Why MICRO but not MACRO?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is something I see so often repeated in some varying form of argument:

"Oh, there's evidence for micro-evolution, but there's no evidence for macro-evolution."

This is so often touted as evidence of evolution being false, but no one has ever explained why the former excludes the latter. Why micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution.

So why? Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Why can't large amounts of small changes lead to a singular big change?

 

[Yttrium]

I think the arguments I've seen pretty much boil down to:
- We've never seen a penguin give birth to a rhinoceros.
- We've never observed the evolution of the entire human circulatory system in laboratory conditions.
- Mutations will destroy us all.
- Only smart beings can create new information.
- There's a clear block in the genetic code that prevents organisms from changing outside of their kinds, and you can very easily look that up yourself, so I'm not going to respond to it any more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think the arguments I've seen pretty much boil down to:
- We've never seen a penguin give birth to a rhinoceros.
- We've never observed the evolution of the entire human circulatory system in laboratory conditions.
- Mutations will destroy us all.
- Only smart beings can create new information.
- There's a clear block in the genetic code that prevents organisms from changing outside of their kinds, and you can very easily look that up yourself, so I'm not going to respond to it any more.

It definitely does seem to boil down to that whole "If I can't see it happen, or no-one has seen it happen, then it's not happened" sort of thinking.

 

[Roderick Spode]

This is something I see so often repeated in some varying form of argument:

"Oh, there's evidence for micro-evolution, but there's no evidence for macro-evolution."

This is so often touted as evidence of evolution being false, but no one has ever explained why the former excludes the latter. Why micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution.

So why? Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Why can't large amounts of small changes lead to a singular big change?

Simply something to consider.

It is possible that micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution.

But at the same time, it's impossible.

To use the Tower of Babel in Genesis as an illustration, from what the text says, would that grand tower they were planning on building have been possible to build (however high it was supposed to be)? The answer according to the text is yes. But at the same time it was impossible to build because the Creator rendered it impossible.

Is it possible to time-travel? It appears that it is. It would be considered unlikely that it would ever happen because we just don't have the technology to do so. And the idea some have of it being unethical suggests we may never even try. In my opinion as a Christian it's absolutely impossible, other than what we experience on a small scale after a flight, because the creator (God) would prevent it as it's clear it's not in His design to go back in time and undo what has been done. The same thing with the possibility of us creating sentient life. Might be possible in principle, but probably rendered impossible.

Macro-evolution in my opinion is just not a part of God's design. I would suggest an evolutionary restriction has been placed. That's why I would say it will never happen, and never actually occurred.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Simply something to consider.

It is possible that micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution.

But at the same time, it's impossible.

To use the Tower of Babel in Genesis as an illustration, from what the text says, would that grand tower they were planning on building have been possible to build (however high it was supposed to be)? The answer according to the text is yes. But at the same time it was impossible to build because the Creator rendered it impossible.

Is it possible to time-travel? It appears that it is. It would be considered unlikely that it would ever happen because we just don't have the technology to do so. And the idea some have of it being unethical suggests we may never even try. In my opinion as a Christian it's absolutely impossible, other than what we experience on a small scale after a flight, because the creator (God) would prevent it as it's clear it's not in His design to go back in time and undo what has been done. The same thing with the possibility of us creating sentient life. Might be possible in principle, but probably rendered impossible.

Macro-evolution in my opinion is just not a part of God's design. I would suggest an evolutionary restriction has been placed. That's why I would say it will never happen, and never actually occurred.

Tower of Babel has nothing to do with evolution, nor the claim that micro cannot lead to macro.

You say it's impossible. HOW is it impossible?

 

[trophy33]

Its probably similar to the paradox of the heap.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Its probably similar to the paradox of the heap.

"If you have a heap of sand and remove one grain of sand, you are still left with a heap of sand."

Okay, I see it, but I don't agree with it since, to use the analogy of the heap, the heap of sand can be taken away.

 

[trophy33]

"If you have a heap of sand and remove one grain of sand, you are still left with a heap of sand."

Okay, I see it, but I don't agree with it since, to use the analogy of the heap, the heap of sand can be taken away.

