Why MICRO but not MACRO?

[Paulos23]

And I'm sure you're a highly respected member.

Heh. So highly respected I have a collection of titles I can't use on the site now.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Two major reasons:

1. TIME

The Bible only accounts for a universe that has been in existence for some 6200 years; whereas macroevolution requires millions of years to pass.

2. BOUNDARIES

God is the God of boundaries ...

Psalm 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

... and He has set a boundary that evolution cannot go.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1. TIME

The Bible only accounts for a universe that has been in existence for some 6200 years; whereas macroevolution requires millions of years to pass.

Which is a claim not supported by the evidence of God's creation, only by a literalist reading of the Bible, and your 'embedded age/maturity without history' malarkey is even worse a claim.

2. BOUNDARIES

God is the God of boundaries ...

Psalm 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

... and He has set a boundary that evolution cannot go.

Okay, saying there's a boundary is actually a step in the right direction.

But what IS that boundary though?

 

[stevil]

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?

I think a useful way to look at the evolution of a living organism is in some ways to think about the specialisation of cells. It's not a perfect analogy, there is no perfect analogy of anything, but it is sufficient to get the point.

Stem cells are non specialised (undifferentiated cells) and have the potential to become any part of the body.
As we know, every cell in the body has the entire recipe of the entire body. We call this DNA. Whether we take cells from the muscle of the toe, or the hair on top of the head, or finger nail clippings or saliva, each cell has the entire DNA code.

But, as a stem cell starts down the path of specialisation (such as an infant grows up to become an adult), it can no longer become any cell in the body, it can only become a part of the body that is part of the path that the cell is on. E.G. if the cell starts to differentiate as a heart cell, it can no longer become a brain, or a nail, or a bone, it can only be part of the heart. Which part of the heart is still yet to be decided, but the point is that this heart cell cannot then become a brain cell.

So getting back to evolution, Micro vs Macro.
Once an organism has gone down the specialisation path, it cannot then go back up the path and choose a different path. e.g. A fish cannot become a mammal or an insect. Paths can go forwards but not backwards.

A key premise of evolution is that every offspring is the same species as its parent. So a cat will always give birth to a cat, a human will always give birth to a human, a mammal will always give birth to a mammal.

This means that micro evolution is it. There is no such thing as macro evolution.

However, if we skip many generations and especially if environments have changed between the first generation to the generation we are comparing it to, we may find that enough change has occurred such that these related organisms (one is a direct descendant of the other) are no longer of the same species. Even though, along this continuous ancestry chain every parent and every offspring are of the same species.

What seems to confuse some people about this, is that some people tend to think of species as being some discrete thing. Set in stone. So they assume perhaps that there was a specific Homo erectus female that gave birth to the first Homo sapien. What they don't understand is that there is no discrete point where one species becomes another. It is quite arbitrary what scientists classify as Homo erectus vs Homo sapien. They point out the differences between some collection of older homo bones and say well there are a few significant differences so we will collectively call this group "homo erectus" rather than "homo sapien" but then if they find homo bones dated somewhere between, they might struggle to classify them as homo erectus or homo sapien, they might come up with a new name, or they might arbitrarily choose to call them either erectus or sapien.

Once species branch out, it is much easier to distinguish and to easily and clearly say these are seperate species. e.g. it is very easy to distinguish a homo sapien from a marko shark. But a homo sapien will never evolve to become a shark and a shark will never evolve to become a homo sapien. Only micro evolution will happen.
Humans will give birth to humans, sharks will produce sharks.

But, humans might branch out, just a mammals did. Within mammals we have feline, canine, apes, bovine, etc
Mammals became apes and yet apes are still mammals and all mammals are still animals
Apes became humans and yet humans are still apes are still mammals are still animals.
All descendants of humans will still be humans.

Even if we evlove to have wings, we will not be birds or even bats, we will have flying humans.
Even if we evolve to have fins and live in the water, we will not be fish, or even dolphins, we will be water bound humans.

