How is macroevolution different from microevolution

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Thank you for making it indisputable that macroevolution is socratic (speculation, based on thought experiments) and not scientific.

Oh yeah, I guess this is all in our heads.

(Haven't had a chance to post that link in a while. Thanks!)

 

[chickenman]

and these:

1: Genome Res 2001 Jun;11(6):1018-33
Related Articles, Links


The 1.4-Mb CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion genomic region reveals unique genome architectural features and provides insights into the recent evolution of new genes.

Inoue K, Dewar K, Katsanis N, Reiter LT, Lander ES, Devon KL, Wyman DW, Lupski JR, Birren B.

Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.

Duplication and deletion of the 1.4-Mb region in 17p12 that is delimited by two 24-kb low copy number repeats (CMT1A-REPs) represent frequent genomic rearrangements resulting in two common inherited peripheral neuropathies, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) and hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy (HNPP). CMT1A and HNPP exemplify a paradigm for genomic disorders wherein unique genome architectural features result in susceptibility to DNA rearrangements that cause disease. A gene within the 1.4-Mb region, PMP22, is responsible for these disorders through a gene-dosage effect in the heterozygous duplication or deletion. However, the genomic structure of the 1.4-Mb region, including other genes contained within the rearranged genomic segment, remains essentially uncharacterized. To delineate genomic structural features, investigate higher-order genomic architecture, and identify genes in this region, we constructed PAC and BAC contigs and determined the complete nucleotide sequence. This CMT1A/HNPP genomic segment contains 1,421,129 bp of DNA. A low copy number repeat (LCR) was identified, with one copy inside and two copies outside of the 1.4-Mb region. Comparison between physical and genetic maps revealed a striking difference in recombination rates between the sexes with a lower recombination frequency in males (0.67 cM/Mb) versus females (5.5 cM/Mb). Hypothetically, this low recombination frequency in males may enable a chromosomal misalignment at proximal and distal CMT1A-REPs and promote unequal crossing over, which occurs 10 times more frequently in male meiosis. In addition to three previously described genes, five new genes (TEKT3, HS3ST3B1, NPD008/CGI-148, CDRT1, and CDRT15) and 13 predicted genes were identified. Most of these predicted genes are expressed only in embryonic stages. Analyses of the genomic region adjacent to proximal CMT1A-REP indicated an evolutionary mechanism for the formation of proximal CMT1A-REP and the creation of novel genes by DNA rearrangement during primate speciation.

PMID: 11381029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 Aug 31;96(18):10302-7
Related Articles, Links


Rare germinal unequal crossing-over leading to recombinant gene formation and gene duplication in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Jelesko JG, Harper R, Furuya M, Gruissem W.

Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, 111 Koshland Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3102, USA.

Small, multigene families organized in a tandem array can facilitate the rapid evolution of the gene cluster by a process of meiotic unequal crossing-over. To study this process in a multicellular organism, we created a synthetic RBCSB gene cluster in Arabidopsis thaliana and used this to measure directly the frequency of meiotic, intergenic unequal crossing-over between sister chromatids. The synthetic RBCSB gene cluster was composed of a silent DeltaRBCS1B::LUC chimeric gene fusion, lacking all 5' transcription and translation signals, followed by RBCS2B and RBC3B genomic DNA. Expression of luciferase activity (luc(+)) required a homologous recombination event between the DeltaRBCS1B::LUC and the RBCS3B genes, yielding a novel recombinant RBCS3B/ 1B::LUC chimeric gene whose expression was driven by RBCS3B 5' transcription and translation signals. Using sensitive, single-photon-imaging equipment, three luc(+) seedlings were identified in more than 1 million F2 seedlings derived from self-fertilized F1 plants hemizygous for the synthetic RBCSB gene cluster. The F2 luc(+) seedlings were isolated, and molecular and genetic analysis indicated that the luc(+) trait was caused by the formation of a recombinant chimeric RBCS3B/1B::LUC gene. A predicted duplication of the RBCS2B gene also was present. The recombination resolution break points mapped adjacent to a region of intron I at which a disjunction in sequence similarity between RBCS1B and RBCS3B occurs; this provided evidence supporting models of gene cluster evolution by exon-shuffling processes. In contrast to most measures of meiotic unequal crossing-over that require the deletion of a gene in a gene cluster, these results directly measured the frequency of meiotic unequal crossing-over (approximately 3 x 10(-6)), leading to the expansion of the gene cluster and the formation of a novel recombinant gene.

