Jump to content


Photo

Micro & Macroevolution


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#1 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 17 May 2010 - 04:58 PM

It seems like microevolution is generally accepted amongst creationists, and I’d like to explore exactly what this term encompasses.

The definitions I’m familiar with are as follows: microevolution is a change below the species level, macroevolution is above the species level (ie. the formation of a new species).

There are many examples of microevolution. Plant and animal domestication is in my opinion one of the best, which is why I frequently bring up the various dog breeds when I talk about selective pressures. But there are plenty of other examples which illustrate the results of evolutionary change. The banana (or as Ray Comfort might say, “The Atheist's Nightmare”) was domesticated from wild bananas that were small and filled with seeds.

Posted Image

Wild cabbage (which looks nothing like modern-day cabbage) was artificially selected to become many of the vegetables we eat today, including broccoli.

Posted Image

These are pretty major changes, and they’ve happened within the last 10 thousand years with the discovery of agriculture. From an old world perspective, that’s not even a baby step on the timeline. Now imagine that the process of domestication continues for the next 10 thousand years. We continue to select for the biggest ears of corn, the tiniest lap dogs and the fattest pigs. If we define species as two animals that can successfully reproduce with one another, then I suspect that in some cases speciation has already happened (either because of genetic differences or because of physical limitations). And if it hasn’t happened yet, it certainly will if we continue to act as a selective force.

There seems to be this false idea that macroevolution is another word for some kind of impossible biological leap, like a hippopotamus turning into a whale or a chimp giving birth to a human baby. But macroevolution is just another word for speciation, which doesn’t need to be a dramatic change at all. I think I’ve brought up this point before, but I’ll use it again: If we keep breeding Chihuahuas to be tiny and Great Danes to be huge, eventually they will be different enough it will be impossible for them to mate. I think that it would already be physically impossible, but genetically I’m not sure. The point is, such an event would be speciation and would fall under the category of macroevolution. Of course you will never see a dog turn into something that isn’t a dog within only a few thousand years... but that’s not what macroevolution is about!

Posted Image


So my question is this: Do creationists accept any type of macroevolution as being true? If not, what is the barrier (genetic or otherwise) that would prevent the small changes of microevolution from accumulating and resulting in speciation?

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 05:12 PM

The dividing line for a creationist is when the animal cannot produce fertile offspring through the breeding process.

This doesn't matter if either animal is too big or too small to mate with each other. The only concern, is if the genetic material is available to produce fertile offspring.

This would mean a new species has officially been observed as being created, or evolved so to speak.

A wolf, and a dog are the same species. They can produce fertile offspring.

A lion, and a tiger are not the same species, because they cannot produce fertile offspring. They are seperated as different species within the same family.

Of course the debate between Creationist would be:

Did Only one Feline or Canine start the whole Family, and God allowed Natural Selection to create the different speices, or did God create them first as seperate species.

There is also debate as to what kind is being applied to in the Bible.

Some creationist think that Kind means Seperation by Family classification, and some believe kind means seperation by species classification.

Now, the majority believe that species=kind, simply because the definition of species is Kind. This is what I believe, because it's what I've observed.

#3 Guest_paulatreides0_*

Guest_paulatreides0_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 05:14 PM

Ahhh, you make good points, and all true....except for speciation. Speciation only happens when the two breeds can no longer breed due to genetic, not physical problems, that is what causes a new species to be formed.

#4 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 06:03 PM

The Creationists are in pickle.
The more kinds they recognize, the more animals they cram into the Ark and the more work they assign for Noah and his seven trusty assistants.
The fewer kinds they recognize, the more macroevolution they demand in the short span between 2347 BC and now.
Duane Gish chooses the latter option. So according to Gish, the animals left the Ark and diverged into 35 species of dogs, 850 species of bats, and
28,000 species of worms.

Gish seems to admit that species have originated in our time.
He can't draw the line at the phylum level either, because worms fit into 18 phyla.
But he challenges Evolutionists to show a case in which an animal has transformed from one kind to another.

Scientists express confusion over what a "kind" is. Gish, on the other hand, says that it could be understood by "any high school student with average intelligence." He is probably right. The scientists are probably missing the forest for the trees. After spending all day in the classroom or the laboratory, they might forget that some biological terms are common lay terms and some are not. You may use the word "worm" in a friendly conversation, but I doubt if you would use the term Dracunculus insignis.

