[_ Old Earth _] Micro vs. Macro Evolution.

[manimal2878]

I don't believe I have ever read anything about scientists making a distinction between micro and macr evolution, maybe I am wrong though.

It seems to me that when creationists realized evolution can be easily proven on a small school they invented the term macroevolution in order to confuse and move the goal posts of the debate further away from reality.

Just my opinion on what I have read regarding this debate here and in a few other places?

So does science recognize the distinction or is it a made up one?

 

[sheseala]

Pretty much made up.

 

[Quath]

Here is the analogy.

Creationism: People can not count to 10 million because no person has been observed.
Evolutionist: People can count 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 + 1 - 4, etc. Given enough time, a person could count to a million.

So counting to 10 or 1,000,000 is a matter of time. The number theory stays the same in both cases. Creationists would call it microcounting and macrocounting.

Quath

 

[manimal2878]

so basically there is no scientific differance in evolution between small organisms changing and large organisms changing?

I just want to be sure, because it sounds like if you admit to microevolution then the argument is over because since science actually claims no distinction only one continuous spectrum of evolution then the creationist has basically admitted that evolution occurs by way of conceding to the fake standards they have created.

I always thought that getting a cold was proof enough to me. I will get another cold because the virus will be mostly killed by my t-cell antibodies only the bits of virus that aren't killed because they are a little different than the rest of the virus will be stronger and hence I will get a cold when i reencounter that virus since it has evolved since I last met it.

I thought this applied to every organism and explains how things developed. Once I heard the micro and macro thing I was like well where is the line, when does it get too big?

 

[ThinkerMan]

so basically there is no scientific evolution between small organisms changing and large organisms changing?

The distinction isn't necessarily by the size of the organism, but by the size of the changes of any two organisms.

The more time, the more changes, the more genetic difference between two populations of a species, and eventually they will be too distinct to breed.

Dogs, for example, have many breeds, but are genetically similar enough to procreate for the most part.

Horses and Donkeys have been genetically drifting apart for much longer, so they can still mate (barely) and make a Mule, but the mule is sterile.

I just want to be sure, because it sounds like if you admit to microevolution then the argument is over because since science actually claims neither only one continuous spectrum of evolution then the creationist has basically admitted to that evolution occurs by way of conceding to the fake standards they have created.

In general, I believe you are correct. It is an argument of nuances that they tend to make, agreeing with many tenets of evolution and denying other "strawman" aspects of the theory.

I always thought that getting a cold was proof enough to me. I will get another cold because the virus will be mostly killed by my t-cell antibodies only the bits of virus that aren't killed because they are a little different than the rest of the virus will be stronger and hence I will get a cold when i reencounter that virus since it has evolved since I last met it.

Yup...makes sense to me too.

I thought this applied to every organism and explains how things developed. Once I heard the micro and macro thing I was like well where is the line, when does it get too big?

It does explain how things develop.

As far as the "line", most YECs would say at speciation. That it is impossible to "split" a species and create two subspecies.

 

[manimal2878]

but don't these minor changes just add up so much so over time that two related things no longer LOOK like they could have been related but really were at one time?

I mean this would be like a branching effect right were a bunch of minor changes add up and each of those things are then undergoing there own changes and adaptations so that eventually things are much different, isn't this kind of what the scientific classification in biology tries to determine, common links and families and all that?

 

[ThinkerMan]

but don't these minor changes just add up so much so over time that two related things no longer LOOK like they could have been related but really were at one time?

Yup. Dinosaurs and birds, for example.

The longer the time, likely the more different the two species may look, because they are adapting to different environments.

The exception to this is "convergent" evolution, where the evironmental factors make two species evolve into similar looking animals, such as dolphins and sharks.

I mean this would be like a branching effect right were a bunch of minor changes add up and each of those things are then undergoing there own changes and adaptations so that eventually things are much different, isn't this kind of what the scientific classification in biology tries to determine, common links and families and all that?

Yup...you got it.

 

[Quath]

Species is a man made concept. Nature is too varied for it to be a pure definition.

For example, there are some salamanders. Salamander A can mate with B. B can with C. C can with D and D can with E. E can with A. However, A can not mate with C. It forms a circle where opposite sides of the circle can not mate. So are they the same species? Is A the same species as C if they can not mate? It shows that we have to be careful to note that species is a category we try to fit stuff in, even if it does not fit well.

Creationists try to say that the difference in microevolution and macroevolution is that macroevolution can result in a different pairing of DNA. So an animal with 23 pairs of chromosones can give birth to one with 22 or 24 pairs. However, this has been observed in Down's Sndrone, so the mechanism for varying the number of chromosones is not unknown.

Quath

 

[Cameron]

So you think micro verse macro evolution is a false distinction?