PMID: 10468603 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Freedom777]

Strong Evidence Macro-evolution has never been observed and can't happen.

Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

<I>It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.</I>

1. "All the `information' for the development of each particular organism was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce `after their kinds'." ([18], p.25)
2. "There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind'." ([18], p.25)
3. "The genetic system permits a wide variety of specific features (eye color, height, shape of skull, etc.) within the limits of a particular kind. These characteristics vary in accordance with the Mendelian laws of heredity. Depending on factors such as possible isolation and inbreeding, some of these characteristics become fixed and a definite `race' established."
4. "Although the number of varieties or races that may be established from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new kinds." ([18], p.26)
5. "For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species." ([22], p.7)
6. In light of these facts, evolutionists have turned to mutations (small, random and almost always harmful changes in the genetic code) in the gene pool to explain their theory, "The general picture of how evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant gene. Among these mutations most will be deleterious, but a minority will be beneficial. These few will be retained...". James F. Crow, a modern leader for evolution. ([19], p.47) Two problems with claiming mutations to be the source of positive change are as follows: "an accumulation of literally millions of such micro mutations would be necessary to change one basic `kind' of plant or animal into another" and "an even more serious difficulty is the fact that practically all observed mutations are harmful, and usually even fatal, to the creature experiencing them. Truly beneficial mutations are so rarely observed, and even these are so questionable, as to leave their very existence still in doubt. Even evolutionary geneticists readily acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations are harmful." ([18], p.27-28)
7. Mutation are small, random, and harmful or at best neutral to the organism, and rare. All four of these characteristics make mutations impossible to bringing evolutionary change. Any change that is random, because it is done to a highly ordered organism, will be harmful or neutral. A random change done to a wristwatch will not improve the watch. It will harm it or at very best, be neutral to it. An earthquake does not develop a city, it brings destruction to it. ([22], p.7 and [18], p.27)
8. "Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation." ([11], p.32)
9. "But, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial mutation might occur; still the fact remains that for every beneficial mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones so that the net effect, or result, over time will be that the harmful mutations always win and will ultimately cause the organism, or even species, to degenerate or die." ([22], p.8)
10. "...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can only alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential."
11. "...only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger, her baby would not, as a result, be born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring." ([22], p.9)
12. Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is natural preservation not natural selection (evolution). ([22], p.11)
13. Put another way, in regard to mutations, we can say, "Species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Darwinists claim that the same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants...to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans." ([11], p.16)
14. Breeding reproduces those animals with desired features. It is not evolution of the specimens. It is also within kind not crossing kinds, and all changes through breeding are lost after just a few generations. Breeding also, of course, cannot produce new genetic material or the potential for such. Cloning is the artificial stimulation of mitosis (cell division). It is not the creation of life. ([4], p.37)
15. Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35)
16. "...an excess inflow of `ordering energy' into the system from outside may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized. Thus...a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure. But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in entropy, are only local and temporary.""Negative entropy (is required) for its maintenance." ([18], p.46)
17. A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.
18. Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore, energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or created from nothing by any natural process. ([19], p.32)
19. These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible. ([18], p.46)
20. Regarding the validity of the laws, we note, "These laws are based upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no known exception to either of them."
21. It is noted that the `urge' to evolve is not at all found in chemistry. ([4], p.357)
22. In light of all of these scientific objections to natural selection, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

references below i ran out of space.<!----------------------------------------------------------------->

 

[Freedom777]

