Microevolution

[Ave Maria]

Is it possible for a Young Earth Creationist to believe in Microevolution?

 

[SBG]

Yes, and all YECs I have met do.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, and all YECs I have met do.

Cool. I know I believe in it as well.

 

[vossler]

I certainly do!

 

[Ave Maria]

But sense macroevolution is merely microevolution on a larger scale, how can one believe in microevolution?

 

[keyarch]

But sense macroevolution is merely microevolution on a larger scale, how can one believe in microevolution?

To the best of my knowledge:
Microevolution is merely variation within species based on DNA that is already there or re-arranged based on the characteristics of the species. Most creationists don't have a problem with that, because God programmed into the species mechanisms for survival in different environments.
Macroevolution is unguided changes based on environmental conditions that introduce new information into the DNA eventually leading one species to change into a new one.
The assumption that the mechanisms involved in microevolution can be extended to show proof for macroevolution is based on faith.
Microevolution can be observed as part of "operational science" with experiments, whereas macroevolution involves "historical science" that cannot be observed or repeated and has not been proven.

Reproductive advantage for either one happens after the change already takes place, so it is secondary to either mechanism.

 

[Ave Maria]

To the best of my knowledge:
Microevolution is merely variation within species based on DNA that is already there or re-arranged based on the characteristics of the species. Most creationists don't have a problem with that, because God programmed into the species mechanisms for survival in different environments.
Macroevolution is unguided changes based on environmental conditions that introduce new information into the DNA eventually leading one species to change into a new one.
The assumption that the mechanisms involved in microevolution can be extended to show proof for macroevolution is based on faith.
Microevolution can be observed as part of "operational science" with experiments, whereas macroevolution involves "historical science" that cannot be observed or repeated and has not been proven.

Reproductive advantage for either one happens after the change already takes place, so it is secondary to either mechanism.

Oh okay. So what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution that makes microevolution acceptable to YEC Christians?

 

[adam149]

Oh okay. So what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution that makes microevolution acceptable to YEC Christians?

Microevolution, first of all, is observed. Microevolution uses genes that already exist in the DNA of an animal or plant that allow for variations. So you can get dogs with long or short hair, different colors of hair, big dogs or small dogs, with curly tails or straight tails. Microevolution is nothing more than changes within a kind of animal. We can use the dog example again: we can get all different types of dogs, but they are always dogs and no variation of the genes in any dog will ever result in a different kind of animal, like a cat.

When God created the animals in Genesis 1, He created them with a large number of genetic variables in them, but with boundaries between them. So a dog carries a large number of possible variations for the dog kind depending on survival and enviromental adaptation which would affect which genes become dominant and which recessive. Further, He created boundaries between the kinds. Between, say, the dog kind and the cat kind. No amount of (natural) genetic manipulation can result in a dog (over millions of years or instantaneously) turn into a cat or anything else. In fact, scientists have known for hundreds of years that trans-kind pregnancy is impossible. Were the unlikely occur and a dog to empregnate a non-dog, the egg and sperm would die and not combine because they are incompatible.

In this way, microevolution can be seen as a sideways movement. Imagine all of the possible variations of the dog kind lined up in a row. The dominant genes simply move back and forth between them.

Macroevoluiton is not simply the same thing as microevolution on a larger scale as evolutionists would like you to think. Rather, macroevolution requires the creation of all-new genetic information. Dogs contain all the genetic information for dogs, cats for cats, and so on. But if you want a dog, over time, to transform into a cat, you don't need new combinations of existing genetic information. The information for a cat is missing from the dog DNA. It would have to be created new. (this is a particularly good trick if cats do not exist at the time).

Thus, macroevolution is a virtical movement up and down a scale of different kinds. Due to our understanding of Scripture and the immutability of kinds of animals and plants, macroevolution is out by deffinition since it claims to break barriers that can't be broken.

For a more clear and detailed understanding, start with this article. After reading that, you can get a lot more info here.

Hope some of this helped.

 

[keyarch]

Microevolution, first of all, is observed. Microevolution uses genes that already exist in the DNA of an animal or plant that allow for variations. ~ Hope some of this helped.

I like your explaination better than mine. I tried to give a simple version of the same thing.

 

[adam149]

I like your explaination better than mine. I tried to give a simple version of the same thing.

I started writing intending to do a short summary. It failed. The more concise I tried to make it, the more difficult it became to understand.

Yours was good too, though.

 

[Ave Maria]

Microevolution, first of all, is observed. Microevolution uses genes that already exist in the DNA of an animal or plant that allow for variations. So you can get dogs with long or short hair, different colors of hair, big dogs or small dogs, with curly tails or straight tails. Microevolution is nothing more than changes within a kind of animal. We can use the dog example again: we can get all different types of dogs, but they are always dogs and no variation of the genes in any dog will ever result in a different kind of animal, like a cat.

When God created the animals in Genesis 1, He created them with a large number of genetic variables in them, but with boundaries between them. So a dog carries a large number of possible variations for the dog kind depending on survival and enviromental adaptation which would affect which genes become dominant and which recessive. Further, He created boundaries between the kinds. Between, say, the dog kind and the cat kind. No amount of (natural) genetic manipulation can result in a dog (over millions of years or instantaneously) turn into a cat or anything else. In fact, scientists have known for hundreds of years that trans-kind pregnancy is impossible. Were the unlikely occur and a dog to empregnate a non-dog, the egg and sperm would die and not combine because they are incompatible.

In this way, microevolution can be seen as a sideways movement. Imagine all of the possible variations of the dog kind lined up in a row. The dominant genes simply move back and forth between them.

