Evolutionist don't understand what macro-evolution/micro-evolution is.

[Perfection]

How can there be evidence for evolution in the gaologic record is there (other than the fossel record)?

I think Gothmog is refering to the very strong correlation of DNA evidence of extant species to the order of divergance.

If evolution was true you could see how the what ever changed over time.

You can via homology, comparitivie embryology, genetics, and chemical pathways!

Some scientific theories are strong, and some are weak. History shows that many have been proven wrong!

Most theories are not proven "wrong" more that they are incomplete, frankly I can't think of any scientific theory that was anything more "wrong" than incomplete since spontaneous generation

As for your theory or whatever the hell you want to call it, you actaully don't have evidence. Evolution may be lacking evidence in certain areas (not in speciation examples, though) however the evidence in numerous fields of biology and geology provide a very clear picture of evolution.

 

[Gothmog]

Sorry about the late reply, I had a bunch of work to do…

Stormbind wrote

However, graduation just doesn't fit with sudden changes also represented in fossil evidence, which is where macroevolution comes in.

This is your opinion, and is pretty typical of people who only look at the fossil record for evidence. When looking at changes to the genetic code the picture of gradual change is very clear. Macroevolution is a nice way to define long term changes in life, but really it is currently thought that all evolutionary change is driven by changes to a genome. There are a number of mechanisms, mutation has been mentioned but even this can take the form of specific mutation, intron-extron shuffling, gene duplication, chromosome duplication, etc. So I don’t understand what you are looking for in this context. Here’s a nice plot I presented in another thread:

If you don’t know about speciation in agricultural science you should look into it there are many examples of new breeds being created that are unable to breed with their predecessors. Evidence for this dates back to the early 1900’s. This is most common among flower breeders, with chromosome duplication events being a common cause.

The big reason why a lot of the web sites you will find on the internet discount this type of evidence is that they don’t have a set definition of ‘species’ and typically are looking for a duck to birth a chicken. The web site you link to is a good example of this, the battle cry is ‘well, it still looks like a fruit fly!’. Yeah.

Every account of the fruitfly experiments I have read (I have now read a few online) call it nonsense. In every case, they say there was no new species.

Currently there's no observation to support macroevolution.

See my comments above. It would help if you didn’t look at the many sites that simply want to debunk evolution for religious reasons. Also I would recommend a trip to the local university and/or library over internet web sites if you want straight talk.

Still, I don’t understand where you are going with this. Are you saying that there is evidence that something other than changes to the genetic code is the cause of the many different forms of extant life? Remember that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and cannot be taken seriously by anyone who wants to base their worldview on the scientific method. It does not make any specific testable predictions. The ToE is an ongoing learning experience, changes have been made, continue to be made, and will be made. But the basic concept of descent with modification has not been challenged in any serious way by an alternate theory or additional data.

Phydeaux wrote

The point was, no offense, but alot of the evolutionist in Civilization Fanatics' Forums say things like "A bunch of micro-evolution = macro-evolution", or Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same", this is ether missleading or wrong... There is a big difference, micro-evolution does not need a mutation, and if there are mutations they do not need to be bad, but they can not cuase a wing to grow (for micro-evolution), macro-evolution needs a mutation that could over time cause a wing to grow. The words may make it sound close, but micro-evolution with out a mutation that could over time cause a wing to grow, can not = macro-evolution. Isn't that right?

There is a semantic difference, but the bottom line is that evolution is caused by changes to the genome, be it macro or micro. Descent with modification. Are you somehow disputing this? ‘Causing’ a wing to grow would be the result of many mutations, not just to specific genes but to the ways in which they are expressed. It could likely involve the loss of genes as well as gain. As crazyscientist noted wings are not much different from limbs when you look closely. You can get there from here, so to speak.

The reson why your to year son was run over by the tractor is because some one ran him over, it's not Gods falt any more than it's my'n.

My point is that people who believe in a benevolent God want to believe that there is some master plan, that little Timmy went to ‘a better place’. It is not about blaming God, but being able to accept that personal tragedy and other awful things about the world are part of a grand design that we simply cannot grasp. ‘Why do bad things happen to good people’, is a modern way to pose the question; and ‘God works in mysterious ways’ is a common refrain by those who believe in a benevolent God.

How can there be evidence for evolution in the gaologic record is there (other than the fossel record)?

If evolution was true you could see how the what ever changed over time.

