Why MICRO but not MACRO?

[Astrophile]

I'm just using it as an illustration. Just like the other 2 non-scriptural illustrations.

I said it is possible....but at the same impossible.

If the Creator placed parameters on evolution, then that would render macro-evolution impossible. If there's a restriction on any kind evolving outside of its kind as referenced in Genesis, then that would be why we wouldn't see a cat become a rhino, etc. Again, not that it's not possible on paper. But unless you rule out God entirely, this shouldn't really be inconceivable.

To make sure, is reference to God and scripture a no-no in this thread?

'Limits' would be a better word than 'parameters'. We are not talking about a cat becoming a rhino, or vice versa. That really would be impossible. Evolution is the descent over millions of generations of cats and rhinos from common ancestors that did not much resemble either. Would you regard this descent from common ancestors as micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

 

[Astrophile]

Me asking for the dividing line between micro and macro evolution has nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. I am asking, if it is possible for someone to answer it, what the scientific dividing line between the two is.

Not being a biologist, I don't know what the dividing line is. However, it seems to me that the dividing line depends on how closely the animals, plants, fungi, etc. are related to humans. Some people appear to think that that the descent of the ~300 species of octopuses, for example, from a common ancestor is micro-evolution, since the animals are still octopuses and haven't evolved into penguins or whales. In the same way, these people appear to regard the descent of the 180,000 species of lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) from a common ancestor as micro-evolution, since these insects are still butterflies or moths and they haven't evolved into birds, bats or pterosaurs.

On the other hand, the same people will deny that the 166 species of catarrhine primates (Old World Monkeys and apes) are descended from a common ancestor, even though all these animals are still catarrhine primates and haven't evolved into anything else. Perhaps they think that the common descent of the catarrhines, if it ever happened, would be an example of macro-evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

Ah, but the evidence is not absolute. You cannot prove how one species changed to another when you only have the fossilized remains of one in perhaps several million subjects. I realize that this is also a limitation on the intelligent design viewpoint as well, because you cannot prove that you would not have that clear transition if you had the genetic remains of all the intervening generations.

We also have the evidence of the extant species and the patterns of genetic similarity between them.

True. But you agree that this variation is imposed by humans and the canid list is (apparently) not.

Geographic and environmental isolation is required for speciation to occur. I don't think it;s controversial to propose this happening.

But this cause/effect scenario breaks the evolutionary argument of natural selection. If only two dog breeds survived on this planet without humans, do you really think they would be the Chihuahua and the Great Dane? I would think that both of these breeds would have tremendous challenges surviving in the wild. It's quite apparent to me that the dog breeds that survive would not be the breeds with extreme features like large vs small sizes, hairless vs fluffy, etc. Those two breeds would probably be wiped out in less than 10 generations. (Great Dane maybe a little longer)

You are misunderstanding my point.

The variation between those two breeds would make interbreeding unlikely, and lacking more median dogs would survive with different strategies and different pressures.

I'm not proposing that these breeds are primed to survive abruptly being in the wild, merely to use them as an example of two extremely closely related populations that could be labelled as a macroevolutionary change.

Dogs are effectively a ring species by body plan.

The breeds that survive our disappearance would be those animals that were lucky enough to already be in their preferred environments, and coincidentally, they probably end up looking a lot like the native canid species after a hundred generations or so. (Dog's in the north looking more like wolves, dogs in the desert areas looking more like coyotes, etc.)

That's just an example of a large stable population of canids being, more or less a sub species of wolves reacquiring the niche left by wolves and coyotes.

Since we do not know the demarcation line of the species that Noah saved, it is unclear whether 4500 years is long enough for the current diversity from the time period of Noah. (Or whether the various counter-theories about the extent of the flood are valid enough to relieve us from this limitation.)

Using any understanding of genetics the Ark narrative is completely impossible without significant intervention of vast amounts of extra plants, animals, genetic diversity, sedimentary structures and fossils by miracle.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

This is something I see so often repeated in some varying form of argument:

"Oh, there's evidence for micro-evolution, but there's no evidence for macro-evolution."

This is so often touted as evidence of evolution being false, but no one has ever explained why the former excludes the latter. Why micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution.

So why? Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Why can't large amounts of small changes lead to a singular big change?

This would be better answered with a google search. To be blunt, there is more to it than just "one is bigger than the other". Think of a CV Transmission. They work great in small applications, but are not practical for high power setups. It's because physics actually limit some things to small applications only. But again, a google search will be much more effective for answering your question.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This would be better answered with a google search. To be blunt, there is more to it than just "one is bigger than the other". Think of a CV Transmission. They work great in small applications, but are not practical for high power setups. It's because physics actually limit some things to small applications only. But again, a google search will be much more effective for answering your question.

Except that it's not a question that can be answered by a Google search since it's a comment made by people on this website and not once have I seen anyone who makes the comment, when questioned on it, answer how so.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Except that it's not a question that can be answered by a Google search since it's a comment made by people on this website and not once have I seen anyone who makes the comment, when questioned on it, answer how so.