Its really hard for common people to define which specific small change in the chain of many small changes will transform something to something else.

How many grains of sand you need to take away, for the heap to cease to be a heap.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Its really hard for common people to define which specific small change in the chain of many small changes will transform something to something else.

How many grains of sand you need to take away for the heap to cease to be a heap.

Fair enough.

BUT, the point of the question is for the people who claim there is a line between micro and macro that the former cannot cross. That's the point of the thread.

 

[trophy33]

Fair enough.

BUT, the point of the question is for the people who claim there is a line between micro and macro that the former cannot cross. That's the point of the thread.

I think its the same thing as the paradox. Who can define what is the last small micro change to call it the macro? If we can define it, we can then conclude quite safely if the macro change happened. Without this precise definition, people can be evasive about it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think its the same thing as the paradox. Who can define what is the last small micro change to call it the macro? If we can define it, we can then conclude quite safely if the macro change happened. Without this precise definition, people be still be evasive about it.

Again, fair enough. But I am hoping that people who make the claim "micro cannot become macro" can give me the answer as to why they think that. Paradox of the heap or not.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Tower of Babel has nothing to do with evolution, nor the claim that micro cannot lead to macro.

I'm just using it as an illustration. Just like the other 2 non-scriptural illustrations.

You say it's impossible. HOW is it impossible?

I said it is possible....but at the same impossible.

If the Creator placed parameters on evolution, then that would render macro-evolution impossible. If there's a restriction on any kind evolving outside of its kind as referenced in Genesis, then that would be why we wouldn't see a cat become a rhino, etc. Again, not that it's not possible on paper. But unless you rule out God entirely, this shouldn't really be inconceivable.

To make sure, is reference to God and scripture a no-no in this thread?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm just using it as an illustration. Just like the other 2 non-scriptural illustrations.

Your 'illustrations' answered nothing.

I said it is possible....but at the same impossible.

If the Creator placed parameters on evolution, then that would render macro-evolution impossible. If there's a restriction on any kind evolving outside of its kind as referenced in Genesis, then that would be why we wouldn't see a cat become a rhino, etc. Again, not that it's not possible on paper. But unless you rule out God entirely, this shouldn't really be inconceivable.

To make sure, is reference to God and scripture a no-no in this thread?

Since I can tell that everything you're going to say is going to be a variant of "God did this, God did that", I'm going to save a lot of a time say that any attempts to use scripture to answer the OP question is a hard NO. Because you're not really answering anything.

 

[trophy33]

then that would be why we wouldn't see a cat become a rhino, etc. Again, not that it's not possible on paper.

A cat becoming a rhino would not be a small steps chain, but a huge jump that is impossible also "on paper".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Also,

A cat becoming a rhino would not be a small steps chain, but a huge jump that is impossible also "on paper".

A cat becoming a true rhino would be impossible, yes. If it became rhino-like (not I can even visualise what that sort of creature would look like) wouldn't be impossible. Improbable, but not impossible.

 

[Roderick Spode]

A cat becoming a rhino would not be a small steps chain, but a huge jump that is impossible also "on paper".

I know. Just using what seems to be common hyperbole in these types of discussions.

 

[Paulos23]

If the Creator placed parameters on evolution, then that would render macro-evolution impossible. If there's a restriction on any kind evolving outside of its kind as referenced in Genesis, then that would be why we wouldn't see a cat become a rhino, etc. Again, not that it's not possible on paper. But unless you rule out God entirely, this shouldn't really be inconceivable.

Do you have evidence of any parameters?

 

[Larniavc]

This is something I see so often repeated in some varying form of argument:

"Oh, there's evidence for micro-evolution, but there's no evidence for macro-evolution."

This is so often touted as evidence of evolution being false, but no one has ever explained why the former excludes the latter. Why micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution.

So why? Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Why can't large amounts of small changes lead to a singular big change?

It simply boils down to some folks thinking God is destroyed if ToE is true.

 

[Larniavc]

Macro-evolution in my opinion

You need to stop there and review the empirical evidence for ToE.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It simply boils down to some folks thinking God is destroyed if ToE is true.

That is true, but I hold out hope that someone can actually give an answer to my question on what they think that line is between micro and macro.