Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Coffee Jesus]

They're primary goal is to show that the Bible be shown inerrant,

Just sayin'.

Well that wasn't giant bold font.

[Tonus]

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

A "Christian source" is compelled to search for answers that confirm what they already believe. An "atheist source" is only compelled not to do so. There's a reason that so many theist arguments take the form of "science hasn't explained this, so it could be god." Or in the case of evolution, "science hasn't dumbed things down sufficiently, so I'll just go with 'creation' instead."

[Heywood]

The problem with Heywood's description is punctuated equilibrium is probably mostly not punctured by spectacular mutations that allows the mutant to ascend the existing wall of the valley, as Heywood suggests. Rather, it is likely mostly punctuated by a whole sale reshaping the topology - ie the ecological environment that has been stable for a long time, and to which existing species have stably adapted, suddenly changed. The walls of the valley may have come down the the floor the valley may have risen up, as it were, and the changed ecology then drove the long stable species to either adapt or perish. They comfortable valley no longer exists, or suddenly merged with other valleys, or had new tributaries valleys suddenly form.

What you describes does indeed happen. The landscape does change over time and that does open up new pathways for evolution to take.

Keep in mind however there is no reason to think that the utility of mutations is constant. Some mutations are more beneficial than others just like some mutations are more harmful than others. If you could quantify the utility of beneficial mutations I suspect you would find most fall in a given range but occasionally an outlier or super mutation comes along whose utility is well outside the normal range. Such super mutations could be so beneficial that they quickly spread through the entire population and lift it out of punctuated equilibrium.

[frankiej]

or super mutation comes along whose utility is well outside the normal range. Such super mutations would be so beneficial that they quickly spread through the entire population and lift it out of punctuated equilibrium.

I don't know, man. Super mutants are pretty ugly. Ain't nothing beneficial about that.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, fossil records show major progress in evolution in the entire fauna almost invariably coincide with large environmental upheavals. Earth's environment tend to remain stable, or change only slowly, for long periods, usually many tens of millions of years, punctuated by large disruptive events such as major changes to sea levels, large swings in atmosphere composition or temperature, desertification, sea chemistry changes etc, which tend to occur quickly in comparison, usually last from hundreds of thousands of years to a few million years.

During these times of environment quasi stability, evolution tend to be slow and incremental. Species well adapted to stable environment tend not to suddenly acquire super men's cape with some comic book like mutations. When species are well adapted, these is little room for mutation to improve adaptation over what is already achieved in the fauna.

During these periods of stability, not only do rates of evolution of lineages remain sedate, the composition of the fauna as reflected by the relative abundance of different lineages tend to remain relatively stable.

Only when existing adaptations suddenly become inadequate thanks to environmental upheavals, do you see drastic changes to the composition of the fauna, as well as rapid progress within lineages inside the fauna.

Evolution and mutation tend not to produce comic book superheroes out of nowhere. On the whole they tend to reflect themselves mainly in enabling lineages to adapt to changing environments.

[Heywood]

Actually, fossil records show major progress in evolution in the entire fauna almost invariably coincide with large environmental upheavals. Earth's environment tend to remain stable, or change only slowly, for long periods, usually many tens of millions of years, punctuated by large disruptive events such as major changes to sea levels, large swings in atmosphere composition or temperature, desertification, sea chemistry changes etc, which tend to occur quickly in comparison, usually last from hundreds of thousands of years to a few million years.

During these times of environment quasi stability, evolution tend to be slow and incremental. Species well adapted to stable environment tend not to suddenly acquire super men's cape with some comic book like mutations. When species are well adapted, these is little room for mutation to improve adaptation over what is already achieved in the fauna.

During these periods of stability, not only do rates of evolution of lineages remain sedate, the composition of the fauna as reflected by the relative abundance of different lineages tend to remain relatively stable.

Only when existing adaptations suddenly become inadequate thanks to environmental upheavals, do you see drastic changes to the composition of the fauna, as well as rapid progress within lineages inside the fauna.

Evolution and mutation tend not to produce comic book superheroes out of nowhere. On the whole they tend to reflect themselves mainly in enabling lineages to adapt to changing environments.

Around 2000, I was playing around with evolution simulators. I would often observe the simulants plateauing or coming into equilibrium. In one instance the equilibrium lasted quite a long time but eventually gave way to another period of changes. In the simulation nothing about the environment changed. It wasn't a variable. I only observed this once but that's when I started to think about the idea of mutations being able to lift populations out of punctuated equilibrium. Here is a link to one of the simulators I used.

Framesticks evolution simulator

[Mothonis]

or super mutation comes along whose utility is well outside the normal range. Such super mutations would be so beneficial that they quickly spread through the entire population and lift it out of punctuated equilibrium.

I don't know, man. Super mutants are pretty ugly. Ain't nothing beneficial about that.

Those creatures could have preserved mankind in a sense but lacked the ability to reproduce causing their creator to regrett making them.

[Coffee Jesus]

*retracted*

[pocaracas]

Any being with sufficient intellect can design a "set it and forget it" evolutionary system to produce what ever that being wants.

---

A "set it and forget it" evolutionary system doesn't have an end goal and if an intelligent designer had homo sapiens as an end goal (which it must have since creationists conclude that humans are God's special creation),

---

"set it and forget it" evolution is not the way to achieve that goal because at any point along the billions of years of "set it and forget it" evolution enough could have changed in the selection pressures that homo sapiens never would have evolved.

---

Unless you're saying that this designer monkeyed with the environmental and sex-selection pressures enough to keep evolution "on track" to creating homo sapiens, but then it wouldn't be "set it and forget it" evolution, it would be guided evolution - and there's no evidence that evolution is guided by any kind of designer toward any kind of end goal.

---

A "set it and forget it" scenario would imply that the environment would also be set and forgot about.... even its changes. Set to do exactly what it has done so far and will do in the future and life is a part of this environment.
We are talking about a über-being capable of setting and forgetting these ultra complex chain of events, right?


Oh, but humans screw everything with their free-will detail... forget I mentioned anything...

[Revelation777]

Rev: can inert matter produce life? Even if you had all the energy in the Universe, would a dead stick turn into life?

Where are you going with that question?

---

If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

How did you become an expert on this subject? If you're not an expert, why do you think you know more than the people who have devoted their lives to the study of fossils do?

Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Oh, really?

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

Do you think it follows that 'appear suddenly in the fossil record' equates to 'appears suddenly'. How do you measure complexity in fossils? Does evolution really predict that simple forms will evolve into more complex forms, or does it actually predict that life forms will either evolve to be better fitted to their reproductive environment--even if that involves 'growing more simple', stay roughly the same, or go extinct?

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Some fossils do. Some lineages have an exquisitely detailed fossil record showing all significant transitions for long periods of time.

---

Nah...I knew from the start.

It's less idiocy, I think, than having been brainwashed very effectively. Maybe I'm more sympathetic because getting out of it was a slow process with me rather than precocious skepticism as it was for many posters, or those who were never indoctrinated in the first place.

I am not an expert. Are you?