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?
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.
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.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?
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 sorry, didn't realise this thread was just a personal conversation between two people.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.
Also very similar to the idea that nobody has seen God, so God must not exist.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.
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.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.
Dude, you are very caustic and weird.I like how you're putting words into my mouth. It's very nice and considerate. Really.
Here is the answer that I don't see posted yet.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:
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.
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.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.
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".But for macro-evolution we have something that looks very similar:
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.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.
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.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.