You said that it was no good to present evidence about a change that happened a billion years ago, I was saying that if you cannot accept that the world (and life) has been around for over a billion years than you certainly will not accept the ToE. The evidence for the age of the earth, and fossils, is tight. As close to a fact as humans can achieve.

And yes you can see how what ever changed over time, given the known limitation about how and when fossils form. As perfection notes, when combining this with other independent avenues of investigation we can build a very solid case for how life developed... for how long ago we diverged from an arbitrary other lifeform.

 

[romelus]

I have seen that most evolutionist don't understand macro-evolution/micro-evolution. So I thought why not open a thread. Here is a site that shows what macro-evolution/micro-evolution is: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm

Also tell me what you think about macro-evolution/micro-evolution.

isn't this the same link you started another thread with? and you were beaten to a pulp in that thread, why are you starting another thread with the same link that has already been proven false?

 

[Pointlessness]

It was a different link from the same site.

Anyway, Phydeaux, I am still waiting for your response to my response .

 

[Phydeaux]

I mean that the guy who wrote that article should not be trusted, on account on making wildly false claims about what he claims to disporve.

I won't even try and understand what your money analogy is supposed to mean.

You didn't explain how that one was wrong though.

What do I care what he meant? It was asked whether dinos were reptiles, so I answered.

There was a reson why I asked, I supose you forgot the reson.

 

[Phydeaux]

I just noticed there was a thread on this. It is time for me to reply to Ridgenet's rather absurd article.

Notice the great inconsistency in this Ridgenet editorial with other Ridgenet articles. This one states that it is illogical to deny microevolution, while another link denies the claim of peppered moths adapting to pollution, an example of microevolution. If Ridgenet was truly for microevolution, it would not deny this example. So is Ridgenet for or against microevolution? No one really knows. Sort of like John Kerry.

The link goes to the topics can I have the link to the place you are talking about?

Huh? I would respond to his if this was even marginally coherent. Anyway, this analogy is void since there are many significant differences between Scrabble tiles and life.

He was trying to explain it so any one could understand, even kids.

Since when was microevolution the process of losing genes?

It is part of it. Losing genes is not macro-evolution.

 

[Phydeaux]

The document analogy is invalid. A more valid analogy of evolution is this.
You have typed out a document, full of typos, which represents your species. Someone randomly replaces letters in your documents with other letters, which represent mutations. Now, normally, that would make your document less readable. But the beauty is this: the computer has a super-advanced spell checker, natural selection. When a letter change makes the document less readable, the spell checker undos the change. When it makes it more readable, it keeps the change. Over time, your document would now be better than it used to be.

Yes, it undos the change, and with out a mutation that's good (with out lossing genes) over time your document will not be better than it used to be. I saw nothing wrong with what he said.

Pure stupidity. Mutations can be beneficial or detrimental. Nature does not care what mutations you get.

The blind fish are blind because at the bottom of the ocean, there is no light, and there is no need to see anything, in any case.

I still do not understand how Ridgenet concluded that microevolution is the loss of genes. Can someone explain this so I can understand it?

Uh, yeah but if you get detrimental ones natural selection will take them out.

Could it not be that a mutation took away there sight, and because they where on the bottom of the ocean it didn't make a dif?

Micro-evolution is not only the loss of genes, but it is partly so. I don't know how to explain why but, just use your head.

Genetics, and our other advancements only increase our understanding and the amount of evidence there is of evolution. On the contrary, our belief of this theory should be greater today than in Darwin's time. Today, there is no excuse in not believing in evolution. Well, except for creationism.

Your thoughts not his, or my'n.

 

[Phydeaux]

Can't you see the logic of two groups of the same species diverging over time (due to random mutations) eventually becoming different species as the fact they can no longer exchange genes, means that they eventually become different species. Look at the unique florae and fanunae of ecosystems that have been isolated for a long time (Galapagos, Australia etc.) you can clearly see how species there have diverged from a common anscestor on other continents and adapted to their new environment. It makes perfect sense to me. (Unlike my tired rambling unfortunately)

You still need mutations. I think even Gothmog would go with me on that.

 

[Pointlessness]

The link goes to the topics can I have the link to the place you are talking about?

Oops, sorry. Try this one. It is about peppered moths, an example of microevolution.

He was trying to explain it so any one could understand, even kids.

Well, the kids are smarter than I am, since this confuses the hell out of me.

It is part of it. Losing genes is not macro-evolution.

But how does losing genes have anything to do with microevolution?

 

[Pointlessness]

Yes, it undos the change, and with out a mutation that's good (with out lossing genes) over time your document will not be better than it used to be. I saw nothing wrong with what he said.

