Jump to content


Photo

Micro To Macro. Really?

micro-evolution macro-evolution

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#41 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:35 AM

This is something that I have often thought about before. The major upheavals, as you point out would be way too short and abrupt to cause the kind of changes that macro-evolution requires. On the other hand, what kind of environmental changes do we have left that aren't simply fluctuations? I think fluctuations would cause adaptions that also just fluctuate rather than "small logical jumps" (such as the length of finch beaks, to use a worn-out example).


I agree with you on this. Macro-evolution probably would only work if there are continuous slow adjustments to the environment instead of fluctuations back to an equilibrium. And you are correct that we have either had major upheavals or fluctuations, but have not yet experienced gradual changes to the environment that keep going in one direction. eg continuously hotter earth, continuously more methane, anoxic oceans that keep getting more anoxic etc etc. The natural forces keep pushing the environment back to an equilibrium which makes macro-evolution completely unnecessary and accordingly not observed.

Nevertheless, that's not my point , so I will clarify what my point is. I used to be a mediator and one of the secrets to getting a healthy discussion is to acknowledge some points of the other. If you fail to acknowledge a point that is obvious to another person, you end up hitting a brick wall with them. So can't we at least say to evolutionists that yes, under certain conditions not yet seen on earth, it could be conceivable for the mechanics of micro-evolution through variation to result in macro-evolution? I really do believe macro-evolution is possible, and nothing anyone has ever said would sway me because there has to be a set scientific principle that makes it impossible, and such has not yet been put forward yet. Quite simply put, if variation works, and keeps happening in one direction slowly and carefully enough, we could conceivably (even if not practically) end up with an extreme variation that works. So why not stick to the truth, yes evolution can work from a biological perspective. Highly unlikely, but it can.

#42 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:43 AM

Oh, so my tactic of crushing, killing, destroying and trampling underfoot my opponents might not be the best way to debate? I guess I might have to concede (thus trying out your method) that you may have a point, because evolutionists seem to get really annoyed every time I criticize their precious theory. :rolleyes:
  • NewPath likes this

#43 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 February 2012 - 01:37 AM

Btw, I hope you're not practicing your mediating skills by pretending to be a creationist. You seem to debate more in favor of evolution than anything else here. Just wondering.. :rolleyes:

#44 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:40 AM

Btw, I hope you're not practicing your mediating skills by pretending to be a creationist. You seem to debate more in favor of evolution than anything else here. Just wondering.. :rolleyes:


lol no, I have a unique theory that seems pretty obviously the truth to me, but requires micro-evolution which I believe is the truth, and so I argue in favour of micro-evolution. To put it bluntly, I believe the flood explains the Permian extinction but NOT the Triassic extinction. And the flood explains the Permian extinction fossils, but NOT the previous Paleozoic fossils. (the geological flood layers are compressed around what is termed the Permian-Triassic boundary). And so I have no hidden agenda, but my arguments will often favour evolutionists because I believe as they do that most geological fossils are ordered over time, and not sorted via sedimentation from a sudden flood. I believe these fossils are ordered over 6000 years, not millions.

#45 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:27 AM


Is this just your opinion? May I ask what evidence do you base your opinion on?

Or is it just

- nature changes over time therefore evolution is "highly likely"

Its my opinion, based on the fact that micro -evolution is extremely rapid and observable. If you project the changes over 4000 years to continue at the rate they are, it only seems natural that the current range of subspecies would diversify even more, and so eventual macro-evolution does seem likely to me.


Indeed, that is your opinion. But, because Gilbo asked for evidence, and you provided absolutely none, it is rendered as 'mere opinion' and nothing more. Further, since you have provided absolutely no evidence for your "macro-evolution" hypothesis, you are proceeding on faith alone.

#46 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:52 AM

Indeed, that is your opinion. But, because Gilbo asked for evidence, and you provided absolutly none, it is rendered as 'mere opinion' and nothing more. Further, since you have provided absolutly no evidence for your "macro-evolution" hypothesis, you are proceeding on faith alone.


I understand why you would say this, but the principle of variation is absolute. When two people have children we see the variation, sometimes the children have emphasized features of what makes the parents more unique, sometimes underemphasized. When two parents have a unique emphasized feature we expect the child to have that quality even stronger. Two intelligent parents normally breed an even more intelligent kid. Two fast athletes normally breed a faster athlete. This is not guaranteed but is observable and acknowledged as a general principle and supported by genetics.

