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

[Gothmog]

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

I don’t know off hand which is closer, or even what you mean by closer. To find when they diverged you could use a plot much like what I posted above, and combine it with some fossil and other phylogenic evidence. I believe there is still disagreement on this point, but I would back the geneticist (artiodactyls – hippo ancestors) over the paleontologists (mesonychians – wolf ancestors) in this case. The jury is still out and active research continues… and your point is?

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.

This is nonsense, please be a bit more clear.

The use of terms such as ‘higher level’ mean nothing to me. Bacteria are by far the most successful form of life on the planet, are they the highest form of life?

As I have said a number of times, all evolution is thought to result from changes to the genome. This includes micro and macroevolution, what distinction are you trying to make between them?

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.

Thank you that is more or less what I was saying in the first place. I never meant to imply that God caused Timmy’s death. You accept that you will never understand God. Timmy may have never sinned in his life, I may have loved Timmy, Timmy may have made my life worth living, but Timmy was taken from me for no reason I can understand. To believe in a benevolent God I must then accept that Timmy is now in heaven and was taken from me to fulfill his higher purpose.

Here is my original quote that started that exchange

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.

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.

Yes, humans can never know the truth (in our earthly forms at least). Especially not about God. It is our lot in life. However, we can apply the scientific method to test and improve hypotheses about the ways that the world works.

I have often said, it may be that God put all this evidence of evolution, of a 4.5 billion year old earth, of a detailed datable fossil record, of a hierarchy of proteins that matches that fossil record, simply as a test of faith. God may indeed have done this 5000 years ago to the day and I would never know. I could never tell the difference. What can I do about that? I am a man, it is God. Still, that God would play such tricks on us is not a useful hypothesis. It generates no new information about the nature of the physical world, and it makes no specific testable predictions.

For me, I’ll keep my spiritual beliefs and my science separate. You can do what you like, but whenever you choose to misrepresent science as you have done in this thread. If I’m around I’ll call you on it.

 

[Perfection]

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

Sure it is. In evolution traits/genes are both lost and gained; THIS IS TRUE ON EVERY SCALE OF EVOLUTION.

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.

I repeat: In evolution traits/genes are both lost and gained; THIS IS TRUE ON EVERY SCALE OF EVOLUTION.


The article's representation of microevolution is FALSE!

 

[CrazyScientist]

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?

No, it means that hippos and whales share a more recent common ancestor than whales and wolves.
Homology is one of many strong pieces of evidence for macroevolution, because you can make testable predictions about it. A dolphin's pectoral fin and a shark's pectoral fin look almost the same and have the same function. A person who knew nothing about evolution might assume that the genes controlling the development of a dolphin's fin and a shark's fin would be way more similar in sequence to each other than either would be to, say, the genes controlling the development of a human arm. But if one knew something about evolution one would already know that humans and dolphins share a far more recent common ancestor than either do with sharks, and would hence predict that the human arm genes and the dolphin fin genes would be more similar. You PCR the genes, sequence them, and voila! The prediction is born out. The human limb genes and dolphin limb genes sequences are far closer to one another than either are to the shark genes.
Macroevolution wins!
Now multiply that experiment by many thousand times over countless genes and countless species, and you have one small part of the existing evidence in favor of macroevolution. If you want to come up with a valid new theory to replace macroevolution, get your degree and be my guest. Just remember that whatever theory you come up with must explain all that data and all the other data supporting the macroevolution as well as the existing theory does. Best of luck.

 

[Phydeaux]

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



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.

Yes, but the point is not that it has more advantage, the point is that it is not gaining any thing, and gain is what you need for macro-evolution.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How about you presented some reasons for why one couldn't have genetic gains instead of more or less pointless examples and then dismissing the answers to them?

 

[Phydeaux]

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?



And good mutations do happen...

So a bunch of micro-evolutoin does not = macro-evolution because there doesn't have to be a good mutation in micro-evolution, a good mutation would just be a charry on the top. So don't say that micro-evolution is the same as macro-evolution, or a bunch of micro-evolution ='s macro-evolution, because that is not true.

