Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[pitabread]

Genetics certainly doesn't support macroevolution. Misinterpretation of the fossil record and comparative anatomy? You can't explain what is going on at the molecular level using gross anatomy That's like trying to explain quantum mechanics with classical physics. Developmental biology, are you trying to dredge up "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"? Do you understand the difference between evolution and differentiation of a stem cell?

My suggestion is to teach students the correct physics and mathematics of microevolution.

I asked you what is the alternative. You've been incredibly evasive on that point.

You basically have a scenario where you are trying to claim your model of evolution challenges macroevolution/common ancestry.

Which means one of two things:

1) You're right, but then we'll need an alternative explanation that explains the various features we observe in populations of biological organisms.

Or,

2) Your model isn't right insofar as challenging common ancestry/macroevolution.

So if genuinely believe #1, then what is the alternative? Where did all these species come from if not shared ancestry?

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't expect that the people who believe that macroevolution is a real thing to agree with me. These are also the same people that can't describe mathematically microevolution correctly.

So you say, but when Dr S gave you an opportunity to test out your theory, or whatever it is, you bailed. So don't blame others for what you apparently are unable to do.

 

[Frank Robert]

So you think that chimps have better reproductive fitness than humans. Perhaps it's because chimps remember their wives' birthday!

Nice try at misdirection, but I didn't claim anything about chimps reproductive fitness and you haven't answered my question re: selection pressures.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I asked you what the alternative. You've been incredibly evasive on that point.

You basically have a scenario where you are trying to claim your model of evolution challenges macroevolution/common ancestry.

Which means one of two things:

1) You're right, but then we'll need an alternative explanation that explains the various features we observe in populations of biological organisms.

Or,

2) Your model isn't right insofar as challenging common ancestry/macroevolution.

So if genuinely believe #1, then what is the alternative? Where did all these species come from if not shared ancestry?

You believers in macroevolution cannot explain microevolution and you are so insecure that need an alternative explanation since you can't give scientific (experimental) support to your beliefs.

 

[Frank Robert]

Richard Lustig - Wikipedia

At win #5, he got $842,152.91. With that money he got, Win 6: $73,658.06, Win 7: $98,992.92. Not bad, he only lost about $650,000 of his winnings. They also don't tell you how much he spent on his first win.

So, are you going to buy his book and make yourself rich? Las Vegas depends on people like you.

Another try at misdirection along with cherry picking. You failed to report Lustig's total wins amount to a value of $1,052,205.58 (before taxes) The wiki article does not claim him losing $650,000.

 

[pitabread]

You believers in macroevolution cannot explain microevolution and you are so insecure that need an alternative explanation since you can't give scientific (experimental) support to your beliefs.

And once again you dodge the question.

What can't you just give an answer? If not macroevolution/common descent, what is the alternative explanation for biodiversity?

Why are you so afraid of answering that simple question?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So you say, but when Dr S gave you an opportunity to test out your theory, or whatever it is, you bailed. So don't blame others for what you apparently are unable to do.

My theory is tested out, it predicted the Kishony experiment before the experiment was run and correlates quite nicely with the Lenski experiment as well as other empirical evidence. If you mean Swamidass, he uses the concept of neutral evolution incorrectly to explain the genetic differences between humans and chimps when his real responsibility as a physician is to correctly explain the microevolution of drug resistance.

 

[Frank Robert]

You believers in macroevolution cannot explain microevolution and you are so insecure that need an alternative explanation since you can't give scientific (experimental) support to your beliefs.

You haven't refuted the evidence for macroevolution in green algae which I posted earlier.

 

[Frank Robert]

My theory is tested out, it predicted the Kishony experiment before the experiment was run and correlates quite nicely with the Lenski experiment as well as other empirical evidence. If you mean Swamidass, he uses the concept of neutral evolution incorrectly to explain the genetic differences between humans and chimps when his real responsibility as a physician is to correctly explain the microevolution of drug resistance.