#5 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 17 May 2010 - 06:13 PM

A wolf, and a dog are the same species. They can produce fertile offspring.

View Post

The ability to produce fertile offspring is due to the similarities between their genomes. But dog breeding is gradually changing the wolf genome, making it less and less like the original. If the chromosomes of a dog are changed enough at various loci then there’s a possibility that they might not “match up”. This could mean that the offspring are infertile or that a zygote never even forms in the first place. I can’t see any reason why this wouldn’t happen (if it hasn’t already), as long as we keep putting a selective pressure on the dog genome. So to go back to my initial question, what exactly would prevent macroevolution (speciation) from occurring?

Speciation only happens when the two breeds can no longer breed due to genetic, not physical problems, that is what causes a new species to be formed.

View Post

I agree that speciation is a genetic event. I brought up physical limitations to illustrate how prezygotic isolation is one of the mechanisms that can cause speciation to occur.

#6 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:28 PM

The ability to produce fertile offspring is due to the similarities between their genomes. But dog breeding is gradually changing the wolf genome, making it less and less like the original. If the chromosomes of a dog are changed enough at various loci then there’s a possibility that they might not “match up”. This could mean that the offspring are infertile or that a zygote never even forms in the first place. I can’t see any reason why this wouldn’t happen (if it hasn’t already), as long as we keep putting a selective pressure on the dog genome. So to go back to my initial question, what exactly would prevent macroevolution (speciation) from occurring?
I agree that speciation is a genetic event. I brought up physical limitations to illustrate how prezygotic isolation is one of the mechanisms that can cause speciation to occur.

View Post


The problem is that it hasn't happened, but evolutionist are just waiting for the day that it does happen.

Until then, they'll be claiming that 2 groups of animals that are Isolated geologically are now officially different species ( even when they can still mate and produce fertile offspring). That's why the number of species being found is growing... Pre-mature Evolutheism at its finest.

#7 Guest_paulatreides0_*

Guest_paulatreides0_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:32 PM

The problem is that it hasn't happened, but evolutionist are just waiting for the day that it does happen.

Until then, they'll be claiming that 2 groups of animals that are Isolated geologically are now officially different species ( even when they can still mate and produce fertile offspring).  That's why the number of species being found is growing... Pre-mature Evolutheism at its finest.

View Post

No, two groups of animals geologically isolated, given very long periods of time will become different species. The reason we can't observe very easily it is a process that takes either several thousand to millions of years... Modern Science was born with Galileo..... We can, however, through genetics and comparative anatomy actually tell when this has happened and that this has happened already as well.

But, on your end, you deny each every bit of evidence presented by scientists, call it religion, and ship it off.

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:37 PM

No, two groups of animals geologically isolated, given very long periods of time will become different species. The reason we can't observe very easily it is a process that takes either several thousand to millions of years... Modern Science was born with Galileo..... We can, however, through genetics and comparative anatomy actually tell when this has happened and that this has happened already as well.

But, on your end, you deny each every bit of evidence presented by scientists, call it religion, and ship it off.

View Post



Actually you just want me to have faith ( like you do) that this will actually happen, and with the present evidence I'm not buying it for one second.

The scientific method cannot be applied by fault of your own admission, because the results cannot be seen in our lifetime. If you point to something now in the present, you will not have seen nor verified the actual evolution, but you will admittedly want me to have faith that it did happen in the past based on your interpretation of the evidence at hand.

#9 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:43 PM

A lion, and a tiger are not the same species, because they cannot produce fertile offspring.  They are seperated as different species within the same family.

Actually they can.
http://en.wikipedia....Liger#Fertility

Of course the debate between Creationist would be:

Did Only one Feline or Canine start the whole Family, and God allowed Natural Selection to create the different speices, or did God create them first as seperate species.

There is also debate as to what kind is being applied to in the Bible.

Some creationist think that Kind means Seperation by Family classification, and some believe kind means seperation by species classification.

Now, the majority believe that species=kind, simply because the definition of species is Kind.  This is what I believe, because it's what I've observed.

View Post

I think the assessment of kind being species is a fair one. Even in biblical terms.

