What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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).

The ability for an animal to detach their tail without permeant harm to itself to evade capture by predators. It's an ability present in many lizards, but not all.

Also, still doesn't really address my question in the OP.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

We're having a conversation about the "creationist side of micro and macro evolution" thus requesting a creationist side of anything requires the use of scripture passages.

This is what you stated in the OP, if you wanted another kind of discussion, you should have stated this in the OP.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We're having a conversation about the "creationist side of micro and macro evolution" thus requesting a creationist side of anything requires the use of scripture passages.

This is what you stated in the OP, if you wanted another kind of discussion, you should have stated this in the OP.

That is true, but your comment is adding anything to the discussion, and just making a claim from the Bible by using a Bible passage isn't evidence for anything except using a Bible passage as a claim.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That is true, but your comment is adding anything to the discussion, and just making a claim from the Bible by using a Bible passage isn't evidence for anything except using a Bible passage as a claim.

Science commonly makes claims from passages in scientific journals without doing the research themselves and ensuring through experiment all hypothesis' leading up to the conclusion continue to be true. There is an element of assumption involved, even in science.

However, it has become obvious that the thread isn't about understanding the creationist standpoint, but about discussing the creationist standpoint outside of its context. Even science wouldn't stand up to that standard.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science commonly makes claims from passages in scientific journals without doing the research themselves and ensuring through experiment all hypothesis' leading up to the conclusion continue to be true. There is an element of assumption involved, even in science.

However, it has become obvious that the thread isn't about understanding the creationist standpoint, but about discussing the creationist standpoint outside of its context. Even science wouldn't stand up to that standard.

Thanks for the discussion.

Wow, you are very far off base.

And are definitely not intent on taking part in the thread sincerely. Thank you for nothing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

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."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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."

What you are describing is not evolution in the slightest, nor even biological science.

And 'Kind' is a useless moniker, especially when you actually look at genetics.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What you are describing is not evolution in the slightest, nor even biological science.

And 'Kind' is a useless moniker, especially when you actually look at genetics.

I know, this is just like one denomination and another discussing theology. The terminology is different so they argue about how useless their words are instead of actually try to learn from one another.

What you are expressing is obviously not a religion, but the rational structure is not much different than modern protestants and how they relate between one another.

your mode of inquiry will in a likewise manner not yield any results.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know, this is just like one denomination and another discussing theology. The terminology is different so they argue about how useless their words are instead of actually try to learn from one another.

What you are expressing is obviously not a religion, but the rational structure is not much different than modern protestants and how they relate between one another.

your mode of inquiry will in a likewise manner not yield any results.

So you definitely have nothing of value to add to this thread. So please leave.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So you definitely have nothing of value to add to this thread. So please leave.

I have participated, but I explained why other people will also not participate to your satisfaction.

Based on the OP, I did participate in the thesis of the thread as I understood it, just not as you understood it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have participated, but I explained why other people will also not participate to your satisfaction.

Based on the OP, I did participate in the thesis of the thread as I understood it, just not as you understood it.

Yeah, except that you didn't. You argued semantics over evidence and then tried to spout a nonsense fantasy about evolution as the barrier.

You didn't participate in good faith.

 

[Mr Laurier]

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?

Whats the barrier between micro and macrogestation?
Its a meaningless question. No two creationists can agree on where the line is drawn.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Whats the barrier between micro and macrogestation?
Its a meaningless question. No two creationists can agree on where the line is drawn.

I'd at least like to see them try to answer it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe it would be easier to answer if we projected forward and considered what might happen to some population steadily adapting to the changing of its environment - perhaps it's land-dwelling ferret-like mammal and lives high on a beach with insurmountable cliffs and its beach prey is becoming extinct, so it relies more and more on trying to catch fish. Thicker and more waterproof fur would be advantageous, as would webbed feet, longer breath-holding, and better swimming ability - these would have a selective advantage. Would those changes all count as microevolution?

The question would now be how much further could microevolution take them? if they can become like otters, could the otter-like descendants in turn microevolve further into seal-like creatures?

IOW, if macroevolution is 'not allowed' or doesn't happen, what are the limits of microevolution, and what happens at the limit?

Does God step in at the point microevolution is about to become macroevolution and say "Stop! - no more microevolving"? If not, then what is the rationale?

 

[ruthiesea]

The ‘barrier’ between micro and macro evolution is time. Over a long period of time many sequences of micro evolution becomes macro evolution. So when it is admitted that micro evolution exists it is also by extension an admission of the existence macro evolution.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

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

I don't follow these forums as closely as others so, please forgive me. Are you saying that Macroevolution is a singular event that occurs in a generation or so? If not what is Macroevolution?

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't follow these forums as closely as others so, please forgive me. Are you saying that Macroevolution is a singular event that occurs in a generation or so? If not what is Macroevolution?

Microevolution is continual, and is all the variations and adaptations that have occurred since Creation, which I believe is as described in Genesis 1:26-28. Some of the evolutionists will elaborate on macroevolution, I'm sure.

 

[inquiring mind]

Whats the barrier between micro and macrogestation?
Its a meaningless question. No two creationists can agree on where the line is drawn.

I'd at least like to see them try to answer it.

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.

 

[Bradskii]

Microevolution is continual, and is all the variations and adaptations that have occurred since Creation, which I believe is as described in Genesis 1:26-28. Some of the evolutionists will elaborate on macroevolution, I'm sure.

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?

 

[Bradskii]

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...

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?