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

[Phydeaux]

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.

 

[Black Fluffy Lion]

having just glanced over the page (it's supper time and I'm hungry ), its major point seems to be that positive genetic mutations cannot occur, so a species will always "devolve" instead of evolve...I ask you: why? Evidence of such mutations has been observed (if you're interested, try reading this)

 

[Gothmog]

Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are concepts that really relate to the fossil record, and the naming of species; they do not relate to current thinking on evolution.

There is no difference between macro and micro evolution.

The site you link to simply makes the assumption that mutations cannot add new genes to a gene pool. This is a bad assumption.

In existing life we have clear evidence of enzymes mutating and eventually becoming different enough to have a completely different function within an organism. This is part of the advantage of having multiple copies of various genes, you can harbor a mutated copy while you still have a good copy. Some members of your species may die (or be less fit) due to expressing the mutated copy, but this detriment is outweighed by the potential for innovation.

Here is a classic example:

About a billion years ago life was limited to 20 amino acids. At that time two new protein amino acids evolved: hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine. Probably originating from within fungal-like protists, this development permitted the subsequent evolution of the structural glycoproteins collagen and extensin. Functional "make-do" substitutes for these proteins using some combination of the 20 "standard" amino acids had not been achieved. Thus, the evolution of these two amino acids and their insertion into fibrous proteins was a major biochemical breakthrough for complex life. These "rare" amino acids require molecular oxygen and oxygenase enzymes for their synthesis. The proteins also use oxygen and oxidases for the intermolecular cross-links that are important for fibril strengthening and chemical resistance.

There is some further speculation that these "rare" amino acids were in part responsible for the diversification of the Metazoa and Metaphyta and were also part of the reason why complex multicellular life was delayed until the latter part of the Precambrian era (when molecular oxygen was more abundant).

So these "rare" amino acids have been with us (i.e. complex life) ever since. Yet another example of how a small change in genetic code can lead to speciation, and that not all mutations are bad.

One reason for this is that it is a famous example of evolution through intron shuffling and so is very well studied.

From a genetic point of view there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. It is very well known that mutation can indeed add new genes to a gene pool. Though if you bury your head in the sand (as the author of the linked sight might have), you would not notice that evidence.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'd think more of that sight if they refrained from statements like

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

I cannot but believe it's a deliberate lie, but if not, it betrays a deeply lacking understanding of what they try to disprove. Neither liars or people who do not know what they're talking about should be listened to.

 

[FredLC]

Yeah, sure, it's the evolutionists who don't...

 

[Sanaz]

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.

If you state incorrect assuptions as fact, and then continue to build an argumet from the false assumptions, then what you have is a false theory. That article was funny, but I can't imagine anyone would ever take it seriously. It seemed more like the author was trying to create a blind cult following than trying to prove anything. Here's the first two sentences:

Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.

This should be enough to discount the entire argument which follows.

 

[Pirate]

I have seen that article referenced before and am surprised that you are using it again considering how flawed it is. But perhaps that is why you start this thread with it, to understand where the inconsistencies are between that article and common understanding of evolution. So here are some of the flaws I see in the reasoning of the article:

1: "Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird." This is a distortion of the actual process of macroevolution. Through macroevolution, 2 species will diverge from a common ancestor - and following 2 different and distinct evolutionary paths, they will eventually become 2 different species. Reptiles do not turn into birds. Modern day birds and reptiles both evolved from a common ancestor.

2: The Scrabble Analogy: This analogy is misleading because it fails to account for genetic recombination. Yes, when you have kids they only get half of your genes, but they gain the other half from their other parent. Your kids are still playing with a full set of tiles.

3. "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." This statement shows an utter lack of understanding about what the second law of thermodynamics is. The appearance of order within a system does not mean it is inconsistent with the second law. The above quote is a gross generalization and misrepresentation about the scope of the law.

4: Mutation- wrong assumptions in the article, best described in Gothmog's post.

These are just several examples of the way that article bends truths and misleads readers. Anyone trying to disprove evolution should not use that article if they wish to appear that they fully understand what they are talking about.

 

[Phydeaux]

having just glanced over the page (it's supper time and I'm hungry ), its major point seems to be that positive genetic mutations cannot occur, so a species will always "devolve" instead of evolve...I ask you: why? Evidence of such mutations has been observed (if you're interested, try reading this)

Mutations do not help, unless they create some thing that will help what ever it maybe, such as fins to swim. It is hard to believe that harmful mutations created humans.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, since a beneficial mutation is defined as one which boosts reproductive success, of course evolution is primarily driven by them, while maleficial ones get weeded out.

