What constrains "micro-evolution"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution: Do you see the resemblence
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
ericmurphy
Member
Macroevolution is just as observable as micoevolution is. You just can't observe it in the lab. The strongest evidence for macroevolution has nothing to do with microevolution. You don't look to the lab for evidence of macroevolution; you look to the rocks.
You want a clear distinction for your learning purposes? Here's one: "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."
There's nothing mythical about it. Clear examples of forms intermediate between taxa are readily available in the fossil record. There is a clear sequence of steps between the earliest tetrapods all the way out to the crown groups we see today. A. lithographica is only the most famous. That refuse to accept the evidence does not make the evidence not exist.
In the meantime, you have presented no barriers to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution, and you've abandoned your argument that genetic information cannot increase. What's left of your argument?
Also, a point of nomenclatural nitpicking: macroevolution does not "turn" one "kind" of creature into another. Macroevolution involves radiation of an ancestral group into descendant subgroups. Birds are still dinosaurs. Humans are still primates. Both are still amniotes, vertebrates, bilaterians, metazoans. In fact, it is because we can classify organisms this way that we are certain common descent with modification is a reality. Creationists, by contrast, have no explanation for this organizational structure.
Of course, Indeed many claims of evolution can be falsified and have been.* The point is, so can many claims of alternate theories like Intelligent Design and Creationism.* Like the apparent design evident in nature, show that evolution has a natural explanation for things like the irreducible complexity of the motors found in the flagella which consists of 40 complex protein parts the absence of any of which would cause the flagella to cease functioning, and you would have falsified that claim.* Therefore, on this criteria of falsifiability, creationism is just as scientific as evolution.
Aside from the example of irreducible complexity I mentioned, there is also the evidence from the information found in the genetic code, which is unlike any other type of information found in nature, the level of which is only possible through an intelligent cause.
What constrains "micro-evolution"?
ericmurphy
Member
In other words, a "kind" is a species. Biblical literalists will be dismayed to discover this, once they realize Noah had to fit tens of millions of organisms onto the ark.
But of course, a "kind" is not really a species, since we know new species have come into existence within the last hundred years.
So a "kind" is not a species. What is it? A genus, a family, an order? No one knows; certainly creationists don't.
If creationists know what a "kind" is, then why can't they give us a list of "kinds"? Taxonomists can give you a detailed list of all the kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species, along with subspecies, suborders, superfamilies, infraorders, subclasses, etc. After 3,000 years, creationists have developed no classification scheme at all, and cannot even produce a list of "kinds."
Are foxes and wolves the same "kind"? If so, how does one have 36 chromosomes, and the other 78? Are humans the same "kind" as any other organism? Then why is it that humans can be classified by taxonomists with all other organisms based on morphological and genetic evidence, and both kinds of evidence result in the same classification?
These are all difficult questions for creationism which show no sign of ever being answered.
But you're missing the point. It isn't just about the limit, it is also about the KIND OF EVENT whose probability lies beyond the limit. As Dembski puts it:
If I flip a coin 1,000 times, I’ll participate in a highly complex (or what amounts to the same thing, highly improbable) event. Indeed, the sequence I end up flipping will be one in a trillion trillion trillion . . . , where the ellipsis needs twenty-two more "trillions." This sequence of coin tosses won’t, however, trigger a design inference. Though complex, this sequence won’t exhibit a suitable pattern. Contrast this with the sequence representing the prime numbers from 2 to 101. Not only is this sequence complex, it also embodies a suitable pattern. The SETI researcher who in the movie Contact discovered this sequence put it this way: "This isn’t noise, this has structure." (Science and Design)
It is the category of specified things that have small probability that reliably signals design.
And I have not abandon anything. On the contrary I have provided clear distinctions needed -- new genetic information -- for evolutionist to advance their cause or wild imaginations. But you choose to continue to be willingly ignorant insisting of citing evidences for micro-evolution which is NOT in contention here. Therefore, I can only say, so far, all of you have failed miserably.
:sorry1:
PS I will be on vacation. See you next year.
ericmurphy
Member
Such as?
