Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Censor?
Crazy Nut
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 18 (214540)
06-05-2005 6:00 PM


From what I have seen in my brief time at these boards, most everyone accepts microevolution, but only some accept macroevolution.
Microevolution occurs when cells make errors while copying the chromosomes during meiosis. Cells in a stressed organism are more likely to make these errors, partially explaining why species under pressure of enviroment or extinction are more likely to evolve.
The current accepted form of Evolution is when, over thousands or millions of years, many occurences of microevolution, coupled with isolation and natural selection, a species or breed, which may be exclusive from the original breed or species, is formed.
My questions are, since microevolution does happen, where is the point where it no longer happens? Is there some biological censor that prevents microevolution from isolating an animal from it's ancestors?
If so, what is it, and how is it activated?
Why can microevolution not form new species?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 06-07-2005 9:15 AM Crazy Nut has replied
 Message 10 by cmanteuf, posted 06-17-2005 10:36 AM Crazy Nut has not replied
 Message 11 by EZscience, posted 06-17-2005 10:42 AM Crazy Nut has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 18 (214952)
06-07-2005 9:11 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 18 (214956)
06-07-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Crazy Nut
06-05-2005 6:00 PM


good luck
I've been asking this question for a couple of years now but have yet to observe even one anti-science person touch it.
It really is the crux of the problem for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-05-2005 6:00 PM Crazy Nut has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-07-2005 3:04 PM nator has not replied

  
Crazy Nut
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 18 (215059)
06-07-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
06-07-2005 9:15 AM


Re: good luck
Yeah.. I've tried this at other forums and people generally dodge the question or link me to answersingensis.
This message has been edited by Crazy Nut, 06-07-2005 03:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 06-07-2005 9:15 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-07-2005 3:19 PM Crazy Nut has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 18 (215070)
06-07-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Crazy Nut
06-07-2005 3:04 PM


This time's the charm!
Who knows. Maybe this is the thread where all will be made clear.
but I doubt it!

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-07-2005 3:04 PM Crazy Nut has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2005 7:37 PM jar has not replied
 Message 8 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-16-2005 1:26 PM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 18 (215146)
06-07-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
06-07-2005 3:19 PM


yeah right jar
Who knows. Maybe this is the thread where all will be made clear.
warning, calculus analogy ahead.
what's the limit of n+1, as n approaches infinity?
the creationists are essentially arguing that it's finite. saying small additions don't add up is just bad math.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-07-2005 3:19 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dead Parrot, posted 06-07-2005 8:19 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 06-17-2005 6:21 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 7 of 18 (215156)
06-07-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
06-07-2005 7:37 PM


Re: yeah right jar
what's the limit of n+1, as n approaches infinity?
IIRC, 461. A pity Jerry Don's not still here, he could probably prove it nicely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2005 7:37 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Crazy Nut
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 18 (217410)
06-16-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
06-07-2005 3:19 PM


Re: This time's the charm!
I guess this just isn't the time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-07-2005 3:19 PM jar has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 18 (217566)
06-17-2005 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
06-07-2005 7:37 PM


Induction step valid
Not quite.
It is logically possible that there is no continuous series of viable genomes leading from one type of organism to another, and that the lack of these paths is what causes the limit between micro- and macro- evolution. So although a Finch can evolve to have different size beaks, there's no functional intermediary between a reptile and a bird (which is in essence what Behe and co. are arguing through irreducible complexity).
They're wrong, of course. But, in principle, the idea is not logical invalid just empirically false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2005 7:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2005 1:58 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6766 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 10 of 18 (217598)
06-17-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Crazy Nut
06-05-2005 6:00 PM


CrazyNut writes:
My questions are, since microevolution does happen, where is the point where it no longer happens?
The person whose YEC theology I am most familiar with has no problem with evolution as it observed today, even speciation holds no troubles for her. She doesn't believe in kinds, or baramins, or whatever else.
She simply believes that because life on Earth is so young (starting around 6k years ago) there has been no time for evolution to do its thing.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-05-2005 6:00 PM Crazy Nut has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 11 of 18 (217602)
06-17-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Crazy Nut
06-05-2005 6:00 PM


Halucinating an upper limit to microevolution
I have asked the same sort of question in another thread:
Since there is apparently no further argument about microevolution occuring and organisms changing within species (or 'kinds' as they would have it), what is there that places an upper limit on just how different things can get? What sets this 'limit function' to maintain the immutable integrity of a 'kind' and how is the limit determined ?
Haven't seen any Creo's bite on that one either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-05-2005 6:00 PM Crazy Nut has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 12 of 18 (217625)
06-17-2005 11:50 AM


The issue is dealt with quite well here.
" ...for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. "
"Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time."
"If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter - and listen to the silence."
And the silence apparently continues...

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 18 (217673)
06-17-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
06-17-2005 6:21 AM


Re: Induction step valid
It is logically possible that there is no continuous series of viable genomes leading from one type of organism to another,
i'm rather certain that it is not. it would require one of the organisms to be made of wholely different stuff. as it stands, finches and lizards have mostly the same genomes.
my post is made of the same letters as yours. theoretically, i could vary your post into mine, step by step, by adding or changing a letter every step. it might take a REALLY long time, but it wouldn't be impossible.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 06-17-2005 6:21 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bugeater, posted 06-19-2005 12:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
bugeater
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 18 (217985)
06-19-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
06-17-2005 1:58 PM


Re: Induction step valid
my post is made of the same letters as yours. theoretically, i could vary your post into mine, step by step, by adding or changing a letter every step. it might take a REALLY long time, but it wouldn't be impossible.
I think what Mr Jack was outlining can be explained with your analogy, if each "intermediate" post has to read correctly (proper grammar etc.). So there may be not be a string of single character changes that can change your post into his. At least that's how I understand it.
An interesting idea. I can't see how it could be true though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2005 1:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2005 4:41 PM bugeater has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 18 (218086)
06-19-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by bugeater
06-19-2005 12:55 AM


Re: Induction step valid
well, the rules of language and dna are a little difference. changing one letter in the dna will still result in something alive, whereas changing one letter in a word probably won't keep the word readable.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bugeater, posted 06-19-2005 12:55 AM bugeater has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 06-20-2005 4:38 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024