The Evolution of Evolution: How our understanding has changed

I actually wasn't referring to you at all, but to the source of such arguments  . You have brought up the "time" argument a number of times over the years: that evolution requires long periods of time; that evolutionists think any problems can be solved with enough time; that no amount of time is enough, etc., but evolutonists don't think that way, nor is that line of argument original to you. So when I bring up YEC/ID, I'm not saying you're a YEC (you're ID, right?). However, these type of arguments have been around for over 50 years and originate with YEC and have been picked up by ID. So to keep things amiable and avoid any personal attacks, I was simply addressing that whole general line of argument at the source of the argument (YEC/ID): the line of argument that evolutionary biologists supposedly think that evolution is impossible, but that the impossible can become possible with enough time. But no one thinks that way.

In fact, let's look at a few examples of this line of argument from anti-evolutionists:

Some mathematicians say that about the origin of life (which does seem impossible), but evolutionary biologists never use such arguments with regard to evolution that "anything can happen with enough time" as if to say evolution is impossible, because we already know---from evidence and observation---that evolution happens. It's not a question.

Here's another argument that keeps getting repeated ad nauseum that was debunked long ago:

Stuff like this irritates me to no end, because it is a pack of lies that Christians, who are supposed to be honest and ethical, keep falsely spreading. First, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist." There are scientists. Second, scientists don't reject dates "that don't fit the evolutionary timeline"---whatever that is. That makes it sound like there is some preconceived "evolutionary timeline" that scientists imagine must be true, and then twist data to fit that. There is no "evolutionary timeline," there is simply what we observe in the fossil record of life on this planet. And I can show you dates that "fit the evolutionary timeline" that have still been rejected by scientists for lack of sufficient evidence or methodological problems. Also, radiometric dating yields highly consistent results. And geologists DO NOT "in practice" "choose the 'correct' age...based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline." That is a pack of lies that I am so sick of Christians spreading.

Once again, lies and misrepresentation. Shame on YEC Christians. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." "Evolutionists" don't "admit" the "chances of evolutionary progress are low," but sure let's make up things and fabricate lies. There's no such thing as "evolutionary progress." That's a made up concept by YECs. Nor is evolution a matter of roll-the-dice probability; nor is it "low" probability; nor is there any question that evolution has happened.

So, yes, I know you don't specifically identify as YEC, but YECs are still the source of the "time" argument that you often raise.

(By the way, I didn't understand your question above)

*So I was simply saying that (1) evolutionary processes don't require billions of years; (2) Nor do scientists think that evolution is impossible (we know it happens; we observe it happening, even, instantaneous speciation (macroevolution) in real-time), but becomes possible with enough time (there was more than enough time for evolution); and (3) scientists don't have "a great deal at stake." They don't have anything to lose if the evidence were to show the earth is young and evolution is not true and didn't happen. If there was legitimate evidence that evolution is wrong and the earth is young, then that’s what science would teach.

Well, all I am asking is that you ask me to defend the things I say in the context I say them, throwing in what YEC say has nothing to do with me as an individual. If I happen to say things that they say, your responses should be limited to me not go off on someone I am not.

Fine. Same answer though. You are incorrect in your assertions. Scientists do not explain evolution with time, evolutionary processes do not require billions of years, and scientists have nothing at stake and nothing to lose. If there was legitimate evidence that evolution is wrong and the earth is young then science would teach that.

Willing to elaborate on #2 in red #41 ( instantaneous speciation) tbwp?

Sure. Instantaneous speciation (a new species formed in a single step or single event) is actually a rather common phenomenon that has been *observed* in real-time. The most common way this occurs is by genome doubling in what is known as *polyploidy*, Chromosomes usually come in pairs (diploid--one from mom, one from dad). But there are many cases (especially in plants, but also some animals) where chromosome doubling occurs, resulting in genomes with three or more sets of chromosomes. For example, strawberries are octoploid: instead of having just two sets of chromosomes for each different chromosome, there are eight. A single organism in a population can become polyploid in an "instant": in a single step/single event, and then "instantly" become reproductively incompatible, and be unable to reproduce anymore with other organisms in the same population that it used to be able to reproduce with (meaning it is no longer the same species; and can no longer reproduce "according to its kind"): *instantaneous speciation*.