Then a google search will effectively arm you to answer them effectively. I just searched it again (I used to argue about it all the time a decade or so ago). The search was extremely rewarding. It will educate you a lot better than a bunch of us "unknowns" on a religious forum.

Here's my explanation in the form of an analogy:
Micro-evolution - the "rusting away" that happens to an old Chevy when you park it out in a wet field for a few decades.
Magro-evolution - The act of rusting away turns it into a Porsche.

Of course, that explanation may expose my bias.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then a google search will effectively arm you to answer them effectively. I just searched it again (I used to argue about it all the time a decade or so ago). The search was extremely rewarding. It will educate you a lot better than a bunch of us "unknowns" on a religious forum.

I think you might be ignoring what I'm trying to get at. I know that there is no border between micro and macro evolution. Lots of little steps can lead to one large step, in this case stepping the species boundary. There are people on this site who claim that there is a hard border between the two, and when they claim that there is such a border, they must know what that border is. Every time I ask, I get no answer. This thread was an attempt to try and get an answer from the people on this site who make the claim.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not sure how I could recognize such a boundary even if it existed. As I understand it, micro evolution is evolution up to and including speciation and macro evolution is everything that happens after that. But the only signal event in evolution is speciation. If speciation happens, and happens repeatedly, then what we think of as macro evolution happens automatically. As species proliferate, the number of them invites categorization by scientists and the higher taxa are created to suit the species (rather than the species to suit the taxa.) The only way a boundary would work is if caused speciation to cease (which is not what we observe in nature), or to place a limit as to how much a species can diverge from its precursor population. The latter possibility seems the most popular amongst creationists and depends, I think, on the assumption of "kinds" which posits a relatively large number of abiogenesis events producing unrelated evolutionary lines--rather than a single common ancestor for all life. In any case, if such a boundary to diversification exists there must be a genetic mechanism for it. It seems to me that any competent answer to the OP question must suggest what this mechanism is.

 

[stevil]

Lol, I never claimed to be the brightest crayon in the box. I never believed what I was taught in middle school about the monkey-to-man theory. I believed I was placed here by aliens at that time. Throughout the years, I've always asked myself these questions.

When was the first human born that had the DNA switch?
When a human was born you had to have a male and female to start the human race. What are the odds of that happening at the same time?
If we evolved from monkeys wouldn't a human still be born from monkeys today?

As a Christian, I believe God has guided the process,

Hey @Laodicean60 I've just looked back through this thread and seen this really interesting post of yours. Unfortunately you were fobbed off by the person that started the thread.

Your questions are very valid and are very much on track with the topic "macro vs micro evolution"

I'm not sure what you mean by "the DNA switch" though, so can't attempt to answer that.

But when you say "When a human was born you had to have a male and female to start the human race." That would be a fantastic example of Macro evolution. And I can entirely understand why you assume that there was a first human male and a first human female. I think anyone that is interested in Evolution, would be doing a huge disservice in fobbing you off here. It's rude and it doesn't help you A) understand evolution and B) want to participate in this "precious" thread when your valid questions are shut down so abruptly.

If a monkey gave birth to a human, that would be an instant form of Macro evolution. This would become a huge dilemma for the Theory of Evolution. In fact, it would be proof that Evolution is not true.
Macro evolution cannot happen instantaneously, it would disprove evolution.

So when you also said "If we evolved from monkeys wouldn't a human still be born from monkeys today?"
I think this is a great logical question and your conclusion would be correct. If two monkeys can produce a human offspring, we would likely find that humans would be born from two monkey parents.
However, if a monkey gave birth to a human, that would be a miraculous event, and it would disprove evolution.

So perhaps, if macro evolution could happen, it would disprove evolution and maybe could be used as evidence for god intervening by breaking the natural rules which limit what evolution could produce.

In the Evolution Theory provided by scientists, Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are not monkeys, have never been monkeys and will never evolve to become monkeys. Also monkeys are not human, have never been human and will never evolve to become human. Even given a billion years of evolution, monkeys will never evolve into humans and humans will never evolve into monkeys.

Humans will always be human and monkeys will always be monkeys. These are two very different and distinct species.

Consider the Whale. It swims in the water, lives in the water, just like fish. But a whale isn't a fish. It is a mammal. In a million or even a billion years from now, the offspring of the whale will still be a whale, it won't be a fish.
Just like Humans, we are still mammals, we aren't fish, we aren't birds or reptiles. We will always be mammals and our offspring will always be human. Incidentally, Humans are apes, and we will always be apes.

