micro vs macro evolution

[TheBandit]

There is a large difference between Macro vs. Micro evolution. Microevolution is defined in many highschool and college textbooks as the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Now, this deals with genetic information that is already present within the DNA of the organism/population. However, Macroevolution requires NEW information to be added. You can't make a human with the DNA of a shark. You need new information to create a hand than a fin.

These are completely different processes. Unfortunately, the line is blurred within most academic institutions. Macroevolution cannot be tested for with scientific means, as we have neither the lifespan nor the capability to experiment on organisms that are 'evolving.' (or that 'have' evolved in the past)

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

There is a large difference between Macro vs. Micro evolution. Microevolution is defined in many highschool and college textbooks as the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population.

I see what you did there.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Now, this deals with genetic information that is already present within the DNA of the organism/population. However, Macroevolution requires NEW information to be added. You can't make a human with the DNA of a shark. You need new information to create a hand than a fin.

What about to create a new structure entirely?

Oops: http://christianforums.com/t7152237-what-was-this-about-evolution-being-untestable.html

These are completely different processes.

Except insofar as, y'know, they're not. Difference in scale, not in kind.

Unfortunately, the line is blurred within most academic institutions. Macroevolution cannot be tested for with scientific means, as we have neither the lifespan nor the capability to experiment on organisms that are 'evolving.' (or that 'have' evolved in the past)

My chromosome #2 wants a word with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29)

 

[TeddyKGB]

There is a large difference between Macro vs. Micro evolution. Microevolution is defined in many highschool and college textbooks as the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Now, this deals with genetic information that is already present within the DNA of the organism/population. However, Macroevolution requires NEW information to be added. You can't make a human with the DNA of a shark. You need new information to create a hand than a fin.

These are completely different processes. Unfortunately, the line is blurred within most academic institutions. Macroevolution cannot be tested for with scientific means, as we have neither the lifespan nor the capability to experiment on organisms that are 'evolving.' (or that 'have' evolved in the past)

Why don't you just link to the creationist websites from whence you dredged up this pile? It would save everyone a lot of trouble. We all know you are not a practicing scientist. We all know you didn't learn any of it in college.

Everything you wrote, save for, "You can't make a human with the DNA of a shark" is both galactically wrong and easily recognizable as creationist talking points.

 

[Paulos23]

There is a large difference between Macro vs. Micro evolution. Microevolution is defined in many highschool and college textbooks as the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population.

It is in textbooks? Really? Because I haven't seen it used in scientific circles when talking about evolution.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Now, this deals with genetic information that is already present within the DNA of the organism/population. However, Macroevolution requires NEW information to be added. You can't make a human with the DNA of a shark. You need new information to create a hand than a fin.

Your talking about the same processes here. What your discribing as micro adds up to what your discribing as macro over time. The real question is if macro is not possible, what is the mechanism that stops it. That information hogwash doesn't fly because that would stop micro as well, and you already admitted that it happens, so that can't be true. (Besides, what is your definition of information?) Once you find that mechanism, then you will have something.

These are completely different processes. Unfortunately, the line is blurred within most academic institutions. Macroevolution cannot be tested for with scientific means, as we have neither the lifespan nor the capability to experiment on organisms that are 'evolving.' (or that 'have' evolved in the past)

They are not different process, and you have not shown that they are. You just relabeling process trying to pull a fast one.

Besides, if macro evolution wasn't possible, why is there so much evidence for it.

 

[TheBandit]

It is in textbooks? Really? Because I haven't seen it used in scientific circles when talking about evolution.



Your talking about the same processes here. What your discribing as micro adds up to what your discribing as macro over time. The real question is if macro is not possible, what is the mechanism that stops it. That information hogwash doesn't fly because that would stop micro as well, and you already admitted that it happens, so that can't be true. (Besides, what is your definition of information?) Once you find that mechanism, then you will have something.



They are not different process, and you have not shown that they are. You just relabeling process trying to pull a fast one.

Almost every single mutation mentioned in that link involved some sort of duplication of information. Basically, telling the body to make 2 shark fins instead of 1. This does not add NEW information to the genetic code. It does not say "build a hand instead of a fin." Duplication adds nothing to the amount of information. The information is already there to begin with.

Again: 2 very different processes. You need all new genes to create the muscles and bone structure of a hand than a fin. Your article does not prove that you can add new genes to DNA. Downs Syndrome involves a Genetic duplication of the 23 Chromosome, but it does not give new structures to humans.

 

[Paulos23]

Almost every single mutation mentioned in that link involved some sort of duplication of information.

That comment alone tells me you haven't even read the link.

You might want to try section 2

Basically, telling the body to make 2 shark fins instead of 1. This does not add NEW information to the genetic code. It does not say "build a hand instead of a fin." Duplication adds nothing to the amount of information. The information is already there to begin with.

Supersport, is that you?

That is not the way it works, you don't get whole limbs from nothing. There are transitional forms that happen first.

Again: 2 very different processes. You need all new genes to create the muscles and bone structure of a hand than a fin. Your article does not prove that you can add new genes to DNA. Downs Syndrome involves a Genetic duplication of the 23 Chromosome, but it does not give new structures to humans.

