Macro and Micro evolution

[Revoltingest]

Because these "mutations",
cause bad deviations
There's simply no way
The mutation will stay
and cause drastically different creations

I love disagreeing with a limerick!

 

[idav]

Because these "mutations",
cause bad deviations
There's simply no way
The mutation will stay
and cause drastically different creations

They mostly do cause bad deviations which is why most animals go extinct. The few that survive are lucky by all accounts, lucky enough to procreate for several thousand generations. Since all animals share so much dna there is no mechanism to prevent speciation especially since in reality they are not "drastically different creations".

 

[Revoltingest]

They mostly do cause bad deviations which is why most animals go extinct. The few that survive are lucky by all accounts, lucky enough to procreate for several thousand generations. Since all animals share so much dna there is no mechanism to prevent speciation especially since in reality they are not "drastically different creations".

I see a different mechanism at work.
Dysfunctional mutations are selected against within a species, so rather than the species going extinct, the mutation appears with a lower frequency.
(Note though, that as environment changes, a dysfunctional mutation could become useful & favored.)

 

[Quiddity]

Saying how it happened says little about the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Perhaps. But it could have a tremendous impact on human nature and how we perceive the world. Maybe aliens came and cracked their backs and walla! That would definately change my perspective.

What micro vs macro says is that some guy in the savanah that walks on all fours isn't going to magically have a kid that walks upright. It would take several generations of micro changes to be able to see that a macro change occurred.

Actually, that is fairly close to how it was presented to me. One chimp walked first. It seemed to have an advantage over the others and the others followed. All because the heat on their backs was too intense to tolerate.

 

[idav]

I see a different mechanism at work.
Dysfunctional mutations are selected against within a species, so rather than the species going extinct, the mutation appears with a lower frequency.
(Note though, that as environment changes, a dysfunctional mutation could become useful & favored.)

True as most dysfunctional mutations will not prevent procreation but a lot of times just makes procreation far less likely.

 

[idav]

Actually, that is fairly close to how it was presented to me. One chimp walked first. It seemed to have an advantage over the others and the others followed. All because the heat on their backs was too intense to tolerate.

LOL, I don't think it works like that. I find it more likely that all the female chimps wanted to mate with the one that could walk. hehe

 

[theirreverentconcubine]

There ain't no macro/micro - there's evolution, and there's apologists.

 

[Quiddity]

Certainly, hypotheses can be wrong. Most are.
I just don't see a reason to introduce an evolutionary 'barrier' between small & big changes.
It doesn't introduce explanatory or predictive value.

Well, I don't know I'd want that either. It's obvious there is a connection between the two and I'm not arguing that there isn't, I'm just saying that many non-theist protect evolution to the death and fail to be a wee bit honest about it's imperfections. Almost quasi-dogmatic in nature.

 

[painted wolf]

Because hypothesis can be wrong. There is still alot of unanswered questions and exerting the same amount of confidence in is a bit foolish IMO. Take for example what I said about apes in the savanah and the hypothesis that was brought forth. As far as I can recall, we still don't know the answer to that (atleast nothing with solid evidence). Yet we can have the silliest of hypothesis presented. Granted, this doesn't do anything to invalidate evolution per se, but I wouldn't consider it the same.

but thanks to genetics we can measure the micro changes that produced the macro ones... or if it was a singlular macro event like the plants with polyploidy.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

LOL, I don't think it works like that. I find it more likely that all the female chimps wanted to mate with the one that could walk. hehe

Before the first chimps marched,
They needed feet that was arched,
To have upright bipedalism is unique and complex,
Many changes required for that male chimp to get all that sex,
Now its time for a drink cause I'm parched

 

[Quiddity]

LOL, I don't think it works like that. I find it more likely that all the female chimps wanted to mate with the one that could walk. hehe

Was he wearing skinny pants?

Seriously though, how you explain things does make a difference in our nature and especially world view with regard to religion. Even if you don't care or you happen to be an atheist, one shouldn't be irresponsible about it and purposely try to stay away from anything that might sound religious.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm just saying that many non-theist protect evolution to the death and fail to be a wee bit honest about it's imperfections. Almost quasi-dogmatic in nature.[/COLOR]

Except that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the concept of god; they're by no means mutually exclusive, unless of course one were to insist on a literal interpretation of ancient creation myths, but then you're left with a two-dimensional, cartoon caricature of "god" that's not worth taking seriously.

 

[idav]

Before the first chimps marched,
They needed feet that was arched,
To have upright bipedalism is unique and complex,
Many changes required for that male chimp to get all that sex,
Now its time for a drink cause I'm parched

I'm certain not having a barbed penis was helpful as well. Just saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

A re-run from revolting times....


A fundie says there is no evidence he sees
of fauna evolving into a new species.
But absence of evidence
ain't evidence of absence
of our being cousins to apes & chimpanzees.

 

[Quiddity]

but thanks to genetics we can measure the micro changes that produced the macro ones... or if it was a singlular macro event like the plants with polyploidy.

wa:do

And that's fine, but science doesn't just describe and measure but also say how and why.

 

[Quiddity]

Except that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the concept of god; they're by no means mutually exclusive, unless of course one were to insist on a literal interpretation of ancient creation myths, but then you're left with a two-dimensional, cartoon caricature of "god" that's not worth taking seriously.

You are a bit late in the discussion... PW and I went over this earlier.

However, I don't think it's a waste of time to look into creation. I just wouldn't treat as science is all.

 

[Shermana]

I'm certain not having a barbed penis was helpful as well. Just saying.

Not good for the female cat does it feel,
Not in pleasure at the end does it squeal,
When the male cat is done,
From his reproductive fun,
She is doomed to get the raw deal.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps. But it could have a tremendous impact on human nature and how we perceive the world. Maybe aliens came and cracked their backs and walla! That would definately change my perspective.

ah, the "Caveman" approach.
Ringo Star would be proud.

Actually, that is fairly close to how it was presented to me. One chimp walked first. It seemed to have an advantage over the others and the others followed. All because the heat on their backs was too intense to tolerate.

That is unfortunate... you had a bad teacher.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

That is unfortunate... you had a bad teacher.

Actually, to her credit, she said that was one hypothesis put forth; she never said she agreed with it.

 

[Father Heathen]

However, I don't think it's a waste of time to look into creation. I just wouldn't treat as science is all.

Why do you consider the notion that things simply materialized from nothingness, albeit in a nonsensical Rube Goldberg-esque fashion (why would god need dust and ribs, for example?), is worth looking into? There really isn't any depth or substance, nor is there any evidence or logical coherency.