There however is no absolute principle preventing variations from continuing gradually in one direction, despite observations that artificial selective breeding over short periods normally results in genetically weaker stock.

So with one absolute scientific principle supporting variation, and no absolute scientific principle preventing continuous variation, to say evolution is impossible is an unscientific comment.

#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:20 AM

I understand why you would say this, but the principle of variation is absolute. When two people have children we see the variation, sometimes the children have emphasized features of what makes the parents more unique, sometimes underemphasized. When two parents have a unique emphasized feature we expect the child to have that quality even stronger. Two intelligent parents normally breed an even more intelligent kid. Two fast athletes normally breed a faster athlete. This is not guaranteed but is observable and acknowledged as a general principle and supported by genetics.

There however is no absolute principle preventing variations from continuing gradually in one direction, despite observations that artificial selective breeding over short periods normally results in genetically weaker stock.

So with one absolute scientific principle supporting variation, and no absolute scientific principle preventing continuous variation, to say evolution is impossible is an unscientific comment.


To a degree, from my time on the farm we provided breeding stock to other farms and thus we had to assess each animal for its genetic potency. Even so after decades of selecting the best stock, (litter sizes, total litter weight / weight gain, no of still-born, back fat of self and babies compared to weight at 16 wks of age, body condition, etc) , we still had runts and underperforming animals. This stands testament to the fact that nothing will ever get better and better and better and better and better. Of course things can improve, but if they kept on getting better, we would no longer see runts / underperforming pigs, sows would never have stillborns and the grow rate of the pigletts would be amazing, back fat would be especially low, (naturally not due to the specialised diet we had for them)

As I said before, we have observed evidence of limitation. The fact that there is no scientific formula for such doesn't discount these empirical observations. Just because someone hasn't thought of an "absolute principle" doesn't mean there is none... The same as we cannot claim there was no gravity till Newton found a name for it. Refusing to face the facts of what occurs in reality, (IMO) is a bit silly.

To say evolution is "true" is equally unscientific

#48 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:25 PM

To say evolution is "true" is equally unscientific


Exactly, I am saying macro-evolution is conceivably possible. Which is different to saying it exists or definitely will exist. Whereas creationists often say evolution is impossible when I already know my son is different to me, therefore there is genetic variation, and when two of the same type breed this highlights the similarites.

Evidence of some sort of limitation in certain circumstances is not absolute proof that there are always limitations to variation. You wouldn't have done that specific breeding program if you weren't sure it would improve your stock. (unless you were experimenting?)

#49 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:18 PM

Exactly, I am saying macro-evolution is conceivably possible. Which is different to saying it exists or definitely will exist. Whereas creationists often say evolution is impossible when I already know my son is different to me, therefore there is genetic variation, and when two of the same type breed this highlights the similarites.

Evidence of some sort of limitation in certain circumstances is not absolute proof that there are always limitations to variation. You wouldn't have done that specific breeding program if you weren't sure it would improve your stock. (unless you were experimenting?)


As I said yes there are improvements, but they are not absolute nor are they permanent, (obviously you didn't read what I wrote). After decades of selection they were improved yes, but they were not

1) getting better and better and better and better and better and better and better... There was an observed plateau to the improvements.
2) If you didn't keep on selecting then they would go back to "normal", the changes were not permanent or fixed in the population. Thus defying the evolution concept right there.

These observations clearly point to a limitation, and defy your claims of continuous change.



Yes your son is different to you. Genetic variation doesn't prove evolution, nor is it evidence of it. Your son is still a human yes, and since traits from each parent are randomised for each loci, there is a mixture of "good" and "bad" traits. Thus variation isn't always "good". This is evidenced by the fact that no human is perfect, there are always imperfections / flaws. Your claims taken to their logical conclusion would state that people, (and all animals), should have no flaws.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:25 PM

As I said before, we have observed evidence of limitation. The fact that there is no scientific formula for such doesn't discount these empirical observations. Just because someone hasn't thought of an "absolute principle" doesn't mean there is none... The same as we cannot claim there was no gravity till Newton found a name for it. Refusing to face the facts of what occurs in reality, (IMO) is a bit silly.



#51 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:10 PM

na huh, evolution is accountable and its happening. just stop denying.

them pictures say how it happened.get an education and believe.

seriously my step-grandson asked if adam and eve had a father and mother. he also asked if we descended from apes. i had to correct him.they teach early these days. thanks for the books mamaelephant

#52 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 February 2012 - 01:03 AM

Your claims taken to their logical conclusion would state that people, (and all animals), should have no flaws.


