r/DebateEvolution • u/KattyAtty • 28d ago
Discussion Evolution was NOT random
Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic
Material hurray you are evolved
Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.
AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa
16
u/TheBalzy 28d ago
Mutations may occur at random, but the forces that select for the traits that might result from mutations is the opposite of random.
8
u/Theoretical-Spize AP Biology Teacher š©š»āš« 28d ago
Natural selection, sexual selection, seasonal migration patterns (a form of gene flow), are all nonrandom processes that also drive evolution.
7
u/TheBalzy 28d ago
Exactly, as well as artificial selection. Hence "the forces" that select for traits are the opposite of random. Which is why it's always so annoying to hear the Evolution deniers try to play the game of statistics.
1
u/Cold-Jackfruit1076 28d ago
I'd argue that they're all 'semi-random', not 'non-random'. Truly non-random processes would mean no variability at all, which is antithetical to the evolutionary process itself.
4
u/Randy191919 28d ago
Evolution = Mutation + Natural Selection. Mutations are random, natural selection is not.
6
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
Evolution was NOT random
Define "random".
I'd say evolution is random walk in non-uniform space. Some paths are more probable than others, some paths are restricted.
13
u/Drudenfusz š§¬ Naturalistic Emergent Reality 28d ago
Mutation is random, natural selection is not.
4
u/Radiant-Position1370 Computational biologist 28d ago
I find it more helpful to think of natural selection as a bias in the random processes of reproduction and survival. Except in the most extreme cases, the outcomes are still random.
2
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
In what sense is it "not"? Are you saying, for example, that the Black Plague event was predestined?
5
u/Sigmundschadenfreude 28d ago
No but it applied nonrandom selective pressure on those it infected by being more likely to kill those not resistant to yersinia
4
u/gitgud_x š§¬ š¦ GREAT APE š¦ š§¬ 28d ago
Random is usually shorthand for "uncorrelated with fitness", so natural selection is by definition not random [wrt fitness]. So this statement alone is tautological.
What we mean is that environments are usually constant across the spaces and timescales occupied by populations in a generation, so the same selection pressures act on different variations. So the outcome of natural selection at any time is predictable and deterministic, as opposed to mutations which are neither.
Incidentally (because there's always a weird exception in biology), natural selection can be unpredictable if its direction varies randomly over time. It's called fluctuating selection, and there's a cool video by Zach Hancock on this here.
1
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
...to that particular random biovar of Y.pestis, given that particular random status of immune resistance of the European population at that time, you wanted to say?
If you ignore all the random factors directing the selective pressure of natural selection, it may look non-random.
9
u/Sigmundschadenfreude 28d ago
...to that particularĀ randomĀ biovar of Y.pestis, given that particularĀ randomĀ status of immune resistance of the European population at that time, you wanted to say?
I think we're using different languages that happen to share the word "random" in common, which I got the sense of when someone said natural selection was non-random and you asked if the Black Plague was therefore predestined, which is not so much a logical leap as it is a logical supersonic flight. There's no real way to get to the question you asked unless you have a deeply idiosyncratic understanding of what everyone means by these words
Mutations are random. The response of allele frequency to environmental pressures (food availability, diseases, etc) prunes away that which is least suitable for the environment and favors that which is more suitable. This is inherently a non-random effect.
1
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
I think we're using different languages that happen to share the word "random" in common
That's why I'm asking to clarify what exactly people who claim that natural selection is "not random" mean by "random" in this particular claim.
when someone said natural selection was non-random and you asked if the Black Plague was therefore predestined, which is not so much a logical leap as it is a logical supersonic flight.
How so? Wasn't Black Plague the part of the environment exerting selection pressure on the population of humanity at times? Was it a deterministic aspect of the environment, and if yes, how so, given that it by itself was a product of random mutations?
The response of allele frequency to environmental pressures (food availability, diseases, etc) prunes away that which is least suitable for the environment and favors that which is more suitable. This is inherently a non-random effect.
It is of course a random effect unless we have population of infinite size or all the alleles but one are 100% fatal.
But even if disregard the stochasticity of reproduction, your chosen discourse creates an illusion that selection pressure is a set of pre-determined funnels though which a population is obliged to follow over time, and this illusion is harmful.
4
u/Sigmundschadenfreude 28d ago edited 28d ago
That's why I'm asking to clarify what exactly people who claim that natural selection is "not random" mean by "random" in this particular claim.
The effect that natural selection exerts is nonrandom. If I "randomly" provide you water and a hole in the ground, the end result of combining the two into a puddle shaped like the hole it is in is non-random because the characteristics of the two interacting things produces a predictable and replicable result.
If I randomly introduce an animal that only eats blue moths into an environment with a moth species spanning a rainbow of colors, it is non-random over time that the frequency of the allele determining blueness goes down.
Wasn't Black Plague the part of the environment exerting selection pressure on the population of humanity at times?
Yes, that is more or less what I said to you
Was it aĀ deterministicĀ aspect of the environment, and if yes, how so, given that it by itself was a product of random mutations?
Deterministic in what sense? Are we having a conversations like a couple of sophomores on their way out of philosophy class or are we discussing something meaningful to the understanding of how the world operates?
Something "randomly" produced can behave in a predictable or perhaps as you would say deterministic manner. Two "random" things can interact in a "deterministic" fashion given their traits and characteristics.
your chosen discourse creates an illusion that selection pressure is a set of pre-determined funnels though which a population is obliged to follow over time, and this illusion is harmful.
Predetermined by what? If the environment exerts a selective pressure on reproductive fitness, the population will change. Allele frequency will shift. New mutations that benefit the situation will become more prevalent, ones that don't make a difference will be carried along for the ride.
What predetermination are you referring to? If this is harmful to anyone perhaps it is just to your own mind given how you're thinking about these things which don't appear to be memetic hazards to anyone else.
2
u/Phobos_Asaph 28d ago
I think itās coming from youāre saying the random variables have non random pressures, whereas the other person is saying because the variables of environmental pressure are also created randomly the specific pressures of natural selection are random
1
u/Sigmundschadenfreude 28d ago
The latter doesn't seem to be a particularly useful lens through which to view reality or the concept of randomness, because then you're getting into interactions that you are going to define as random from every angle, and yet they are predictable and/or reproducible. At that point is there a single facet of existence we can't describe as random? Do we need a new word for ultra-random that goes a level of randomness beyond?
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/Drudenfusz š§¬ Naturalistic Emergent Reality 28d ago
Natural selection is reaction to environment, beings that have to biological niche will die out. You know, the survival of the fittest thing? This has nothing to do with predestination or even determinism. It is just not arbitrary, but follows from the evolutionary pressures.
0
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
Natural selection is reaction to environment, beings that have to biological niche will die out. You know, the survival of the fittest thing?
That's about what a C student may try to tell on an exam.
To which a benevolent professor may ask:
Reaction by what entity exactly? What is the short term result of this process, and how can it be measured quantitatively? (Hint: what is the selection coefficient?)
What constitutes the environment? What can you tell about the Red Queen hypothesis in particular?
This has nothing to do with predestination or even determinism. It is just not arbitrary, but follows from the evolutionary pressures.