So people are correct to say that Macro evolution doesn't happen, only micro evolution happens.
But over time, over generations, speciation happens and retrospectively we might want to call that macro evolution, but we would have to ignore all the intermediatory forms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So people are correct to say that Macro evolution doesn't happen, only micro evolution happens.
But over time, over generations, speciation happens and retrospectively we might want to call that macro evolution, but we would have to ignore all the intermediatory forms.

Okay.. none of what you wrote really answered my question. Especially since you don't seem to be the person who is the target for my question.

 

[stevil]

Okay.. none of what you wrote really answered my question. Especially since you don't seem to be the person who is the target for my question.

Okay sorry, didn't realise this thread was just a personal conversation between two people.
I was directly offering my thoughts on the main question in the Original post of this thread. Why Micro and not Macro.
So I spent the time to explain why Micro and not Macro. Seems I wasted my time.
Maybe I need to keep an eye out for threads created by you and avoid those like the plague.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay sorry, didn't realise this thread was just a personal conversation between two people.
I was directly offering my thoughts on the main question in the Original post of this thread. Why Micro and not Macro.
So I spent the time to explain why Micro and not Macro. Seems I wasted my time.
Maybe I need to keep an eye out for threads created by you and avoid those like the plague.

That was pretty rude, I have to say.

If you'd read the OP, you'd see the thread is an attempt to get people who claim that there is a definitive border between micro and macro to answer the question: what is that border? Hence why I asked the question as the threat title. You clearly know what you're talking about vis-a-vis evolution so you're not the target audience here.

 

[SuperCow]

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.

Also very similar to the idea that nobody has seen God, so God must not exist.

 

[stevil]

That was pretty rude, I have to say.

If you'd read the OP, you'd see the thread is an attempt to get people who claim that there is a definitive border between micro and macro to answer the question: what is that border? Hence why I asked the question as the threat title. You clearly know what you're talking about vis-a-vis evolution so you're not the target audience here.

I spent a lot of time typing up my post, only to be told by you that it was not welcome and that I was butting in unwanted into your thread.

I feel there is a definitive border between micro and macro and so felt the topic was directedly related to my thoughts about it. I shared my thoughts on why micro evolution is a thing and why macro evolution is not. You didn't like my post, fine, but the way you went about telling me that I wasn't welcome in posting in your precious thread. Just Wow!!!!!!

And now you are telling me you only wanted people who don't understand evolution to post. Perhaps you could have been more clear on that. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort trying to contribute in YOUR thread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I spent a lot of time typing up my post, only to be told by you that it was not welcome and that I was butting in unwanted into your thread.

I feel there is a definitive border between micro and macro and so felt the topic was directedly related to my thoughts about it. I shared my thoughts on why micro evolution is a thing and why macro evolution is not. You didn't like my post, fine, but the way you went about telling me that I wasn't welcome in posting in your precious thread. Just Wow!!!!!!

And now you are telling me you only wanted people who don't understand evolution to post. Perhaps you could have been more clear on that. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort trying to contribute in YOUR thread.

I like how you're putting words into my mouth. It's very nice and considerate. Really.

I felt that I was clear in what I said in the OP, especially the sentence: "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." but apparently I wasn't since what you added in, which is good and concise information about evolution, does not address what I said.

If I tried to call people out for this thread, I imagine that I'd be breaking a flaming rule for this website, so I decided to leave the thread open to see if the people who make the claim that there is a hard and definitive line between the micro and the macro, that multiple examples of micro-evolution (i.e. adaptation within a species) cannot lead to macro-evolution (i.e. a new species coming from another species), will actually engage with it and step up to the plate and answer the question.

In your post, you showed that, while we can quibble on the semantics of micro vs macro, you accept that new species can evolve from a previous species. That's basic science, and it shows that you are not the sort of person this thread is about.

So please: calm down.

 

[stevil]

I like how you're putting words into my mouth. It's very nice and considerate. Really.

Dude, you are very caustic and weird.

Normally when people create threads in public forums, they want people to participate.
You however are telling me off for taking the time for participating. I can't understand why you would do that.
I'm done with this thread.