Like what? Give me an example.
That's already been done. First, there is not one "flagellum"; there are dozens, all with different numbers of proteins. Therefore, on that basis alone, flagella are not irreducibly complex. Further, removing parts from various flagella will not make them inoperative for other purposes.
But none of this falsifies intelligent design. An intelligent designer still could have designed flagella this way. Showing something could have evolved does not falsify the claim it was designed.
Not remotely. Show my why something cannot have been designed if it could have evolved.
What observation about the genetic code could falsify this claim? And incidentally, where's the support for this claim? Where is your evidence that the genetic code cannot have arisen except through intelligent intervention? DNA is just another organic polymer; there's nothing all that special about it. It's certainly not a particularly complex polymer. It just has unusual properties. So does water.
Again: what constrains "micro-evolution"?
Aasimar
Atheist
Of course, Indeed many claims of evolution can be falsified and have been.* The point is, so can many claims of alternate theories like Intelligent Design and Creationism.* Like the apparent design evident in nature, show that evolution has a natural explanation for things like the irreducible complexity of the motors found in the flagella which consists of 40 complex protein parts the absence of any of which would cause the flagella to cease functioning, and you would have falsified that claim.* Therefore, on this criteria of falsifiability, creationism is just as scientific as evolution.
Aside from the example of irreducible complexity I mentioned, there is also the evidence from the information found in the genetic code, which is unlike any other type of information found in nature, the level of which is only possible through an intelligent cause.
Did you really just reference the bacterial flagellum? Ever heard of the Dover School Board Intelligent Design trial?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Another vain attempt to invent distinctions not recognized by science itself.
Who was it who said,
?
And yet, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.
Celestial mechanics? What century is this? The modern world is already up to astronomy and cosmology.
But since those speculative predictions have been confirmed over and over again, ToE is now the accepted basis of all modern biology.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, until we figure out what "information" is, we have no idea what we observe about it.
Who cares what kind of science you call it? This is distinction without a difference.
As I've said, I've embarked on the lengthy process of presenting the huge amount of evidence in favor of ToE, what you are incorrectly calling "macro-evolution".
I don't know why you are having so much trouble finding it. Are you perhaps a creationist? That would explain how you can deny the existence of something that exists in this very thread.
O.K., explain why it isn't. What is this purported irrefutable evidence? Explain what prevents 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.....+ 1 from adding up to 100. So far you just keep babbling on about something called "information" which seems to me to be just a smokescreen. I'll define "information" for you, it means "a sciencey sounding word that I can invoke like a magic spell to ward off evil biologists."
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical and speculations. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.
You want a clear distinction for your learning purposes? Here's one: "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."
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
[wiki]
Are these the definitions you are using? Micro for up to species change, and macro for change at or above species?
ericmurphy
Member
No it's not. A royal flush is extremely improbable, and it is easily specified. That doesn't make it the product of design.
What you are talking about is the "single bridge hand" fallacy, coupled with the erroneous belief that evolution is a teleological process. Given imperfect reproduction and time, it is inevitable that something will evolve. The chances that human beings will evolve specifically is too small to measure. But the probability that something will evolve is unity, and whether or not humans specifically evolved is irrelevant.
These casino-odds-making arguments simply don't work with evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is not "trying" to evolve in any particular direction.
I haven't cited any evidence at all for microevolution yet. Every piece of evidence I've cited, such as the twin nested hierarchies of genetics and morphology, is evidence for macroevolution. The only thing I've said that has anything to do with microevolution is that your argument that genetic information cannot increase is clearly false.
Have a nice vacation, and be prepared to deal with Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" when you get back. You might want to read it first, but plan on it taking a week to read. It's a lot of evidence.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K. What is a "kind?"
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm sorry, what is a "kind?" I must have missed your definition. Are you saying that a "kind" is a species, and it is not possible for a new species to evolve from an existing species?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
But until you define "information" you haven't distinguished anything, have you?
And so 4pillars is unfortunately called away before he can address Jay's valid question. What a surprise.