 

[The Last Conformist]

So a bunch of micro-evolutoin does not = macro-evolution because there doesn't have to be a good mutation in micro-evolution, a good mutation would just be a charry on the top. So don't say that micro-evolution is the same as macro-evolution, or a bunch of micro-evolution ='s macro-evolution, because that is not true.

Who said it had to be a good mutation in macroevolution?!?

 

[Phydeaux]

How about you presented some reasons for why one couldn't have genetic gains instead of more or less pointless examples and then dismissing the answers to them?

Well because most of the parts of a boddy would have to be created all at one time, other wise it would not work and it would die, ether because it gets sick, it can't eat, or some thing eat's it because it's the weakest.

There are other resons too but I don't remmeber them all.

 

[Phydeaux]

Who said it had to be a good mutation in macroevolution?!?

You need a good mutation for macro-evolution, because the genes of a fish could not be moved around and = a human's, you need some good mutations.

 

[Phydeaux]

No, it means that hippos and whales share a more recent common ancestor than whales and wolves.
Homology is one of many strong pieces of evidence for macroevolution, because you can make testable predictions about it. A dolphin's pectoral fin and a shark's pectoral fin look almost the same and have the same function. A person who knew nothing about evolution might assume that the genes controlling the development of a dolphin's fin and a shark's fin would be way more similar in sequence to each other than either would be to, say, the genes controlling the development of a human arm. But if one knew something about evolution one would already know that humans and dolphins share a far more recent common ancestor than either do with sharks, and would hence predict that the human arm genes and the dolphin fin genes would be more similar. You PCR the genes, sequence them, and voila! The prediction is born out. The human limb genes and dolphin limb genes sequences are far closer to one another than either are to the shark genes.
Macroevolution wins!
Now multiply that experiment by many thousand times over countless genes and countless species, and you have one small part of the existing evidence in favor of macroevolution. If you want to come up with a valid new theory to replace macroevolution, get your degree and be my guest. Just remember that whatever theory you come up with must explain all that data and all the other data supporting the macroevolution as well as the existing theory does. Best of luck.

You are right on the hippo thing.

cytochrome C in bacteria is 64% different from horses and pigeons, 65% different from tuna and silkmoths, 66% different from wheat, and 69% different from yeast, shouldn't tuna be closer to bacteria than horses?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Phydeau:

Well because most of the parts of a boddy would have to be created all at one time, other wise it would not work and it would die, ether because it gets sick, it can't eat, or some thing eat's it because it's the weakest.

Body parts don't arise out of the blue, whatever bad movies about mutants may have caused you to think. They evolve gradually, in interaction with the other simultaneously extant systems.

Addendum: BTW, your argument has little to do with genetics; even if it were valid, it would not stop constructive mutations, only kill off the bearers.

You need a good mutation for macro-evolution, because the genes of a fish could not be moved around and = a human's, you need some good mutations.

Could you repeated that, this time coherently?

cytochrome C in bacteria is 64% different from horses and pigeons, 65% different from tuna and silkmoths, 66% different from wheat, and 69% different from yeast, shouldn't tuna be closer to bacteria than horses?

No. They would be expected to have the same distance.

 

[Perfection]

Phydeaux, you still don't understand what microevolution truely is. Microevolution is a term used to describe the lower levels of hierarchal evolutionary theories (that's how the word originated). Its purpose is to describe how evolutionary forces work at genetic, cellular, organismic and demic levels. Now since evolution interacts very much between two nieghboring levels (an example would be cancer as an interaction between the cellular and organismic levels) the demic/s[ecific interaction becomes an important theme in microevolution. Since speciation is an important interaction between demic and specific levels it must be included as a part of microevolution. Hierarchal evolutionary theories also require original sources of genetic modification, this is mutation. Since microevolution is a subset of hierarchal thoery and would lose its intended meaning if hierarchal thoery was incorrect we must include all neccesities of hierarchal evolution as neccesities of microevolution, including mutation in both deleterious and additive forms.