Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[Exiledoomsayer]

Doveaman, you know as well as i do that if we find a flying pig or something like it you'll say goddidit and still not accept evolution right?^^

 

[BananaSlug]

Not even scientists can agree on a definition of "species". Maybe my definition isn't correct, by my point is simply that pigs cannot grow wings and become birds under any condition.

Species- a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce reproductively viable offspring and are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

We have "proven" macroevolution in laboratory studies with fruit flies. In any case, "pigs growing wings and becoming birds" would definitely falsify evolution. It is not surprising to see that the people most against evolution really do not understand it at all.

 

[ms2884]

You've never seen it but you conclude it takes to much time. Is this faith in the unseen god of evolution?

Have you or anyone else actually physically observed... lets say... the transfer of electrons? Does that mean believing in the atomic theory is due to a belief in the God of Atoms?

One man's sense is another man's nonsense. Especially when you are speculating about old bones.

No, scientists don't simply 'speculate', i.e. pull answers out of their demon hole. A given theory based on a particular 'old bone' is based on the superficial structure of that bone, the microscopic make-up, comparisons to similar structures in living organisms, etc, etc. Its not called speculating. Its called logical inference based on what is known. In fact the physical struture of an organism tells us a considerable amount about it. For example, the sharp and pointed teeth of theropods tell us they ate meat and not fruit like some delusional people believe.

What do you mean "enormous", did the single-celled organism grow wings and flew away?

Sigh... Please take ten minutes and educate yourself in the field of genetics. Learn the definitions of genotypic and phenotypic differences. Just because change is not readily obvious to YOUR eyes doesn't mean it isn't occuring.

What proportion of a bacterium's genome is actually involved in resistance? How complicated are the changes? Is it just tweaking a pathway here and there, or is does it involve entirely new pathways? How does our measure of "enormous re-tooling" scale with genomic and organismal complexity?

The entire point with the macro/micro argument revolves around relativity. With feathers in dinosaurs, you are talking about a particular feature on a very complex organism. Single-celled organisms are obviously far less complicated in comparison so any major changes which occur will, in comparison, appear larger.

Naturally, the degree of specific change varies depending on what organism we are talking about and what selective pressures are involved but to put it in a nutshell, yes, many of the changes are HUGE involving the creation of entirely new genetic pathways, structures, etc.

my point is simply that pigs cannot grow wings and become birds under any condition.

No kidding. And your statement shows a complete and total ignorance of how evolution functions. For one thing, INDIVIDUALS CANNOT EVOLVE!!! Evolution occurs within a population over different generations. Evolution requires two things to occur. First, there must be some selective pressure that favors a particular change, i.e. a bird with a larger beak better suited to the available seeds is selected over those with smaller beaks. But for the sake of argument, lets say there is some selective pressure that would favor flight in pigs. The second requirement is the raw material... some structure on the existing organism which evolution can work on. For example, the theropods which gave rise to birds already possessed feathers, a light-weight skeleton, and other features necessary for flight. Pigs possess no such strutures and so they cannot evolve wings. Once again, evolution works on WHAT IS AVAILABLE. It does not work towards producing some 'superorganism' as you or anyone else would define it.

I may not have seen the rain, but I know rain exists.

Unless you live in the Atacama Desert, I'm pretty sure you have seen rain a few times. But even if you did not observe the particular rainstorm in question, you have still observed rain before. You are familiar with its traits and effects. Therefore, you can look at the wet ground and logically infer (gasp!) that it rained. So your argument is garbage. But going back to my first point, have you ever observed atoms? Then how do you know those exist?

 

[Naraoia]

Well, with a new metabolic pathway in a single-celled creature, you are just talking about a particular feature in a very complex molecular assembly.

BTW, if I may offer a piece of friendly advice, can you try to put names on quotes from others' posts? (The QUOTE and MQ buttons automatically do this)

 

[keith99]

Doveaman, you know as well as i do that if we find a flying pig or something like it you'll say goddidit and still not accept evolution right?^^

Should we start calling him 'Mister Burns' now or after we find a flying pig?

 

[Naraoia]

A flying pig, or something like it.

Since evolution tends to fix only traits that are useful or at least not harmful, do you think pigs should be expected to evolve wings (let alone feathered wings)?

An animal with the size and build of a pig won't climb trees, glide or jump a lot, so the behavioural features that would make rudimentary flight an advantage are absent.