I still think my analogy is better. Mutations themselves can be detrimental, but natural selection takes them out. Only beneficial mutations survive.

Uh, yeah but if you get detrimental ones natural selection will take them out.

Could it not be that a mutation took away there sight, and because they where on the bottom of the ocean it didn't make a dif?

It could be, but then the allele for sight would still be there in some fish, if sight does not make a difference

Micro-evolution is not only the loss of genes, but it is partly so. I don't know how to explain why but, just use your head.

Can someone explain how you lose genes in microevolution?

Your thoughts not his, or my'n.

A lot of people here and in the scientific community would agree with me on this...

 

[Phydeaux]

Microevolution may or may not need a mutation, but mutations happen anyway. I think you have no idea how common mutations are. You spend 2 minutes in the sun, BOOM, mutation!

These are not all good mutations.

The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the macroevolution causes speciation. Once a new species forms that cannot produce fertile offspring with the original species, that is macroevolution. That is all there is to it.

For it to go any farther it needs a good mutation.

 

[Phydeaux]

Do you happen to have any actual data on mutation rates to prove it wouldn't be enough?

(I don't have any to prove it is enough, but given the fossile record, fruitfly experiments, the success of domestication of animals and plants, I feel confident that the burden of proof rests on your side.)

I guess not, because none knows how often good mutations happen.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You didn't explain how that one was wrong though.

The specific passage I quoted was this:

This is not evolution in the Darwinian sense because a "higher" (or superior) species has not been created.

There's nothing in Darwinism that says that evolution need to lead to "higher" or "superior" species. "Degenerative" evolution, were organisms lose abilities is in fact pretty common, and Darwinism explains and predicts it to the same extent as it does "constructive" evolution.

There was a reson why I asked, I supose you forgot the reson.

If you repeat that reason, then, I might be able to answer that too.

 

[Pointlessness]

Oops, I missed part of my reply the article while spitting it into half. Here it is:

Mutations
Mutations are caused by random changes in genes. Is it possible that a mutation could produce new genes that would create a new species? Let's consider that possibility.

It is possible that somewhere there could be a colony of flying ants. It might happen that the queen of this colony might suffer some genetic accident that damages the gene that causes wings to form. Her offspring would not have any wings, and naturally would not be able to fly.

The inability to fly is certainly not an advantage, so one would not expect that natural selection would cause them to beat the flying ants in the battle for survival. This mutation would be a disadvantage. But inability to fly might not be such a large disadvantage that the non-flying ants could not survive. These non-flying ants might not mate with the flying ants, and so they would be considered to be a new species. This is not evolution in the Darwinian sense because a "higher" (or superior) species has not been created. Quite the opposite. This hypothetical new species of ant is a step backwards, not forwards. It has lost the ability to fly because it has lost a required gene. It now also has some left-over "junk DNA" designed to control the wings it no longer has. This junk DNA no longer serves any purpose.

It could be said that the ant "devolved" because the new species is inferior. Devolution is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Given enough time, and left to themselves, things fall apart. Things don't naturally fall together. So it is possible that flying ants could devolve into ordinary ants because one of the genes needed for flying could be lost or damaged.

For flight-challenged ants to evolve into flying ants, at least one new gene would have to be added. There is no evidence that this happens now, or has ever happened in the past. "Gene-jockey" scientists have transplanted genes to create novel characteristics in laboratory animals, but new beneficial genes don't just appear by magic in a natural process. Genes naturally get worse, not better.

Flying ants would not have a great advantage of regular, ground ants. Flying would consume too much energy for ants, and ground ants would be better adapted to avoid predators, since they spend most of life underground. The system of tunnels they dig are also useful for storage, something hypothetical flying ant would not have.

I am so sick of creationists saying that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. So would an powerful, order maintaining god who creates species. Humanity itself violates this definition of the second law of thermodynamics. As soon as something falls apart, chance are we would build another one. The second law of thermodynamics is a law of physics. Stop misinterpreting it.

I added this and fixed the link into my original post, just to let you know.

 

[Pointlessness]

These are not all good mutations.

True, these mutations mostly cause cancer. For a mutation to take place in a sexually reproducing species, it would have to take place in a gamete. Still, this does happen, take Down's syndrome. If a bunch of people with Down's syndrome were stranded on an island... who know what might happen?

For it to go any farther it needs a good mutation.

And good mutations do happen...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Can someone explain how you lose genes in microevolution?