 

[SuperCow]

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?

Here is the answer that I don't see posted yet.

Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Because Christians believe that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 excludes the possibility of macro-evolution. The exception are theistic evolutionists who gloss over that phrase and think it means something different. There is no scientific basis for that belief. It is accepted as faith. Therefore the entire concept of macro-evolution derives from the need to distinguish between organism adaptations that we can prove exist to species mutations that we cannot.

Regarding the concept of micro-evolution, we have this:

But for macro-evolution we have something that looks very similar:

What's the difference? First of all the first list of dog breeds is essentially the result of thousands of years of human inbreeding. The second list is mostly natural. But the second difference is that given the chance, all the animals in the first image will instinctively breed with each other, but the animals in the second image will not. After a thousand years of non-intervention, the dogs will tend towards fewer and fewer distinctive differences because their breeding will no longer be restricted. The second list will only show differences if external stresses cause them to need to adapt in some way. (Like grizzly and polar bears, for instance)

When forced breeding between species has been attempted by man, a new species is possible as a result, but the offspring is usually sterile. (Like mules or beefalo) If it becomes possible to force a viable pairing between two species, it is still a man-made animal. A created species per se. Just created by us instead of God.

None of this can be assumed to hold 100% true over millions of years, because we do not have millions of years to experiment. So we cannot say that macro-evolution has never happened. We can say that we believe that macro-evolution has never happened.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here is the answer that I don't see posted yet.

Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Because Christians believe that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 excludes the possibility of macro-evolution. The exception are theistic evolutionists who gloss over that phrase and think it means something different. There is no scientific basis for that belief. It is accepted as faith. Therefore the entire concept of macro-evolution derives from the need to distinguish between organism adaptations that we can prove exist to species mutations that we cannot.

Regarding the concept of micro-evolution, we have this:
View attachment 342236

But for macro-evolution we have something that looks very similar:
View attachment 342237

What's the difference? First of all the first list of dog breeds is essentially the result of thousands of years of human inbreeding. The second list is mostly natural. But the second difference is that given the chance, all the animals in the first image will instinctively breed with each other, but the animals in the second image will not. After a thousand years of non-intervention, the dogs will tend towards fewer and fewer distinctive differences because their breeding will no longer be restricted. The second list will only show differences if external stresses cause them to need to adapt in some way. (Like grizzly and polar bears, for instance)

When forced breeding between species has been attempted by man, a new species is possible as a result, but the offspring is usually sterile. (Like mules or beefalo) If it becomes possible to force a viable pairing between two species, it is still a man-made animal. A created species per se. Just created by us instead of God.

None of this can be assumed to hold 100% true over millions of years, because we do not have millions of years to experiment. So we cannot say that macro-evolution has never happened. We can say that we believe that macro-evolution has never happened.

I shall draw aspersion on the 'we believe' line in the ending. It's more 'we think' in science.

But for anything else, I thank you for answering the OP. And for introducing me to the beefalo.

 

[SuperCow]

I shall draw aspersion on the 'we believe' line in the ending. It's more 'we think' in science.

But for anything else, I thank you for answering the OP. And for introducing me to the beefalo.

Since it was written from the Christian point of view, believe seemed more appropriate in my post. If it was written for a science paper, maybe I'd have used postulate, theorize, or posit.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since it was written from the Christian point of view, believe seemed more appropriate in my post. If it was written for a science paper, maybe I'd have used postulate, theorize, or posit.

Fair point.

 

[Yttrium]

But for macro-evolution we have something that looks very similar:

Are you sure about that? Those who want to factor in Noah's Ark may have to broaden the meaning of macroevolution a bit. Simple speciation isn't enough. There are just too many species. All the critters in your picture might have to belong to one "kind".

 

[SuperCow]

Are you sure about that? Those who want to factor in Noah's Ark may have to broaden the meaning of macroevolution a bit. Simple speciation isn't enough. There are just too many species. All the critters in your picture might have to belong to one "kind".

