Evolution giving practical results in many fields today

laconicstudent said:

Still waiting for someone to either state a biological mechanism that allows "microevolution" but not "macroevolution", or at least reiterate the "Time" thing, and explaining further. It has been 2 pages.

Click to expand...

If you did not miss my reply, then I would assume that you do not understand my question.

It is a reply to your question.

juvenissun said:

If you did not miss my reply, then I would assume that you do not understand my question.

It is a reply to your question.

Click to expand...

I saw it, I realized that you didn't have any way of answering my question, and moved on. I'm surprised you wish to draw attention to the fact that you can't answer such a fundamental query, and subsequent evasion.

Tell me, what biological mechanism differentiates "microevolution" from "macroevolution"?

laconicstudent said:

I saw it, I realized that you didn't have any way of answering my question, and moved on. I'm surprised you wish to draw attention to the fact that you can't answer such a fundamental query, and subsequent evasion.

Tell me, what biological mechanism differentiates "microevolution" from "macroevolution"?

Click to expand...

My summary: speculations.

What do you know about the connection between the two?

juvenissun said:

My summary: speculations.

Click to expand...

So, nothing.

juvenissun said:

What do you know about the connection between the two?

Click to expand...

I know they are the same thing, but Creationists like to construct a false dichotomy in Evolution so they can discount every actual incidence of Evolution as "micro" with their moving goalposts.

We have creationists who would have us accept as fact that the 24-hour days of the Creation Story occurred..

We have evolutionists who would have us accept as fact that the earth and its lifeforms came into being through sheer happenstance, with those who were stronger eventually evolving into other species while those who were not as strong simply ceased to exist (the survival of the fittest' theory).

And then we have those, myself included, who believe that an actual person, whom we call by the name "God', designed the universe. He began the process from before the moment of 'The Big Bang' and has continued his work ever since.

I have had people ask me why I cannot simply accept that we arrived here through sheer chance. They have stated that our ancestors were furry little animals who gave the dinosaurs a hard time, but who were prevented from evolving due to the dinosaurian grip on this planet.

But then a meteor struck 65 million years ago, effectively ending the dinosaurs' reign. The mammalian species were then free from that time forward to evolve into various and sundry species of animals. But this accepts as fact a situation which scientific evidence has disproved, namely, that there have been no Extinction Level Events since that time period.

And what is the evidence?

1. A meteor crater has been photographed in Canada measuring 17 miles in diameter. This occurred circa 38 million years ago.

2. A meteor crater has been photographed in the Chesapeake Bay, measuring 53 miles in diamenter. This occurred circa 35 million years ago.

3. A meteor crater has been photographed in Canada measuring 15 miles in diameter. This occurred circa 23 million years ago.

4. A meteor crater has been photographed in Germany measuring 15 miles in diameter. This occurred circa 15 million years ago.

5. A meteor crater has been photographed in Tajikistan measuring 32 miles in diameter. This occurred circa 10 million years ago.

6. A meteor crater has been photographed in Ghana measuring 6.5 miles in diameter. This occurred circa 1.5 million years ago.

7. The Yellowstone supervolcano has erupted 3 times in the last 2 million years. The last time was 640,000 years ago.

8. Mt. Toba, another supervolcano, erupted 70,000 years ago.

9. Ngorongoro erupted circa 2.6 million years ago, leaving a crater 12 miles in diameter.

And what do all of these incidents have in common that would qualify them as potential ELE's? They have incredible heat, followed by a concussive force far beyond our ability to duplicate, followed by a winter that left this planet's surface snow-covered year-round for at least three to five years minimum, with some of the more powerful incidents affecting the planetary climate for decades.

When These incidents have been brought up before, the argument against their effectively wiping out every creature on land has been this: "If they had wiped out every creature, then we wouldn't be here, because we wouldn't have evolved." That is not an argument; it's a rationalization, nothing more. A valid argument would state how plant-eating animals, other animals that fed on them, and the hominids described as living during those eras could have survived for years (not months, years) on the surface of a barren, frozen solid planet.

Personally, I believe that God has created the flora and fauna in successive periods of time which he knew would provide this planet with some resource it did not have before. Then, when that work has been completed, he has ended the existence of those plants and creatures no longer needed, then replaced them with others that are more in synch with his plans.

When we study science we are not looking for the source of creation. We are simply trying to figure out how God did it.

Harry3142 said:

Personally, I believe that God has created the flora and fauna in successive periods of time which he knew would provide this planet with some resource it did not have before. Then, when that work has been completed, he has ended the existence of those plants and creatures no longer needed, then replaced them with others that are more in synch with his plans.

Click to expand...

This hypothesis of yours predicts that the fossil record should demonstrate the sudden extinction of the world's fauna and flora at each impact event you cite, followed by a sudden replacement by an all new fauna and flora. How do your predictions line up with the actual fossil record?

laconicstudent said:

I saw it, I realized that you didn't have any way of answering my question, and moved on. I'm surprised you wish to draw attention to the fact that you can't answer such a fundamental query, and subsequent evasion.