Not at all. All I am saying is that in a hypothetical situation if the environment gradually changes over many thousands of years, and keeps changing in one direction only, without fluctuating back to a norm there is a possibility that we could see macro-evolution at work. Only using the principles of variation and natural selection, both of which are currently observable. This would not necessarily be an improvement in any manner, just an improved adaptation of specifically suited features to that particular changing environment. If the environment improves, with say higher oxygen/moisture/pressure levels in the air, obviously variation would reflect this as it did during the mega-fauna/flora era of earth, and in the long lives of the pre-flood civilisation. I'm not proposing general improvements, just adaptations to changing environments.

Your example did not deal with a uniformly changing environment in one direction over thousands of years. This has not happened yet, all I'm saying is its theoretically possible and so why should we stretch the truth to evolutionists and make it sound like macro-evolution is always impossible under all circumstances.

#53 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:27 AM

Not at all. All I am saying is that in a hypothetical situation if the environment gradually changes over many thousands of years, and keeps changing in one direction only, without fluctuating back to a norm there is a possibility that we could see macro-evolution at work.

Your example did not deal with a uniformly changing environment in one direction over thousands of years. This has not happened yet, all I'm saying is its theoretically possible and so why should we stretch the truth to evolutionists and make it sound like macro-evolution is always impossible under all circumstances.


I am glad you admit that it is a hypothetical situation, however the 2nd sentence is its own undoing.

As I have mentioned before environmental factors whilst changing can be averaged out. In fact it fluctuates rather than in "one direction only". This is evidenced by Dariwn's finches beaks. During a drought a change was observed in the % of beak shapes of the birds on the island. After the drought was gone, it was found that the % of beak shapes went back to its "normal" % before the drought. This also serves to support what I said about fixation. Whereby the traits required constant selection, (like the pigs), and when this selection is not present the trait reverts bact to its original setting. This is observed and thus is pretty much irrefutable.

Again if we take your claims to a logical conclusion, then it comes to an absurd notion. If environmental factors only proceeded in "one direction", for example temperature increases, then the world would soon be uninhabitable by all life. The same can be said to temp decrease or any other environmental factor. Thus fluctuations serve to ensure that extreme condtions rarely arise and thus keep the planet habitable. Hence why I haven't dealt with it since it is an absurd notion.

In fact over history we have observed such fluctuations, minor- droughts etc and major- ice ages, (there have been multiple). These all serve to support the notion that environmental factors never occur in a "one direction" fashion.

Hence there is no "one direction" of environmental selection, (in fact we see in reality the opposite), hence your premise here is unfounded and thus is the rest of your idea.

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:26 AM

Exactly, I am saying macro-evolution is conceivably possible. Which is different to saying it exists or definitely will exist. Whereas creationists often say evolution is impossible when I already know my son is different to me, therefore there is genetic variation, and when two of the same type breed this highlights the similarites.

Evidence of some sort of limitation in certain circumstances is not absolute proof that there are always limitations to variation. You wouldn't have done that specific breeding program if you weren't sure it would improve your stock. (unless you were experimenting?)


Variation does not create genetic novelty. When such experiments have been conducted, it still yielded no new advantageous alleles.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

"Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1, 2, 3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls. On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our S@xual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time." Link


There is not a single shred of evidence that supports the micro evolution hypothesis. So, the entire foundation of macro evolution is falsified by the non existance of micro evolution.





Enjoy.

#55 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 12 February 2012 - 11:05 AM

dont tell them that, i might ruin their hedonistic day.

#56 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:24 PM

Hence there is no "one direction" of environmental selection, (in fact we see in reality the opposite), hence your premise here is unfounded and thus is the rest of your idea.


I believe Jesus is going to come back and restore the earth long before any macro-evolution occurs, so this whole discussion is hypothetical to me.
Hypothetically the earth can continue in one direction, it could keep gradually getting hotter over time until nearly all life has died off. The life-forms that are left will be those that are created to handle the heat, and those that have adapted to handle the heat.

#57 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:28 PM

There is not a single shred of evidence that supports the micro evolution hypothesis. So, the entire foundation of macro evolution is falsified by the non existance of micro evolution.


I thought we all agreed on the finch example.

#58 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:30 PM

I believe Jesus is going to come back and restore the earth long before any macro-evolution occurs, so this whole discussion is hypothetical to me.
Hypothetically the earth can continue in one direction, it could keep gradually getting hotter over time until nearly all life has died off. The life-forms that are left will be those that are created to handle the heat, and those that have adapted to handle the heat.


