Question for creationists that accept microevolution.

[Aceldama]

It seems that most creationists here believe in microevolution or adaptation. I personally dont see much difference between microevolution and macroevolution, it's kinda like accepting that gravity happens on Earth but does not happen between planets in a solar system. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process, same scientific theory, right? It's just that microevolution is evolution that is apparent within a species and macro is apparent between species.

To accept microevolution means you must accept the fact that organisms change overtime. So if given plenty of time, wouldn't a group of organisms eventually adapt to thier surroundings more and more until a new species will be born from the process?

My main question for the creationists is: What stops a species from eventually microevolving(is that the correct word?) into another species?

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Aceldama
My main question for the creationists is: What stops a species from eventually microevolving(is that the correct word?) into another species?  

Good question.  I'm interested to see what the answers are, because I haven't been able to find any at creationist websites.

I've just been reading Behe to answer DNAUnion's views about him. Behe constantly complains that evolutionary biologists don't answer the details of evolution of biochemical systems.  Well, I don't see any creationist giving us the genetic and biochemical details of how, through cumulative adaptations and speciations, one kind can't evolve to another kind.  I never see any detailed genetic or biochemical barrier to change.  What proteins and genes are invovled?

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on?  It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species.  That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera.  And genera are just collections of related species.  The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life.  Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Aceldama
My main question for the creationists is: What stops a species from eventually microevolving(is that the correct word?) into another species? 

What stops people from growing taller? If we grow to be 6 feet tall in the first 18 years of our life. Then by the time we are 100 years old, we should be over 30 feet tall.

So, why do we stop growing at 6 feet? (more or less) Things in this universe have limits and bounds. Where they can go so far and no further.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JohnR7
What stops people from growing taller? If we grow to be 6 feet tall in the first 18 years of our life. Then by the time we are 100 years old, we should be over 30 feet tall.

So, why do we stop growing at 6 feet? (more or less) Things in this universe have limits and bounds. Where they can go so far and no further.

So there is no 7 or 8 feet tall people? It all has to do with our genes.

 

[wblastyn]

So there is no 7 or 8 feet tall people? It all has to do with our genes.

Also our environmet, but the genes still provide a boundary.

 

[chickenman]

the boundaries are imaginary - neccessary to support the ridiculous assertion of creationists that microevolution and macroevolution are somehow different processes

 

[notto]

Originally posted by JohnR7
What stops people from growing taller? If we grow to be 6 feet tall in the first 18 years of our life. Then by the time we are 100 years old, we should be over 30 feet tall.

So, why do we stop growing at 6 feet? (more or less) Things in this universe have limits and bounds. Where they can go so far and no further.

You need to remember that individuals don't evolve, populations do.

The changes that would occur in each individual that cause a population to evolve to a new species are rather small.

How can these cummulative changes have a limit? How can mutant Z know how much mutant A changed so that it would know that it can't change any more.

Your analogy fails.

 

[Aceldama]

Originally posted by JohnR7
What stops people from growing taller? If we grow to be 6 feet tall in the first 18 years of our life. Then by the time we are 100 years old, we should be over 30 feet tall.

So, why do we stop growing at 6 feet? (more or less) Things in this universe have limits and bounds. Where they can go so far and no further.

Most people stop growing too tall due to a gene or genes that limit our growth.

So are you saying there is some kind of gene that stops organisms from evolving too far? Or is it something else? What causes these limits and bounds of microevolution?

If you could give me some more information on this I would be greatful.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by wblastyn
Also our environmet, but the genes still provide a boundary.

What's to keep the "boundary genes" from evolving?

 

[millenialeden]

Maybe this a little unorthodox maybe not, but my theory is that animal species were made to adapt to their surrounds we can see some of this happening right now. Just watch channels such as Animal Planet, Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel. They sometimes have shows on this topic.

As for humans, I don't think we were made to evolve. So far their has been no direct link with any other species. Sure there are similar Genes when looking at Primates, but thusfar there is no direct link.

I don't think they will ever find one, but it is all together possible.

I don't catagorize myself as creationist or evolutionist. I do believe that however G-d has a hand in everything that goes on  on this small planet we call Earth. Maybe that is what keeps the boundaries from being crossed. Who really knows for sure?