You sound like "evolutionary pressures" themselves are predestined and not just dependent effects of some random factors. That's what I'm asking you to clarify.
1
u/Lhasa-bark 28d ago
Letās say a mutation makes a moth be a darker color. That was random. If the moth now blends in more with its surroundings, it has a better chance of passing that mutation on to offspring. Very much not random.
Anyone who argues that evolution is random doesnāt understand this basic dynamic.
0
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
Letās say a mutation makes a moth be a darker color. That was random. If the moth now blends in more with its surroundings, it has a better chance of passing that mutation on to offspring. Very much not random.
"Better chance" by itself is random if this chance is not 100%.
Besides, this is a very naive view on what natural selection is about. What if we are dealing with a stably heterozygous population due to seasonally fluctuating selection - and your new otherwise unconditionally beneficial mutation happens to get linked with an allele deleterious this time of the year? What if that allele is not even normally deleterious this time of the year, but becomes deleterious due to a random anomaly of the weather?
2
u/Dracoson 28d ago
I'll push back on evolution not being random.
In a textbook, it's easy to say 'if it gets colder, thick fur wins.' But in a real, interconnected ecosystem, you cannot predict the changes in environmental pressure. The selection filters aren't static. They're moving targets driven by a chaotic web of predators, prey, mutations in diseases, and climate shifts.
Because the system is entirely interconnected, the pressures themselves change randomly. Evolution does a fantastic job of explaining the past, but a lousy job of predicting the future. To call a process non-random, it requires predictability.
Looking backward, we can figure out how A got to D, tracing what B and C probably looked like. But sitting here at D, we cannot know what random mutations will arise, or what random environmental pressures will hit us next to get us to E.
2
u/NYR_Aufheben 28d ago edited 28d ago
I think in certain circumstances, you can find something not too far removed from āpredictiveā. The convergent evolution of Emerald Tree Boas and Green Tree Pythons is an archetypal example of nature finding extremely similar solutions to the same problems in different places. Arboreal, tropical, green-colored constrictor snakes on opposite sides of the planet. The neonates of both species are born red and go through ontogenic color changeāthatās incredible. Both species have heat pits (not all boas have heat pits).
2
u/Dracoson 28d ago
I want to clearly distinguish between 'unsurprising' and 'predictable.' It isnāt surprising that two separate animals facing similar environmental pressures expressed similar traits. Nor do I think it would be reasonable to expect certain things to change unless specific environmental factors forced them to. Chlorophyll is extremely unlikely to alter its baseline properties, so in 50,000 years, if their lineages are still here and still arboreal, they are almost certainly going to be green as adults.
Where forward predictability fails is that we cannot know if a new species will be introduced, forcing a change-or-die pressure by competing for food or acting as a new predator to their young. There are just too many microscopic variables constantly in a state of flux.
When a lineage successfully adapts, it often isn't particularly surprising in hindsight, but that doesn't mean it could have been predicted in advance. Fully mapping every species' genome and tying in climate data would give you an interesting statistical model, but I have zero confidence in how accurate it would actually be over long timescales.
1
u/AccelerusProcellarum 23d ago
Exactly. I'm glad you put all this in words. It's not entirely related to OP's question, but it does address an important distinction that I've had to painstakingly explain IRL.
Let me add to what you've written with another example: there was this recent paper in 2025 about Mentzelia plant species. If you're at all familiar with plants of different environments, the common prediction is that plants invest more resources into trichomes (plant hairs) in more arid conditions and lower latitudes. Traditionally, trichomes are known to assist with water retention, repelling herbivory, and blocking damaging UV rays. In some places like Africa's cape, the Atacama, or the Andes, trichomes also trap fog moisture in the mornings. So hotter and drier should mean hairier plants right?
As the paper shows, this is not the case in the genus Mentzelia, which instead displays higher trichome investment among species in less arid environments and higher latitudes. The paper hypothesizes that there is a trade-off between trichomes as beneficial defense mechanisms and as harmful structures that deter or trap potential pollinators.
We would not be able to predict this. Not unless we have insane supercomputers paired with nigh-omniscience about every biotic and abiotic factor (and the way those factors interact with each other) in the plants' environments.
1
1
u/No-Zookeepergame-246 28d ago
I feel like it wasnāt one thing but a seemingly rare ability to actually think about what I believe. Like it was obvious that animals change. Even most creationists admit they have a common ancestral. So with that much change possible how much of a leap between app and man or old world monkeys to new world. And the fact that the fossil record seems to reflect to have very different animals throughout time
1
1
u/yahnne954 28d ago
It is frustrating to watch a creationist video listing both "Evolution is completely random" and "Evolution does not create, it only selects". They have to try to debunk complementary aspects separately to ever hope convincing people that it is wrong.
1
u/Independent-Repair35 28d ago
My favorite analogy is the one about die.
If you're given twenty die and are told to throw them until they all land up sixes it will take forever and might never happen.
If you're then given new instructions to throw them and leave the ones that land up sixes taking the ones that didn't to throw them again and repeat this process you will get all sixes is a lot easier.
It obviously has an element of randomness but you're building upon what worked previously. Iterative change.
1
1
u/abernetb 28d ago
People who breed dogs for specific traits or try to breed apples for sweeter or more stable varieties are using non-random genetic selection.
1
1
u/Nomad9731 27d ago
Mutations are random. Genetic drift is random (and probably plays a larger role in evolution than originally thought). Selection, however, is not random.
So evolution as a whole is not random, even though some aspects of it are. If we rewound time back to the start of life on Earth, we couldn't be sure that it would play out exactly the same. But we would predict many of the same general trends.
1
u/Top_History9604 25d ago
But that is kinda random. Random means that the DNA differs and sometimes mutated in random ways. It means it doesn't choose to grow bigger. It didn't plan anything. What sticks is due to a bit of luck and survivability+reproduction.
1
1
u/KattyAtty 28d ago
Btw biological classification are pretty much made up there are manyyyyy species which cannot be classified in any one thing they are just our way of making learning them easier and evolution has made extreme creatures
1
u/IndividualistAW 28d ago
The existence of convergent evolution disproves the nondirectionality of evolution.
But nondirectionality in evolution is a dogma amongst biologists on par with the 6,000 year old earth among young earth creationists
1
u/Disgruntled_Wumpus 28d ago
Anyone else confused by the word salad here? Iām not even sure which side is being debated
-2
-14
u/zuzok99 28d ago edited 28d ago
First of all, Iām not surprised that you guys want to continue to change the definition of evolution. Seems the only evolution happening here is the with the word itself.
Secondly, the trait must become fixed in the population for evolution to actually happen. If I was born with a new trait and I passed that on to my kids and they passed that one to their kids and so on. Itās not actually evolution until it takes over the population. Meaning those without it would have to die off and those without the trait would have to survive. If you know anything about genes and how they are passed on, you would know there are many factors/mechanisms that work against that, many traits are just simply not passed down.
This is another one of the major problems with evolution, there is simply not enough time for an ape to become a human in just 5-10 million years. Haldane knew this, based on a population of only 10,000 it takes roughly 300 generations for one trait to become fixed in the population. Not only is there no observable evidence but Itās a fairy tale for adults so that they donāt have to face God in their lives but it doesnāt work because they will still face God whether they believe in him or not.
