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

Phydeaux said:
He ment is that the loss of wings is not the kind of evolution that you need to fulfill Darwin's dream world.
OK, that makes three possibilities - he's a liar, he's an ignorant, or he does not write what he means. Any would be grounds enough to ignore him.

As for dinos being reptiles, well that's a question of definition. The traditional conception of "reptiles" is cladistically problematical. Crocodiles are closer to eagles than to lizzards.
 
Just for reference, there is a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, however they are not in the manner Phydeaux's article suggests, microevolution deals with "small scale" evolution in modern hierarchal evolutionary theory, namely those in genes, cell-lineages, organisms and demes. Macroevolution deals with species and clades. The fundamental difference is the units used to apply to the natural selection mechanisms.

As for mutations, it applies to all levels as it a source for variation needed to run the natural selection mechanism. Modern microevolutionary theory incorperates mutations just as much as every other level.
 
Phydeaux said:
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.
Just because there are harmful mutations doesn't mean there aren't beneficial ones, also always remember this: "mutants aren't monsters" (I forgot who coined that). A mutant may be one with different pigmentations or a modified enzyme that functions better.

Phydeaux said:
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.
Not really, a lucky mistranslation and you're there!

And yes, they have been seen!

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Here's my favorite, it shows an expiriment that created multiple beneficial mutations!

2.) Exotic five-carbon sugars


Some five carbon sugars are very rare in nature, so very few organisms have the ability to use these exotic compounds in their metabolism. Robert Mortlock determined that the bacteria Klebsiella aerogenes was not immediately able to metabolize D-arabinose and xylitol by growing strains in media containing those compounds and noting the strains that were able to grow only after a lag time. This indicated that the original strain did not have the ability to process the compounds, but was able to evolve such a capability. Mortlock then went on to see how this capability was evolved.
In the case of D-arabinose, Mortlock showed that the arabinose could be utilized if it could be converted to D-ribulose by an enzyme (an isomerase). Unfortunately, K. aerogenes has no such isomerase for the conversion of D-arabinose. However, the isomerase for L-fucose has a low activity for D-arabinose. But, the bad news is that the L-fucose isomerase is normally produced only when the cell is exposed to fucose. Nonetheless, in a few individuals, mutations occurred that allowed the fucose isomerase to be produced at all times - not just when L-fucose is present. This is normally a bad thing and would be selected against because it wastes the cells resources by constantly producing an unneeded enzyme. In this situation though, the mutation is a very good thing, and allows the cell to survive because it can now metabolize arabinose (albeit rather poorly). Although production of the fucose isomerase has been deregulated, the structure of the isomerase itself has not been changed. The next mutation was a change to the isomerase to make it more effective in the conversion of arabitol to ribulose. Finally (although I can't tell from Bell's description if this was actually done in the experiments), the culture could be selected to regain control of the expression of the isomerase - so that it is produced only when arabitol is present.

Xylitol is also not normally metabolized, but Mortlock and his colleagues were able to develop strains (generally through spontaneous mutations, but sometimes with u.v. ray or chemical induced mutations) that could use it because ribitol dehydrogenase (which is usually present in the cells to convert ribitol to D-ribulose) was able to slightly speed up the conversion of xylitol to D-xylulose, for which metabolic pathways already exist. The ability of the strains to utilize xylitol was increased as much as 20 fold when first production of ribitol dehydrogenase was deregulated (the enzyme was produced all the time, not just when ribitol was present), then duplication of the ribitol dehydrogenase genes occurred, then the structure of the enzyme was changed such that its efficiency at working with xylitol was improved, and finally, in at least one case, a line regained control of the modified ribitol dehydrogenase gene so that the enzyme was only produced in the presence of xylitol. Here we have a complete example of a new metabolic pathway being developed through duplication and modification of an existing pathway.

Many papers were published concerning this group of experiments. For a review, see:
Hartley, B.S. (1984), Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R.P. Mortlock (ed.), "Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution" (pp. 23 - 54) Plenum, New York.

Bell goes on to give at least two more examples of the evolution of new metabolic pathways.
 
Gothmog said:
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.

I do not accept that I will never understand Him. I accept that I do not understand every thing about Him now. I don't understand some things though.

Gothmog said:
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.
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.

I don't think that there are fosels that show that one thing changed into an other. I've seen the sites with them most of them are like with the diffent kind of dogs kind of thing. Also they just say that there are some they don't tell you how much of it was found or show you the fosel or any thing.