Tell me, what biological mechanism differentiates "microevolution" from "macroevolution"?

Click to expand...

The one that can change a gene like this one:


That's the difference between macro and micro, not the abundance of the change but where they are expressed. External traits are no reason for concern really, it happens all the time. What does not change or at least is highly conserved and does not respond well to changes are internal organs, particularly in the human brain.

Why don't you answer the question yourself and tell us all what the molecular mechanism that is capable of overhauling a regulatory gene that has not allowed more then two substitutions in 400 million years. Why don't you answer the question unless you know that the answer does not exist, because this kind of a giant leap is assumed and argued via deductive logic from false assumptions, not repeated observation of demonstrative scientific trails.

Have a nice day
Mark

Papias said:

Besides, you must know that evolution is not random. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not, so their combination is certainly not random, any more than a game where I rolled 10 dice, left those that had a 6 up, and re rolled the others until they too showed 6's, then groused "what are the odds that all 10 of these dice would turn up a 6?!?!".

Papias

Click to expand...

I'd just love it if evolutionists actually defined evolution once in a while. You want to talk about how mutations are 'random' but what they are is a failure of DNA repair. What evolution consists of is not mutations but molecular mechanisms that are designed to create adaptations. You guys kill me, you pretend to be apologists for natural science but you dumb the whole thing down to to a room temperature IQ. Then you condescend that you are assuming to be ignorant because they reject you a priori naturalistic assumptions.

I'll say one thing for you, you are consistent.

Have a nice day
Mark

Papias said:

BTW - I mean random from the sense of one of us being able to predict what the change will be, NOT random in the sense of "undirected". Mutations may indeed be directed by God. The Pope himself speculates that God may be planning and supplying the many beneficial mutations we see. That is one of many ways to include God in a way that is consistent with the evidence.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to take a look at a Bible verse that describes the relationship between random natural phenomena and God's will:

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Prov 16:33)

Notice that the lot in this verse (the rough ancient equivalent of today's dice or flipped coin) is still "cast into the lap". That is, its fall is still entirely consistent with the laws of gravity, and its final resting position is still entirely consistent with whatever the physical configuration of the lap is. There is no tampering, no probabilistic tweaking. (Indeed, God hates unfair scales; it probably goes that He also dislikes loaded dice!) And yet "its every decision is from the Lord". In other words, God is entirely capable of reaching the conclusion He wants, without needing to tamper with the mechanics of how nature reaches that conclusion in any way.

One can square this with a Molinist, middle-knowledge understanding of God's creation of the world. So suppose that God desires for a particular coin toss (say, the one that told the sailors on the boat that Jonah was guilty) to turn up heads. He does not need to somehow bend the laws of physics to achieve that result; rather, He knows all possible universes, and can choose to actualize any one of the particular universes where the laws of physics all by themselves make that coin turn up heads.

=========

When you get past mark's endless ad hominems his argument really amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. The rejoinder is incredibly simple:

1. Mutations can alter a species' genotypes.
2. Increased cranial capacity corresponds to a genotype of the human race.
3. The human race is a species that undergoes mutations.
==
Hence, mutations can induce increased cranial capacity.

As it stands, this argument is a simple syllogism. So tell me where it's wrong or oversimplified. I know where it's oversimplified; does mark?

And I'm actually very flattered by his last sentence. I didn't know that he thought evolutionists have an IQ of 300! (Also, physicists think in kelvins.)

shernren said:

*snip*

1. Mutations can alter a species' genotypes.
2. Increased cranial capacity corresponds to a genotype of the human race.
3. The human race is a species that undergoes mutations.
==
Hence, mutations can induce increased cranial capacity.

As it stands, this argument is a simple syllogism. So tell me where it's wrong or oversimplified. I know where it's oversimplified; does mark?

And I'm actually very flattered by his last sentence. I didn't know that he thought evolutionists have an IQ of 300! (Also, physicists think in kelvins.)

Click to expand...

Can I answer?

Gooooo for it

shernren said:

Gooooo for it

Click to expand...

Two possibilities here:

1) Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Mere science cannot fully explain us (bolded so that everyone knows the depth of that statement)

2) I may be reaching here and I am fairly tired, speaking solely from personal experience, I have not seen any verified hypothesis models stating how the increased (and possibly new proteins) protein synthesis could have occurred to feed such an increased brain size. If there is one please share as I am not aware of one.

Now a slightly different take, the Hobbit skeleton seems to indicate that it is not necessarily the mass of the brain that accounts for "human" mental capacity, it seems it is an awareness of self in relation to others and to the environment in which the human lives (known as being self-aware). I believe this differentiation is explained by Genesis 2:7 where God specifically imparts that to us but I have no tangible evidence for that belief, it merely satisfies both my theological views which are the most important to me as well as the (in my experience at least) undefinable way humans became self-aware from a scientific view.