Now, one of the things I hate about your typical creationist is that he will claim that beneficial mutations cannot occur, without caring to offer any explanation of that counterintuitive claim.

 

[Phydeaux]

Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are concepts that really relate to the fossil record, and the naming of species; they do not relate to current thinking on evolution.

There is no difference between macro and micro evolution.

The site you link to simply makes the assumption that mutations cannot add new genes to a gene pool. This is a bad assumption.

In existing life we have clear evidence of enzymes mutating and eventually becoming different enough to have a completely different function within an organism. This is part of the advantage of having multiple copies of various genes, you can harbor a mutated copy while you still have a good copy. Some members of your species may die (or be less fit) due to expressing the mutated copy, but this detriment is outweighed by the potential for innovation.

Here is a classic example:

About a billion years ago life was limited to 20 amino acids. At that time two new protein amino acids evolved: hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine. Probably originating from within fungal-like protists, this development permitted the subsequent evolution of the structural glycoproteins collagen and extensin. Functional "make-do" substitutes for these proteins using some combination of the 20 "standard" amino acids had not been achieved. Thus, the evolution of these two amino acids and their insertion into fibrous proteins was a major biochemical breakthrough for complex life. These "rare" amino acids require molecular oxygen and oxygenase enzymes for their synthesis. The proteins also use oxygen and oxidases for the intermolecular cross-links that are important for fibril strengthening and chemical resistance.

There is some further speculation that these "rare" amino acids were in part responsible for the diversification of the Metazoa and Metaphyta and were also part of the reason why complex multicellular life was delayed until the latter part of the Precambrian era (when molecular oxygen was more abundant).

Saying that "a billion years ago" some thing happened isn't going to do any thing for the creationist. You can not see a billion year old amino acids.

these "rare" amino acids have been with us (i.e. complex life) ever since. Yet another example of how a small change in genetic code can lead to speciation, and that not all mutations are bad.

That's not the point. The point is that they are not creative.

One reason for this is that it is a famous example of evolution through intron shuffling and so is very well studied.

From a genetic point of view there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. It is very well known that mutation can indeed add new genes to a gene pool. Though if you bury your head in the sand (as the author of the linked sight might have), you would not notice that evidence.

I didn't think that it didn't add new genes, I guess I didn't get what he was saying right. I though that he ment that the genes was not helpful so the mutation was not passed down or some thing like that. btw. I would like to see some time when the mutations added to the gene pool.

 

[Black Fluffy Lion]

Mutations do not help, unless they create some thing that will help what ever it maybe, such as fins to swim.

Mutations do not help unless they help? What exactly are you trying to say?

you have not answered my earlier question, so I shall pose it again: why do you think that positive genetic mutations cannot occur?

 

[Phydeaux]

I'd think more of that sight if they refrained from statements like



I cannot but believe it's a deliberate lie, but if not, it betrays a deeply lacking understanding of what they try to disprove. Neither liars or people who do not know what they're talking about should be listened to.

He ment is that the loss of wings is not the kind of evolution that you need to fulfill Darwin's dream world.

 

[Phydeaux]

This should be enough to discount the entire argument which follows.

How, is that not true?

 

[embitteredpoet]

ARGH! This is all very confusing, how can you even pretend to be debating this topic sensibly? The evolution refution side of the argument, comes from someone who has no actual knowledge of science and is using flawed analysis to form their conclusions.
Darwin didn't *want* to come up with evolution just to piss off creationists (in fact I think he was a religious man himself and was alarmed by his conclusions and hence delayed publication of his owrk, though I could be wrong on this) he decided that his theory was the best hypothesis to fit the facts and that is all it is. There is so much supporting evidence for evolution these days that the vast majority of the scientific community take 'evolution' as fact. This does not mean they have closed their minds to alternatives, which is why there are many posts on these forums about this. Scientific people look at the evidence before making conclusions, creationists make their conclusions and then create/distort/invent facts to fit them.