And defining macro-evolution as producing two different lineages which cannot interbreed is also fair on some levels. What about asexual reproduction?

#10 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:59 PM

Hmm, I did not know about that with Ligers. I wonder if it's almost like Mules, and donkey's.

The only problem I have with Asexual Reproduction is when evolutionist claim that Bacterial Immunity, during Protein Synthesis is actually evolution, when it is only substitution. In no way do I think any substituation could be made with the pairs given inside the Bacteria's DNA to constitute an actual Macro-change.

Change it's bases toward's an Attack, yes I believe that... but to drastically change, meaning evolving new parts for a Flagellum, or for parts to become a multicellular organism, then this I don't believe.

I will believe it when I see it happen, but I don't believe it can happen with the information given to us in this present day.

I don't know if this is what your asking about, but maybe I'm close.

#11 Guest_paulatreides0_*

Guest_paulatreides0_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:05 PM

Actually you just want me to have faith ( like you do) that this will actually happen, and with the present evidence I'm not buying it for one second.

Haha, me? Faith? No. I used to have faith, and then I realized that believing in something I can't quantify or proof is a pretty large waste of my time and could be spent doing more productive things...like reading, or research, or gaming, or watching Gundam.

The scientific method cannot be applied by fault of your own admission, because the results cannot be seen in our lifetime.

The limitations of our life time do not limit the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method has fail-safes against this. You misconstrue what scientists mean by observations. Observations are not that you literally see something as it happens, that is the ideal but for things such as stellar formation and evolution it obviously wouldn't work.

So, instead we center our observation around other things. And we do not only do it one way, we do it MANY ways, and look for where the answers converge. Evolution has withstood this test many times. Observations are what we OBSERVE and derive our answers from through use of data and evidence. I WOULD expand on this point, but my internet is about to shut off.

If you point to something now in the present, you will not have seen nor verified the actual evolution, but you will admittedly want me to have faith that it did happen in the past based on your interpretation of the evidence at hand.

View Post

Evidence that all converges on one point can only be interpreted one way...where it converges. All credited evidence is on evolution's side.

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:12 PM

Haha, me? Faith? No. I used to have faith, and then I realized that believing in something I can't quantify or proof is a pretty large waste of my time and could be spent doing more productive things...like reading, or research, or gaming, or watching Gundam.
The limitations of our life time do not limit the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method has fail-safes against this. You misconstrue what scientists mean by observations. Observations are not that you literally see something as it happens, that is the ideal but for things such as stellar formation and evolution it obviously wouldn't work.

So, instead we center our observation around other things. And we do not only do it one way, we do it MANY ways, and look for where the answers converge. Evolution has withstood this test many times. Observations are what we OBSERVE and derive our answers from through use of data and evidence. I WOULD expand on this point, but my internet is about to shut off.
Evidence that all converges on one point can only be interpreted one way...where it converges. All credited evidence is on evolution's side.

View Post


Yes, you do have faith, and by your own addmission/ default... yes you have faith.

You've been caught using faith, and now your trying to wiggle your way around the fact, and the fact is:

You didn't observe evolution happen, so get over it.

You want to point to a fossil and say, look here, I saw evolution happen... Nope, you didn't.

Evolution hasn't ever survived the Scientific Method, because it gravely fails the observation/verification part. Your not wiggling your way around this fact, because as a matter of fact no evolutionist can.

#13 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:14 PM

Hmm, I did not know about that with Ligers.  I wonder if it's almost like Mules, and donkey's.

The only problem I have with Asexual Reproduction is when evolutionist claim that Bacterial Immunity, during Protein Synthesis is actually evolution, when it is only substitution.  In no way do I think any substituation could be made with the pairs given inside the Bacteria's DNA to constitute an actual Macro-change.

Change it's bases toward's an Attack, yes I believe that... but to drastically change, meaning evolving new parts for a Flagellum, or for parts to become a multicellular organism, then this I don't believe.

I will believe it when I see it happen, but I don't believe it can happen with the information given to us in this present day.

I don't know if this is what your asking about, but maybe I'm close.

View Post


Pretty close.

But is say, a flagellum or evolving multi-cellular organisms the limitation for the defining characteristics? I'm curious about further examples of what would constitute an evolutionary change(macro obviously) for these kinds of species.

