Microevolution

[Dannager]

Macro evolution is to change a pig into a cat this can't be done no matter how many offspring.

I don't want to offend anyone by posting in this section, but my intent is not to debate. I would like to highlight this particular line above in order to help you formulate your arguments. Please remember that the evolutionary theory that you are arguing against doesn't say that pigs can evolve into cats. That is not what macroevolution is. If a pig ever evolved into a cat, evolutionary theory would be disproven. I only mention this because I would hope that your aim would be to understand what you are arguing against and to form arguments that attack the actual theory, and not an incorrect view of what you think evolutionary theory is.

 

[FallingWaters]

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

I have been taught that microevolution=natural selection. Natural Selection is something God invented to allow variation in the species, thus allowing them to fluctuate with their environment. Natural Selection prevents creatures from becoming extinct. In my opinion, Natural Selection proves there is a loving God who cares about His creation.

 

[FallingWaters]

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/

I thought microevolution had more to do with reproduction of traits that are most viable, like the speckled moths, not necessarily a loss of any information at all; the information is still in the DNA, but not dominant.

I thought loss of information is a mutation.

 

[FallingWaters]

I don't want to offend anyone by posting in this section, but my intent is not to debate. I would like to highlight this particular line above in order to help you formulate your arguments. Please remember that the evolutionary theory that you are arguing against doesn't say that pigs can evolve into cats. That is not what macroevolution is. If a pig ever evolved into a cat, evolutionary theory would be disproven. I only mention this because I would hope that your aim would be to understand what you are arguing against and to form arguments that attack the actual theory, and not an incorrect view of what you think evolutionary theory is.

I think they were just using a silly example to make their point, not because they actually think you think that pigs evolved into cats. I knew what they meant. But thanks for the "heads up".

 

[Dannager]

I have been taught that microevolution=natural selection. Natural Selection is something God invented to allow variation in the species, thus allowing them to fluctuate with their environment. Natural Selection prevents creatures from becoming extinct. In my opinion, Natural Selection proves there is a loving God who cares about His creation.

Again, I don't want to debate here but I'd be glad to explain exactly how natural selection, mutation and microevolution relate on the main OT board if you'd like to start a thread on the subject there.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Instead of using the word microevolution I suggest we use the term variation. Since the term microevolution suggests there is such a thing as macroevolution which most of us here know doesn't take place in the real world.

 

[EIChief]

Instead of using the word microevolution I suggest we use the term variation. Since the term microevolution suggests there is such a thing as macroevolution which most of us here know doesn't take place in the real world.

Correct, I am still waiting for proof from the fossil record that Macroevolution actually takes place. The Macroevolutionary theory, as well as Darwinism, were debunked years ago.

However, some need to hold on so they can avoid the idea of a creator and the crumbling of their world view. Even worse, the public schools still teach the theory as fact without argument because of the void created by the ridiculous notion that seperation of church and state should keep any intelligent design theories from being included in the curriculum.

I wonder what theory Benjamin Franklin would teach kids in today's science class?

 

[Dannager]

Correct, I am still waiting for proof from the fossil record that Macroevolution actually takes place. The Macroevolutionary theory, as well as Darwinism, were debunked years ago.

As we're not allowed to provide such evidence here, I'd suggest creating a thread in the OT board asking for examples of evidence for macroevolution if you are actually interested in it.

 

[EIChief]

As we're not allowed to provide such evidence here, I'd suggest creating a thread in the OT board asking for examples of evidence for macroevolution if you are actually interested in it.

Sorry...I was not asking for debate here, the question was mostly rhetorical in nature meaning that I am still waiting to hear credible evidence elsewhere.

But thanks for clearing up anything that might have been potentially missleading

 

[theoddamerican]

Correct, I am still waiting for proof from the fossil record that Macroevolution actually takes place. The Macroevolutionary theory, as well as Darwinism, were debunked years ago.

All of the fossil evidence that has ever been give is one of three things. (In my opinion)

1 An extinct animal

2 A variation of that animal

3 An animal that died during the flood which the flood fully supports the massive fossil record that we have.

 

[chris777]

I propose that so called microevolution, is more in line with breeding, in that you might get a large varied variety, ie dogs, but it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, which I believe to be false.

Most of the proposed "examples" of microevolution, ie fruit flies, bacterial resistance, etc, are in fact resultant from breeding, in that all of the resultant strains were all already existant, in dormant dna already within the organisms in question. and that the outside factors that manipulate the population ie location, or antibiotic serve to select certain pre existing genetic characteristics, which is not evolution in any form but rather genetic manipulation, of the population, or breeding.

 

[Brennan]

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.

The idea that information is 'lost' in evolution is a common misconception...

A genome contains information based upon the arrangement of four components on the 'rungs' of the helical-ladder shaped DNA molecule. (These are the amino acids Guanine,Actinine, Thyamine and Cytosine - GATC)

When a mutation in the genome occurs between parent and offspring, what happens is that the arrangement of the components on the rungs changes slightly - note that this does not cause a loss of information only an alteration.

Microevolution occurs when such changes produce a noticeable change from one generation to the next - a slight lengthening in the legs, a darkening of skin colour. This requires only small changes in specific parts of the genome and experiments have been done to show that only a few 'rungs' need change to produce such small cosmetic changes to an organism.

 

[chris777]

The idea that information is 'lost' in evolution is a common misconception...

domanant and recessive genetics .....
as for the excessive amounts of so called junk dna, we really don't know what it does, only what we assume it does not

When a mutation in the genome occurs between parent and offspring, what happens is that the arrangement of the components on the rungs changes slightly - note that this does not cause a loss of information only an alteration.

how is this proven to be mutation?

Microevolution occurs when such changes produce a noticeable change from one generation to the next - a slight lengthening in the legs, a darkening of skin colour. This requires only small changes in specific parts of the genome and experiments have been done to show that only a few 'rungs' need change to produce such small cosmetic changes to an organism.

If this is "proof" of micro evolution then any person, or creature that has a feature that significantly differentiates it from its parents is "micro evolved"
so when parents give birth to an off spring that is say a foot taller than they are it is "micro evolved" . I have 2 cousins that have red hair, both are different ages, one is a paternal twin, who has dark hair like BOTH their parents do, I suppose using that definition, that the 2 redheaded "micro evolved, but the paternal dark haired just remained geneticly stagnant.
plus the age difference between the older and younger red heads is 6 years, fyi.

sometime people see what they want to see, without really investigating for them selves and testing all things

 

[Brennan]

Looking different to your siblings is just variety. Micro-evolution requires that a significant number of individuals of a species all exhibit the same changes.

The Galapagos finches are the classic example - birds on different islands adapted different beaks: these minor differences between the distinct populations are what you would call micro-evolution.

Dominant and recessive genes (like whether or not you have red hair) are nothing to do with mutation, rather on what parts of the relevant gene you get from your parents. Think of the switch gene for hair colour as having two halves, both parents have the half for red hair, but also have the half for dark hair, the dark hair half is dominant - so they have dark hair. When they pass on the genes to their offspring the offspring will inherit one half of the characteristic gene from each parent - if they get both halves = dark, then they will have dark hair (and their children cannot get red hair), if they one half red and one dark: then like their parents they will have dark hair but 'carry the gene' for red hair. If they get both halves red then obviously, they get red hair.

I do not see what you mean about proof of mutation - that was a description of it.

 

[chris777]

Looking different to your siblings is just variety. Micro-evolution requires that a significant number of individuals of a species all exhibit the same changes.

The Galapagos finches are the classic example - birds on different islands adapted different beaks: these minor differences between the distinct populations are what you would call micro-evolution.

I was using a small example, but I can go larger, like say differing world races. I propose that geography does play a role, but only in the isolation of the breeding population, much the same as domestication, of plants and animals, I have read about floppy eared domestic foxes, regaining their pointy ears after being re introduced into the wild. Much the same as different races can mate.

Dominant and recessive genes (like whether or not you have red hair) are nothing to do with mutation, rather on what parts of the relevant gene you get from your parents. Think of the switch gene for hair colour as having two halves, both parents have the half for red hair, but also have the half for dark hair, the dark hair half is dominant - so they have dark hair. When they pass on the genes to their offspring the offspring will inherit one half of the characteristic gene from each parent - if they get both halves = dark, then they will have dark hair (and their children cannot get red hair), if they one half red and one dark: then like their parents they will have dark hair but 'carry the gene' for red hair. If they get both halves red then obviously, they get red hair.

I do not see what you mean about proof of mutation - that was a description of it.[/quote] well you just described recessive genetics,
I was refering to

When a mutation in the genome occurs between parent and offspring, what happens is that the arrangement of the components on the rungs changes slightly - note that this does not cause a loss of information only an alteration.

Where is the proof that it was a mutation, over some other cause.

 

[Brennan]

Where is the proof that it was a mutation, over some other cause.

??? What other cause? I think you are misunderstanding:

When genes are passed from parents to offspring their DNA splits in two (down the middle of the 'rungs') and replicates itself, the genes of the offspring are then formed by sticking together one half of a DNA strand from each parent.

Mutation is simply the fact that the offspring's DNA is not made from perfect copies of the parent DNA strands: this occurs either when the replication process produces an imperfect copy of the parent DNA, or when the parent DNA has already been damaged - for example by exposure to radiation.

Mutation is not 'the cause' of the difference - it actually is the difference (between the parent and offspring DNA)

 

[chris777]

imperfect copy of the parent DNA, or when the parent DNA has already been damaged - for example by exposure to radiation.

I don't misunderstand you assume I am "dumberer" than I really am.
Granted I haven't deeply delved into genetics in a while, I have not forgotten everything.

Let me elaborate from your statement, If a mutation is present in the dna BEFORE it is transfered it is the SAME dna, and therefore not an "evolution" but a passing of pre existing Genetic materials on to the offspring. Sure it may be different than the parents before they were mutated, but do you know of any examples of this? Again I realize it may come off as semantics, but I am trying to get you to look objectively at a belief that you have probably held for quite some time, and examine exactly what you are founding that belief on.

As I stated earlier, We don't know everything we think we do, DNA is not the do al end all of genetics, it gets much deeper than that, RNA, protiens, etc, the Genome projects chaotic methodology Got "results" But DNA is only one aspect, I could be wrong, but I recall hearing that their was more difference Genetically between a Man and woman, than between a human and a chimp. How exactly does that Fit into their pre concieved notion of evolution? See the majority believed one thing and Darwin caused a big stir when he had an opposing idea to that, and now some of us question the new "fact" and its legitimacy, and its just as ingrained and brainwashed into people, and difficult to get them to question as the notion before it came along. Evolution only works in theory in a working system, but remove the system, and it falls apart, much like the arguements about the formation of certain body parts that are all required in order for the body to function.
Sorry Got off on a tangent there but think about it for yourself.

I came from the theistic evolution mentality, though admitidly more evolution than theistic.
I had all of that stuff taught to me but when I started to look at the claims myself, and examine what it claimed, things started to fall apart for evolution and I slowly began to believe more and more of the scripture.

when you say imperfect copies of the parents DNA could you elaborate more, as in where this was verified as occuring. Much of this is just readily accepted, but like I keep saying there is more to it, much of what is put fourth as examples of evolution is not, dog breeds for example are just that breeds, not evolution macro or micro.

 

[Brennan]

Let me elaborate from your statement, If a mutation is present in the dna BEFORE it is transfered it is the SAME dna, and therefore not an "evolution" but a passing of pre existing Genetic materials on to the offspring. Sure it may be different than the parents before they were mutated, but do you know of any examples of this?

If the DNA passed to the next generation is different to that of the parents this is a mutation - yes the mutation can occur in the parent - due to damage to the gamete's genetic material - but this is still mutation, by definition.

The best example of mutation occuring by genetic damage within an organism is when cancer occurs. Granted that this will not get passed to the next generation, but consider that cancer worldwide is one of the 2 biggest killers (next to heart disease) and you can see how often this happens - bear in mind that cancer is just one specific type of damage mutation in which the damage causes the resultant tissue to be malignant.

I could be wrong, but I recall hearing that their was more difference Genetically between a Man and woman, than between a human and a chimp.

If this was true humans would be extinct in one generation.

when you say imperfect copies of the parents DNA could you elaborate more, as in where this was verified as occuring. Much of this is just readily accepted, but like I keep saying there is more to it, much of what is put fourth as examples of evolution is not, dog breeds for example are just that breeds, not evolution macro or micro.

Rates of mutation have been examined in detail in a number of species. In humans the rate is around 1 per 100 million.

To demonstrate exactly how well-known this is, here is an article describing just one experiment...

Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1501, USA. skumar@asu.edu

Knowledge of the rate of point mutation is of fundamental importance, because mutations are a vital source of genetic novelty and a significant cause of human diseases. Currently, mutation rate is thought to vary many fold among genes within a genome and among lineages in mammals. We have conducted a computational analysis of 5,669 genes (17,208 sequences) from species representing major groups of placental mammals to characterize the extent of mutation rate differences among genes in a genome and among diverse mammalian lineages. We find that mutation rate is approximately constant per year and largely similar among genes. Similarity of mutation rates among lineages with vastly different generation lengths and physiological attributes points to a much greater contribution of replication-independent mutational processes to the overall mutation rate. Our results suggest that the average mammalian genome mutation rate is 2.2 x 10(-9) per base pair per year, which provides further opportunities for estimating species and population divergence times by using molecular clocks.

To explain, they have tested the differences (mutations) in over 5000 specific genes between one generation and the next.

If you breed a Chihuahua with a Chihuahua can you get a great dane? Or an Alsation? No, you get a Chihuahua. All dogs are still the same species (they have only been bred for about 15000 years) but they are clearly not genetically the same. It is only a matter of time before there is speciation in dogs.

Given that we have not seen speciation in dogs in so long we might expect to see it in more short-lived lifeforms and so it is. Speciation has been observed in several plant species, a number of times in flys, in bacteria cultures and in populations of polychete worms.

 

[theoddamerican]

The idea that information is 'lost' in evolution is a common misconception...

A genome contains information based upon the arrangement of four components on the 'rungs' of the helical-ladder shaped DNA molecule. (These are the amino acids Guanine,Actinine, Thyamine and Cytosine - GATC)

When a mutation in the genome occurs between parent and offspring, what happens is that the arrangement of the components on the rungs changes slightly - note that this does not cause a loss of information only an alteration.

Microevolution occurs when such changes produce a noticeable change from one generation to the next - a slight lengthening in the legs, a darkening of skin colour. This requires only small changes in specific parts of the genome and experiments have been done to show that only a few 'rungs' need change to produce such small cosmetic changes to an organism.

If you looked at vestigial organs they used to be believed as a "useless organ." If a human did have one of these organs that would disprove evolution because that says we are not getting better but worse. Also the so called ape men the ones that were proven to be human have a larger skull and brain size then us. So if we came dirrectly from God then I propose that we were smarter but since we are a copy of a copy we lose data.

 

[theoddamerican]

Also something that most people don't hear about is Darwins finches and what happened to them. After the rains returned and the drouts left, their beaks went back to normal. That is adaption or micro evolution. I think that Micro Evolution should be called something else because it is confused with macro too much. People try to use micro to prove macro and the only thing that can be observed is micro.