So you beleive that frogs can be kissed and turned into princes? :roll:

Actually the distinction has been around, evolutions prefer to gloss over it. No breeder I'm aware of denies it. You don't get kitties from breeding dogs; you get dogs. The dogs can be big dogs, white dogs, black dogs and small dogs as Dr. Zuess says, but they're still dogs. Their DNA has inherent limit; a limit referred to as "microevolution". A dog will always be a dog regardless of any environmental factors and any period of time. In fact the more sophisticated the breed, the shallower the genepool and less likely they are to survive. This is the stasis effect of DNA. It knows what it is and what it is making and will continue to do so.

Macro is the unproven theory that the boundary of "microevolution" can be breeched and that a half cat-dog will comeday be possible given the right circumstances. However, that is not how DNA works. Frogs do not become princes. That's why there is an extreme lack of transitional fossils, because they do not exist.

I suppose you could say the term microevolution in relatively, but you may like to note that the concept is old. You may have heard "variety within a species.".

 

[Sleeker]

Microevolution + millions of year = macroevolution

Simple math.

 

[cubedbee]

So you think micro verse macro evolution is a false distinction?

So you beleive that frogs can be kissed and turned into princes? :roll:

Actually the distinction has been around, evolutions prefer to gloss over it. No breeder I'm aware of denies it. You don't get kitties from breeding dogs; you get dogs. The dogs can be big dogs, white dogs, black dogs and small dogs as Dr. Zuess says, but they're still dogs. Their DNA has inherent limit; a limit referred to as "microevolution". A dog will always be a dog regardless of any environmental factors and any period of time. In fact the more sophisticated the breed, the shallower the genepool and less likely they are to survive. This is the stasis effect of DNA. It knows what it is and what it is making and will continue to do so.

Macro is the unproven theory that the boundary of "microevolution" can be breeched and that a half cat-dog will comeday be possible given the right circumstances. However, that is not how DNA works. Frogs do not become princes. That's why there is an extreme lack of transitional fossils, because they do not exist.

I suppose you could say the term microevolution in relatively, but you may like to note that the concept is old. You may have heard "variety within a species.".

Congratulations on displaying complete and utter ignorance of evolution. No evolutionist on this planet believes the things that you are claiming they believe. In fact, what you think is macroevolution, if it actually occured, would conclusively prove evolution is false.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

A journey of a 1000 miles starts (or 1600 km) with a single step. Micro evolution is the step and macro is the journey. Of course, distinguishing between micro and macro is like distinguishing between warm and hot.

Virtually all creationists will accept microevolutions but reject macro. Generally, in a debate, macro evolution is defined by the creationist at "speciation" - that is until said creationist is presented with observed cases of speciation occuring, then the definition of macro magically transforms to become "change between kinds". Of course, no definition for "kind" is ever given.

THe truth is that there is no limit to micro-evolution or adaption. Given enough time the decendants will look and act nothing like thier ancestors.

 

[Vanaka]

:D Rigthyo where are we?

oh yes

heres a story of micro evolution,aka Adaptation


Mr wood pecker eats worms,but he revcently moved to a new area where bigger trees with harder and thicker trunks are,make it difficult for him to eat,after awaile his beak hardens making it easyier for him but his tounge is still to short,However,he takes a mate and they have woodpecker(please note that he's not woodigger) jr,his beak is somwhat longer,making life easyier for him

the end.




and heres a story of macro Evolution,



MR woodpecker has lived in the same area all his life,
but his body is growing much bigger because he's evolving into a
elephant,he can no longer hold himself up on trees,Mr woodpecker dies,

the end




anyway,please prove that we made it up,is it just me or does it seem that the word adaptation has been around for awaile?

THe truth is that there is no limit to micro-evolution or adaption. Given enough time the decendants will look and act nothing like thier ancestors.

really? prove it.

 

[Jimbob]

In case you didn't know, evolution isn't about one single organism changing to another organism, it's about a population of organisms that slowly changes over multiple generations until it has evolved into a new form.

So ancient apes didn't lose their hair and turn into humans, they reproduced over many generations, and due to natural selection combined with mutations, their physiological features slowly changed, until they became protohuman hominids, and eventually modern humans.

 

[Karma2Grace]

Microevolution + millions of year = macroevolution

Simple math.

No so simple!

"For 80 years scientists have been experimenting with the lowly fruit fly (Drosophila), trying to prove that all life on planet earth is the result of a series of `good accidents.'

"Evolutionists, through a marvelous leap of faith, believe that the almost endless variety and complexity of plants and animals `evolved' from an ancient pool of `primordial soup.'

"How do they believe this is possible? By millions and billions of accidents. For example, an early fish might accidentally grow a new kind of fin which helped him swim faster and escape his enemies. Then his fins might accidentally turn to legs he could use to walk on land, and so on.

"All this is based on a faith by the evolutionists that somehow, somewhere a gene changed to give this higher life form. It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better.

"The evidence is overwhelming that such accidents either make the gene worse or, at best, no better than the original.

"After all, how often do you see a car run faster and more smoothly after a head-on collision?

"Well, back to fruit flies. Because fruit flies reproduce many generations in a very short time, scientists picked them for the experiment hoping to compress thousands of years of `evolution' into a few years of lab work.

"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies.

