micro vs macro evolution

[AV1611VET]

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?

And I'm not in the evidence-producing business --- I'm in the testimony business. You want evidence, you find it. (And hurry up too, please; I'm already bored with these comments.)

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

If it doesn't show up under an electron microscope, then it's either a much smaller boundary, or it's an embedded instruction, or it's simply a spiritual boundary.

What's it called in the canine business? An invisible fence?

And while you're at it --- find a machine that can do this:

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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)

Actually macroevolution (i.e. common descent I suppose in this case) not only can be tested, but is even an applied science and is used as a basis for current work in genomics (Google "comparative genomics").

 

[Quantic]

And I'm not in the evidence-producing business --- I'm in the testimony business. You want evidence, you find it. (And hurry up too, please; I'm already bored with these comments.)

If it doesn't show up under an electron microscope, then it's either a much smaller boundary, or it's an embedded instruction, or it's simply a spiritual boundary.

What's it called in the canine business? An invisible fence?

And while your at it --- find a machine that can do this:

Well, since you have no evidence for the boundary idea you're wrong, there is no boundary. Thanks for being this honest at least.

If you have no evidence for an idea, then you have no place to stand on the idea being true. Since there is no evidence for a boundary, and speciation shows that it doesn't exist, then a reasonable, honest person must discount the whole idea; can you be such a person?

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[FTPolice]

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)

That's so cute. "I've never seen anyone count from 1 to 10 billion so it can't be done. I do not believe in macroaddition."

 

[FTPolice]

And I'm not in the evidence-producing business --- I'm in the testimony business. You want evidence, you find it. (And hurry up too, please; I'm already bored with these comments.)



If it doesn't show up under an electron microscope, then it's either a much smaller boundary, or it's an embedded instruction, or it's simply a spiritual boundary.

What's it called in the canine business? An invisible fence?

And while you're at it --- find a machine that can do this:

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

I love your post too.

Someone makes a claim backed up with dumptrucks full of evidence and you respond with skepticism, and then throw out some wild, zany bible magic you take at face value because it came from a 2,000 +year old book and demand no evidence for it (which is great because there is no evidence for it) and then you proclaim yourself the victor in the debate, or on a good day, you proclaim a stalemate.

 

[FishFace]

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)

That "Bzzzt" sound was you hypothetically failing your high school biology paper.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, so speciation is an example of macroevolution.
If you are talking about something other than macro-evolution, then you'll have to define it precisely.

Information, you also need to define precisely - in such a way that, given two strands of DNA, I would be able to calculate how much information each strand has.
You might want to bear in mind that if a genetic sequence is mutated, then the reverse mutation is always possible, so if there are any mutations that can decrease information, then there are ipso facto mutations that can increase it.

Just in case you don't want to, or are unable to define information, you might consider whether you need new information to gain the ability to digest nylon or not.

 

[FishFace]

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]

Clearly irrelevant to genetics, though, so even if your Bible were accurate, and even if you interpreted it literally, you'd be stuck.

 

[Split Rock]

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

We can argue about what constitutes a "mechanism" if you like. The point is that a scenario where a mass extinction leads to numerous adaptive radiations in the following centuries is not the same where many small changes accumulate over time to produce not only new species, but new genera, families and higher taxa as well.

 

[necroforest]

And while you're at it --- find a machine that can do this:

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

Does LSD count as a "machine"?

 

[TheBandit]

That "Bzzzt" sound was you hypothetically failing your high school biology paper.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, so speciation is an example of macroevolution.
If you are talking about something other than macro-evolution, then you'll have to define it precisely.

Information, you also need to define precisely - in such a way that, given two strands of DNA, I would be able to calculate how much information each strand has.
You might want to bear in mind that if a genetic sequence is mutated, then the reverse mutation is always possible, so if there are any mutations that can decrease information, then there are ipso facto mutations that can increase it.

Just in case you don't want to, or are unable to define information, you might consider whether you need new information to gain the ability to digest nylon or not.