This is not some theory. We *observe* this happening in real-time. Seedless watermelons, strawberries, salmon are all polyploid. Over one-third of all plants are polyploid.

Here's some links/quotes with more information 

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-instantaneous-speciation

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930090636.htm

True, they talk about the processes, and with those processes, they have claimed these processes took place due to the amount of time allotted that is available, I won't quibble on that because I think as I have said over and over it is timing, not large amounts of time that matters. I think you are just barking about this to have something to bark about, it isn't a point I stress yet you are stressing it as if it matters to our discussion, pick any amount of time you want, it will be yours to defend with respect to how your evolutionary processes mechanisms are able to function and get the jobs done you claim they do.

<sigh> No one's barking, I'm simply addressing your claims. And there's nothing to defend. Evolution does not take as long as we once thought, and we can OBSERVE and STUDY it today in real-time. We OBSERVE it happening right before our eyes, including the instantaneous creation of new species by polyploidy in a single generation or single mating; chromosome and whole genome duplication in a single step; leg bones with musculature appearing in a fish fin in a single step; insect appendages swapping physical location on the body in a single step; 'jumping genes' and horizontal DNA transfer between different "kinds" in a single step; large scale chromosome and genome restructuring (with no harm to the organism) in a single step.

How long does it take to build an eye and all of the necessary things that allow the input signals to enter into a life form so it can acknowledge there is something new there, LIGHT, and what is that?

Well as you've noted, time is not the relevant issue but mechanism and process, and, sure, we can get into those mechanisms (and, in fact, we already have and have already discussed eye evolution multiple times in the past). And sure, we can go back to that. But first, you can't just dismiss or ignore what has already been said. 

I've worked in R&D for processors, and I've also worked in the kitchen at a VA hospital, we built next-generation CPUs for computers, and the other breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  One I could test the parts, and put them on a shelf until I needed them for other stress tests, the other food had to be cared for with temperature controls and time. Being on the shelf first in and first out so nothing went bad because even under ideal conditions, there could be spoilage.

Biologically speaking you don't get unlimited time due to so many factors it isn't funny, once something is established in normal processing, your new and improved mutation must meet several conditional norms, to stay or not get rejected! Timing is everything, how would an error-checking system handle an anomaly if it is a bottom-up driven system where all of the so-called "natural" alterations cannot be called good or bad until after they have been established, and if they are not established, why would they not be rejected? Natural selection doesn't pick and choose as they happen, or before they happen, only afterward when all of the benefits or the disastrous ramifications have already been written in stone and normalized.

The fact that you speak of "new and improved mutations" shows you haven't listened to a word I've said

Because you avoid the points I've made on how things would have had to start and how the processes work, you instead just deal with the possibility in the past this occurred, while in the present those types of things just don't occur the way implied.

I avoid by agreeing with you? That's a new one

Not really, in the here and now all we see are operating processes, working as they are supposed to while you are suggesting evolutionary processes have taken these working processes in the here and now, and then suggesting they could start from a common ancestor to get all life into what we see now. Why, because of what, what you see in the here and now?

No, see you're misunderstanding. You have it the other way around. I never said that evolutionary processes changed operating processes that were already working the way they are supposed to work. I said we now have substantial empirical evidence that evolutionary change is a natural result of the proper functioning of those normal, established operating systems. A significant amount of evolution is due to the normal functioning of those operating systems. 

Yes, quite correct evolutionary change, you see processes in the here and now and assume that these were those that could, would, and did change are you not?

No

No, really changes didn't cause evolution?

No, I'm not "assuming"

You are not assuming, you know, there is no room for errors, it is undeniably true? Well not much sense talking to you about this if that is true.