He gave you an opportunity to negotiate a test for your claims and you bailed.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Nice try at misdirection, but I didn't claim anything about chimps reproductive fitness and you haven't answered my question re: selection pressures.

You need to come up to speed on this discussion, we are discussing microevolution which does exist and macroevolution which a figment of some peoples' imagination.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Another try at misdirection along with cherry picking. You failed to report Lustig's total wins amount to a value of $1,052,205.58 (before taxes) The wiki article does not claim him losing $650,000.

Reread the Wikipedia page, he reinvested all his winning every time and they don't tell you how much he spent winning his first $10,000. You seem to be a smart fellow, go buy his book and get rich.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You haven't refuted the evidence for macroevolution in green algae which I posted earlier.

Identify all the mutations required for the single-cell algae to grow in a colony. Perhaps you think that a single cell growing into a colony is getting larger so that is macro? You won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Identify all the mutations required for the single-cell algae to grow in a colony. Perhaps you think that a single cell growing into a colony is getting larger so that is macro? You won't.

This illustrates just one of the flaws with your thinking. There are no "required mutations". Where did you get that idea from? Once again on the micro level different mutations can result in exactly the same result. And there are almost always ore than one pathway to an end.

Your error is assuming that what we see now was a goal where it is simply a result. This incorrect assumption on your part makes all of your math worthless all on its own. You are using a strawman of how evolution works. It is easy to "disprove" a strawman. Try attacking the actual problem.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

He gave you an opportunity to negotiate a test for your claims and you bailed.

Oh really, you mean Swamidass explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You can't explain these experiments either. You just have this confused idea that if a single cell replicator grows into a colony that it is macroevolution. Why don't you identify the genetic differences between the single cell and the members of the colony? How many mutations are required for that to happen? You won't because your example doesn't demonstrate macroevolution. Do you have any idea how microevolution operates? Obviously not.

 

[pitabread]

macroevolution which a figment of some peoples' imagination.

You mean the entire field of modern biology?

 

[Frank Robert]

You need to come up to speed on this discussion, we are discussing microevolution which does exist and macroevolution which a figment of some peoples' imagination.

Considering you haven't convinced anyone that macroevolution doesn't exist, either here or the numerous forums elsewhere, the probabilities are that non-existence is a figment of your imagination. BTW, the only difference between micro and marcoevolution is evolution at a different scale.

 

[Frank Robert]

Oh really, you mean Swamidass explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You can't explain these experiments either. You just have this confused idea that if a single cell replicator grows into a colony that it is macroevolution. Why don't you identify the genetic differences between the single cell and the members of the colony? How many mutations are required for that to happen? You won't because your example doesn't demonstrate macroevolution. Do you have any idea how microevolution operates? Obviously not.

Another try at misdirection. Why wouldn't you test your theory when given the opportunity?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

This illustrates just one of the flaws with your thinking. There are no "required mutations". Where did you get that idea from? Once again on the micro level different mutations can result in exactly the same result. And there are almost always ore than one pathway to an end.

Your error is assuming that what we see now was a goal where it is simply a result. This incorrect assumption on your part makes all of your math worthless all on its own. You are using a strawman of how evolution works. It is easy to "disprove" a strawman. Try attacking the actual problem.

I get it. You think every mutation is an adaptive mutation. No wonder you macroevolutionists can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

 

[Frank Robert]

Reread the Wikipedia page, he reinvested all his winning every time and they don't tell you how much he spent winning his first $10,000. You seem to be a smart fellow, go buy his book and get rich.

You are reading it incorrectly. If he had invested all his wins into the next game then he would not have had any money after he won the non-money holidays rather than cash prizes. It is also unlikely that he would win eight straight lotteries.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Considering you haven't convinced anyone that macroevolution doesn't exist, either here or the numerous forums elsewhere, the probabilities are that non-existence is a figment of your imagination. BTW, the only difference between micro and marcoevolution is evolution at a different scale.

You think that a colony is bigger than a cell so that's macroevolution. Just another example of a macroevolutionist that can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.