Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

Guy Threepwood said:

^ in response to this you gave me an example of polyploidy, where no new specifying information is introduced, just yet another example of a reproductive error causing a problem; an inability to breed with it's ancestors in this case.

Click to expand...

You wanted an example of observed speciation and you got one. Your opinion of the mechanism involved is irrelevant.

... the degradation of genetic information is not in question, and the above example does nothing to explain macro evolution, transforming a single celled bacteria like organism into the diverse biosphere we see today.

Click to expand...

Call it what you like, it's one of the mechanisms of evolution.

You didn't ask me for an example that 'explains' macroevolution. I have no idea what you'd expect to see.

in many cases the largest/ strongest in a gene pool might have the reproductive advantage ...up to a point, because of course with increased size comes an increased demand for food, likelihood of injury etc- one reason species remain range-bound

Click to expand...

The largest/strongest is not necessarily 'superior' in evolutionary terms. All that counts is reproductive success.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

The largest/strongest is not necessarily 'superior' in evolutionary terms. All that counts is reproductive success.

Click to expand...

In retrospect it would probably have been better if Herbert Spencer had never come up with the "sound bite", Survival of the Fittest. I think for people who understand evolution it is a convenient summary. For those who don't, it is a thoroughly misleading quasi-tautology. In the instance you responded to it seems to have led @Guy Threepwood to make a self-evident statement as though it was a perceptive and damning critique of evolutionary theory.

Ophiolite said:

In retrospect it would probably have been better if Herbert Spencer had never come up with the "sound bite", Survival of the Fittest. I think for people who understand evolution it is a convenient summary. For those who don't, it is a thoroughly misleading quasi-tautology. In the instance you responded to it seems to have led @Guy Threepwood to make a self-evident statement as though it was a perceptive and damning critique of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

The... interesting... thing is that he subsequently agrees that it's superior/inferior reproductive success as if the error never occurred. I have noticed this kind of 'flexibility' in his posts - making an erroneous or disputable claim, and subsequently agreeing, without further comment, the contrary point.

This, and the evasion and opacity, is why I've decided it's not productive to continue discussion with him.

Maria Billingsley said:

Microevoloution are small changes with in a specific species whereas
macroevolution produces a whole new species.

Click to expand...

Well even that is not clear. Change within a species doesn't come about because the DNA is different, everyone has the same DNA, its because a particular gene is "expressed", or "not expressed". What does this mean? Someone with Blue eyes also carries the gene for brown eyes, its just that it's been switched off. Consider a computer if you will - take 100 Dell's of the same model. They are 100% identical. Load up Microsoft Windows plus a few apps, all of which are 100% identical. Once someone starts to use it however a configuration gets applied and soon all 100 will behave differently, look differently carry different setups, yet they are still 100% identical at the hardware and software design layer.

Macro-evolution is proposing some way to change the hardware/or software that goes beyond the setting of a config - ie beyond the differences in our DNA. This is supposed to be via random corruptions to the underlying code. Open any website in a text editor and randomly change the code in ways not designed to change via valid config updates. It will crash and burn every time - without a designer who understands coding, no workable changes are possible.

I expect that most examples held up as Micro-evolution are simple changes to the DNA config through the expressing of the relevant gene rather than the addition / mutation. If this weren't so the mapping of the human genome would have been pointless.

Guy Threepwood said:

an archeologist might observe specifying information in many forms; carvings in stone, cave paintings, rocks placed in formations-
we can observe information in radiowaves, DVDs, DNA, print, online, etc etc

all are forms of information, no equivocation or analogies necessary.

The question at hand is how such information is produced, we only have one proven source so far

Click to expand...

Indeed. Humans.
Humans is the only proven source of design so far.

May the facts be with you said:

Well even that is not clear. Change within a species doesn't come about because the DNA is different, everyone has the same DNA, its because a particular gene is "expressed", or "not expressed". What does this mean? Someone with Blue eyes also carries the gene for brown eyes, its just that it's been switched off. Consider a computer if you will - take 100 Dell's of the same model. They are 100% identical. Load up Microsoft Windows plus a few apps, all of which are 100% identical. Once someone starts to use it however a configuration gets applied and soon all 100 will behave differently, look differently carry different setups, yet they are still 100% identical at the hardware and software design layer.

Macro-evolution is proposing some way to change the hardware/or software that goes beyond the setting of a config - ie beyond the differences in our DNA. This is supposed to be via random corruptions to the underlying code. Open any website in a text editor and randomly change the code in ways not designed to change via valid config updates. It will crash and burn every time - without a designer who understands coding, no workable changes are possible.

I expect that most examples held up as Micro-evolution are simple changes to the DNA config through the expressing of the relevant gene rather than the addition / mutation. If this weren't so the mapping of the human genome would have been pointless.

Click to expand...

This is just incorrect. People do not have identical DNA, and examples of micro-evolutiom are identified through observation of mutations (additions, deletions, substitutions, frame shifts etc.)