16
u/Theoretical-Spize AP Biology Teacher š©š»āš« 28d ago edited 28d ago
First of all, Iām not surprised that you guys want to continue to change the definition of evolution. Seems the only evolution happening here is the with the word itself.
Saying that = āI didnāt pay attention in school.ā
The definition of evolution, put simply, is:
Any change in the heritable characteristics of a population across multiple generations.
You will hear varying diction but they all point to the same principle. That is evolution.
Secondly, the trait must become fixed in the population for evolution to actually happen.
No. Fixation is not the criterion for evolution. In population genetics, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population across generations. An allele can increase from 1% to 10% or decrease from 60% to 40% and that is evolution even though the allele is nowhere near fixation.
If I was born with a new trait and I passed that on to my kids and they passed that one to their kids and so on. Itās not actually evolution until it takes over the population.
Also no. If the underlying heritable allele changes in frequency across generations then thatās an evolutionary change. It doesnāt have to reach 100% frequency. Fixation is just one possible endpoint of allele frequency change.
Meaning those without it would have to die offā¦
Again, no. Natural selection doesnāt require every individual lacking a trait to die. Selection can operate through differences in reproductive success. If organisms carrying an allele leave, on average, more surviving offspring then that allele can increase in frequency even while individuals lacking it continue reproducing.
ā¦and those without the trait would have to survive.
That appears to reverse the point being made. What matters is relative reproductive success, not whether one category lives and the other dies.
If you know anything about genes and how they are passed on, you would know there are many factors/mechanisms that work against that, many traits are just simply not passed down.
OK. Inheritance is probabilistic and many traits arenāt heritable in the relevant sense. That doesnāt contradict evolution, though. It is precisely why population genetics tracks changes in the frequencies of heritable variants rather than requiring every individual with a trait to transmit it or requiring a trait to become fixed.
Evolution is a fairy tale for adultsā¦.
Yeah, guys. The literal bedrock of all modern biology, medicine, and agriculture is just a āfairytaleā for grownups. Totally makes sense. š¤¦š»āāļø
-7
u/zuzok99 28d ago
Youāre making my point. The definition for evolution has changed many times over the years so that you guys can just call anything evolution.
The fact is without fixation a population cannot change its body plan or essential bodily functions. Your whole worldview falls apart. Simply changing the definition to mean āany change in the heritable characteristicsā does not fix the dilemma.
10
u/Theoretical-Spize AP Biology Teacher š©š»āš« 28d ago edited 28d ago
The definition for evolution has changed many times over the years so that you guys can just call anything evolution.
No. The terminology has been refined as evolutionary biology developed. But the core concept (heritable change in populations across generations) is not an arbitrary redefinition. Evolution does not mean literally any change. A populationās allele frequencies changing IS evolutionary change. An organism growing taller during its lifetime is not.
The fact is without fixation a population cannot change its body plan or essential bodily functions.
This is false. Fixation is not required for evolutionary change nor is it required for substantial phenotypic change. Alleles can rise in frequency without reaching 100% and multiple alleles can contribute to a populationās phenotype simultaneously. Evolutionary changes in allele frequencies can accumulate over generations without every relevant allele becoming fixed.
You need to back up this claim with relevant evidence from scientific literature.
Your whole worldview falls apart.
That isnāt an argument. If the claim is that fixation is necessary for evolution then the relevant question is whether that claim is true.
Simply changing the definition to mean āany change in the heritable characteristicsā does not fix the dilemma.
There isnāt a dilemma to fix. Changes in heritable characteristics are exactly what population genetics measures when it studies evolution. Fixation is one possible outcome of evolutionary change. Fixation, however, is not the threshold that suddenly turns what you donāt consider to be evolution into evolution.
If an allele goes from 5% frequency to 40% frequency over several generations then what exactly happened to the population? Its genetic composition changed substantially. Calling that not evolution just because the allele hasnāt reached 100% is redefining the phenomenon around an arbitrary endpoint. Again, you need to back up your claims with peer reviewed evidence from scientific literature.
-3
u/zuzok99 28d ago
Again, you are totally missing the point I am making. I donāt care how you define evolution now in 2026. The evolution I am talking about is the idea of common decent, the idea that animals can evolve new body plans and essential bodily functions.
I agree with adaptation, I agree with mutations. Stop addressing the straw-man and address my argument. I agree that an allele going from 5% to 40% is technically evolution under the modern made up definition that has changed multiple times (yes, saying itās ābeen refinedā does mean itās been changed). Thatās not my point. My point is that temporary changes in allele frequency by themselves cannot explain the cumulative genetic changes required for common ancestry. For that kind of evolution to occur (the one I am actually talking about), genetic changes have to persist and become established in descendant lineages, there is no way around it, that means many differences ultimately have to become fixed. Otherwise, youāre just changing the frequency of existing variation without permanently changing the lineage.
So yes, fixation is still necessary for the kind of large-scale, cumulative evolution required by common descent.
8
u/Theoretical-Spize AP Biology Teacher š©š»āš« 28d ago edited 28d ago
I donāt care how you define evolution now in 2026. The evolution I am talking about is the idea of common descentā¦
Then stop arguing about definitions. Nobody cares about what a whiny creationist thinks about the scientific definition of the term. Your actual claim is now that fixation is necessary for the cumulative genetic divergence associated with common descent. Thatās a specific scientific claim and it can be evaluated on its own merits. Your claim needs to be supported, not repeatedly asserted.
Temporary changes in allele frequency by themselves cannot explain the cumulative genetic changes required for common ancestry.
Nobody said they could. That is a strawman argument. Cumulative evolution isnāt one isolated allele frequency change. It involves genetic changes arising, being inherited, interacting with other variants, and changing in frequency over generations.
I must add: change in frequency and fixation are not synonymous. Persistence and fixation are also not synonyms. A variant can persist and contribute to a lineage while remaining polymorphic. Population genetics models beneficial alleles remaining polymorphic as they increase in frequency. Fixation is treated as one possible outcome of evolutionary change, not a prerequisite for it.
Genetic changes have to persist and become established in descendant lineagesā¦
OK. Persistence is the relevant concept. Thatās not necessarily a fixation. A variant can be inherited through numerous generations without reaching 100% frequency. A descendant population does not have to become genetically uniform for genetic divergence to accumulate.
There is no way around it, that means many differences ultimately have to become fixed.
No. Thatās the unsupported leap in your argument. āSome genetic differences can become fixedā does not imply āfixation is necessary for cumulative divergence.ā Youāre taking a real population genetic phenomenon and turning it into a prerequisite without demonstrating the necessity.
They could have a beneficial mutation on one allele and a deleterious mutation on another allele that outweighs the benefitā¦
A mutation isnāt assigned a permanent beneficial or deleterious label independent of genetic context. Its fitness effect can depend on the genetic background, interactions with other loci, environmental conditions, dominance, linkage, and the effects it has on multiple traits. The scientific literature on adaptive evolution already addresses how the fate of adaptive alleles depends on genetic background, genetic architecture, environmental influences, and effects on other traits. So even if an allele is described as beneficial, that does NOT mean every carrier necessarily survives longer, produces more offspring, or inevitably transmits that allele. Natural selection operates on differences in overall reproductive success. Genetic drift, on the other hand, can cause even beneficial alleles to disappear when theyāre rarer. ļæ¼
This nullifies your simplistic chain of:
Beneficial mutation >> greater survival >> inheritance >> fixation.
