DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[David Sklansky]

I know a lot less about the specifics of evolution than many people here. In spite of that, I think I have an argument that I have not seen used on this forum by evolutionists, when they are arguing with creationists about "macrovevolution". Evidently there is a lot stronger evidence for "microevolution" within a species than the macroevolution needed to change one species to another.

Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point. But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example. Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect - examples of "macroevolution" are far from rare - the earth today as well as the fossil and molecular history are full of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Irreducible complexity (i.e. the eye)
2. Lack of a sufficient rate of mutation
3. The generally harmful effect of multiple mutations

edit: I guess the point is that creationists do see mutations as possible, including huge ones. Their beef is that the structures of life aren't possible given the 3 points above (they are wrong, of course).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect - examples of "macroevolution" are far from rare - the earth today as well as the fossil and molecular history are teeming with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Irreducible complexity (i.e. the eye)
2. Lack of a sufficient rate of mutation
3. The generally harmful effect of multiple mutations

[/ QUOTE ]

The eye isn't irreducibly complex, but I think your point is that it is prohibitively unlikely to mutate de novo.

[David Sklansky]

But that just makes the probability of fortuitous mutations small. Still more likely than a designer.

As for your first comment, if true, why is this objection still brought up so much?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
But that just makes the probability of fortuitous mutations small. Still more likely than a designer.

As for your first comment, if true, why is this objection still brought up so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people are really, really dishonest?

[Phil153]

I'd say because it's repeated so often, and on the surface seems reasonable. No one ever saw a lion turn into a zebra, or a monkey into a person. It's a similar thing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which many fundies claim disproves evolution. This is of course nonsense.

If you want a simple debunking, the detailed fossil record of the horse, or the reptile-mammal transition fossils are amazingly complete evidences for "macroevolution".

A more recent example of huge changes in phenotype is the breeding of wild cabbage into cauliflower, broccoli, etc.

[soon2bepro]

Phil: The eye isn't irreducibly complex. You may learn about it from Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.
Here's a link to a video of a childrens' lectures he did back in 1991 (5 years before publishing the book), where he explains why the eye can definitely evolve step by step just like any other complex trait.

Another thing: evolution doesn't say lions turned into zebras or monkeys into people. Nowadays lions, zebras, monkeys, and people are more or less equally complex. We all have a common, less complex ancestor a long long time ago.

[Phil153]

I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

I was trying to provide the creationist objections to David's idea below, which I don't think any creationist would dispute, but which is irrelevant to the question of evolution

[ QUOTE ]
But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

[m_the0ry]

Differentiating between 'new species' and 'mutation' definitely results in a gray area. I personally don't see the necessity for single generational 'leap' mutations in the framework of evolution. A lot of people have difficulty visualizing and conceptually understanding the magnitudes of time involved in evolution. Isolated ecosystems and gradual mutation together can explain current biodiversity. Proving there were no intermediary stages in evolutionary bounds and leaps is difficult to say the least and I would bet almost all of them can be quickly traced back to this practice that a lot of IDer's like to ignore.

[vhawk01]

Probability is what is to stop an animal from ever being born with enough mutations to be considered a different species. Actually, only probability+our definition of species. I think it is fairly safe to assume that never in the history of life have two organisms of a single species both randomly mutated in such a way as to be considered entirely different species, at the same approximate time, and mutated in such a similar way that they were capable of mating, and they found each other, and they mated, and their offspring survived.

This is a little different for organisms that reproduce asexually, I suppose.