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

I mean as in they do not create some thing useful.

Gothmog said:
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?

I do believe that this happens, but I just wanted to see like a time just because. You don't have to I just wanted to see when some thing like this happened.
 
The Last Conformist said:
OK, that makes three possibilities - he's a liar, he's an ignorant, or he does not write what he means. Any would be grounds enough to ignore him.

So what do you mean, if you loose money you will gain money? You need gain to get from a simpler thing to a greator thing.

The Last Conformist said:
As for dinos being reptiles, well that's a question of definition. The traditional conception of "reptiles" is cladistically problematical. Crocodiles are closer to eagles than to lizzards.

You know what he ment though? He ment dinos.
 
Perfection said:
Just for reference, there is a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, however they are not in the manner Phydeaux's article suggests, microevolution deals with "small scale" evolution in modern hierarchal evolutionary theory, namely those in genes, cell-lineages, organisms and demes. Macroevolution deals with species and clades. The fundamental difference is the units used to apply to the natural selection mechanisms.

As for mutations, it applies to all levels as it a source for variation needed to run the natural selection mechanism. Modern microevolutionary theory incorperates mutations just as much as every other level.

Micro-evolution is not only a smaller form of macro-evolution. It is a an other thing, because you need a mutation for macro-evolution.
 
Phydeaux said:
Micro-evolution is not only a smaller form of macro-evolution. It is a an other thing, because you need a mutation for macro-evolution.
You need mutation for both. Mutation is part of all levels of evolution, also it is not a "smaller form" as the mechanics are quite different.
 
By 'not understand it' I really just meant 'God works in mysterious ways', as in 'why was my two year old son run over by that tractor' etc.

I didn't mention fossils at all, I was refering to geologic evidence. And what do fossils have to do with the continuous variation in the genetic code of extant life anyway.

I gave you an example of when they created something useful. Specifically a famous example of evolution through intron shuffling. Introns are bits of DNA that just jump around our genome, presumably conserved because they promote new gene formation.

Chromosome dupication events are a current topic of study, it should be no problem for you to find information about these. Gene duplication is a bit newer, but still should be no problem to find out about. Just a bit hard to understand.
 
As long as creationists don't (want to) understand the basic principles of molecular biology, discussing evolution with them is useless. I also hate these analogies they use (scrabble, crashing Boeing 747 on an island, etc). They oversimplify a very complicated issue, and then draw false conclusions from their own oversimplification.
 
I think I can summarize this topic quite easily in one sentence:

Phydeaux has again shown that he doesn't know what evolution is, much less what the terms macroevolution and microevolution originally meant and how some religiously motivated pseudo-scientists have stood that on its head to confuse the ignorant public.

Please, Phydeaux, save us all the time and do not rehash the smae nonsense over and over.
I do not make a 'George Bush is a war criminal and lied to the American public about the war" thread every day either - and that would be a TRUE claim, as opposed to that macro/micro nonsense of yours!
 
And there is the beating to a pulp I mentioned earlier!

Huzzah! :)
 
Phydeaux said:
It is hard to believe that harmful mutations created humans.

It is not. Just give it several billions of years, and it seems rather logical. Whether we have examples of all the links in this process, is not too imprtant. It just makes sense genes develop in any direction.
There is simle plain evidence they do!
Only the developed genes that can live, will live. (duhuh!)

You know what is really hard to believe? That humans were created by a deity ;) ! Since such a power by definition should be more complex than nature/humans, it is not a serious option to believe it has ever existed....
 
Microevolution is substanciating the theory of evolution by observing the inheretence of genes: Such a a child looking like their parents ... thus, over time, one population can evolve to look completely different to another population.

However, microevolution does not explain Speciation (aka macromutations) because if the observed forces of microevolution were to apply... the same genetic change must occur throughout the population... which is a contradiction!

According to observed microevolution, everything should be a variation of the same species.

Some critics, mostly creationists, accept that microevolution occurs in the short term, whereas macroevolution, specifically leading to speciation, is expressly rejected. They claim that known sources of variation can only account for variation within species, and can not account for the variation between larger taxonomic groups, thus making macroevolution impossible.

In the creationist hypothesis of intelligent design this distinction is absolute and central. Intelligent design advocates argue that microevolution may be explained by constant, observable, natural forces, but that macroevolution must be explained by other forces.

