The Barbarian wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amNotice that the large bacterium has evolved a nuclear membrane. So it's clear enough that things formerly imagined to be "too complex" to evolve, do evolve.
Purple Knight wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 3:26 pm
Right, that's exactly why I specified
as far as we know. I need to acknowledge your point that
isn't yet shown absolutely does not mean
cannot happen, but if there have been experiments that failed to find it, that means something beyond mere speculation too.
So far, every time these assertions have been tested, we see verification, but never falsification. The latest argument was "complex cellular structures can't evolve." But this newly-found bacterium has evolved a nuclear membrane. At some point one needs to explain the discrepancy between continued verification and an absence of falsification.
Endosymbiosis is an evolutionary event. It's just that biology is a lot more creative than a lot of people thought it is. Notice that endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve.[/quote]
It's extraevolutionary in that it required a special event, not just genomes changing.
A change in environment. Part of Darwin's theory. Environment, according to Darwin, changes before we see directional change in genomes.
For example, the amoebae and bacteria in the observed evolution of endosymbiosis both evolved to become mutually dependent on each other.
A lot of people mistake evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population) with agencies of evolution like natural selection.
Yes, evolution is part of this. Things other than merely genomes changing, mutation, natural selection, are at play.
Mutation is genome changing. Every new mutation in a population changes the genetic information in that population.
Special things happening. You can define that as evolution if you want,
Darwin included it in his theory. Changes in alleles are just the result.
but then (as you seem to agree) if some god did it all, set all of this in motion, then that's an evolutionary event too.
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things.
There's nothing wrong with this definition scheme but it doesn't represent a contention of facts with the creationists, just a contention of definitions.
Most creationists concede that evolution happens now. What their contention is, is that life as it exists now, required a special event. That is not false! It clearly did.
Darwin's theory. He gets to say.
The problem is that many people are willing to accept God's creation, but only if it doesn't involve evolution.
I have some good questions about the idea that genetic information is always lost,
Claude Shannon destroyed that belief a long time ago. He managed to quantify and measure information, including that in genomes. This is how we know that every new mutation increases information in a population. Incidentally, evolution can involve a loss of information as well. Many speciations happen this way, followed by a sudden increase in information. Hawaiian fruit flies are a good example.
and that all kinds of animals were created in more or less their current form, so for example, there is one ancestral cat, and over time, the different species of cat lost different information to become what they are. I don't believe this... I believe they all diverged from an ancestral carnivore, but I have to admit it's one of the things that lines up well enough with directly observed reality for me to file it away for later in the "maybe, 10% or less" pile. Which is huge btw.
Thing is, the genetic data shows ancestry far beyond carnivores. The Boreotheria includes all of these guys, who are genetically related:
The Barbarian wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amAt least no tinkering with the system. Seems to me that an omnipotent creator would do it, exactly as it is. Why not just create the rules to do what One wants creation to do?
I see that as the more reasonable option as well. So there you go, no contention with most creationists.
I sure don't see that kind of reasonableness from AiG or the ICR. But maybe they are evolving to a more realistic concept.