I was using an example to explain the difference between macro and micro-evolution. I was not attempting to determine the exact line in the sand.

As for the flood, that seems to me to be a different discussion for a different thread. Pursuing that line of debate will overload this thread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was using an example to explain the difference between macro and micro-evolution. I was not attempting to determine the exact line in the sand.

As for the flood, that seems to me to be a different discussion for a different thread. Pursuing that line of debate will overload this thread.

Yeah, please no flood stuff. Please.

 

[Shemjaza]

Here is the answer that I don't see posted yet.

Why can't micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? Because Christians believe that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 excludes the possibility of macro-evolution. The exception are theistic evolutionists who gloss over that phrase and think it means something different. There is no scientific basis for that belief. It is accepted as faith. Therefore the entire concept of macro-evolution derives from the need to distinguish between organism adaptations that we can prove exist to species mutations that we cannot.

Regarding the concept of micro-evolution, we have this:
View attachment 342236

But for macro-evolution we have something that looks very similar:
View attachment 342237

What's the difference? First of all the first list of dog breeds is essentially the result of thousands of years of human inbreeding. The second list is mostly natural. But the second difference is that given the chance, all the animals in the first image will instinctively breed with each other, but the animals in the second image will not. After a thousand years of non-intervention, the dogs will tend towards fewer and fewer distinctive differences because their breeding will no longer be restricted. The second list will only show differences if external stresses cause them to need to adapt in some way. (Like grizzly and polar bears, for instance)

When forced breeding between species has been attempted by man, a new species is possible as a result, but the offspring is usually sterile. (Like mules or beefalo) If it becomes possible to force a viable pairing between two species, it is still a man-made animal. A created species per se. Just created by us instead of God.

None of this can be assumed to hold 100% true over millions of years, because we do not have millions of years to experiment. So we cannot say that macro-evolution has never happened. We can say that we believe that macro-evolution has never happened.

The problem with the comparison of dog variation and canid variation is that we have evidence for both the time scales and degrees of genetic variation and isolation.

As you say, dogs are not really genetically isolated except by human intervention but they also typically only have centuries of breeding not eons of specialisation that have occurred between other canids.

If the majority of dog breeds ended and only chihuahua and great danes remained then they would not be able to practically reintegrate and drift and specialisation would continue to separate them.

 

[SuperCow]

The problem with the comparison of dog variation and canid variation is that we have evidence for both the time scales and degrees of genetic variation and isolation.

Ah, but the evidence is not absolute. You cannot prove how one species changed to another when you only have the fossilized remains of one in perhaps several million subjects. I realize that this is also a limitation on the intelligent design viewpoint as well, because you cannot prove that you would not have that clear transition if you had the genetic remains of all the intervening generations.

As you say, dogs are not really genetically isolated except by human intervention but they also typically only have centuries of breeding not eons of specialisation that have occurred between other canids.

True. But you agree that this variation is imposed by humans and the canid list is (apparently) not.

If the majority of dog breeds ended and only chihuahua and great danes remained then they would not be able to practically reintegrate and drift and specialisation would continue to separate them.

But this cause/effect scenario breaks the evolutionary argument of natural selection. If only two dog breeds survived on this planet without humans, do you really think they would be the Chihuahua and the Great Dane? I would think that both of these breeds would have tremendous challenges surviving in the wild. It's quite apparent to me that the dog breeds that survive would not be the breeds with extreme features like large vs small sizes, hairless vs fluffy, etc. Those two breeds would probably be wiped out in less than 10 generations. (Great Dane maybe a little longer)

The breeds that survive our disappearance would be those animals that were lucky enough to already be in their preferred environments, and coincidentally, they probably end up looking a lot like the native canid species after a hundred generations or so. (Dog's in the north looking more like wolves, dogs in the desert areas looking more like coyotes, etc.)

Since we do not know the demarcation line of the species that Noah saved, it is unclear whether 4500 years is long enough for the current diversity from the time period of Noah. (Or whether the various counter-theories about the extent of the flood are valid enough to relieve us from this limitation.)