Microevolution: YEA! Macroevolution: BOO!

[Polymath257]

Lets take the evolution of humans from apes, what were the series of microevolutions
that led to macroevolution? what were the environmental pressures and how that
led for humans to appear?

Well, one known environmental pressure was the drying of Eastern Africa, one effect was the decrease in the forests (and, also, the development of the Sahara desert much later). That lead to the development of more savanna grasslands as opposed to rain forests, putting pressure on the tree-climbing primates to either move to new areas or to develop ways of living on the ground. Humans took the latter direction.

Among other micro-evolutions were the development of an upright posture (as opposed to knuckle walking), pushing the foramen magnum (the hole in the head attaching to the spine) towards the bottom as opposed to the back of the head.

We also see a progression in the size of the skull, although this tends to happen after the upright posture. The larger brain is correlated with tool use, at first very primitive (stone tools made on the spot). Later, larger brained species also had more complex collections of tools they used.

Human evolution is a type of 'mosaic' evolution, which is quite common in smallish populations. So, some branches of autralopithecines developed very large jaws and were quite robust, while others stayed smaller and were more agile. Humans descended from the latter species.

As tool use became common, this also impacted the micro-evolution, promoting more upright posture (for seeing over the grass) as well as hands better able to grasp, and more complicated social structures (allowing for cooperation in hunting and gathering).

I could go further, but any decent book on physical anthropology will go over these basics.

 

[Polymath257]

So you conclude from this that other scientists are incapable of a lie? I have to wonder how many other similar lies there are that have not been exposed.

Nobody is incapable of a lie. But among scientists, uncovering such a lie is a way to promotion and position. So such lies tend to be uncovered if they happen in interesting areas of study.

What lies that have been told by creationists have been exposed and what is the reaction to creationists to such exposure?

 

[DavidFirth]

Nobody is incapable of a lie. But among scientists, uncovering such a lie is a way to promotion and position. So such lies tend to be uncovered if they happen in interesting areas of study.

What lies that have been told by creationists have been exposed and what is the reaction to creationists to such exposure?

There are no lies in Genesis. "Creationists" are also capable of lies. God is not.

 

[Polymath257]

There are no lies in Genesis. "Creationists" are also capable of lies. God is not.

Your first statement is a lie. It was written by humans, who are capable of lies.

Which creationist lies have been acknowledged and are no longer used by creationists?

 

[Valjean]

All rubbish. Got any truth? No, I don't think you do.

Please tell me which of my points is rubbish, and explain why.

 

[Skwim]

Another poor bait & switch? Yep. Your hatred of God shows through yet again.

Let me help you out, Davy.

Definition of bait and switch

1. a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
   
   
2. the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

Not that I don't see your use of the term to be an analogy, but it fails right out of the gate---it makes no sense. I suggest you stick to simple sentences and don't get fancy by trying to understand ploys and tactics outside your scope of knowledge.

.

 

[ChristineM]

To be more accurate and to be more scientific, would you please explain
how many microevolution is needed for macroevolution to happen or at which
point that the series of microevolution make the macroevoluition and why we can't see
anymore macroevolution happening now.

The precise number is not only irrelevant it shows your misunderstanding (perhaps deliberate) of macroevolution.

Yes macroevolution is observed, because you choose to ignore the science and medicine does not mean it goes away, it just means you ignore inconvenient facts.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence

You could also investigate the currently on going observation of the Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus)

I'm pretty sure you'll mock that evidence without even reviewing it but i do live in hopes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Another poor bait & switch? Yep. Your hatred of God shows through yet again.

Isn't that better than hating Santa or Winnie the Pooh, isn't it? Santa is jolly and brings presents, and Winnie's just a silly little bear stuffed full of fluff, whereas God is wrathful and keeps people conscious after death just to torture them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lets take the evolution of humans from apes, what were the series of microevolutions
that led to macroevolution? what were the environmental pressures and how that
led for humans to appear?

Since what is known is available on the Internet, if you are still unaware, it suggests that you never really cared before, and therefore probably don't care now.

If that is not the case, then please begin by doing some investigating on your own, and returning here with what you have learned as a good faith gesture that you are sincerely interested in the answers to your questions. We can proceed from there.

Surely you can understand that we're tired of creationists feigning interest in evidence and the science they've ignored all of their lives and continually derogate asking those who love and have learned science to go fetch something that they won't even look at before rejecting out of hand. If this does not describe you, we'll see you back here shortly with the results of your research.

I assure you that many present will be happy to assist a sincere questioner.

Which of those kinds of people are you? We'll see.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are no lies in Genesis.

Do you think the people that wrote those words didn't know that when they said that a god dictated them that they were lying?

Maybe, but I told you that Thor told me that He created the world in under one minute, and not only didn't need to rest, went out for a walk - would you believe me if I told you that I didn't know I was lying?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

LET'S SEE, OVER THAT LAST 30+ HOURS THERE HAVE BEEN 60 POSTS IN THIS THREAD AND NOT A SINGLE REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

"Why can't microevolution continue to the point where the resulting organism fails to resemble its parental species so much so that it might be considered a subspecies? AND THEN CONTINUE TO EVOLVE to the point where the organism can no longer be considered to be the same species? Just what is stopping the process of microevolution from continuing to this point?"​

In days (years) past we had RF members who would at least give it a shot, and likely have come up with something interesting. Back then Christians stood their ground and would even admit when they were stumped. Boy! those were the days.