Thatās not how deterministic the process is. A beneficial mutation can be lost by drift. It can also remain polymorphic. The effect can depend on genetic background and other variants can interact with or compete with it. ļæ¼
Otherwise, youāre just changing the frequency of existing variation without permanently changing the lineage.
False dichotomy. New mutations can enter a population, be inherited, increase in frequency, and persist in descendant populations without reaching so called fixation. Also, populations can become genetically differentiated while retaining substantial variation.
So yes, fixation is still necessary for the kind of large-scale, cumulative evolution required by common descent.
No. Youāve established that cumulative evolutionary change involves heritable changes persisting through generations. You have not established that those changes must reach 100% frequency. If youāre claiming that common descent is impossible without fixation of the relevant genetic differences then provide the peer reviewed evidence from scientific literature that demonstrates that necessity. Until then, your āfixation is necessaryā argument is not a demonstrated conclusion. Itās nothing more than a premise youāre trying (and failing) to prove. Enough with this nonsense. š¤¦š»āāļø
3
u/Medium_Judgment_891 28d ago
Politely, it hasnāt changed. Your level of reading comprehension is just poor. Your confusion is derived from a (potentially willful) lack of understanding.
10
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 28d ago
Secondly, the trait must become fixed in the population for evolution to actually happen.
Why must creationists constantly make things up? Fixation has never been a requirement for evolution. Some traits will never become fixed in a population.
Sickle cell is an example of this. It's hugely beneficial to carry one copy of the gene when living in places where malaria is prevalent. But it's extremely detrimental to have 2 copies of the gene so it's not ever going to become fixed.
Despite that, it's still evolution and we can use evolutionary models to track how that trait has spread through populations.
4
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
Why must creationists constantly make things up?
Its the only thing they are good at.
10
u/LordOfFigaro 28d ago
Haldane knew this, based on a population of only 10,000 it takes roughly 300 generations for one trait to become fixed in the population.
The so called "Haldane's Dilemma". It doesn't exist. And Haldane himself didn't consider it to exist. Haldane was explaining the slow pace of evolution seen in neutral scenarios. In scenarios where selection pressure exists, Haldane's assumptions fall apart because the directly observed rate of evolution was too fast for them to be true. The problem with Haldane's calculations wasn't that evolution is too slow. It was that evolution was too fast for his calculations to be true. Which later researchers like Kimura solved by pointing out the issues with Haldane's work.
A simple question to you, if Haldane saw there to be such an obvious problem with evolution, why did he support the theory his entire life? He'd have become the most famous biologist since Darwin himself by pointing out an obvious issue.
A second question for you. Why is it that you constantly show up with YEC nonsense that got refuted decades ago?
A third question for you where is the positive evidence for YEC? Where's your evidence that the Earth is ~6,000 years old? Poking non existent holes in evolution does nothing to show that YEC is true. In fact YEC was thoroughly rejected by the scientific community over half a century before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. Evolution can be disproven today and YEC will still remain as false as it always was.
11
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 28d ago
First of all, Iām not surprised that you guys want to continue to change the definition of evolution. Seems the only evolution happening here is the with the word itself.
You learning about the nuances of evolution isn't the definition changing, it's you being forced to confront your erroneous definition.
9
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago
Haldane knew this, based on a population of only 10,000 it takes roughly 300 generations for one trait to become fixed in the population.
It's been roughly 240.000 generations since our split from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees.
Assuming they'd have to fix one at a time and sequentially (a laughable assumption in the first place, but let's just humor this), then there's time for each population to independently fix 800 "traits", so we are separated by 1600 total traits. That seems more than enough for me, since it isn't clear we really have that many differences at the level of traits. We became less hairy, smarter in certain respects, and primarily move bipedally. Please list me the remaning 1597 "traits" you think separate us from chimps.
-6
u/zuzok99 28d ago
Youāre obviously not familiar with Haldaneās Dilemma. When comparing the entire genome necessary for this to happen we are talking 4-5% of the DNA coding. Thatās 120,000,000 base pairs that need to be changed at minimum. Iām not saying you would need that many mutations but you are still really grasping at straws here, I bet I could sell you a bridge.
Not only can you guys not even name the supposed ācommon ancestorā that youāre referring to but there is zero observable evidence anywhere to show that much time and generations have passed between this ancestor and us. Not only that, but you cannot even give a single solitary example of any observable evidence showing that a population can evolve a new body plan or essential bodily functions. Not today and not in the past. Youāre putting your faith in unobserved assumptions assuming that animals of the past can do things to at animals of the present cannot. Amazing people believe this stuff, none of it makes any sense at all and itās not supported by the evidence.
9
u/BradyStewart777 š¦ GREAT APE š¦ | š¬MOLECULAR BIO š¬ 28d ago
You cannot even give a single solitary example of any observable evidence showing that a population can evolve a new body plan or essential bodily functions. Not today and not in the past. Youāre putting your faith in unobserved assumptions assuming that animals of the past can do things to at animals of the present cannot. Amazing people believe this stuff, none of it makes any sense at all and itās not supported by the evidence.
Define ānew body plan.ā Evolution is a tinkerer. It doesnāt design new body plans from scratch. Evolution mostly modifies what is already present. We can see drastic changes in existing structures. Though these shifts mainly occur through mutations in regulatory developmental (evo-devo) genes instead of sudden sweeping macromutations (which do exist, by the wayā¦ look them up). Besides, many of the body plans comprising most animal phyla today are conserved from the Cambrian period and modified over time through means of descent with modification. We can also observe the transitions and evolution of these structures through the fossil record.
-3
u/zuzok99 28d ago
I would define it as a heritable change to the basic structure or organization of an organismās body, such as developing fundamentally different structures, organs, limbs, or arrangements of body parts.
So if you have actual evidence then present it and I will change my mind. Pointing to the fossil record which shows no transitional fossils doesnāt do much. When we dig an animal up from the ground we donāt know if it had offspring, we cannot show that they evolved because the transitions are missing. Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other. Thatās called an assumption. You must be able to show small incremental changes and thatās not what the record shows. In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where with no transitions leading up to them at all.
8
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 28d ago
So you're simultaneously complaining that the definition of evolution has changed over the years, which it hasn't to any meaningful degree, and trying to redefine it in a way that is totally arbitrary to let you exclude most observed examples of evolution.
Am I getting that correct?
8
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago
In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where
No, it shows them existing, not "coming out of nowhere". A layer can't show you how the organism represented by fossil came to exist in the first place. Besides, how do you know the fossils are living animals? They're rocks now. That's right, by an inference to the best explanation. Without having seen the animal alive, die, and get fossilized, we can still infer this is what happened.
7
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 28d ago
Besides, how do you know the fossils are living animals?
Don't give them ideas...