Still we need new information. Clearly, organisms would undergo slight changes, but you'd still need that new information.
However, You still need DNA 'spontaneously arising' for a bacterium to become a jellyfish.
Sure, you'd need transitional forms, but those would need new DNA for each minute step.

 

[trivista]

I love your post too.

Someone makes a claim backed up with dumptrucks full of evidence and you respond with skepticism, and then throw out some wild, zany bible magic you take at face value because it came from a 2,000 +year old book and demand no evidence for it (which is great because there is no evidence for it) and then you proclaim yourself the victor in the debate, or on a good day, you proclaim a stalemate.

You must be new. That is what he does 99.9754354% of the time.

 

[TheBandit]

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.

examples?

 

[Vene]

Still we need new information. Clearly, organisms would undergo slight changes, but you'd still need that new information.
However, You still need DNA 'spontaneously arising' for a bacterium to become a jellyfish.
Sure, you'd need transitional forms, but those would need new DNA for each minute step.

Kind of a moot point as we have many transitional forms. Two of the best examples are Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

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)

Define information. This is not a new argument--it has been made by others before you that refuse to define terms so that this mess of logic is even able to be sifted through.

Perhaps you can take it a step further?

 

[Split Rock]

Still we need new information. Clearly, organisms would undergo slight changes, but you'd still need that new information.

Could you please explain how "new information" could not arise from gene duplication and mutation, as it did with the nylonase genes?

However, You still need DNA 'spontaneously arising' for a bacterium to become a jellyfish.

No. Please show us why DNA would need to "arise spontaneously. You do realize that jellyfish tissues are made of cells... much like single -celled eukaryotes...right?

Sure, you'd need transitional forms, but those would need new DNA for each minute step.

No. Show us the data to back up this assertion.

 

[TheBandit]

Kind of a moot point as we have many transitional forms. Two of the best examples are Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

There is a complete and systematical lack of transitional life forms (missing links) between various kinds of life in the fossil records. The fossil records show a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life forms.

However, if evolution were true, then there would only be a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms. Also, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility or even death. So then we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life forms, or maybe even some new species. Historically it has been said that changes in life forms are limited to "types" or "kinds", like in the Bible. That is why, for example, you'll never see mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat into a horse, no matter how much time you allow the evolutionary process.

Let me ask you then, how would you explain to me how order and structure came to be? Did that evolve too? If so, then from what? Also how do you explain a person's conscience? Or how about love? We can throw science around all day, but what method do you use to explain these phenomena?

 

[FTPolice]

You must be new. That is what he does 99.9754354% of the time.

Oh, I'm fully aware. I just find it thoroughly amusing. Every creationist on this board does it, I don't even argue anymore on here. You can't win with these people, they'll accept nothing less than someone creating life in a laboratory and them documenting that life evolving into a human before their very eyes. But for their god, they require no proof other than faith. That's why a creation/evolution debate forum is insane, as the only way to argue with a creationist is to suspend the rules of debate just for them.

Now, I just occasionally cruise this board to laugh at their hypocrisy and proud ignorance.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What is this? Recycled creationist arguments 101?

Don't creationists ever come up with anything new or interesting?

 

[FTPolice]

There is a complete and systematical lack of transitional life forms (missing links) between various kinds of life in the fossil records. The fossil records show a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life forms.

However, if evolution were true, then there would only be a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms. Also, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility or even death. So then we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life forms, or maybe even some new species. Historically it has been said that changes in life forms are limited to "types" or "kinds", like in the Bible. That is why, for example, you'll never see mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat into a horse, no matter how much time you allow the evolutionary process.

Let me ask you then, how would you explain to me how order and structure came to be? Did that evolve too? If so, then from what? Also how do you explain a person's conscience? Or how about love? We can throw science around all day, but what method do you use to explain these phenomena?

You know, if you took a genetics class at your local community college, a lot of this would be cleared up for you. It'd probably cost a whooping 150 dollars.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't win with these people, they'll accept nothing less than someone creating life in a laboratory and them documenting that life evolving into a human before their very eyes.

Nope --- I've already addressed that here.