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:26 PM

Pretty close.

But is say, a flagellum or evolving multi-cellular organisms the limitation for the defining characteristics? I'm curious about further examples of what would constitute an evolutionary change(macro obviously) for these kinds of species.

View Post


Well, the only way I could see how we could find a way to macro evolve a bacteria is to find the base pairs that help with the genetic make-up of the Flagellum. Then we use those base pairs, and see what pairs we could match with a none-flagellum bacteria.

The biggest thing I believe, would be to see how we get a multicellular organism. We see how the human embryo advances through quick cell division during first stages of life.

What is needed to make this? All life basically starts out small. Now, the big picture I see here, is how exactly do we find the DNA pairs that trigger for a Multicellular organism, because this seems far more complex than the flagellum.

#15 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:28 PM

Yes, you do have faith, and by your own addmission/ default... yes you have faith.

You've been caught using faith, and now your trying to wiggle your way around the fact, and the fact is:

You didn't observe evolution happen, so get over it

You want to point to a fossil and say, look here, I saw evolution happen... Nope, you didn't.

Evolution hasn't ever survived the Scientific Method, because it gravely fails the observation/verification part.  Your not wiggling your way around this fact, because as a matter of fact no evolutionist can.

View Post


Just as a point. And yes, I know, I've already tried to make this point to no avail.

Direct observation of anything, is not a requisite.

If direct observation applies to evolution, it also applies to creationism.

As already stated, observation can be observation of evidence. For instance, several people have "observed" evidence for the flood. Did they witness the flood directly? Of course not. But does this argue against the evidence? Again, of course not, that's absurd. Evidence should be weighed upon it's own merits not direct observation of events in question.

Or was there some other point you were trying to make that I missed?

#16 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:40 PM

Sorry I keep forgetting about the 5 minutes between posts.

Well, the only way I could see how we could find a way to macro evolve a bacteria is to find the base pairs that help with the genetic make-up of the Flagellum.  Then we use those base pairs, and see what pairs we could match with a none-flagellum bacteria.

And what are the thoughts on evolutionary experiments with bacteria?

http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

Thoughts? Just trying to get a feel here.

What is needed to make this?  All life basically starts out small.  Now, the big picture I see here, is how exactly do we find the DNA pairs that trigger for a Multicellular organism, because this seems far more complex than the flagellum.

View Post

I'm assuming you mean an acquired trigger? Something obviously evolved?

#17 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:44 PM

Just as a point. And yes, I know, I've already tried to make this point to no avail.

Direct observation of anything, is not a requisite.

If direct observation applies to evolution, it also applies to creationism.

As already stated, observation can be observation of evidence. For instance, several people have "observed" evidence for the flood. Did they witness the flood directly? Of course not. But does this argue against the evidence? Again, of course not, that's absurd. Evidence should be weighed upon it's own merits not direct observation of events in question.

Or was there some other point you were trying to make that I missed?

View Post


Direct Observation applies to both Creation and Evolution as it does with the Scientific Method. That's why I mention Faith, even though Atheist conclude that faith is an unholy cuss word, when in all factuallity... it is what we as humans use, because we do not directly verify somethings happening, or existence at any point in time... like evolution.

We can conclude that the Civil War happened based not only on evidence that it happened, but for the fact that people were their to actually write down what they witnessed.

We can only assume that Evolution happened based only on evidence. We do not have the honor of having people actually witnessing it, like other historical events such as Jesus, George Washington, the election of Obama, or What color your Shoes are. Yes we can prove those, because we have Direct Observation at different points in time that were verified directly.

For evolution, nope, we don't have that kind of Scientific evidence. Alls we have to go on is what we think the evidence applies to.

You have faith that evolution will happen based on the evidence that you interpret as being just that... proof for evolution.

When in fact this evidence doesn't actually= proof for evolution.

So if your trying to make the claim that you have no faith, then that's a bogus illogical claim at best.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 09:07 PM

Sorry I keep forgetting about the 5 minutes between posts.
And what are the thoughts on evolutionary experiments with bacteria?

http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

Thoughts? Just trying to get a feel here.

I'm assuming you mean an acquired trigger? Something obviously evolved?

View Post



Yes, I'm saying what Molecular pair, actually started the trigger?