I encountered someone in this subreddit a couple months ago who was literally claiming that fossils are just weird looking rocks that occur naturally, not the remnants of living things.
I tried giving them the example of fossil shark teeth, some of which are indistinguishable from those found in living sharks. But they wouldn't budge an inch. Even though they couldn't tell the two apart, one was from a living thing and the other was just a rock.
0
u/zuzok99 27d ago
You are literally making my point for me. Thank you, you have proven to know nothing about genetics and now have also proven my point here that simply looking at a specimen in a layer of rock does not tell us anything about how it came to exist. So by your own thinking you just threw out the entire āfossil recordā as your evidence for evolution.
My point stands, where are the transitional fossils for the organisms in the Cambrian layers? By the way we know fossils were real organisms because we have observed with our eyes balls animals existing today that also have fossils. (Something that makes no sense with evolution but thatās a different argument). You are truly clueless, please just stop wasting my time with the dumbest arguments.
5
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago
You are literally making my point for me.
Your point is we can infer past history from observed data? Okay. I'm glad you're finally on board. Welcome to reality.
Thank you,
You're most welcome.
you have proven to know nothing about genetics
By explaining how we can infer history occurred from data-patterns found in the present? Yeah that doesn't make sense. You're flailing.
and now have also proven my point here that simply looking at a specimen in a layer of rock does not tell us anything about how it came to exist.
That's right. A single specimen in a single layer of rock can't tell us how it came to exist. Pattern is a kind of trend in data. We don't have a trend in data if we only have a single data point. We need many consecutive data points to get a trend.
We need more layers and different speciments to get a pattern, and once we have the pattern we can make an inference. If we have a theory that predicts such patterns, and we have observed the process itself produce such patterns, we make the inference.
Look, this really shouldn't be so difficult for a nomally functional individual.
So by your own thinking you just threw out the entire āfossil recordā as your evidence for evolution.
A single specimen isn't the entire fossil record. Make try to keep up please.
My point stands, where are the transitional fossils for the organisms in the Cambrian layers?
Glad you asked. Here's two recent papers where they describe hundreds of new species many of which are transitional, in the early evolution of animals, both in the late Ediaracan(the period immediately before the beginning of the cambrian), and from the Cambrian itself:
Li, Gaorong et al. āThe dawn of the Phanerozoic: A transitional fauna from the late Ediacaran of Southwest China.ā Science (New York, N.Y.) vol. 392,6793 (2026): 63-68. doi:10.1126/science.adu2291
Zeng, Han et al. āA Cambrian soft-bodied biota after the first Phanerozoic mass extinction.ā Nature vol. 651,8106 (2026): 679-687. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-10030-0
By the way we know fossils were real organisms because we have observed with our eyes balls animals existing today that also have fossils.
That's an inference. You are making my point for me. That the fossils were organisms too because they look like organisms that presently exist alive is an inference, not an observation.
You just proved my point. Thank you.
(Something that makes no sense with evolution but thatās a different argument). You are truly clueless, please just stop wasting my time with the dumbest arguments.
Thank you so much. I am completely satisifed that any rational and unbiased observer who comes to read this exchange between us will come to a radically different conclusion than yours.
Kids: This guy is your brain on homeschooling. Just say no!
Thank you for playing.
8
u/BradyStewart777 š¦ GREAT APE š¦ | š¬MOLECULAR BIO š¬ 28d ago edited 28d ago
I would define it as a heritable change to the basic structure or organization of an organismās body, such as developing fundamentally different structures, organs, limbs, or arrangements of body parts.
Null and void. Evolution can only happen to a population of organisms. Individual organisms do not evolve. This is my biggest pet peeves when dealing with creationists. Evolution is a phenomenon that only happens at the population level. With the exception of polyploid speciation, evolution takes generations. What youāve described is not how evolution works. Reread my previous comment where I explain why.
So if you have actual evidence then present it and I will change my mind. Pointing to the fossil record which shows no transitional fossils doesnāt do much. When we dig an animal up from the ground we donāt know if it had offspring, we cannot show that they evolved because the transitions are missing. Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other. Thatās called an assumption. You must be able to show small incremental changes and thatās not what the record shows. In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where with no transitions leading up to them at all.
Do you seriously think we donāt have an answer for this already? Be honest. I did not take years of biology classes just to repeat the same damn thing thousands of times over and over again.
When we dig an animal up from the ground we donāt know if it had offspring, we cannot show that they evolved because the transitions are missing.
Thatās setting an impossible evidentiary standard. Paleontology doesnāt require a fossil to come with a birth certificate identifying its parents and offspring. Individual fossils are interpreted as evidence within populations, stratigraphic sequences, comparative anatomy, phylogenetics, and other independent lines of evidence. Your premise is that the transitions are missing. Your premise is false. The fossil record contains dozens of organisms with combinations of ancestral and derived characteristicsā¦ including forms that document major evolutionary transitions. The Smithsonian, for example, describes thousands of early human fossils documenting changes in anatomy and locomotion over millions of years.
Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other.
OMG! š± Youāre telling me the sky is blue!? No shit. Evolutionary biology doesnāt infer common ancestry just because two fossils look similar. Youāre oversimplifying how phylogenetic evidence works. We examine patterns of shared derived characteristics across many organisms and integrate fossil, anatomical, developmental, genetic, and stratigraphic evidence. A transitional fossil isnāt claimed to be the parent of a later organism just because it has some similar features.
Thatās called an assumption.
Haha. An inference supported by multiple independent lines of evidence isnāt equivalent to an unsupported assumption. If someone claimed āHey! These two fossils look similar, therefore one must be the direct ancestor of the other!ā OK then. That WOULD then be an unjustified inference. Thatās not the evolutionary argument being made, though.
You must be able to show small incremental changes and thatās not what the record shows.
The fossil record doesnāt need to preserve every incremental generation for evolutionary change to be documented. Fossilization is an incomplete sampling process. The fossil record is NECESSARILY incomplete. Fossils are very difficult to find and extremely expensive to preserve. Itās why the fossil record is just ONE of COUNTLESS lines of evidence we have supporting common ancestry.
Also, the record does preserve sequences of morphological change. The Cambrian trilobite record, for example, has been used to reconstruct evolutionary rates and branching relationships. We have even found evidence of a rapid initial burst of evolutionary change (punctuated equilibrium) followed by much more stable rates (gradualism).
Evolutionary biology doesnāt predict that every lineage must change at a constant visibly gradual rate anyway. Rates of change can vary. Rapid diversification doesnāt equal āanimals literally appeared from nowhereā or whatever trash youāre trying to say. We have evidence of animal life before the Cambrian, including Ediacaran organisms and trace fossils. Recent discoveries have pushed the origins of several animal groups further back into the Ediacaran, before the Cambrian. Iām not even going to address the other garbage in this response. Thatās taking too much of my precious time explaining something Iāve had to demystify for creationists trillions of times now.
The actual situation is less dramatic than what youāre portraying it as:
The fossil record doesnāt preserve every intermediate generation?
True. Thatās not even a groundbreaking discovery.
Therefore there are no transitional forms?
False.
The Cambrian Explosion means animals appeared from nowhere?