Simple. A gene is made non-functional by a mutation, and chromosomal repair mechanisms fail. If the lost function is not vital, the non-functional allele will be passed on to off-spring. In some cases being without the functionality may be a net win, which can cause the functional allele to be selected out of the population.

Once the gene is reduced to genetic ballast, there is no selectional pressure against further mutations of any kind, wherefore the gene can, over coming generations, be reduced to genetic gibberish, or even deleted completely without any phenotypical effect.

In small populations, genetic drift and founder effects can make even outright harmful non-functional alleles replace functional ones.

 

[Pointlessness]

But you do not actually lose the gene. It is still there, the gene is just the same for everyone in the population, you merely lose the harmful phenotype.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, it undos the change, and with out a mutation that's good (with out lossing genes) over time your document will not be better than it used to be. I saw nothing wrong with what he said.

I think that what Phydeaux is trying to say is that there are no good mutations except ones that result in a smaller functional genome, which he defines as microevolution. That is essentially what the web site he linked to said.

It is a sad twisting of words to reach a predetermined end.

In my first post in this thread I gave an example of a specific mutation that added genes to the genome and resulted in an explosion of new forms of life. As far as I could tell it was rejected because it happened 'a long time ago'? Perhaps before the world was even created? He wasn't really clear.

The basic idea is pretty simple. If you follow the divergence of life with the fossil record, or proteins that are slow to change, you will find that many protiens and the genes that express them change in a slow continuous fashion until they end up with a new function. Good evidence that mutation can indeed add to the genome, and there are countless examples.

Also remember that individuals and populations have multiple copies of many genes, and each can survive with very little detriment if even one copy works properly.

 

[Phydeaux]

Sorry about the late reply, I had a bunch of work to do…

Stormbind wrote This is your opinion, and is pretty typical of people who only look at the fossil record for evidence. When looking at changes to the genetic code the picture of gradual change is very clear. Macroevolution is a nice way to define long term changes in life, but really it is currently thought that all evolutionary change is driven by changes to a genome. There are a number of mechanisms, mutation has been mentioned but even this can take the form of specific mutation, intron-extron shuffling, gene duplication, chromosome duplication, etc. So I don’t understand what you are looking for in this context. Here’s a nice plot I presented in another thread:

Speaking of this, how come whale DNA is closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA? Does this mean that a whale came from a hippo, or do you just choose wich one you want to believe?

Phydeaux wrote There is a semantic difference, but the bottom line is that evolution is caused by changes to the genome, be it macro or micro. Descent with modification. Are you somehow disputing this? ‘Causing’ a wing to grow would be the result of many mutations, not just to specific genes but to the ways in which they are expressed. It could likely involve the loss of genes as well as gain. As crazyscientist noted wings are not much different from limbs when you look closely. You can get there from here, so to speak.

Descent would, be micro-evolution, you need more for it to be macro-evolution, and it needs to be more good. If you had a bunch of lowering mutations wich are helpful it is still macro-evolution. It's not about being helpful, it's about moving the thing to a higher level.

My point is that people who believe in a benevolent God want to believe that there is some master plan, that little Timmy went to ‘a better place’. It is not about blaming God, but being able to accept that personal tragedy and other awful things about the world are part of a grand design that we simply cannot grasp. ‘Why do bad things happen to good people’, is a modern way to pose the question; and ‘God works in mysterious ways’ is a common refrain by those who believe in a benevolent God.

I don't know, but I think that God can the bad for good, also death in earthly trems is not really bad, unless you don't know God. Those people say that because they don't understand God, none understands every thing about Him. God does not cause death, sin is the cause of death, saying that God caused death is wrong. Because there was sin every one is going to die. When doesn't really matter as long as they know God, because you have forever in heaven.

You said that it was no good to present evidence about a change that happened a billion years ago, I was saying that if you cannot accept that the world (and life) has been around for over a billion years than you certainly will not accept the ToE. The evidence for the age of the earth, and fossils, is tight. As close to a fact as humans can achieve.

And yes you can see how what ever changed over time, given the known limitation about how and when fossils form. As perfection notes, when combining this with other independent avenues of investigation we can build a very solid case for how life developed... for how long ago we diverged from an arbitrary other lifeform.

It is because you do not know that it happened, maybe you see change but it could have been so many other things that happened besides evolution. Also it could be that it just looks like evolution and it's really not.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But you do not actually lose the gene. It is still there, the gene is just the same for everyone in the population, you merely lose the harmful phenotype.

What does "deleted completely" mean in your dialect of English?