Now, I've seen the E. Coli adaptation before, but I don't think it really constitutes as evolution if it is only substitution. Which is what it is. If they really wanted to prove evolution through verification. Then they need to show the Bacteria evolving something like Flagellum, and then record what in the DNA and environment actually caused the Flagellum to evolve.

Also, this gets even more complex, If the Flagellum appears through one random mutation, then that proves that the Flagellum existed prior to the observation seen, because the mechanics behind the Flagellum have certain base pairs that need to be selected for its existance.

Why do I say this? Because past genetic information doesn't simply go away, it stays with the genome.

This also presents the reason as to why E.Coli isn't evolving, but merely substituting. If the E.Coli loses resistance at a cost for fighting, or needing to use an existing pair for another purpose such as food consumption... then this proves that Evolution has not happened. Because no DNA was really changed, but only substitution was happening.

#19 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 09:07 PM

Direct Observation applies to both Creation and Evolution as it does with the Scientific Method.  That's why I mention Faith, even though Atheist conclude that faith is an unholy cuss word, when in all factuallity... it is what we as humans use, because we do not directly verify somethings happening, or existence at any point in time... like evolution.

We can conclude that the Civil War happened based not only on evidence that it happened, but for the fact that people were their to actually write down what they witnessed.

We can only assume that Evolution happened based only on evidence.  We do not have the honor of having people actually witnessing it, like other historical events such as Jesus, George Washington, the election of Obama, or What color your Shoes are.  Yes we can prove those, because we have Direct Observation at different points in time that were verified directly.

For evolution, nope, we don't have that kind of Scientific evidence.  Alls we have to go on is what we think the evidence applies to.

You have faith that evolution will happen based on the evidence that you interpret as being just that... proof for evolution.

When in fact this evidence doesn't actually= proof for evolution.

So if your trying to make the claim that you have no faith, then that's a bogus illogical claim at best.

View Post


I find I like this post, it's honest and lays out the direct observation argument in straight forward terms.

The objection to this, is of course, the word faith but not how you mean. I, even as an atheist use faith when applicable and proper. But I don't use blind faith. Blind faith is faith corrupted.

I can say with no reservations that I have faith that my doctor will give me the correct prognosis and dispense the correct medicine.

Someone can tell me God inspired a book that tells me to do x, y or z. My first impression is that whatever that commandment is, is unethical. Do I proceed anyway or do I try to find out where the book really came from? The answer is obvious, I dispel blind faith immediately and search out the answer with no expectation except finding the facts. Whether I'm right or wrong is not the concern.

Do I have faith in evolution? The answer could be both yes and no.

For instance, same as with the book, someone has told me something that seems at face value, counter-intuitive(macro-evolution). What do we do? We seek out the facts and evidence as best we can to make an informed decision. In this instance; do I have faith? I would say no.

But am I a biologist? No. So what do we do? We seek out help and answers from reputable resources. How do we know they are reputable? Because they are transparent in their work and peer-reviewed, with no goals but finding the facts where ever that might lead them. So we take these sources at face value for what they find. In this case, I have faith that these people know what they are talking about.

Are there biased people both for and against creationism and/or evolution? Absolutely. Does this mean they are wrong? Absolutely not. We check to see if their work and findings have been peer-reviewed. If they are wrong and kept on trying to prove it anyway out of personal bias, the scientific community would rip them to shreds and they'd lose jobs and grants.

So I have no objection to faith. Only blind faith. I hope this clears up at least my position. :rolleyes:

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 May 2010 - 09:16 PM

Kenetiks,

Yes, and I don't have Blind faith either, because we have None-Biblical/none-Christian records of Jesus from those times , there are also Biblical Archaeological finds of Babylon, Ninevah, Sodom and Gomorrah. Far better hands on evidence than evolution ever had.

So I hope you or no other Atheist wants to make the claim that I or any other Christian has Blind faith, because that would be very very very very vey far from the truth.

If my faith had no substance, and was blind, I wouldn't believe. Yet I do, not because I'm biased, not because I have blind faith, but because I see the evidence for the Bible, and logically seeing the Archaeological evidences I must conclude that God exists. I'm not sorry if I've burst your bubble about thinking that all Christians have blind faith.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users