What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Hank77]

Except when we're trying to have a conversation about biological science.

Honestly, this just sounds like a semantic nitpicking. If you aren't going to make an attempt to answer the OP question, please leave.

You are questioning Creationists, their evidence comes from the Bible. Then you ask them to leave.

 

[inquiring mind]

But you haven't explained why small incremental changes don't add up to huge significant changes. And then small incremental changes from that point onwards until we get another large significant change. Rinse and repeat.

What's to stop the process?

Oh, I think variation and adaptations continue to a degree, just not to the degree you do. Just because a flipper gets longer doesn't mean it will turn into a leg. According to the Bible all things mating according to their kind stops the process of significant change.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, I think variation and adaptations continue to a degree, just not to the degree you do. Just because a flipper gets longer doesn't mean it will turn into a leg. According to the Bible all things mating according to their kind stops the process of significant change.

Anything mating means automatic incremental changes to the next generation. Variations that are beneficial propogate through a population. And the process continues. Mating doesn't prevent changes. Mating is a combination of genetic information which means that the next generation is an imperfect copy of the previous one. It doesn't orevent changes. It's the reason why changes happen.

I'm begining to realise that you have a limited understanding of the process which is going to make any explanation of that process something of a waste of time.

And incidently, there are countless examples of fins becoming legs. Here's one: Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What's with the 'spontaneously'?

How about a fish that can develop the ability to breathe air and move about on land. And even climb trees. If it never went back to living under water, could it still be classed as a fish?

Apparently, because the "kind" of a creature is not a scientific concept.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently, because the "kind" of a creature is not a scientific concept.

No. It's a biblical term. We aren't talking about biblical definitions. We are discussing science. So is something that is air breathing, walks on land and climbs trees a fish? The standard definition of a fish is: a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins living wholly in water.

Doesn't seem to match the definition to me but I'll let you make the call. And if you could give me the definition of a fish as it relates to kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I provided an answer already... if you believe as I do then Genesis 1:26-28 is a barrier to macroevolution even existing (that is one kind changing into another kind, ape to man, etc). Why would God tell us He created something in His image and then have it change? Did apes ever rule over ever living creature? I know you don't believe the Bible, but I do, and so far there has been no agreement among all scientists that there is an absence of cracks in the door that many macroevolutionists try to close on the subject.

Because if you want to claim the Bible as evidence, you need to show corroboration for that evidence. Just saying "The Bible say it and that's enough" when you're talking about a major part of biological science, while an answer, is not a good answer.
You want to claim that science is wrong, actually show that the science is wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are questioning Creationists, their evidence comes from the Bible. Then you ask them to leave.

Many Creationists say they have scientific evidence to back them up as well.

 

[Astrophile]

The barrier between macro and micro evolution is that microevolution would be a fish swimming faster, adaptation.

Macroevolution would be like a fish turning into a bird spontaneously and laying eggs that give birth to mammals and so on and so forth.

The barrier that I am aware of is the idea of an animal not transgressing the barrier of their "kind."

Would a salmon, an eel and a herring being descended over millions of years from a common marine vertebrate ancestor be micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

 

[Astrophile]

I provided an answer already... if you believe as I do then Genesis 1:26-28 is a barrier to macroevolution even existing (that is one kind changing into another kind, ape to man, etc). Why would God tell us He created something in His image and then have it change? Did apes ever rule over ever living creature? I know you don't believe the Bible, but I do, and so far there has been no agreement among all scientists that there is an absence of cracks in the door that many macroevolutionists try to close on the subject.

Is your objection only to human evolution or to evolution generally? The Bible doesn't say that God created birds in his image or to rule over every living creature, so by your argument it appears that you would have no objection to birds having evolved from ground-living flightless dinosaurs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are questioning Creationists, their evidence comes from the Bible. Then you ask them to leave.

The quoted Genesis 1:26-28 doesn't say creatures can't change, so reasoning that it prevents macroevolution is puzzling.

