What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

 

[inquiring mind]

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?

Genesis 1:26-28 would work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Genesis 1:26-28 would work.

Except that that is a claim and not evidence. Try again.

Remember: what is the barrier between microevolution and macroevolution?

And if you can't actually answer the question, don't be afraid to say so.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that that is a claim and not evidence. Try again.

Remember: what is the barrier between microevolution and macroevolution?

And if you can't actually answer the question, don't be afraid to say so.

There is no barrier between the two because macroevolution doesn’t even exist, except with a large dose of speculation. My speculation is that we were created in accordance with Genesis 1:26-28, and therefore, it's only microevolution (variations and adaptations) thereafter.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Except that that is a claim and not evidence. Try again.

Remember: what is the barrier between microevolution and macroevolution?

And if you can't actually answer the question, don't be afraid to say so.

Nor does the verse say anything evolution in anyway at all. At best, it implies that man is as God made him. (And if "kind" comes up, of course we don't have a useful definition of that either.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no barrier between the two because macroevolution doesn’t even exist, except with a large dose of speculation. My speculation is that we were created in accordance with Genesis 1:26-28, and therefore, it's only microevolution (variations and adaptations) thereafter.

Except that you have no evidence that macroevolution doesn't exist. You can say that it doesn't until the cows come home and you are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean that you're right.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no barrier between the two because macroevolution doesn’t even exist, except with a large dose of speculation. My speculation is that we were created in accordance with Genesis 1:26-28, and therefore, it's only microevolution (variations and adaptations) thereafter.

And you've been told more than once that macroevolution is just an accumulation of microevolutionary steps. So where does it stop and how do you know?

 

[inquiring mind]

And you've been told more than once that macroevolution is just an accumulation of microevolutionary steps. So where does it stop and how do you know?

I was just in this conversation in another thread. Microevolution, as in observable adaptation and variation, apparently doesnt stop going forward. But, you're trying to project it backwards (behind the curtain) with scientific inquiry, yes, but also with speculation. If it's science... nail it.

 

[Kilk1]

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?

As referenced by the passage brought up by @inquiring mind, the barrier between the two would be the barrier between one created "kind" and another. If genetic changes causes us to categorize a dog's offspring or a cat's offspring as a new breed, this doesn't mean they've become a new "kind" of animal. The Hebrew word translated "kind" isn't completely akin to any of the terms we use in taxonomy, however. Some kinds might be small akin to a a species, and other times it might be large, more akin to a family. Because of this, an alternative form of taxonomy focused on created kinds has been created, known as baraminology.

Relatedly, the fact that real-life examples given of genetic mutations tend to be examples of organisms losing, not gaining, information (e.g., fish losing the ability to grow eyes, chickens losing the ability to grow feathers, etc.) doesn't confirm macroevolution, since amoeba-to-human macoevolution requires the gaining of information--and a lot of it at that!

To avoid sounding like macroevolution is just "microevolution, but more," some creationists don't prefer the term "microevolution." They simply see genetic change in information (most, if not all, of which is loss, not gain).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was just in this conversation in another thread. Microevolution, as in observable adaptation and variation, apparently doesnt stop going forward. But, you're trying to project it backwards (behind the curtain) with scientific inquiry, yes, but also with speculation. If it's science... nail it.

You keep using the phrase 'project it backwards'. What do you mean by that?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Except that that is a claim and not evidence.

I've heard an explanation of what evidence is, (in contrast to requesting reproducible evidence) and it's not much different from the bible in concept.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Relatedly, the fact that real-life examples given of genetic mutations tend to be examples of organisms losing, not gaining, information (e.g., fish losing the ability to grow eyes, chickens losing the ability to grow feathers, etc.) doesn't confirm macroevolution, since amoeba-to-human macoevolution requires the gaining of information--and a lot of it at that!

Except that many of the examples of genetic mutations aren't just of organisms losing 'information'. There are examples of animals that have a new and novel trait that isn't found in others of the same family.

And still... none of what you said shows a barrier between microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've heard an explanation of what evidence is, (in contrast to requesting reproducible evidence) and it's not much different from the bible in concept.

Except it's really not, especially when we're talking about science and biology.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Except it's really not, especially when we're talking about science and biology.

"Evidence in general means information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis – like the use of 'evidence' in legal settings. In fact, anything might count as evidence if it's judged to be valid, reliable and relevant."

To the creationists, the bible is relevant (thus the quote). To you, the bible is not relevant . so not evidence, but what is considered evidence is subjective in that sense,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Evidence in general means information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis – like the use of 'evidence' in legal settings. In fact, anything might count as evidence if it's judged to be valid, reliable and relevant."

To the creationists, the bible is relevant (thus the quote). To you, the bible is not relevant . so not evidence, but what is considered evidence is subjective in that sense,

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.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But, you're trying to project it backwards (behind the curtain) with scientific inquiry, yes, but also with speculation.

Um...what?

 

[inquiring mind]

You keep using the phrase 'project it backwards'. What do you mean by that?

Projected behind the curtain... deep time where macroevolution as you promote wasn't observed and requires speculation and connecting-the-dots.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Projected behind the curtain... deep time where macroevolution as you promote wasn't observed and requires speculation and connecting-the-dots.

Except that it's not speculation and 'connecting the dots' (which is a very bad analogy I find since connecting the dots does give the full picture in the end), it's based on actual evidence that we find both the fossil record and the genetic evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Except that you have no evidence that macroevolution doesn't exist. You can say that it doesn't until the cows come home and you are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean that you're right.

Has lack of evidence ever stopped a creationist?

 

[Kilk1]

Except that many of the examples of genetic mutations aren't just of organisms losing 'information'. There are examples of animals that have a new and novel trait that isn't found in others of the same family.

And still... none of what you said shows a barrier between microevolution and macroevolution.

What example(s) of novel traits do you have in mind? I haven't seen any new traits thus far that could qualify as a gain of information; I've only seen examples of a loss of information (losing eyes, losing feathers, etc.) or a reduplication of already-existent traits (increasing the number of eyes without changing the type of eyes, or moving the eyes of insect to different parts of the body).