So getting back to the idea of the first human male and the first human female.
There never was a first. Much like there never was the first day of a human as an adult.
Evolution is always micro evolution (there is no such thing as macro evolution). Changes are always gradual, there never is a moment of instant speciation. Between what we clearly identify of as a non human ape ancestor, and a human as we recognise them today, there are lots and lots and lots of generations in between. Each generation is the same species as their parents and their children. But when you compare our ancestors from 10 million years ago with us today, clearly there is a big difference. 10 million years of very small changes have added upto significant changes overall.

That's the way the science and the ToE goes.
Whether that is consistent with your religious beliefs, IDK.
If you feel that intelligent design or guidance is important to you then you are free to believe that god was involved.
The science and the ToE doesn't need a single intelligent authority as the "natural selection" part of the equation. But it doesn't rule it out either. For example, humans have been controlling the breeding patterns of several "thoroughbred" or "pedigree" animals for thousands of years, so intelligence can be used to control the breeding of animals and plants.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It seems to me that any competent answer to the OP question must suggest what this mechanism is.

This bit here is why I started and this thread and hoped to be told: what the genetic mechanism is, if it exists, that stops speciation from happening but allows in-species adaptations to occur, which is the part of evolution that creationists and their ilk want to focus on.

 

[AV1611VET]

This bit here is why I started and this thread and hoped to be told: what the genetic mechanism is, if it exists, that stops speciation from happening but allows in-species adaptations to occur, which is the part of evolution that creationists and their ilk want to focus on.

Sterility.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sterility.

Extend it more, because while sterility does prohibit hybrid animals from having offspring, usually in the male line (mules as the best example), that really does not say anything about how it acts a genetic border between adaptation and speciation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Extend it more,

Sorry ... no can do.

A dog can't give birth to a cow.

The genetic makeup isn't there.

By the same token, an ape can't give birth to a human.

The DNA is all wrong.

And as far as these "steps between" are concerned, there aren't any.

Some people like to say evolution is like leaving Boston and taking baby steps to L.A.

That's not what evolution says.

Evolution says a cousin of ours left Boston, took baby steps to L.A., and ended up as us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry ... no can do.

A dog can't give birth to a cow.

The genetic makeup isn't there.

By the same token, an ape can't give birth to a human.

The DNA is all wrong.

And as far as these "steps between" are concerned, there aren't any.

Some people like to say evolution is like leaving Boston and taking baby steps to L.A.

That's not what evolution says.

Evolution says a cousin of ours left Boston, took baby steps to L.A., and ended up as us.

But humans ARE apes. We're just a few steps removed from the other apes. Yes, a chimp will not give birth to a modern day human (honestly, that would be horrifying in all respects), and yes, a dog cannot give birth to a cow (actually, no, THAT would be horrifying in every respect) but you saying 'there are no steps between' is being said from a place of finality.

And that is why I started this thread. To talk about that finality, that clear line that you say exists that stops speciation, but for some reason, not a single Creationist is able to actually explain what it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that is why I started this thread. To talk about that finality, that clear line that you say exists that stops speciation, but for some reason, not a single Creationist is able to actually explain what it is.

Then you explain it.

Tell us why a dog can't give birth to a cow, and I'll tell you why our alleged cousins didn't give birth to us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then you explain it.

Tell us why a dog can't give birth to a cow, and I'll tell you why our alleged cousins didn't give birth to us.

(Had to make sure my caps lock was working right otherwise it'd look like I was screaming at you)

Dogs are from the family Canidae, specifically the subfamily Caninae. Cows, or bovines in general, are from the family bovinae, specifically the tribe bovini.

Different groups, which you obviously knew when you chose said animals as your examples. Although doing a check, I found that bison herds in America are genetically polluted with the genes of domesticated cattle, which could, if let as it stands, allow a cross-breed of bison and domesticated cattle to come into existence. After all, the female version of the beefalo, the cattalo is significantly more fertile that the male. So it could see the rise of a new species of cow.

 

[BPPLEE]

Then you explain it.

Tell us why a dog can't give birth to a cow, and I'll tell you why our alleged cousins didn't give birth to us.

I’m just glad my mother is a woman

 

[BPPLEE]

(Had to make sure my caps lock was working right otherwise it'd look like I was screaming at you)

Dogs are from the family Canidae, specifically the subfamily Caninae. Cows, or bovines in general, are from the family bovinae, specifically the tribe bovini.

Different groups, which you obviously knew when you chose said animals as your examples. Although doing a check, I found that bison herds in America are genetically polluted with the genes of domesticated cattle, which could, if let as it stands, allow a cross-breed of bison and domesticated cattle to come into existence. After all, the female version of the beefalo, the cattalo is significantly more fertile that the male. So it could see the rise of a new species of cow.

Correct. But reptiles don’t evolve into mammals do they?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Correct. But reptiles don’t evolve into mammals do they?

Therapsids would like your attention, specifically the cynodont.

 

[BPPLEE]

Therapsids would like your attention, specifically the cynodont.

I know. That’s what I have a hard time with, and dinosaurs evolving into birds. Maybe cynodont just had characteristics of both like the platypus