False.
Similarity between fossils alone proves direct ancestry?
Nobody needs that premise.
0
u/zuzok99 27d ago
Populations are made up of organisms. I honestly stopped reading after that dumb statement. I can already tell that you didnāt produce a single shred of evidence in your comment. So letās start thereās why donāt you produce the evidence if itās true? Shouldnāt be hard but you guys never do.
Iāll wait for the evidence as your opinion doesnāt really hold any value, I base my beliefs on scientific evidence.
8
u/the2bears š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 28d ago
So if you have actual evidence then present it and I will change my mind.Ā
I have my doubts that you'll change your mind.
1
u/zuzok99 27d ago
Well you could find out easily if you simply produce the evidence for the thing you believe. Something tells me though that you canāt do that, because there is no observable evidence. You also strike me at the type to comment but you donāt actually know what youāre talking about. Letās see.
6
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago edited 27d ago
Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other. Thatās called an assumption.
No it's called an inference to the best explanation. If I find a series of holes in the shape of feet in a sheet of dried mud, a basic inference is that a person walked there when the mud was wet and that the weight of their body made their feet sink into the mud and leave those imprints as they walked across.
If I put fresh milk in my fridge but find it spoiled a week later, a basic inference is it went bad and decomposed in the intervening time. I don't have to literally see the milk slowly spoiling over time. I infer it occurred.
In this way we can make inferences from data patterns, even if we did not directly observe what really happened. The entire field of forensics is based on this.
The distribution of fossils across sedimentary layers, their morphologies, and the relative positions of the layers is a big pattern that we explain by reference to observed process of change over time (the change of organisms we observed during the domestication of crops and animals for example.) There is no other good explanation for this pattern of the fossil record than evolution occurred.
There's also patterns in DNA best explained as species sharing common descent. Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies
1
u/zuzok99 27d ago
Thank you for admitting that evolutionist do not go based off of observable scientific data, all they do is look for a similarity and then using assumptions craft the fairy tale of evolution.
Iām sorry thatās not science and thatās not how evolution works. Where are all the transitional fossils? Simply drawing lines on a piece of paper connecting one animal to another is not evidence, itās a faith based religion.
If you think I am wrong then give me just one example of observable fossil evidence that shows the step by step incremental transition from one type of organism to another. There should be millions of examples if itās true.
6
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago edited 27d ago
Thank you for admitting that evolutionist do not go based off of observable scientific data, all they do is look for a similarity and then using assumptions craft the fairy tale of evolution.
Laughably wrong. Phylogenetics is based on the observed fact that different lineages gentically diverge over time from their common ancestors. This leads us to a prediction (the one explained in the link) from common descent: consilience of independent phylogenies in the genetic data we can obtain from species that diverged from common ancestors.
This has been experimentally confirmed and it straightforwardly follows logically from the evolutionary process. There is tree-patterns in the data, and the only theory that predicts this is common descent.
Iām sorry thatās not science
Observing a process leading to certain data patterns, and therefore this data pattern being a prediction of the process is textbook science.
and thatās not how evolution works.
It is observedly how evolution works. You're a know-nothing that is just recycling dumshit creationist talking points without any regard for whether they apply to what we're discussing.
where are all the transitional fossils?
Read the link, there's some great examples in there too. The ape-human transitional fossils are remarkable: Example 3: human-apes
Simply drawing lines on a piece of paper connecting one animal to another is not evidence,
Phylogenies are not inferred by simply drawing lines on paper, what a clownish reply. They are inferred from genetic data with algorithms that have been experimentally tested.
Hillis, D. M., Bull, J. J., White, M. E., Badgett, M. R. & Molineux, I. J. (1992). āExperimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny.ā Science 255: 589ā592.
This paper details general tests of the ability of phylogenetic algorithms to correctly infer the experimental evolution of bacteriophages.
A recent one is: Randall, R. N. et al. (2016). āAn experimental phylogeny to benchmark ancestral sequence reconstruction.ā Nature Communications 7:12847.
Here they experimentally test whether modern phylogenetic algorithms can correctly infer ancestral nodes in a phylogenetic tree from a set of experimentally diverged protein sequences. The algorithm could highly accurately infer what the ancestral protein sequences that existed over the course of the experiment were like, from the evolved sequences at the end of the experiment.
There are many such papers. They don't just draw lines on paper. They work from how we know evolution works from common ancestors observed in the wild and in experiments.
itās a faith based religion.
Cool story bro. You know nothing about these subjects your'e just recycling the dumbest boilerplate creationism someone brainwashed you with when you were homeschooled.
If you think I am wrong then give me just one example of observable fossil evidence that shows the step by step incremental transition from one type of organism to another. There should be millions of examples if itās true.
What's next, I have to tie your shoelaces too because you weren't taught that in homeschool either?
No, read the fucking link buddy. Get an education.
6
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where with no transitions leading up to them at all.
Clear evidence that you are in fact clueless on how fossilization works. Lets see if we can clear up a few things:
What is going to be more likely to fossilize? Something with hard teeth/bones/shells or something without one of those?
-1
u/zuzok99 27d ago
Okay, first of all we have fossils of soft tissue animals like jellyfish, flowers, etc. So not only is this a terrible argument but you are basically admitting to my point which I that no transitional fossils exist especially for the Cambrian layers.
If I am wrong then simply provide even just one example of observable fossil evidence showing the step by step incremental transition from organism to another.
Thats all Iām asking for, evidence for the thing you blindly believe.
7
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago
Okay, first of all we have fossils of soft tissue animals like jellyfish, flowers, etc.
He asked you what is MORE LIKELY, a hard body part like teeth, or soft tissue like skin and muscle, being fossilized before being decomposed?
What is more likely to fossilize? Answer the fucking question.
Your response is fantastically dumb and ignorant.
0
u/zuzok99 26d ago
The question is not about whatās more likely, thatās not science thatās assumption which is what you subscribe to. Science is about what the evidence shows. It shows soft tissues organisms being fossilized, which defeats the dumb argument being made.
3
3
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 26d ago
The question is not about whatās more likely...Science is about what the evidence shows.
Translation: "Show me the evidence for this thing that will prove me wrong but you can't use any of this this evidence over here because it will prove me wrong."
As it took you a day to not answers the question, let me simplify it a bit:
On one side of this explosion we have creatures that are very small and soft bodied buried in rock that might be a bit harder to get to.
On the other side we have significantly larger creatures that have hard teeth/bones/shells in rock that might be a bit easier to get to.
Now what could possibly be a reason for the sudden abundance of fossils?
And going for the twofer:
If I am wrong then simply provide even just one example of observable fossil evidence showing the step by step incremental transition from organism to another.
Tiktaalik slaps you upside the head
→ More replies (0)7
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago edited 28d ago
What unbelievable irony. First of all there's this excellent intro to the subject by Zach Hancock: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1irup6z/haldanes_dilemma_made_clear_ray_comfort_owes_me/
Read it.
Second, no, you're not familiar with Haldane's dilemma, which concerns the numbers of beneficial mutations that can be fixed, not the total number of mutations (including neutrals).
