|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological Censor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Crazy Nut Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Crazy Nut Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Who knows. Maybe this is the thread where all will be made clear.
but I doubt it! Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dead Parrot Member (Idle past 3345 days) Posts: 151 From: Wellington, NZ Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Crazy Nut Inactive Member |
I guess this just isn't the time...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cmanteuf Member (Idle past 6766 days) Posts: 92 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bugeater Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024