Then in that case why would anyone worry about global warming?

You do realise that such sentiments is already proven wrong via the extinction rate, (as I already mentioned). If life can adapt to the extent you claim, (and as fast as you claim), then there should be very little extinctions since things can adapt to whatever is threatening them. Humans killing too many- "evolve" faster reproduction, perhaps even Iron skin (lol)...

From your comments it seems that you're not willing to look the facts in the face. Please respond to the rest of my posts instead of cherry picking just one part.

It was shown that there is no fixation of traits, (by myself and jason777- Jason has posted the actual papers, so his reply is more scientific).
It was also shown that there is limitation of traits, (this is observed and I have cited examples)
It was shown that enviromental conditions are in fluctuation, (this is observed nigh daily). Such fluctuation would not allow for the selection pressures "evolution" requires. (This is also in Jason's article, since the scientists admit that the selection pressures they used were many times higher than nature would ever cause)

#59 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:34 PM

In fact evolution can be used as a cop out to shirk away from our responsibilities as caretakers of the Earth. If we believe things can adapt to survive then we need not worry changing their habitats etc. Whereas if we believe that whilst change does happen, things ultimately stay, (relatively), the same. Then we are forced to ensure that we do not ruin the Earth or that we change habitats too much.

Yes this is a strawman, and is also a deviant from the topic of conversation. However I am quite sure some people would be thinking this way :(

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:21 PM


Indeed, that is your opinion. But, because Gilbo asked for evidence, and you provided absolutely none, it is rendered as 'mere opinion' and nothing more. Further, since you have provided absolutely no evidence for your "macro-evolution" hypothesis, you are proceeding on faith alone.

I understand why you would say this, but the principle of variation is absolute. When two people have children we see the variation, sometimes the children have emphasized features of what makes the parents more unique, sometimes underemphasized. When two parents have a unique emphasized feature we expect the child to have that quality even stronger. Two intelligent parents normally breed an even more intelligent kid. Two fast athletes normally breed a faster athlete. This is not guaranteed but is observable and acknowledged as a general principle and supported by genetics.

There however is no absolute principle preventing variations from continuing gradually in one direction, despite observations that artificial selective breeding over short periods normally results in genetically weaker stock.

So with one absolute scientific principle supporting variation, and no absolute scientific principle preventing continuous variation, to say evolution is impossible is an unscientific comment.


First – What did Gilbo ask for? He asked for “evidence”, not mere opinion. You only provided ‘mere opinion’, sans any evidence.

Second – What did I point out? I pointed out that “you have provided absolutely no evidence for your ‘macro-evolution’ hypothesis”, that therefore “you are proceeding on faith alone.”

Third – What did you come back with? Basically that the “the principle of variation” was absolute, and asserted that this absolute principle + millions of years = “macro-evolution”.

Fourth – You negate your “absolute” principle by stating that “When two parents have a unique emphasized feature we expect the child to have that quality even stronger”. But when you use the word “expect”, you devalue the “absoluteness” of your principle. The problem for you is that your analogy fails because you only “expect” the child to have the “stronger quality”. If the principle of variation is absolute, then the “stronger quality” will “ABSOLUTELY” be there “EVERYTIME”.

Fifth – You further negate your “absolute” principle by stating that “Two intelligent parents normally breed an even more intelligent kid.” Once again, your statement is self-stultifying, because of your usage of the word “normally” as opposed to “ALWAYS”; and the same for your statement “Two fast athletes normally breed a faster athlete”.

Sixth – Three strikes, you’re out… Your usage of “This is not guaranteed but is observable” also negates your “absoluteness” assertion.

Seventh – We need NO “absolute principle preventing variations from continuing gradually in one direction” for several reasons. But the most important reason is this; “You have absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence to support your assertion”… And as I (and Gilbo) pressed you for, it is evidence that YOU need (are required) to have, in order to support your assertion; NOT more “mere opinion” and “faith statements”.

Eighth – Where did I use the word “Impossible”?

Ninth – What is unscientific, is your attempted assertion that macro-evolution is anything other than a hypothesis or model. And your faith statement is attempting to support it factually (macro-evolution) as anything other than hypothesis or model.

And lastly – We don’t allow for equivocation, purposeful misinterpretation, Trolling (etc…) at this forum. So, please take the time to read the forum rules (that you agreed to prior to being allowed to posting here) prior to posting something other than evidence, AS evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users