[fool]

.



Lots written, but no recognition that there is even a problem. No science here either. Biologists who believe in macroevolution have no explanation for how a control system could arise by tiny changes. Many mathematicians, physicists and engineers have looked at this dilemma and come away scratching their heads that most biologists appear to be oblivious to the difficulty (ref: The 1960 Wistar Symposium).

:noway: Did you just give us a 1960 cite?
What year do think this is Bob?

 

[bob b]

:noway: Did you just give us a 1960 cite?
What year do think this is Bob?

Yes, as soon as DNA and its implications became widely known, real scientists began to doubt macroevolution.

I myself would have tumbled much earlier than I did (1983) except I didn't become interested in the subject until reading about the latest DNA findings in that same year (1983). At that point it was obvious to me that small gradual changes could never "design" a control system from scratch.

I spent of lot of time at that point researching the subject because I had an awfully hard time believing that so many biologists could have been so badly fooled into thinking that "random mutations plus natural selection" was a mechanism that could design the control systems in lifeforms "from scratch".

I am sure that the mathematicians who organized the Wistar Symposium had a hard time believing that so many biologists had swallowed such an obvious fairy tale either.

I still find it hard to believe.

It is the wonder of our modern age.

 

[death2impiety]

You're crazy. without macaroni evolution I wouldn't be enjoying my delicious easy mac!

:chew:

 

[SUTG]

I will try off the top of my head to sum up the major points in the argument against macroevolution.

Why not just admit that you''ll never believe in macroevolution, no matter what any evidence ever says.

 

[bob b]

Why not just admit that you''ll never believe in macroevolution, no matter what any evidence ever says.

Because I used to believe in macroevolution before I investigated it in detail and discovered that the evidence which supposedly supported it was quite flawed.

For instance, until relatively recently when Gould "spilled the beans" about the nature of the fossil record, "The Trade Secret of Paleontology" (as Gould put it) was that the fossil record was not in accord with the gradual, small change paradigm of NeoDarwinian theory.

Now more and more people are finding out the "Trade Secret of Cellular Operation", i.e. that even the most "primitive" cells have oodles of interlaced sophisticated feedback control systems, making the "rising water" analogy a cruel hoax (as demonstrated by the METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL thread).

 

[fool]

Bob;
Could you go ahead and draw me a line in the sand between micro and macro?
That way when "evolution" is implied I'll know which cases you agree with, and which are mockable.

 

[fool]

that even the most "primitive" cells have oodles of interlaced sophisticated feedback control systems, making the "rising water" analogy a cruel hoax (as demonstrated by the METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL thread).

Is this a good place to cut off macro? at the most primative cell?
Just askin.

 

[bob b]

Bob;
Could you go ahead and draw me a line in the sand between micro and macro?
That way when "evolution" is implied I'll know which cases you agree with, and which are mockable.

Micro means "change". Macro means "transformation".

Macroevolutionary changes are of course a "fairy tale for adults".

It is not clear whether all microevolutionary changes are "downhill" (i.e. deleterious). They probably are. Certainly the majority are, based on the examples people have claimed are microevolutionary changes.

There is a very,very, very slim possibility that a microevolutionary change could be uphill or non-deleterious. An example would be a mutation that would "backout" or "reverse" a previous deleterious mutation. This could of course only be effective in a sperm or egg cell, because once a cell is fertilized and begins to multiply the probability of any effective "backing out" of a previous defect in more than one cell simultaneously would be statistically negligible.

 

[Johnny]

How do I tell if a mutation is deleterious or not?

 

[fool]

It is not clear whether all microevolutionary changes are "downhill" (i.e. deleterious). They probably are. Certainly the majority are, based on the examples people have claimed are microevolutionary changes.

.

OK.
Within your flood model you use one set of "dog kind" to get all the dogs, wolves, cyotes, dingos, foxes, hyenas, ect. (please correct me if I've made a strawman here, amend as nessasary).
Within this frame work, which are the most "downhill"?

As an aside, I sometimes work with control systems that are designed to perform a wide range and scope of functions, many times they are used in a capacity that only employes a few of their assets, would this be a reasonable analogy to your model?

 

[bob b]

OK.
Within your flood model you use one set of "dog kind" to get all the dogs, wolves, cyotes, dingos, foxes, hyenas, ect. (please correct me if I've made a strawman here, amend as nessasary).
Within this frame work, which are the most "downhill"?

There is historical evidence that dogs are domesticated wolves. Some creationists have done as you say and placed many creatures into the "dog kind". Perhaps they are right, perhaps not, I do not know, but it sounds somewhat reasonable as a working hypothesis.

As an aside, I sometimes work with control systems that are designed to perform a wide range and scope of functions, many times they are used in a capacity that only employes a few of their assets, would this be a reasonable analogy to your model?

Perhaps. Remember, analogies are only useful for making a point and/or suggesting a line of investigation. It is too early in the analysis of protein folding operation to be certain of anything, but it sounds to me like a fruitful line of investigation is suggested by a comparison to English language sentences (and paragraphs).