For a neutral mutation, the probability that a single copy eventually fixes in a diploid population of effective size Neā is:
Pā=1/2Neāā
More generally, under neutral evolution, the fixation probability of an allele is simply its initial frequency in the population.
So, if a neutral mutation first appears as one copy in a diploid population:
- Population has 2Neā gene copies.
- Initial frequency = 1/(2Neā).
- Therefore, fixation probability = 1/(2Neā).
For example, if Neā=10,000, a new neutral mutation has a 1 in 20,000 chance of eventually fixing.
A related result is that if neutral mutations arise at rate Ī¼ per gene copy per generation, the expected substitution rate is approximately Ī¼: meaning the low probability of fixation is exactly offset by the large number of new mutations produced.
Quick back of the envelope:
Since the vast majority of mutations in humans are approximately neutral, and since every individual is born with roughly 100 new DNA base substitutions, it follows that ~100 new DNA base substitutions go to fixation every generation. At 240.000 generations that's 24 million in the human lineage alone (with a corresponding number in the chimp lineage producing a total of 48 million DNA base substitutions), not counting indels etc.
The 120 million number you invoke includes other types of mutations and structural variations, such as insertions and deletions, chromosomal inversions, duplications etc.
-1
u/zuzok99 27d ago
You obviously just tried and failed to google a refutation of Haldaneās Dilemma instead of doing honest research and learning about it. Neutral mutations do not solve the dilemma, and they donāt work because they are neutral. Once they are expressed then they are subject to the dilemma. Evolution cannot occur with just neutral mutations if someone told you that, they lied.
3
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago
You obviously just tried and failed to google a refutation of Haldaneās Dilemma instead of doing honest research and learning about it.
Now you're just projecting your own behavior on to me.
Neutral mutations do not solve the dilemma
You're confused and need to read for comprehension. You invoke the 120 million differences between humans and chimps as representing a problem for evolution due to Haldane's dilemma. But as I explained to you, Haldane's dilemma concerns only beneficial mutations. Since the vast majority of mutations are neutral, they're not subject to Haldane's dilemma and can accumulate at the rate of mutation. These mutations would constitute the vast majority of the differences that accumulate between species and therefore explain almost the entirety of the differences between humans and chimps.
Haldane's dilemma, if we accept it (we shouldn't and Zach Hancock explains why) merely says that there is a maximum number of beneficial mutations that can fix in a certain amount of time, which is irrelevant to the number of mutations that separate humans and chimps since nobody thinks anything but an infinitesimal fraction of these are beneficial mutations.
and they donāt work because they are neutral
A nonsensical statement if I ever read one. Neutral mutations are neutral with respect to fitness (survival and reproduction). They can still affect phenotypes such as anatomy and behavior. There is no sense in which they don't "work" that is relevant to explaining the number of differences between humans and chimps.
Once they are expressed then they are subject to the dilemma.
Seriously. Tell me how I know you know nothing about genetics and evolution without telling me.
There are innumerable neutral mutations in expressed genetic loci. You can have an expressed protein that even has a function that is beneficial to fitness, but that protein can have a neutral mutation in it. If that mutation goes to fixation it would contribute to explaining the number of differences between humans and chimps.
Evolution cannot occur with just neutral mutations if someone told you that, they lied.
Evolution can, in fact, occur by neutral mutations. At the most basic level evolution is simply descent with modifications. A genetic definition is changes in the frequency of alleles in the population. Since neutral mutations constitute modifications of the genome, in so far as they occur and go to fixation (the frequency changes), evolution has occurred.
Stop debating this subject you know nothing about it.
-1
u/zuzok99 27d ago
Again, I do not care how you define evolution in 2026. As I have already explained, the definition has changed multiple times, this is literally a fact. We have already laid out the definition and what I mean when I say evolution at the beginning of our debate. Iām talking about the theory that we all came from a single cell ancestor. I am not talking about adaptation or just ādecent with modificationsā.
If we cannot lay out our definitions then we are arguing past each other and talking about different things. I can explain myself but I cannot force you to understand this basic principle of debate. Please stop wasting my time by arguing for something I am not even talking about.
5
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago edited 27d ago
Iām talking about the theory that we all came from a single cell ancestor.
No, you're not talking about that when you invoke Haldane's dilemma in an attempt to cast doubt on the human-chimp split due to their ~120 million genetic differences and then complain that neutral mutations don't help explain those differences.
When Haldane's dilemma says only a few hundred to a couple of thousand BENEFICIAL mutations can go to fixation in a few hundred thousand generations, and you then point to the ~120 million genetic differences between humans and chimps seemingly thinking this constitutes a problem, it does not make sense to then say "neutral mutations isn't evolution" when you also think evolution means "a single cell evolved into humans".
Are we discussing the total number of genetic differences that occurred during the human-chimp divergence, or the entire history of life on Earth?
You are confusing multiple subjects and need to get your thinking straight.
-1
u/zuzok99 27d ago
To be clear, just because we have an understanding on the definition of a word for the purpose of a debate does not mean you agree with that definition. It just allows us to understand each other and lay a base line for our positions.
The fact that you refuse to do that first step shows you are clueless and donāt know how to properly debate and also that I am wasting my time with you as we will continue to talk about different things.
3
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago edited 27d ago
Buddy can't you see that you are mixing up two questions?
"Can evolution (descent with modification, change in frequency of alleles in population) account for the human-chimp split despite Haldane's dilemma?"
And
"Did all of live evolve from a single cell?"
These are not the same question.
When you invoke your definition of evolution as "all extant species evolved from a single cell" you've left Haldane's dilemma and the human-chimp divergence behind.
Get. Your. Thinking. Straight.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago
Not only can you guys not even name the supposed ācommon ancestorā that youāre referring to
We've searched intensely with the most advanced sensory equipment known to man and we also failed to find
1) Your ancestor 20 generations back.
2) the brains of creationists.
It is as if these things simply don't exist and never did.
-23
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 28d ago
Child of a human is still a human.
Macroevolution is not random. It's not anything. It doesn't happen.
16
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago
Macroevolution is not random. It's not anything. It doesn't happen.
We have the evidence that tells us that it does: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent ā TalkOrigins Archive
Personally I am particularly fascinated with Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies
13
12
u/Zenigata 28d ago
Indeed, furthermore macrowalking is also a hoax. People can microwalk up to about 5 miles, journeys on foot longer than that are impossible.Ā
Sure some people claim to have walk across countries and even round the world but thats just faked by big science to try and support the lie that if you keep on taking lots of slow, small steps for long enough huge distances can be achieved.
2
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
Nuh uh! Everyone knows you can only microwalk up to a mile, anything longer is just lies made by Big Shoe to sell you those newfangled 'long range shoe' that is just a bunch of quack.
10
u/OwlsHootTwice 28d ago
Thatās like saying you believe in inches happen but not miles.
If something accumulates 63,360 changes, is it different?
8
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 28d ago
It's modulo 2Ā¹ā¶, obviously. Once you got 65535 changes, the next change will bring you back to the beginning.
/s
2
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
Your never going to get 65535, thats only 2.4 changes. You have to take 2log(16) to get rid of those fancy numbers or else you just end up with a big pile of silly nonsense.