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of evolution which postulates that changes such as speciation can occur very quickly, and is an attempt to correct the flaw in macroevolution, but despite supporting mathematical models of evolution (from fossil records) it falls short of convincing sceptics how/why speciation takes place.

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
 
stormbind said:
Microevolution is substanciating the theory of evolution by observing the inheretence of genes: Such a a child looking like their parents ... thus, over time, one population can evolve to look completely different to another population.
That is one aspect of microevolution, however mutations are also present as forces in microevolution

stormbind said:
However, microevolution does not explain Speciation (aka macromutations) because if the observed forces of microevolution were to apply... the same genetic change must occur throughout the population... which is a contradiction!
Not true, forces like divergent selecton, a well known microevolutionary force can cause genetic changes that allow for speciation, also things like isolation and the founder effect are microevolutionary aspects that allow for speciation. Remember also, there are often multiple populations within a species!

stormbind said:
According to observed microevolution, everything should be a variation of the same species.
Not really, diversifying and divergent selection as well as geographic isolation and bottlenecking effects can account for differences between two species


stormbind said:
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of evolution which postulates that changes such as speciation can occur very quickly, and is an attempt to correct the flaw in macroevolution, but despite supporting mathematical models of evolution (from fossil records) it falls short of convincing sceptics how/why speciation takes place.

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
True, punctuated equilibrium is just an adaptation of the natural selection idea and shows how the nature of evolutionary rates can change.
 
Perfection said:
Not true, forces like divergent selecton, a well known microevolutionary force can cause genetic changes that allow for speciation
Not quite. If microevolution resulted in a specimen of a different species: It would have nothing to breed with!
Remember also, there are often multiple populations within a species!
That is precisely what microevolution explains. They are all the same species.

It doesn't explain speciation. The only way it allows for speciation is if many members of the same population experience the same critical genetic mutation, at the same time, which is a contradition of evolution.

Question 1: Why can a duck not mate with a chicken?
Question 2: How did that change come about?

You could hide behind the issue of common ancestory, but to rephrase the question: (Ignoring the fact that it's dead), why can dinosaur not mate with chicken?
 
stormbind said:
Not quite. If microevolution resulted in a specimen of a different species: It would have nothing to breed with!
Speciation is usually because of divergent populations (the deme level of hierarchal selection, which falls under microevolution) not divergent individuals.

stormbind said:
That is precisely what microevolution explains. They are all the same species.
Not always, demistic selection usually the mechanism that produces new species, this microevolutinoary idea is seen in at speciation, which is treated as both a microevolutionary and macroevolutionary realm as point where the two tie together.

stormbind said:
It doesn't explain speciation. The only way it allows for speciation is if many members of the same population experience the same genetic mutation, at the same time, which is a contradition of evolution.
Not at the same time, but the mutation spreads to many members of the population producing a population with different characteristics from other populations of the species, eventually the population differences can become great enough to declare specieation.
 
Perfection said:
Speciation is usually because of divergent populations (the deme level of hierarchal selection, which falls under microevolution) not divergent individuals.
You are repeating yourself like a politician! ;)

I'll try another way... explain the biological mechanism that prevents the populations (you mentioned) from cross breeding.
 
stormbind said:
I'll try another way... explain the biological mechanism that prevents the populations (you mentioned) from cross breeding.

Geographical barriers would be a mechanism. read up on ringed species to understand how geographical barriers create speciation from an original uniform deme.
 
No. I meant the preventative mechanism in their organism's biology!

To help you out, it would be covered in exhaustive detail as part of (Human) Biology (A Level) and is related to chromazones.

There's so many on this BBS who are be anti-creation, pro-evolution, and yet they don't understand the scientific inconsistency in macroevolution which fuels the scientific debate.
 
stormbind said:
No. I meant the preventative mechanism in their organism's biology!

If enough genetic drift has occurred between the two species owing to geographical barriers then their genetic makeup will be different enough to preclude intermixing. So your biological mechanism comes after some other mechanism has worked on the population for a bit.

Also geographical barriers are only one example. Speciation can also be because of selective preference of habitat.

Two parts of the population living in the same lake may like two different habitats. One being benthic and another being surface dwelling (say). In time they will lead to two entirely differentiated species.

Lake Tanganaika (sp?) provides a classic example of this. You may want to look that up too.

Edit: x-post.

You talk of scientific inconsistency. Where is the inconsistency in macroevolution? Can you clearly specify where that is?
 
Back
Top Bottom