Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 2:43 PM
359 online now:
Coyote, halibut, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle (6 members, 353 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,676 Year: 27,282/21,208 Month: 1,195/1,714 Week: 38/365 Day: 38/40 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1 of 2 (811859)
06-12-2017 9:05 PM


It's common for creationists to dismiss any evolution that can be directly observed as "microevolution". It's also common for creationists to claim that bits of "microevolution" do not add up to "macroevolution".

One thing that has been observed in labs is mutation on coding genes that produces new proteins with new function. So, that must be "microevolution" to creationists. Another observed mutation is gene duplication. Also, therefore, microevolution.

The interesting thing is that the second of those followed by the first would create an additional, unique protein coding gene.

According to the dogma that bits of microevolution do not add up to macroevolution, then presumably this must still be microevolution.

That means that genes can be added and evolution can produce complicated organisms with tens of thousands of coding genes without involving "macroevolution", whatever it might be.

It seems that, when creationists claim that macroevolution doesn't happen, they are describing something which, on the molecular level, doesn't seem to have been required in this life system.

Does everyone agree that all the life we see around us can be produced by microevolution, or is the addition of new genes macro, and the creationists' dogma (micro does not add up to macro) wrong?

Edited by bluegenes, : typo


Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 2 (811894)
06-13-2017 8:53 AM


Thread Copied to Biological Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the Does the history of life require "macroevolution"? thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017