Yup, you have to be Supersport.

What your discribing is not evolution (which happens over many generations), but something else. Your skipping the whole half hand/half fin part that would be required by the theory of evolution.

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

I always thought macro evolution was just micro over a longer period of time, I guess I was wrong,

 

[Paulos23]

I always thought macro evolution was just micro over a longer period of time, I guess I was wrong,

Well it is, but most ID proponents don't like to admit that.

 

[Split Rock]

There is a large difference between Macro vs. Micro evolution. Microevolution is defined in many highschool and college textbooks as the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population.

Microevolution is change within a species or population.

Macroevolution is change that results in speciation (observed in both the lab and nature) as well as the creation of higher taxa.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Now, this deals with genetic information that is already present within the DNA of the organism/population. However, Macroevolution requires NEW information to be added. You can't make a human with the DNA of a shark. You need new information to create a hand than a fin.

This is all wrong. Genetic changes resulting in macroevolution are the results of changes in the DNA that is present in the parent population. It does not require new DNA to appear from thin air. The human hand is a modified fin, just as human DNA is modified from ancestors which were fish. See: http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html

These are completely different processes. Unfortunately, the line is blurred within most academic institutions. Macroevolution cannot be tested for with scientific means, as we have neither the lifespan nor the capability to experiment on organisms that are 'evolving.' (or that 'have' evolved in the past)

Not so. We can study speciation in progress as with Ring Species (such as the Greenish Warbler). See: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
Also, the ancestry of all organisms is evidenced by their DNA, embryological development and morphology.

 

[necroforest]

Creationist dictionary:

Micro evolution = whatever we have observed in still-living populations of animals (i.e, Nylonase)
Macro evolution = everything else

By definition we will never observe macro evolution! It must be false!

 

[Split Rock]

I always thought macro evolution was just micro over a longer period of time, I guess I was wrong,

Some biologists believe other mechanisms are involved in the evolution of higher taxa. For example, mass extinctions have had a large effect on macroevolution in the past (by opening up ecological niches for adaptive radiation of survivors).

 

[AV1611VET]

The real question is if macro is not possible, what is the mechanism that stops it.

God.

We serve a God of boundaries, and although nature is hostile to Him, it is obedient.

And God has set boundaries that nature just cannot cross - even if it wanted to.

[bible]Psalm 104:5[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 104:9[/bible]

 

[flatworm]

Almost every single mutation mentioned in that link involved some sort of duplication of information. Basically, telling the body to make 2 shark fins instead of 1. This does not add NEW information to the genetic code.

I've seen this argument at least a dozen times, and never once has a creationist answered this question:

How do you calculate the information content of the genome?

For every measure of information I know of from classical information theory and complexity theory, I know of biological examples by which it has been shown to increase by natural means.

 

[Paulos23]

God.

We serve a God of boundaries, and although nature is hostile to Him, it is obedient.

And God has set boundaries that nature just cannot cross - even if it wanted to.

[bible]Psalm 104:5[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 104:9[/bible]

Well if you have evidence other then Bible passages, great! Let us have it!

If Bible passages is all you have then try again...

 

[Quantic]

God.
And God has set boundaries that nature just cannot cross - even if it wanted to.

Demonstrate that such boundaries actually exist. The human genome project has sequenced all of the base pairs of the human genome. If these boundaries really exist then you should be able to show their existence. You don't even have to use the human genome, much simpler genome sequences are available (bacteria for instance) and you could use those.

In short, do you have any evidence for you claim that boundaries exist that prevent speciation.

 

[Naraoia]

Almost every single mutation mentioned in that link involved some sort of duplication of information. Basically, telling the body to make 2 shark fins instead of 1. This does not add NEW information to the genetic code. It does not say "build a hand instead of a fin." Duplication adds nothing to the amount of information. The information is already there to begin with.

And guess what happens after duplication?

Big clue: mutations can change what a gene or its product does

(How is, say, nylonase not a new gene/enzyme?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Demonstrate that such boundaries actually exist.

I'm not going to go through the entire Bible and show you all the boundaries mentioned therein. Instead, I'll repeat myself that God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross, even if it wanted to.

 

[Naraoia]

Some biologists believe other mechanisms are involved in the evolution of higher taxa. For example, mass extinctions have had a large effect on macroevolution in the past (by opening up ecological niches for adaptive radiation of survivors).

But that's not really "other mechanisms". That's just "other selective pressures (or lack thereof)".

 

[flatworm]

I'm not going to go through the entire Bible and show you all the boundaries mentioned therein. Instead, I'll repeat myself that God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross, even if it wanted to.

Sorry, AV- he said actually.

 

[Quantic]

I'm not going to go through the entire Bible and show you all the boundaries mentioned therein. Instead, I'll repeat myself that God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross, even if it wanted to.

I'm sorry, I trust you must have misunderstood me. My request was for evidence, not hearsay. Do these boundaries you claim exist or not?

Show the evidence or if there is none, then be honest and drop the claim.