Mutation Rates (S) - Genetics III | Coursera

KomatiiteBIF said:

This is just incorrect. People do not have identical DNA, and examples of micro-evolutiom are identified through observation of mutations (additions, deletions, substitutions, frame shifts etc.)

Mutation Rates (S) - Genetics III | Coursera

Click to expand...

Of course its wrong, so obviously wrong its a marvel
of nature how someone who has this self proclaimed
" science training" could possibly manage to say it.

But then, the essential element for most creationists
is ignorance. The few who are not have to go the
Intellectual dishonesty route.

There is yet to be found any data of any sort
contrary to ToE. Taking into account that if it
were false it would be massively false, and someone
among the legions of highly skilled researchers
would notice something if it were so easy that
every creationist, "trained in science" or not
can rattle off a gishload of disproof.

Guy Threepwood said:

I think we agree

Click to expand...

Not a chance

pitabread said:

If you're a creationist, what do you think microevolution and macroevolution are exactly?

Click to expand...

I think:

Microevolution = a species giving rise to another species = a dog siring a dog.

Macroevolution = a genus giving rise to another genus = a dog siring a cat.

AV1611VET said:

I think:

Microevolution = a species giving rise to another species = a dog siring a dog.

Macroevolution = a genus giving rise to another genus = a dog siring a cat.

Click to expand...

Well then stop your variety of thinking and learn something about evolution which will explain why your version of macroevolution is a strawman and is in fact a violation of evolution.

If all you have are PRATTS go back on vacation.

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

Well then stop your variety of thinking and learn something about evolution which will explain why your version of macroevolution is a strawman and is in fact a violation of evolution.

If all you have are PRATTS go back on vacation.

Click to expand...

Nice to meet you too, sir!

It's good to be back!

AV1611VET said:

Nice to meet you too, sir!

It's good to be back!

Click to expand...

Yes welcome back to the fray Alfred, glad to hear you are ok and I am sure that you won't mind if we resume shooting sitting ducks.

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

Yes welcome back to the fray Alfred, glad to hear you are ok and I am sure that you won't mind if we resume shooting sitting ducks.

Click to expand...

Fire away!

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

Yes welcome back to the fray Alfred, glad to hear you are ok and I am sure that you won't mind if we resume shooting sitting ducks.

Click to expand...

Hey! Careful of that big yellow one!

KomatiiteBIF said:

This is just incorrect. People do not have identical DNA, and examples of micro-evolutiom are identified through observation of mutations (additions, deletions, substitutions, frame shifts etc.)

Mutation Rates (S) - Genetics III | Coursera

Click to expand...

Why not so? The whole point of mapping the human genome (and others) is to say that if this particular gene at this specific location in the DNA molecule is set thus, then that person is at risk of disease XYZ, or suffers from some issue - eg colour blindness is a fault in a specific gene. If the DNA molecule was stuffed full of random differences they'd have been no point in mapping it out, and there would be no basis for any form of genetic testing. Your examples are of changes WITHIN a species, not BETWEEN species.

Ophiolite said:

In retrospect it would probably have been better if Herbert Spencer had never come up with the "sound bite", Survival of the Fittest. I think for people who understand evolution it is a convenient summary. For those who don't, it is a thoroughly misleading quasi-tautology. In the instance you responded to it seems to have led @Guy Threepwood to make a self-evident statement as though it was a perceptive and damning critique of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

"Punctuated equilibrium" is another that has confused more than enlightened.

Nothing confusing about "Punctuated equilibrium". Its a perfect way to explain what the fossil record says.

May the facts be with you said:

Nothing confusing about "Punctuated equilibrium". Its a perfect way to explain what the fossil record says.

Click to expand...

Oh? Tell me, then, what does the fossil record say?

The fossil record can't speak since its not a living thing. The record is nothing more than a collection of bones (ie facts), and theorists speak on its behalf via their hypothesis. So, lets unpack this.

The fossil record doesn't have transitional forms present, what it does have is numerous examples of hundreds of closely related animals, then big gaps until the next cluster of closely related animals. Quoting Steven Gould from that famously authoritative Wikipedia we have The evolutionists Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

So, Gould proposed "Punctuated equilibrium". Basically, no evolutionary change takes place for 10's thousands of years, punctuated by "super-fast" evolutionary events over just a few generations followed by more 10's thousands of years of nothing happening. Because most dead animal never fossilize, the transitional fossils that Gould says should exist, but don't, are missing from the record because there were so few in number that none of the "hoped examples arose. This is a hypothesis using the accepted fact of "nothing" as proof of "something". In effect Steven Gould has proposed a step change theory not a gradual change theory. Far be it for me to disagree with a world leading expert.
***
My view: At least Steven Gould is being honest (he was a very honest evolutionist researcher). His theory stands up to scrutiny at the first pass in that its a valid explanation for the facts seen in the fossil record. The process of what "turns on/off evolution" is an interesting but unanswered question.

Our takeaway is that Steven Gould, an honest evolutionist researcher, accepts that there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and that an explanation was called for. The debate is not about whether the evidence is lacking but why.