&nbsp;
References
&nbsp;
PRO-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / ANTI-CREATIONISM
&nbsp;&nbsp; [2] Falk, Dean. Braindance, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 1992.
&nbsp; [5] Growlett, John. Ascent to Civilization, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.
&nbsp; [8] Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973.
&nbsp; [9] Johanson, David, and Maitland, Edy. Lucy, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981.
&nbsp; [10] Johanson, David, and Shreeve, James. Lucy's Child, NY: William Morrow and
&nbsp; Co., 1989.
&nbsp; [12] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins, NY: E.P. Dutten, 1977.
&nbsp; [13] Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins Reconsidered, NY: Doubleday,
&nbsp; 1992.
&nbsp;&nbsp; [14] Lewin, Roger. Bones of Contention, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
&nbsp;&nbsp; [15] Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
&nbsp; Books, 1988.
&nbsp; [20] Pfieffer, John. The Emergence of Man, NY: Harper and Row, 1969.
&nbsp; [23] Wendt, Herbert. From Ape to Man, NY: The Bubbs Merril Co., 1972.
ANTI-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / PRO-CREATIONISM
&nbsp; [1] Bliss, Richard. Origins: Creation or Evolution? El Cajon, CA: Master
&nbsp; Books, 1988.
&nbsp; [3] Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El
&nbsp; Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990.
&nbsp; [4] Graham, Keith, et al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications,
&nbsp; 1986.
&nbsp; [7] Ham, ken, et. al. The Answers book, El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1992.
&nbsp;&nbsp; [11] Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway,
&nbsp; 1991.
&nbsp;&nbsp; [16] McDowell, Josh and Stewart, Don. Reasons Skeptics Should Consider
&nbsp; Christianity, San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1981.
&nbsp; [17] Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
&nbsp; 1987.
&nbsp;&nbsp; [18] Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ:
&nbsp; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988.
&nbsp; [19] Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book
&nbsp; House, 1967.
&nbsp;&nbsp; [22] Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust,
&nbsp; 1988.
&nbsp; [24] Whitcomb, John. The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.
NEUTRAL REFERENCE WORKS
&nbsp; [6] Grzimek, Bernhard, ed. Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, NY:
&nbsp; Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.
&nbsp; [21] Pinchot, Roy, ed. The Human Body, "The Skeleton", NY: Torster Books,
&nbsp; 1985.

 

[chickenman]

woah, where'd you get that one from drdino.com

it uses the 2LoT argument, which is so laughably incorrect it calls the credibility of the rest of it into doubt

mutations can be beneficial - this is proven (antibiotic resistance)

information can increase (read the references I supplied)

natural selection can act on these two phenomenon to cause macroevolution. Bummer eh... keep trying

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Gack. You might want to fix your post of references there (at least re-paste it to get rid of the HTML tags).

Anyway, I'd try to post rebuttels to some of those (seems like more of the same-old arguments), but I'm quite sleepy and up way past my bed time, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.

G'night.

 

[Freedom777]

Originally posted by chickenman
woah, where'd you get that one from drdino.com

it uses the 2LoT argument, which is so laughably incorrect it calls the credibility of the rest of it into doubt

&nbsp; What is the 2LoT argument.

 

[chickenman]

2nd law of thermodynamics

 

[Freedom777]

Originally posted by chickenman
I realise the difference on the macroscopic level - I want to know what the difference is at the molecular level - if one can happen and the other can't then the processes required must be different

At the moleculer level it takes an increase in information in the gene pool of a spiecified kind.kind is simply, a dog is a dog, there are many variations of dogs but they are all under the dog kind which is the gene pool.there has never been an increase in information in the gene pool [which would be frequent if macro-evolution were true.]&nbsp;observed,only a scrambleing or loss. of information.I recommend&nbsp; Michael J.&nbsp;Behe's book&nbsp;" Darwins black box." The bio-chemical callenge to evolution.

 

[chickenman]

I just listed three articles that showed increases in information can and do happen in the genome.