A pig-sized animal would be pretty hard to make into an efficient glider anyway. I think a pig would need a fairly large surface area to get a useful amount of lift. The ancestors of both birds and bats were small, lightweight animals that were probably decent jumpers to begin with, well-suited to using any small extension of body surface that happened to appear by fortuitous mutation. What good is a fringe of loose skin for a pig jumping across a ditch?

Then we have pig forelimbs. They are the exact opposite of what seems to make good wing material: they have limited sideways motion and short fingers.

In the absence of a selective pressure, a heavily specialised structure like a wing is very unlikely to evolve. Pigs are big, heavy, ground-based animals with forelimbs that are absolutely crappy wing material. Why would they evolve into flying creatures?

For example, the sharp and pointed teeth of theropods tell us they ate meat and not fruit like some delusional people believe.

Well, herbivorous reptiles have sharp and pointed teeth... just not in the same way.

(Should I stop being contrary? )

 

[plindboe]

A flying pig, or something like it.

So a disproof of macroevolution would make you believe in macroevolution.

Your brain is broken.

Peter

 

[Skaloop]

A flying pig, or something like it.

How does the saying go? If a flying pig like that were discovered, "creationists would be forced to accept evolution, and evolutionists would be forced to reject it."

 

[biggles53]

I may not have seen the burglar, but I know burglars exist.
I may not have seen the rain, but I know rain exists.

I have not seen macro-evolution, nor do I know macro-evolution exists. If you know it exists then show me, I don't need another faith based religion.

What a pathetic argument! And your 'flying pig' example only shows that YOU don't even believe what you are asserting! YOU blow your OWN argument away! How sad........

"Macro-evolution" is nothing more than an accumulation of "micro-evolutions"....! Since you already accept that micro occurs, what's to stop you understanding that a series of them could occur over a long period of time......??? NOTHING!....except your prejudices of course!

The really embarassing thing is that I bet you know all this deep down....you know that it's right.....you just don't want it to be.....

 

[Orogeny]

You've never seen it but you conclude it takes to much time. Is this faith in the unseen god of evolution?

You've never seen God but you conclude that he is there. Is this faith in the unseen god of the Bible?

You've never seen your colon (then again...) but you conclude it is functioning. Is this faith in the unseen god of the gastrointestinal system?

 

[corvus_corax]

You've never seen it but you conclude it takes to much time. Is this faith in the unseen god of evolution?

You've never seen electricity, but most people conclude it exists.
As a matter of fact, you depend on it to post on these forums.
You don't even know what it is.
Is this the faith of the unseen god of electricity?
Y'know, since you have NEVER seen it?
Are you a Thor worshiper perhaps?

 

[corvus_corax]

Doveaman, you know as well as i do that if we find a flying pig or something like it you'll say goddidit and still not accept evolution right?^^

You and the rest missed his joke (too subtle perhaps?)
"When pigs fly..." and all that

In other words, "never"

 

[USincognito]

I have not seen macro-evolution, nor do I know macro-evolution exists. If you know it exists then show me, I don't need another faith based religion.

Have you seen the Himalayas growing or the Appalachians eroding? Those things take very long times to happen. The same applies to evolution on the level that you want to witness in, I guess a generation or so. The evidence is more like the forensic evidence left behind in a murder-suicide for which there were no living witnesses.

Not even scientists can agree on a definition of "species". Maybe my definition isn't correct, by my point is simply that pigs cannot grow wings and become birds under any condition.

If that's your understanding of speciation I can see why you have such a problem with it. Let's break down the individual issues.
- Pigs and birds as are all terrestrial vertebrates are tetrapods. That is they all have the same four limbed structure even if they have 2 arms/2 legs, 4 feet, 2 wings/2 legs or if their legs form fins or not at all (cetaceans and snakes).
- We would never expect to find a tetrapod with 6 limbs. Doing so would falsify evolution. At the very best we might find a species of pig that developed bipedalism and then formed wings with the forelimbs or a pygmy species that developed a skin fold that would allow them glide like a flying squirrel. Such structural change would require many 100,000s to millions of generations for the former and 1000s to 10000s for the later.
- Pigs are mammals evolved from the reptile like Therapsids. Birds are, well birds and evolved from Theropod dinosaurs and the twain shall never meet. No mammal will ever become a bird and no bird will ever become a mammal.

what would make you believe in macro-evolution?

A flying pig, or something like it.

Why don't you just write "nothing" as it will be a more truthful and accurate answer.

 

[Doveaman]

Since evolution tends to fix only traits that are useful or at least not harmful, do you think pigs should be expected to evolve wings (let alone feathered wings)?
An animal with the size and build of a pig won't climb trees, glide or jump a lot, so the behavioural features that would make rudimentary flight an advantage are absent.