"Andâ€â€more importantlyâ€â€they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died.

"And when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.

"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution.

"God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly."â€â€"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' "

 

[Jimbob]

Instead of using copy - and - paste creationist articles, why don't you read some actual scientific papers on the subject?

Evolution is not directed by 'accidents', it is directed by a process called natural selection, in which organisms that are best suited for their environments survive and pass on their genes, and others die out. The surviving organisms eventually adapt to thrive in their environments. This has been experimentally observed many times (there's an example in a thread earlier on the front page of this very forum). The 'accidents' you speak of 'mutations' do occur, and they are most often harmful, causing populations do die out, although occasionally they are beneficial. However, the evolution of species is not directed by mutations, merely influenced by them. It is directed by natural selection.

Also, I have never heard of any experiments trying to give fruit flies beneficial mutations, it's likely that the creationist who wrote that article either made that experiment up himself or greatly distorted and misrepresented an actual experiment.

If you want examples of actual experiments documenting the true process of evolution (not this creationist strawman distortion), then check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Karma2Grace]

Instead of using copy - and - paste creationist articles, why don't you read some actual scientific papers on the subject?

Define science then we will move on to what is scientific and what not !

Evolution is not directed by 'accidents', it is directed by a process called natural selection"

Yes i also agree, We are not saying it is random but a intelligent desing , Do you know Who ordered that?, BTW i would not prefer to call it as 'natural selection'

in which organisms that are best suited for their environments survive and pass on their genes, and others die out. The surviving organisms eventually adapt to thrive in their environments. This has been experimentally observed many times (there's an example in a thread earlier on the front page of this very forum). The 'accidents' you speak of 'mutations' do occur, and they are most often harmful, causing populations do die out, although occasionally they are beneficial. However, the evolution of species is not directed by mutations, merely influenced by them. It is directed by natural selection.

We are not denying Micro evolution

Also, I have never heard of any experiments trying to give fruit flies beneficial mutations, it's likely that the creationist who wrote that article either made that experiment up himself or greatly distorted and misrepresented an actual experiment."

Well I can help you, A guy go by the name 'Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky'
who conducted the experiment on fruit flies , it is still carried out by many evolunanists! , If you don't know i can help you out !

If you want examples of actual experiments documenting the true process of evolution (not this creationist strawman distortion), then check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If you really want to know the myth of Macro evolution, Read the following article

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=270

 

[Guest]

Define science then we will move on to what is scientific and what not !

A simple way of saying what is scientific is that it must go through the scientific method and be falsifiable.

Yes i also agree, We are not saying it is random but a intelligent desing , Do you know Who ordered that?, BTW i would not prefer to call it as 'natural selection'

But people are building strawmen saying that evolution says it is random.

Could it have been aliens? Zeus? No one? Either way, this has nothing to do with science.

We are not denying Micro evolution

Micro evolution was just another example of creationists making up a distinction to move the goal posts.

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. So when a person agrees with micro evolution that person is agreeing with macro evolution.

If you really want to know the myth of Macro evolution, Read the following article

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=270

So you would rather someone get scientific information from a site that is not scientific?

 

[Karma2Grace]

A simple way of saying what is scientific is that it must go through the scientific method and be falsifiable.

Then define scientific method!

But people are building straw men saying that evolution says it is random.

Yes Evolution assumes that the instructions (of Micro evolution) arrived by random accident called Big Bang!

Could it have been aliens? Zeus? No one? Either way, this has nothing to do with science.

But you do 'believe' even if it is NOT scientific right?

Micro evolution was just another example of creationists making up a distinction to move the goal posts.

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. So when a person agrees with micro evolution that person is agreeing with macro evolution.

Read my post about fruit Flies

So you would rather someone get scientific information from a site that is not scientific?

If you choose to call bunch of people with PhD’s from reputed universities as fools then I cannot help it. How about talkorgins is it scientific?

 

[Guest]

Then define scientific method!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes Evolution assumes that the instructions (of Micro evolution) arrived by random accident called Big Bang!

This is wrong, as once again you have used straw men. Evolution doesn't assume, it is based on mounds of evidence. The theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe or the origin of life. The Big Bang is a separate theory in a separate field of study, cosmology, from evolution, which is biology. Even if the Big Bang was shown to be false the theory of evolution would still stand. The process of evolution is not random and I dare you to find any legit scientist that says it is.

But you do 'believe' even if it is NOT scientific right?

I believe in scientific evidence and facts.

Read my post about fruit Flies

That was just an article from someone who didn't understand the basics.

For instance it said:

"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies."

"Macro" evolution follows speciation and Fruit flies or drosophila is a genus. The fruit flies became a different species (or "macro" evolution) with in the fruit fly genus.

So once again there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution.

If you choose to call bunch of people with PhD’s from reputed universities as fools then I cannot help it. How about talkorgins is it scientific?

The drivel on the icr web site is not based on science. They may have PhDs, but they have instead chosen to use their talents to spreading false information. Talkorigins provides information from credible scientific sources.