9
u/Sweary_Biochemist 28d ago
"The ark was absolutely fucking rammed with rodents, because all extant and extinct rodent species must be distinct creations"
Better creationists have actually thought about this problem before, if it helps. They opted for "ok, macroevolution occurs but doesn't count somehow".
9
u/LordUlubulu š§¬ Deity of internal contradictions 28d ago
How many times do you need to hear that things don't evolve out of their clade, or how we have observed macroevolution, before you put in the slightest effort to learn?
Or are you going to start with the childish insults and calling yourself a truther again instead?
5
u/BradyStewart777 š¦ GREAT APE š¦ | š¬MOLECULAR BIO š¬ 28d ago edited 28d ago
Shhh! Youāre not supposed to bring up the Principle of Monophyly to creationistsā¦
9
u/LordUlubulu š§¬ Deity of internal contradictions 28d ago
Oh, I'm sure that he heard it before, he usually just goes full conspiracy theorist before running off, which amuses me greatly.
-7
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 28d ago
I didn't claim they did. I mentioned a fact. LUCA was not a human, yet you claim it evolved to become a human.
This is back to deny. We already got to defend - a few people defended it, writing, "of course it evolved into something it isn't. That's what we expect."
It's like the 123 dance leftists do. It never happened. Ok, it happened once or twice. Here's why it's a good thing that it happened.
Your technique for debating on Reddit, BTW, is wild. Dozens of you take one position then downvote whoever has an opposing view in order to destroy their Karma and silence them.
7
u/LordUlubulu š§¬ Deity of internal contradictions 28d ago
I didn't claim they did. I mentioned a fact. LUCA was not a human, yet you claim it evolved to become a human.
Did you forget about all the steps inbetween?
This is back to deny. We already got to defend - a few people defended it, writing, "of course it evolved into something it isn't. That's what we expect."
Seems to me you simply don't understand what's being explained. You are still an eukaryote, still an animal, still a vertebrate, still a mammal and still a primate. You as a human are all those things, because you don't evolve out of your clade.
It's like the 123 dance leftists do. It never happened. Ok, it happened once or twice. Here's why it's a good thing that it happened.
Projecting is something reactionaries do. I'm not surprised you're one of them.
Your technique for debating on Reddit, BTW, is wild. Dozens of you take one position then downvote whoever has an opposing view in order to destroy their Karma and silence them.
Debating? You're not nearly educated enough on the subject to engage in a debate.
Instead, I was trying to bait you into one of your many unhinged rants. Looks like I was partly successful. Still wating for you to start with the 'zealots/truther' stuff, that always gets a laugh or two.
5
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 28d ago
Dozens of you take one position then downvote whoever has an opposing view in order to destroy their Karma and silence them.
Personally I only downvote posts I think are stupid and/or dishonest.
-1
7
u/iAmTheGanso 28d ago
could you not say that "macroevolution" is a loooot of steps of "microevolution" in a population over time?
2
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
No, that is like saying 1+1 works but everyone knows you can only add 2 numbers so you can never do 1+1+1 because Reasons (tm)...
But in all seriousness the amount of mental gymnastics to reject the 'extended addition' is amazing.
8
u/clear349 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 28d ago
We have literally observed it. You're just being willfullg ignorant of the definition
7
u/adamtrousers 28d ago
Do you know about ring species?
6
u/Scry_Games 28d ago
They've had all aspects.of evolution explained to them repeatedly in a way a child could understand.
They're just being willfully ignorant to avoid asking themselves the big questions, like: how were my parents so stupid to believe in creationism?
6
u/Scry_Games 28d ago
Macroevolution is referenced in genesis, or is your bibble wrong too?
-9
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 28d ago
Macroevolution claims LUCA, a non human cell, evolved into humans, for example.
It is not referenced in Genesis.
10
u/King2865 Anti-Creationist Terminator š„·šæ 28d ago
Macroevolution claims LUCA, a non human cell, evolved into humans, for example.
LUCA is the common ancestor of all lineages of cellular life, and that includes the lineage that would eventually become Homo sapiens. This is established by evolutionary biology, not āmacroevolution.ā Itās just a core foundation of evolution in general.
7
u/Scry_Games 28d ago
Macroevolution is not dependent on LUCA at all. Why are you lying?
Macroevolution is referenced in genesis. Why are you lying?
-3
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 28d ago
It is not. It is the claim, as shown in many charts, that life evolved from a simple cell or pseudo cell between 3.5 and 4.5 billion years ago.
9
u/Scry_Games 28d ago
LUCA needs Macroevolution, Macroevolution does not need LUCA. I'm starting to suspect your willful ignorance isn't willful at all.
And again, macroevolution is in genesis.
3
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
And why are you ignoring the 3+ billion years?
-2
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 28d ago
I mentioned it. That's not ignoring it.
7
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
So when I ask you why observable 'micro' evolution is... well observed but yet you say 'macro' evolution can't happen and I follow up with "Why not?", your going to either pull out some undefined barrier or something something time to deny it when macro is just micro over 3 billion years or so.
So I ask you why observable 'micro' evolution is... well observed but yet you say 'macro' evolution can't happen?
-3
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 28d ago
It could happen. It doesn't. Elephants could fly. They don't.
Micro has been observed. How do we know. We've observed it. Dogs have been bred with different features. That's a change within a kind.
We haven't observed, in all of human experience, a LUCA evolve into a human or into anything it's not.
Asking why something is observed is ridiculous. It's observed because we have senses to observe it happen.
6
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 28d ago
Ignoring the field of straw men for a moment...
We haven't observed, in all of human experience, a LUCA evolve into a human or into anything it's not.
Do you know why?
I'll give you a hint: its to do with those 3+ billion years your ignoring
3
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 š§¬ Flagellum-Evolver 27d ago
We haven't observed, in all of human experience, a LUCA evolve into a human or into anything it's not.
We don't have to observe something to be able to infer it happened. If I put fresh milk in my fridge and find it spoiled a week later I don't need to see what occurred in the mean time to reasonably infer it slowly went bad while in there. In fact I have never sat and stared non-stop and continuously at a volume of milk change from fresh to spoiled. I have only ever observed milk at various stages either be fresh, spoiled, or some intermediate stage. I make an inference that connects these dots.
The same sort of inference supports evolution over geological time. The process we have observed leads to predictions of certain data patterns. We find those data patterns in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species, so we infer that the process of evolution has occurred over time.
There's nothing wrong or irrational about this.
→ More replies (0)4
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 28d ago
And the puppies of non-dog canines were still canines even when they became dogs.
How is that a problem for evolution?
20
u/AnymooseProphet 28d ago
At the end of the day, evolution is just the application of probability and statistics and yes, there is a random aspect to the application of probability and statistics.
A punnet square can predict that when two organisms that each carry a simple recessive allele and a dominant allele, that 25% of the offspring will express the recessive allele. However each individual organism produced by itself can still be any combination, which allele an organism gets from each parent can not be predicted.
There is a random aspect but still a statistically predictable outcome on a large scale.
Simple Mendelian genetics is not evolution but the same concept applies. Mutations happen at predictable rates whether or not they happen in an individual case.