Okay, I’ll keep it simple:

I will believe in macro-evolution if I see a lizard become a snake.

Since macro-evolution has never been observed or experienced, then it is nothing more than speculation about the unknown.
______

"Macro-evolution" is nothing more than an accumulation of "micro-evolutions"....! Since you already accept that micro occurs, what's to stop you understanding that a series of them could occur over a long period of time......???

Small changes within lizards has never led to lizards becoming snakes. Unless you can show me it happening.
______

You've never seen God but you conclude that he is there. Is this faith in the unseen god of the Bible?

Yes it is. We both seem to agree that macro-evolution is faith in the unseen god of Evolution. Thanks for your support.
______

You've never seen electricity, but most people conclude it exists.
As a matter of fact, you depend on it to post on these forums.

Okay, lets change “seen” to “experienced”. I have never experienced macro-evolution, but I have experienced electricity. I am experiencing it right now to post on these forums. I am also experiencing God.

You and the rest missed his joke (too subtle perhaps?)
"When pigs fly..." and all that
In other words, "never"

For someone who believes in macro-evolution I’m surprised by your brilliance.
______

Have you seen the Himalayas growing or the Appalachians eroding? Those things take very long times to happen.

Except that we have seen growth and erosion of land mass. So we can make inferences based on what is already known. Macro-evolution is not inferred based on any pass or present observation or experience of macro-evolution, it is just an assumption about the unknown.

The same applies to evolution on the level that you want to witness in, I guess a generation or so.

We have never seen or experienced macro-evolution, therefore we can only speculate about what we do not know. Which is what you are doing.

The evidence is more like the forensic evidence left behind in a murder-suicide for which there were no living witnesses.

If we walked into a room and saw two people dead from gun-shot wounds, and one of the victims held a gun in his hand from which the bullets were fired, we may infer “murder-suicide”, but the fact is that the crime could have been orchestrated and committed by an ‘intelligent designer’ who we are not aware of.

In other words, there is more than one explanation for what is observed in that room. “Murder-suicide” isn’t necessarily the correct explanation, unless you can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Macro-Evolution has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. We have never ever seen or experienced macro-evolution at anytime anywhere, and that alone presents reasonable doubt, and that is why I consider my doubt reasonable.
______

We have "proven" macroevolution in laboratory studies with fruit flies.

I’m sure if the kind of treatment those poor fruit flies were subjected to was scaled up to the human level and applied to you, you would probable mutate into a six legged man, and some silly evolutionist would come along and consider you to be the missing link between humans and spiders.

Your sickly fruit flies don’t help your “natural selection” argument, and many scientists don't buy into your fruit flies experiments. Your fruit flies are still fruit flies, they did not become flying pigs or anything else.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes it is. We both seem to agree that macro-evolution is faith in the unseen god of Evolution. Thanks for your support.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Comprehension fail.

 

[biggles53]

Small changes within lizards has never led to lizards becoming snakes. Unless you can show me it happening.

What a grossly dishonest answer! You know very well that, for the scale of changes you talk about, enormous amounts of TIME must pass...far longer than any one person (or even generations of persons) could 'see' happening.So you cowardly hide behind this as a flimsy defence - &quot;I didn't SEE it happening, so it couldn't have happened!&quot;You completely ignore the fact that evolutionary theory relies very little on 'eye-witness' testimony, but is supported by (literally) TONS of other evidence! As Dawkins puts it far better than I, we are like the detective who comes across the evidence of a crime, LONG AFTER it has been committed, but are nevertheless presented with more than enough evidence to conclusively piece together the sequence of events.Your willful ignorance is quite frankly...galling.</p>

 

[Doveaman]

What a grossly dishonest answer! You know very well that, for the scale of changes you talk about, enormous amounts of TIME must pass...far longer than any one person (or even generations of persons) could 'see' happening.So you cowardly hide behind this as a flimsy defence - &quot;I didn't SEE it happening, so it couldn't have happened!&quot;You completely ignore the fact that evolutionary theory relies very little on 'eye-witness' testimony, but is supported by (literally) TONS of other evidence! As Dawkins puts it far better than I, we are like the detective who comes across the evidence of a crime, LONG AFTER it has been committed, but are nevertheless presented with more than enough evidence to conclusively piece together the sequence of events.Your willful ignorance is quite frankly...galling.</p>

The problem with your so called evidence is that evidence relies on fallible human interpretations. This explains why the guilty persons who committed the crimes are often set free, while the innocent persons are sent to the gallows. The tons of evidence that existed did nothing to illuminate the ignorance of the court. In fact, the evidence seems to have contributed to the court's ignorance resulting in innocent people being hanged.