I miss their backbone.

.​

Sincere apologies, but I have indeed answered the OP question so many times before, in my own threads and in responses to others. It is pretty obvious to me that adding 1 grain of sand to a dune on the beach won't change much, but do it often enough, and you no longer have a dune, you have a mountain.

I think that many creationists lack the ability to think in terms of just how much change can be generated by the most miniscule individual changes -- if you do it often enough.

And of course, you asked creationists, which I ain't not one of.

 

[Polymath257]

Anyone really interested in evolution and how it works should look at he videos by cdk007. Many of them show how typical creationists arguments simply fail.

Here is one on macro-evolution:

 

[Milton Platt]

I do not accept the biased opinions of secular institutions as absolute truth. Next.

Rather you accept the biased opinions of religious organizations without evidence to support their claims?

 

[FearGod]

Well, one known environmental pressure was the drying of Eastern Africa, one effect was the decrease in the forests (and, also, the development of the Sahara desert much later). That lead to the development of more savanna grasslands as opposed to rain forests, putting pressure on the tree-climbing primates to either move to new areas or to develop ways of living on the ground. Humans took the latter direction.

Does adapting to environmental changes cause mutations and hence evolution occurs?
How both are related? and which first, the environment or the random mutations?

Among other micro-evolutions were the development of an upright posture (as opposed to knuckle walking), pushing the foramen magnum (the hole in the head attaching to the spine) towards the bottom as opposed to the back of the head.

And how many thousands of years till the upright posture occurred and how the very
tiny changes in the posture was naturally chosen while still not having significant effect?

We also see a progression in the size of the skull, although this tends to happen after the upright posture. The larger brain is correlated with tool use, at first very primitive (stone tools made on the spot). Later, larger brained species also had more complex collections of tools they used.

And what makes the brain larger, wasn't it due to random mutations and then natural selection?

Human evolution is a type of 'mosaic' evolution, which is quite common in smallish populations. So, some branches of autralopithecines developed very large jaws and were quite robust, while others stayed smaller and were more agile. Humans descended from the latter species.

Developed or evolved large jaws, are you really speaking about natural selection and use the word developed?

As tool use became common, this also impacted the micro-evolution, promoting more upright posture (for seeing over the grass) as well as hands better able to grasp, and more complicated social structures (allowing for cooperation in hunting and gathering).

How using tools causes mutations and hence promoting more upright posture? how both are related?

I could go further, but any decent book on physical anthropology will go over these basics.

Please go further, the basics are for kids to memorize but we are here to debate.

 

[Polymath257]

Does adapting to environmental changes cause mutations and hence evolution occurs?

You have the order wrong. Mutations happen. Some of the mutations produce individuals that are more adapted. Those are more likely to survive and reproduce, so those genes are preserved in the next generation.

Adaptation is a change in genes, i.e, mutation.

How both are related? and which first, the environment or the random mutations?

The mutations are independent of the environment. But some mutations will survive better in the environment they find themselves in. In a different environment, they may not survive as well. Those that survive enough to get passed to offspring provide the genes for the next generation.

And how many thousands of years till the upright posture occurred and how the very
tiny changes in the posture was naturally chosen while still not having significant effect?

And what makes the brain larger, wasn't it due to random mutations and then natural selection?

Yes, larger brains first come about from neotony--where the adults look more like the young from before (humans, for example, look much more like young chimpanzees than adult ones). Most young mammals have over-sized brains for their size. The 'push' seems to be from tool use and cooperation in hunting. It is harder to know exactly what the evolutionary pressures are than it is to know the changes that happened. We know that brains became larger over many hundreds of thousands of years. We know that an upright posture happened long before the increase in brain size.

How much is genetic drift in small populations (always a possibility and something independent of natural selection) and how much was actual selection pressure, we just don't know.

Developed or evolved large jaws, are you really speaking about natural selection and use the word developed?

I'm not sure I see your issue. Yes, the larger jaws evolved over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. Is there a problem using the word 'developed' here? I don't see why? it did not happen in a single generation, but over the course of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

How using tools causes mutations and hence promoting more upright posture? how both are related?

No. Once again, the mutations are independent of the environment. They are random. A mutation that is harmful in one environment may be helpful in another and neutral in another. In the case of upright posture and larger brains, the mutations for them were beneficial in a grassland environment involving cooperative hunting. Tool use increased the benefit of both: increased brain capacity leads to better tools; upright posture allows the tools to be used more easily; and tool use in cooperative hunting increased the ability of the hunters to get their prey.

Why do you seem to think that mutations are caused by the tool use? or the environment?

Please go further, the basics are for kids to memorize but we are here to debate.

Many of the specific evolutionary pressures we do not know entirely. For example, we are not sure whether early humans were primarily scavengers or hunters.

 

[Polymath257]

Please go further, the basics are for kids to memorize but we are here to debate.

But a full treatment is something that is book length. This is hardly the location for such an exposition. if you have specific questions, I can answer (some of) them. Not all questions are answered, though.