Macroevoluiton is not simply the same thing as microevolution on a larger scale as evolutionists would like you to think. Rather, macroevolution requires the creation of all-new genetic information. Dogs contain all the genetic information for dogs, cats for cats, and so on. But if you want a dog, over time, to transform into a cat, you don't need new combinations of existing genetic information. The information for a cat is missing from the dog DNA. It would have to be created new. (this is a particularly good trick if cats do not exist at the time).

Thus, macroevolution is a virtical movement up and down a scale of different kinds. Due to our understanding of Scripture and the immutability of kinds of animals and plants, macroevolution is out by deffinition since it claims to break barriers that can't be broken.

For a more clear and detailed understanding, start with this article. After reading that, you can get a lot more info here.

Hope some of this helped.

So basically dogs (and all other species) already have all the DNA that they need to change to a different hair color, eye color, coat length, etc but they cannot create new DNA which would possibly create a new species? And this also accounts for viruses and bacteria and such that develop resistance to drugs?

 

[adam149]

So basically dogs (and all other species) already have all the DNA that they need to change to a different hair color, eye color, coat length, etc but they cannot create new DNA which would possibly create a new species?

Essentially, yes. I would say that the dog kind has all of the genetic information to adapt to different enviromental conditions, but for evolution, properly defined, to happen it requires new information which cannot be gained naturally.

The creation of new species has been observed. In every case the creation of a new species results in a loss of information. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati writes:

Loss of information through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed.

The Biblical "kind" is not the same thing as a species, or any of the classifications. It is based on a new, creationist-developed classification system known as Baraminology.

And this also accounts for viruses and bacteria and such that develop resistance to drugs?

Yep. You got it.

However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.

In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase.

Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.

 

[Ave Maria]

Essentially, yes. I would say that the dog kind has all of the genetic information to adapt to different enviromental conditions, but for evolution, properly defined, to happen it requires new information which cannot be gained naturally.

The creation of new species has been observed. In every case the creation of a new species results in a loss of information. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati writes:


The Biblical "kind" is not the same thing as a species, or any of the classifications. It is based on a new, creationist-developed classification system known as Baraminology.



Yep. You got it.

Thank you!

 

[adam149]

Thank you!

Happy to share the wealth!

 

[Ave Maria]

Happy to share the wealth!

 

[mark kennedy]

Microevolution is actually essential for creationism, how else would we explain all the different species that live in our world? Think about it, Noah opens up the door to the Ark and a large, but limited number of animals comes scampering out. Let's say there are 1,800 species and in about 5,000 years there are millions of species covering the planet.

It's basic biology, during reproduction the offspring gets two copies of the chromosomes. That means that there are two sets of genes, one from the father and one from the mother. They are recombined and how they are recombined gives the offspring a unique (or almost unique) genetic makeup. Here is where microevolution becomes important.

There are two different kinds of traits, one is dominant and one is recessive. What happens is that the dominant traits are more common then the recessive because the recessive ones are masked (suppressed). In a new environment a recessive trait can become more common and when enough of this happens they become dominant.

My favorite example is the artic white hare, I have no doubt that their great, great, great...grandparents had different colored fur. Over time as they moved futher north they were eventually all white. This is not a random process, God knew that they would have to change in order to adapt to new environments. That is microevolution and it makes sense that new species would come as a result but evolutionists don't want to admitt that there are limits to how much change is possible.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SuperNova]

You have to realize this about microevolution. It involves 2 things. First it involves a loss of genetic information. Whenever an organism changes it A) Stays the same "Kind" of animal and B) has lost genetic information.
Second not all changes involve a change in genetic information. It could be that the first two of that particular kind of animal had the genetic information neccisary for the change but until it was seen remained recessive.
Macroevolution requires something that has never happened. A gain in genetic information. The only observable changes we can give examples of involve a loss in genetic information.

I've shared these videos before in other forums but I found them interesting!

http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/

 

[JesusQuest]

Thanks for your explanation it's really clear

 

[EIChief]

Microevolution is actually essential for creationism, how else would we explain all the different species that live in our world? Think about it, Noah opens up the door to the Ark and a large, but limited number of animals comes scampering out. Let's say there are 1,800 species and in about 5,000 years there are millions of species covering the planet.

It's basic biology, during reproduction the offspring gets two copies of the chromosomes. That means that there are two sets of genes, one from the father and one from the mother. They are recombined and how they are recombined gives the offspring a unique (or almost unique) genetic makeup. Here is where microevolution becomes important.

There are two different kinds of traits, one is dominant and one is recessive. What happens is that the dominant traits are more common then the recessive because the recessive ones are masked (suppressed). In a new environment a recessive trait can become more common and when enough of this happens they become dominant.

My favorite example is the artic white hare, I have no doubt that their great, great, great...grandparents had different colored fur. Over time as they moved futher north they were eventually all white. This is not a random process, God knew that they would have to change in order to adapt to new environments. That is microevolution and it makes sense that new species would come as a result but evolutionists don't want to admitt that there are limits to how much change is possible.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Great post. It is also important that the OP understand that this is a great example of how Creationism has more scientific base then Evolution. Evolution becaomes harder and harder to justify as more science is uncovered. For those such as Atheists who have trouble reasoning a God logically, this is great material to be equiped with.

Macroevolution is not supported in the fossil record, and the evidence points against it. It also fails to explain the morality of human beings, and the basic laws of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics in a closed system.

YEC is the most complete answer and makes the leap of faith less and less large as science progresses. It takes more faith to believe Evolution

 

[theoddamerican]

yes Microevolution is variation in a species an example lets say that a wolf is the original dog or canine eventually you get another variation of a dog when certain genetic traits are lost. people have this down to an artform now. We crossbreed dogs to get smaller dogs or long haired dogs or short haired dogs. but in essence it is still a dog.Macro evolution is to change a pig into a cat this can't be done no matter how many offspring.