 

[biggles53]

The problem with your so called evidence is that evidence relies on fallible human interpretations. This explains why the guilty persons who committed the crimes are often set free, while the innocent persons are sent to the gallows. The tons of evidence that existed did nothing to illuminate the ignorance of the court. In fact, the evidence seems to have contributed to the court's ignorance resulting in innocent people being hanged.

Aaah...you couldn't have answered it better....thank you!!

Now, how do you think we subsequently find that some (I would argue with "often") of those people are either wrongly convicted or wrongly set free....??

That's right...we examine further EVIDENCE that comes to light!!

We don't assume that we have all the 'Truth' that is required for a 'verdict'...we search further to see if we might have been in error!

And this is EXACTLY what science does and has done, to increase our knowledge of the world...it continually challenges accepted knowledge, in order that we might advance our understanding!

For example, Darwin, when he wrote his elegant theory, knew nothing about genetics or micro-biology. Consequently, we have been able to expand on his theory over the last 150 years in order to give us a BETTER picture of how life operates on this planet. We have, if you will, been able to set some of the 'innocent' free, and have rounded up more of the 'guilty'.......BY OBSERVING THE EVIDENCE....!!!! NOT by adhering to a rigid, unbending, know-all doctrine....!

Thank you....you really couldn't have done better you know....!.

 

[USincognito]

Okay, I’ll keep it simple:

I will believe in macro-evolution if I see a lizard become a snake.

Since macro-evolution has never been observed or experienced, then it is nothing more than speculation about the unknown.
______
Small changes within lizards has never led to lizards becoming snakes. Unless you can show me it happening.

Did you actually read the article? It didn't become a snake. It's still a lizard that doesn't have any limbs. And the reason they think that is because it retains characteristics found in lizards that are not found in snakes (eyelids and external ears). And there are several species of legless lizards called Glass lizards or glass snakes. There's also Caecilians which are legless amphibians though they look like snakes.

Except that we have seen growth and erosion of land mass. So we can make inferences based on what is already known. Macro-evolution is not inferred based on any pass or present observation or experience of macro-evolution, it is just an assumption about the unknown.

Actually we have witnessed speciation in a number of lifeforms single and multi-celled. Since you're looking for something to turn into something it's not (which is not evolution) I'm not sure any example we give will be enough.

We have never seen or experienced macro-evolution, therefore we can only speculate about what we do not know. Which is what you are doing.

Horsefeathers. You're forgetting consilience. When a number of divergent facts and evidences point to one conclusion that is not speculation, but the most likely conclusion one can draw. For macroevolution we have those divergent evidences - the fossil record, genetic evidences, embryology, evo-devo and a host of physical charateristics.

If we walked into a room and saw two people dead from gun-shot wounds, and one of the victims held a gun in his hand from which the bullets were fired, we may infer “murder-suicide”, but the fact is that the crime could have been orchestrated and committed by an ‘intelligent designer’ who we are not aware of.

You're taking my forensics analogy and stretching it to the breaking point. DNA isn't a gun and fossils don't have bullet holes in them. My point still stands however.

{snip}

I’m sure if the kind of treatment those poor fruit flies were subjected to was scaled up to the human level and applied to you, you would probable mutate into a six legged man, and some silly evolutionist would come along and consider you to be the missing link between humans and spiders.

No, but this awful and tired argument is clearly the missing link between men and straw.

Your sickly fruit flies don’t help your “natural selection” argument, and many scientists don't buy into your fruit flies experiments. Your fruit flies are still fruit flies, they did not become flying pigs or anything else.

Again the argument from incredulity and shifting of goalposts. They might still be fruitflies, but they have changed genetically. Just as the e-coli are still bacteria but they have speciated by developing a new trait. Just as nylonase is still bacteria but it's developed a new traits. Just as birds on different islands are still birds but have developed new traits. Just as humans are still primates but have developed new traits. Just as mammals are terrestrial tetrapods that have developed new traits. Etc. etc.

 

[For_Crying_Out_Loud]

Who here saw the evolution that it can be proven?

Or who here saw the creation, that it cannot be denied?

Both sides are arguing to be heard without enough sense to listen to one another.

I believe in creation - how it happened doesn't bother me in the least.

Others believe in evolution - but it had to happen on its' own. Why? That's the question that gets me