 

[Phydeaux]

I have seen that article referenced before and am surprised that you are using it again considering how flawed it is. But perhaps that is why you start this thread with it, to understand where the inconsistencies are between that article and common understanding of evolution. So here are some of the flaws I see in the reasoning of the article:

1: "Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird." This is a distortion of the actual process of macroevolution. Through macroevolution, 2 species will diverge from a common ancestor - and following 2 different and distinct evolutionary paths, they will eventually become 2 different species. Reptiles do not turn into birds. Modern day birds and reptiles both evolved from a common ancestor.

Ah, but why not 3 different and distinct evolutionary paths. Are dinos not reptiles?

2: The Scrabble Analogy: This analogy is misleading because it fails to account for genetic recombination. Yes, when you have kids they only get half of your genes, but they gain the other half from their other parent. Your kids are still playing with a full set of tiles.

I guess, sorry.

3. "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." This statement shows an utter lack of understanding about what the second law of thermodynamics is. The appearance of order within a system does not mean it is inconsistent with the second law. The above quote is a gross generalization and misrepresentation about the scope of the law.

Yeah, I don't really like how creationist use it ether. But this one didn't use it so much, and he was mostly using it to say that micro-evolution is not truned down by it.

4: Mutation- wrong assumptions in the article, best described in Gothmog's post.

These are just several examples of the way that article bends truths and misleads readers. Anyone trying to disprove evolution should not use that article if they wish to appear that they fully understand what they are talking about.

 

[CurtSibling]

I predict the opening argument of this thread will be beaten into pulp within a short time!

 

[betazed]

Darwin didn't *want* to come up with evolution just to piss off creationists (in fact I think he was a religious man himself and was alarmed by his conclusions and hence delayed publication of his owrk, though I could be wrong on this) he decided that his theory was the best hypothesis to fit the facts and that is all it is.

You are essentially right. I am not sure whether he was alarmed. But he sure did not want to piss off the religious organizations and he did not publish and put it off for as long as he could. He only published when he saw that if he did not another person will. Even then in 'The Origin of Species' he never mentions Humans even though it could not have eluded him that humans are the result of the same 'natural selection' process that he described in Origins.

Oh and to this thread. A smiley I rarely use (but I cannot help it here).

 

[Gothmog]

It is hard to believe that harmful mutations created humans.

Yes, much easier to believe that beneficial mutation created humans. What you meant was 'it is hard to believe that random mutations created humans'.

Though belief is elusive, I would agree that it is hard to understand how random mutations created humans. That takes study and thought, much easier to believe in an all powerful benevolent God - and then accept that you will never understand that God.

Saying that "a billion years ago" some thing happened isn't going to do any thing for the creationist.

Why not? Unless you really think the earth is only 5000 years (or whatever) old in the face of totally overwhelming evidence. If so, there is little hope of you ever grasping science.

You can not see a billion year old amino acids.

Yes, but you can see the continuous variation in the genetic code between organisms that diverged a billion years ago and more recent life. You can note that at that point in time a small mutation made a huge difference to those life forms that carried it. Again it seems that the idea that the genetic code of all life is continuous is foreign to you. Look into it and you will find overwhelming evidence.

That's not the point. The point is that they are not creative.

??? They are indeed creative, in micro or macro evolution to use your terminology.

I would like to see some time when the mutations added to the gene pool.

Do you not believe in gene duplication events either? How about chromosome duplication events? Intron shuffling? Etc. etc. etc.

The evidence for all these processes is overwhelming, whether perpetrated by God or molecular biology, they all add to the gene pool.

If you aren’t going to accept the example I gave in my first post, what type of example would you accept?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Exactly the same link as last time you tried to "educate" us. We discredited it last time, you could at least have come with something new.

 

[Phydeaux]

Well, since a beneficial mutation is defined as one which boosts reproductive success, of course evolution is primarily driven by them, while maleficial ones get weeded out.
Now, one of the things I hate about your typical creationist is that he will claim that beneficial mutations cannot occur, without caring to offer any explanation of that counterintuitive claim.

Hmm... It is not any thing driven, just as long as there is a good mutation that will not be weeded out it will stey. Alot of the things that had a good change would die just because the thing was better before, because if it has a leg with out musicels it's going to die. It's the same with alot of other things, the leg would have to be put there with every thing need to use the leg. Also it is very hard to get a mutation that is helpful, because you just have alot of random things happening. That is why none has seen a good mutation, and mostlikely there arn't enough if any through out history to do what what the books says.