But I'm curious to know how the biblical evidence plays out in the world - it's all very well saying it doesn't happen because... the bible, but why can't microevolution just keep going until the changes are significant enough to count as macroevolution? what happens to stop it?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No. It's a biblical term. We aren't talking about biblical definitions. We are discussing science. So is something that is air breathing, walks on land and climbs trees a fish? The standard definition of a fish is: a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins living wholly in water.

Doesn't seem to match the definition to me but I'll let you make the call. And if you could give me the definition of a fish as it relates to kind.

A tree climbing fish, sounds like a fish man...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Would a salmon, an eel and a herring being descended over millions of years from a common marine vertebrate ancestor be micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

Need video evidence of evolution occurring, and of millions of years and so forth.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It is a recurring thing that I see often in threads on this forum when evolution is brought up and someone invariably from the Creationist side tries to go "Well, that's microevolution, no macroevolution?"

But I've never seen anyone make an attempt to actually explain what the barrier is that stops microevolution becoming macroevolution.

So, can anyone from Creationist side of the debate answer the question: what is the barrier between micro and macroevolution?

I have found it a "better" (better in the sense that just saying "the Bible says so" is never sufficient to answer satisfactorily to the specificity of the question and they usually stop responding, not that they actually give an answer ) approach to give creationists specific scenarios of relatedness and have them explain them from a creationist POV.

For instance:

Are Horses and Zebra the same "kind"? Why? How do you know, scientifically?

If they don't accept genetics, you have to get through that first. That is usually the sticking point. Most of their claims to hold up to genetics, but if they don't understand or accept that genetics is accurate then you can't really move forward.

 

[inquiring mind]

Anything mating means automatic incremental changes to the next generation. Variations that are beneficial propogate through a population. And the process continues. Mating doesn't prevent changes. Mating is a combination of genetic information which means that the next generation is an imperfect copy of the previous one. It doesn't orevent changes. It's the reason why changes happen.

To a point... within its kind.

I'm begining to realise that you have a limited understanding of the process which is going to make any explanation of that process something of a waste of time.

I'd say we're all limited to a degree. I respect your explanation and opinion, but you're right, that doesn't equate to my acceptance of it.

nd incidently, there are countless examples of fins becoming legs. Here's one: Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals

Ahh, the famed Tic tac. "Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to those of a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The fossil discovered in 2004 did not include the rear fins and tail." Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

You probably won't read it, but here is some additional info on Tic tac.
Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have found it a "better" (better in the sense that just saying "the Bible says so" is never sufficient to answer satisfactorily to the specificity of the question and they usually stop responding, not that they actually give an answer ) approach to give creationists specific scenarios of relatedness and have them explain them from a creationist POV.

For instance:

Are Horses and Zebra the same "kind"? Why? How do you know, scientifically?

If they don't accept genetics, you have to get through that first. That is usually the sticking point. Most of their claims to hold up to genetics, but if they don't understand or accept that genetics is accurate then you can't really move forward.

I've seen less actually approach genetics seriously than I thought possible. Most I've seen handwave it off.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To a point... within its kind.

Are horses and donkeys the same kind?

 

[inquiring mind]

Are horses and donkeys the same kind?

Yes, if two animals can produce a hybrid they are generally considered the same kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, if two animals can produce a hybrid they are generally considered the same kind.

So you've got Kind as being the Family, with horses being Equus Ferus Caballus and donkeys being Equus Africanus Asinus.

But they are not the same thing. A horse is a different species to a donkey.

 

[inquiring mind]

So you've got Kind as being the Family, with horses being Equus Ferus Caballus and donkeys being Equus Africanus Asinus.

But they are not the same thing. A horse is a different species to a donkey.

According to science’s classification system, yes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to science’s classification system, yes.

So that's a case of evolution from one species to another. They obviously came from the same genetic ancestor, the original equine, and then horses and donkeys evolved over time.

Ergo macroevolution.