Micro to Macro: Working Backwards

[Loudmouth]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

I'm not playing your connect-the-dots game.

If you can't daisy-chain it, don't expect me to bridge any of your gaps on principle.

You won't follow the evidence because you know where it leads.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I can follow simple instructions on paper.

But if Mother Nature didn't do it -- or leave behind evidence that she did -- don't expect me to.

We observe that Mother Nature produces single nucleotide substitutions all of the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither can you ... or you would answer my Daisy-Chain Challenge.

This opening post is the answer to the daisy-chain challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

You won't follow the evidence because you know where it leads.

In the case of Neanderthal & Cro-magnon, I know where they came from.

And I'll bet you can make the same claim, can't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

We observe that Mother Nature produces single nucleotide substitutions all of the time.

Groovy.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the case of Neanderthal & Cro-magnon, I know where they came from.

Inventing fantasies is not knowing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Inventing fantasies is not knowing.

And as I have pointed out, Solomon refers to evolution as an invention -- not a discovery.

 

[Loudmouth]

And as I have pointed out, Solomon refers to evolution as an invention -- not a discovery.

Claims in books are not knowledge. Can you address the opening post or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Claims in books are not knowledge.

There's no such thing as a "book of knowledge"?

Can you address the opening post or not?

I already have.

And for the record, your first sentence:

I think everyone can agree that the bridge between chimps and humans requires macroevolution.

... I disagree with.

I think it requires faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's no such thing as a "book of knowledge"?

Then please start pointing to evidence instead of books, and please address the opening post.

 

[lesliedellow]

You should know better than to waste your breath on creationists.

 

[Styx87]

My Lawyer says otherwise.

Neither can you ... or you would answer my Daisy-Chain Challenge.

Nice pic of 100 pennies making a dollar.

Haeckel would be proud.

But the truth of the matter is, you guys are using pictures to fill in missing links.

A person looks at that and his/her mind forgets about the gaps that exist between species.

Gaps that shouldn't be there, because they really aren't gaps at all.

Genesis 1 is not an account of life daisy-chaining, it is an account of life springing into action instantly, having maturity without a history.

No, we're using pictures to try and convay something that is clearly too complicated for you to grasp without the use of analogies. And even this appears to be too confusing for you.

Microevolution is small mutations which usually result in small superficial changes in an animal's appearance or behavior.

Macroevolution could be considered the accumulation of mutations which make an animal population distinctively different from related populations.

Micro is one mutation. Macro is many mutations. The only difference is the amount of time that elapses.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You should know better than to waste your breath on creationists.

You mean energy, because we are typing, not talking

 

[Paulos23]

No, we're using pictures to try and convay something that is clearly too complicated for you to grasp without the use of analogies. And even this appears to be too confusing for you.

Microevolution is small mutations which usually result in small superficial changes in an animal's appearance or behavior.

Macroevolution could be considered the accumulation of mutations which make an animal population distinctively different from related populations.

Micro is one mutation. Macro is many mutations. The only difference is the amount of time that elapses.

So by that definition the line could be drawn at two Micros.

 

[OllieFranz]

So by that definition the line could be drawn at two Micros.

Which is why micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not terms used in the scientific literature. There is no distinction. Creationists claim that there is a fundamental difference between the two, and that there is a gap or barrier that prevents macro-evolution from happening in nature, and keeps a population of one "kind" from evolving into a new "kind." They have yet, however to define what that gap or barrier is, or how it distinguishes between a mutation that does not bridge that gap and one that potentially could jump the shark.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is why micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not terms used in the scientific literature. There is no distinction.

Actually, the term is used in the scientific literature by scientists. However, the line between macro and micro is often quite arbitrary, and it isn't viewed as a fundamental difference as it is with creationists.

The other issue is that it often refers to two different mechanisms. First, the accumulation of change over time in a single lineage. The line between micro and macro in this context is the same as the line between tall and short, or old and young. Second, it is used to describe divergence after a speciation event. In this case, it is different mutations accumulating in different lineages.

 

[Styx87]

So by that definition the line could be drawn at two Micros.

Possibly. If those two micros produced enough variation to distinguish the population from related populations as well as the population it descended from, I don't see why not.

 

[Styx87]

Which is why micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not terms used in the scientific literature. There is no distinction. Creationists claim that there is a fundamental difference between the two, and that there is a gap or barrier that prevents macro-evolution from happening in nature, and keeps a population of one "kind" from evolving into a new "kind." They have yet, however to define what that gap or barrier is, or how it distinguishes between a mutation that does not bridge that gap and one that potentially could jump the shark.

You're right of course. There's is no distinction between the two. The only difference is time, or more appropriately the number of generations needed to carry the small variations within a species on to distinguish larger variations between species. Otherwise they're both still evolution, which is why i posted the picture of the dollar (in pennies). It's like the difference between walking a yard and walking a mile. Either way you look at it your still walking, the only difference is the number of steps it took.

Small variations in Timber Wolf pups were encouraged to achieve every variety of domestic dog that we have today.

 

[EternalDragon]

Indeed they are.....there are no 'gaps' to bridge....

All that needs to occur is for each of those DNA bases to be inaccurately copied (mutated) ONCE each.....so, instead of guanine, it is replaced with adenine, or thiamine with cytosine, etc......

No intermediary change required for each of these, nothing 'missing' to fill in....very simple basic changes....

Changes that get repaired? Yes, they do. There is a distinct way in which the embryo should form. Should something be off, it will be fixed. That is why when a chicken lays an egg, out comes a chicken, looking like the parent chickens.

You suppose that very small changes somehow "stick" and then another change and so on until the population changes to something drastically different from the start. Well, you would be wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

Possibly. If those two micros produced enough variation to distinguish the population from related populations as well as the population it descended from, I don't see why not.

What you describe produces something like this and that is all it does: