problems with macroevolution

[RTooty]

There are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro. Micro means that species adapt and biological structures can make minor changes, for example Darwin found that there were many variations of birds with different types of beaks on the Galapogos(sp?) depending on their diet. Macro means that large changes are possible, for example over time humans evolved from apes. Evolutionists and fundies tend to lump both into one evolution category. It is hilarious that both damage their cause when they do this. Based on the evidence so far, I personally believe that micro is possible, but that macro is not.


For macro evolution to occur within a species, the genome structural change of multiple male and female members must occur at the same time for subsequent reproduction. I am not a mathematician, but the odds would seem highly improbable. And, more importantly, the fossil record doesn’t support macroevolution, the exponential number and types of fossils are found in one period suggesting an explosion of life rather than it being gradual. Based on the evidence, Macroevolution requires more faith than creation/intelligent design. It’s macro that has tremendous problems: a population of same species (both male and female) changing its genetic code to form a wholly new species.

 

[pgp_protector]

 

[Sanguis]

 

[metherion]

There are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro.

No, there really aren’t. There is no distinct line where X can go to Y but Y can’t go to Z.

Macro means that large changes are possible, for example over time humans evolved from apes.

Humans evolved from PREVIOUS apes. We are still apes.

Evolutionists and fundies tend to lump both into one evolution category. It is hilarious that both damage their cause when they do this. Based on the evidence so far, I personally believe that micro is possible, but that macro is not.

That’s because they are one category. If you can walk 20 feet you can walk 20 miles.

For macro evolution to occur within a species, the genome structural change of multiple male and female members must occur at the same time for subsequent reproduction.

No. That’s a gross misunderstanding. Think about this. You have one species. All of a sudden, an earthquake happens that splits them up. Think Land Before Time, near the beginning. The groups on both sides reproduce, but don’t interbreed. Several dozen generations later, both have, as you put it, microevolved. And now they can’t breed with each other coz they microevolved different ways. Ta da!

Easy as that.

I am not a mathematician, but the odds would seem highly improbable.

Well, yes, it would be. But it isn’t what happens, so it’s all good.

And, more importantly, the fossil record doesn’t support macroevolution, the exponential number and types of fossils are found in one period suggesting an explosion of life rather than it being gradual.

Yes it does. Tiktallik, ambelocetus, microraptor, etc. I also assume you are referring to the so-called Cambrian Explosion which was still about six million years long and the ‘explosion’ of fossils is a lot more to do with the evolution of hard parts like bone and shell rather than sudden appearances that didn’t happen.

Based on the evidence, Macroevolution requires more faith than creation/intelligent design.

No, because it has evidence.

It’s macro that has tremendous problems: a population of same species (both male and female) changing its genetic code to form a wholly new species.

Well, if that’s what actually had to happen, it would be. But since it’s not, it isn’t a problem.

Metherion

 

[laconicstudent]

There are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro. Micro means that species adapt and biological structures can make minor changes, for example Darwin found that there were many variations of birds with different types of beaks on the Galapogos(sp?) depending on their diet. Macro means that large changes are possible, for example over time humans evolved from apes. Evolutionists and fundies tend to lump both into one evolution category. It is hilarious that both damage their cause when they do this. Based on the evidence so far, I personally believe that micro is possible, but that macro is not.

Cite please.

For macro evolution to occur within a species, the genome structural change of multiple male and female members must occur at the same time for subsequent reproduction.

Kent Hovind? Are we seriously going with that insanity. By the way, your wrong about how evolution works.

I am not a mathematician, but the odds would seem highly improbable.

Nice argument from personal incredulity.

And, more importantly, the fossil record doesn’t support macroevolution,

Wrong.

the exponential number and types of fossils are found in one period suggesting an explosion of life rather than it being gradual.

The Cambrian Explosion? you know that has already been explained, right? When ecological niches open, the rate of evolution increases

Based on the evidence, Macroevolution requires more faith than creation/intelligent design.

Except one has been falsified, and requires a supernatural postulate which is against the scientific method, while the other is parsimonious and has supporting evidence.

It’s macro that has tremendous problems: a population of same species (both male and female) changing its genetic code to form a wholly new species.

That isn't what Evolution requires. Please buy and read a biology textbook.

"Macro" and "Micro" evolution are artificial breaks on a continuum. If one occurs, it logically follows that the other will occur. The mechanism is exactly the same in both cases.

 

[Sanguis]

That’s because they are one category. If you can walk 20 feet you can walk 20 miles.

That's a pretty good way of putting it.

I like to say something along the lines of if one car travels at 30mph for 3 hours, it travels 90 miles.

If another car travels 30 mph for 5 hours, it travels 150 miles.

Macroevolution and micro evolution is like saying the first car traveled microdistance and the second one traveled macrodistance. It's pointless, the only difference is timescale.

 

[lostaquarium]

I agree with the OP. No one has yet been able to explain to me how speciation can occur with a change in chromosome number. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes but humans have only 23 pairs. Somewhere in time, a fusion must have occured. But such a major change in chromosome structure means that the animal in which it happens can't breed with any of the original species. So how does the chromosome change get passed down?

So I agree that microevolution happens, but probably not macroevolution - at least not to a large extent.

 

[Sanguis]

A fusion did take place, though.

Human chromosome #2.

It's made up of pretty much the same base pairs of two chromosomes found in chimp's, and we know it's a fusion (ie, it fused in our ancestry, and didn't split in the chimp's ancestry) because it has telomeres in the middle of it. Telomeres are only found at the ends of chromosomes, unless they've been fused.

 

[Michael]

There are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro. Micro means that species adapt and biological structures can make minor changes, for example Darwin found that there were many variations of birds with different types of beaks on the Galapogos(sp?) depending on their diet. Macro means that large changes are possible, for example over time humans evolved from apes. Evolutionists and fundies tend to lump both into one evolution category. It is hilarious that both damage their cause when they do this. Based on the evidence so far, I personally believe that micro is possible, but that macro is not.


For macro evolution to occur within a species, the genome structural change of multiple male and female members must occur at the same time for subsequent reproduction. I am not a mathematician, but the odds would seem highly improbable. And, more importantly, the fossil record doesn’t support macroevolution, the exponential number and types of fossils are found in one period suggesting an explosion of life rather than it being gradual. Based on the evidence, Macroevolution requires more faith than creation/intelligent design. It’s macro that has tremendous problems: a population of same species (both male and female) changing its genetic code to form a wholly new species.

FYI, the "HOX" gene can lead to fairly significant macro evolutionary changes in a single generation.

If you read Darwins work, you'll find that he was most concerned with the lack of precursor fossils prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The basic problem with Darwin's theory is that we would expect to find a number of fossils where specialization had taken effect prior to the Cambrian explosion where all the basic branches of life can be traced. To this very day there remain huge holes in explaining how the Cambrian life forms "evolved". That's usually where the ID'ers focus their attention.

 

[laconicstudent]

I agree with the OP. No one has yet been able to explain to me how speciation can occur with a change in chromosome number. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes but humans have only 23 pairs. Somewhere in time, a fusion must have occured. But such a major change in chromosome structure means that the animal in which it happens can't breed with any of the original species. So how does the chromosome change get passed down?

Chromosomes don't just fuse all at once, obviously.... Genetic recombination during fertilization possibly. 1 chromosome would tend to take more genetic material then it gave during recombination across the majority of the species, until 1 chromosome simply shrank to nothing. Viola. Chromosome 2, I should imagine.

So I agree that microevolution happens, but probably not macroevolution - at least not to a large extent.

On the basis of not understanding Chromosome 2? That's an argument from ignorance. All the evidence points to evolution.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

There are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro.

This is already wrong, so everything you built on it is nonsense.

 

[Wedjat]

But such a major change in chromosome structure means that the animal in which it happens can't breed with any of the original species. So how does the chromosome change get passed down?

Because populations evolve, not individuals.

 

[lostaquarium]

That didn't even come close to answering the question

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are two kinds of evolution: micro and macro.

True, but not in the way Creationists make out. Microevolution is evolution within a species, macroevolution is evolution between species.

Micro means that species adapt and biological structures can make minor changes, for example Darwin found that there were many variations of birds with different types of beaks on the Galapogos(sp?) depending on their diet. Macro means that large changes are possible, for example over time humans evolved from apes. Evolutionists and fundies tend to lump both into one evolution category. It is hilarious that both damage their cause when they do this. Based on the evidence so far, I personally believe that micro is possible, but that macro is not.

Now that's hilarious, given that macroevolution is microevolution.

For macro evolution to occur within a species, the genome structural change of multiple male and female members must occur at the same time for subsequent reproduction.

Nope. A single mutation in a single individual is sufficient, since the offspring has DNA from both parents.

I am not a mathematician, but the odds would seem highly improbable.

Given that mutations are so routine that we can use them in paternity tests, I think you might want to check your maths.

And, more importantly, the fossil record doesn’t support macroevolution, the exponential number and types of fossils are found in one period suggesting an explosion of life rather than it being gradual.

I assume you're referring to the Cambrian explosion. You realise that it occurred over two million years, right? It was an explosion in geological time, sure, but not in biological time.

It’s macro that has tremendous problems: a population of same species (both male and female) changing its genetic code to form a wholly new species.

Since the entire population gradually evolves over time, there is no sudden, large-scale genetic change. Within a few generations, new genetic material can spread throughout the population. Over time, this new genetic material can accumulate to the point where the modern population would not be able to breed with their distant ancestors.

That is speciation. We have seen it occur deliberately in the lab, accidentally in human habitats, and naturally in the wild.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you read Darwins work, you'll find that he was most concerned with the lack of precursor fossils prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in Darwin's day, that would have been a problem. But we live 150 years after Darwin, and we know a great deal more about it. It's not so much a problem for evolution as it is one of the greatest sources of evidence.

The basic problem with Darwin's theory is that we would expect to find a number of fossils where specialization had taken effect prior to the Cambrian explosion where all the basic branches of life can be traced.

Says who? Before the Cambrian explosion, fossilisation was far rarer, since soft-bodied organisms are much harder to fossilise.

To this very day there remain huge holes in explaining how the Cambrian life forms "evolved". That's usually where the ID'ers focus their attention.

Indeed they do: instead of focussing on the overwhelming evidence that has been accumulated for evolution, they instead focus on the few remaining holes. The thing with Creationists, is that every time we find a fossil, they proclaim that there are two more holes! One either side of the new fossil.

 

[Cabal]

That didn't even come close to answering the question

Yes, it did.

It means that there wouldn't be ONE animal that would be incapable of breeding with anything.

Species are created by reproductive isolation. This happens collectively, not individually.

 

[sfs]

I agree with the OP. No one has yet been able to explain to me how speciation can occur with a change in chromosome number. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes but humans have only 23 pairs. Somewhere in time, a fusion must have occured. But such a major change in chromosome structure means that the animal in which it happens can't breed with any of the original species.

Your last sentence is wrong. An animal in which two chromosomes have fused can mate successfully with members of the same species with unfused genes. This kind of fusion happens rather frequently (look up Robertsonian translocation). Exactly what happens when they mate depends on the chromosomes involved and the species. The worst, and most common, case is that there will be a substantial reduction in fertility, which will be enough to keep the fused chromosome from spreading in the population (i.e., natural selection will prevent its spread). Note that even in this case, such a mating will produce normal offspring, some with and some without the fused chromosome. (You can be normal with a fused chromosome provided you have exactly one copy of the two chromosomes that make up the fused chromosome.) In other cases, there may be little or no loss of fertility, and the fused chromosome can spread in the population, either decreasing or increasing randomly in frequency. In still other cases, the fused chromosome can provide a selective advantage, and therefore increase in frequency, or can increase in frequency because of something called meiotic drive.

These are not just speculations. There are species in which chromosome number varies, sometimes by a lot, within members of the species, and scientists have studied what happens when different sets of chromosomes are combined. European shrews, for example, form a wild collection of races with different chromosome counts, and wild mice have several known Robertsonian fusions propagating successfully. In neither case does there seem to be any difficulty with mating between individuals with different chromosome counts.

I should also point out that scientists are not (by and large) extremely stupid. If there were really such an obvious and trivial problem with evolution, the theory would have been rejected long ago.

 

[sfs]

Chromosomes don't just fuse all at once, obviously....

Sorry, but chromosomes do fuse all at once. Rather frequently, in fact.

 

[sfs]

Yes, it did.

It means that there wouldn't be ONE animal that would be incapable of breeding with anything.

Species are created by reproductive isolation. This happens collectively, not individually.

It didn't answer lostaquarium's question, about chromosome fusion -- which was a perfectly reasonable question, actually.

 

[Cabal]

It didn't answer lostaquarium's question, about chromosome fusion -- which was a perfectly reasonable question, actually.

It's still the usual standard question which is asked on the assumption that individuals evolve.