|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does microevolution logically include macroevolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
There is a fundamental difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Domestic dogs have been selectiively bred for thousands of years. Despite rather marked phenotypic differences between breeds (microevolution), there are definite limits that cannot be breeched. Each breed remains 100% canine. No amount of selective breeding can change a dog into something else. There have been more generations of fruitflies bred in laboratories than the supposed 2 million year evolution of man. Yet, no one has been able to produce a fundamentally different type by artificial breeding. I might point out that selective breeding offers far greater selective pressure than natural selection, yet there does not exist a single experiment in the scientific literature that documents the possibility of macroevolution, let alone any empiric evidence that it acutally occurred. Thus, the entire theory of evolution remains scientifically baseless. The notion that the existence of micro-evolution over short periods of time provides evidence of macroevolution over long periods of time is a result of completely falacious reasoning. Thus, the entire theory of evolutin remains scientifically baseless. The rhetoric offered smacks of nothing more than philosophical argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Welcome to EvC. We hope that you will enjoy your stay here.
However, when you make assertions such as in your first post, you will be expected to support them. For example you will be expected to explain the mechanism that prevent macro evolution. At the bottom of this message you will find links to some threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
The notion that the existence of micro-evolution over short periods of time provides evidence of macroevolution over long periods of time is a result of completely falacious reasoning Since I don't see the flaw in the reasoning perhaps you can point it out? The selective breeding "experiments" you discuss are in time frames that only allow the selection part of evolution, they leave out almost all possibility of mutation. Therefore they are not a demonstration of a macroevolution barrier. (You might want to check out what many creationists say too. Just in case you think new species and genera can't arise. Many of them do, if you disagree with them you might explain why that you do.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
I'm stating that there IS a fundamental difference between macro- and microevolution... that is it not a continuum. My example of selective breeding of dogs illustrates that point. The mechanisms are completely different. Dogs can exhibit marked differences in phenotype because of the gene pool. Although phonotypes vary significantly, all these changes are minor. However, the mechanism of change between, say, a dog and an otter require changing to a different gene pool, and the ToE offers no evidence that this is biologically possible. You can selectively breed for thousands of generations, but you are still no closer to breeching the obvious barriers that seperate fundamentally different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
However, the mechanism of change between, say, a dog and an otter require changing to a different gene pool, and the ToE offers no evidence that this is biologically possible. Since a closed gene pool is a biological species and we have seen species arise there IS evidence that this is biologically possible. We also see a range of species between various separate gene pools (as they are now). There IS evidence that this occured. I suggest that you learn before you type. You don't know enough about the subject matter to make the assertions you are making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
You're making statements without providing evidence. I would like to see evidence that it's possible to breed an otter (or any other non-canine type) from a dog... I've been looking for it for over thirty years. All I've heard to this point is largely unsupported theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Why isn't the fact that all species can be placed in a nested hierarchy, and that otters and dogs are placed near each other in the order Carnivora in this hierarchy, sufficient evidence that dogs and otters evolved from a common non-canine ancestor?
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 29-Sep-2005 03:52 PM "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Why would you want to see evidence supporting such a transparent strawman?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
Chiroptera:
Your hypothesis sounds reasonable, but I'm looking for evidence that it's actually possible. Simply stating that organisms have common characterists does not prove descent from a common ancestor... albeit I can understand why one would wonder. It equally fits a model of intellligent design. The problem is, there is no experimental evidence that macroevolutionary change is possible. The grand changes proported to have occurred over eons of time are, as far as we observe, biologically impossible. You cannot breed anything other than a dog from a dog, regardless of the number of generations produced and the extent of selection of mutations. You cannot do this even if you have artificial control of the selection. Yes, otters and dogs show similarities, but apparent the similarities are insufficient to allow us to breed dogs to become otters or anthing even close to otters. Every dog ever bred is 100% canine. There is no gradual transition to a different kind. Evolutionists claim that all of these changes occurred randomly, yet it cannot be reproduced in the laboratory even when mutations are artificially and purposefullfy induced. Thus, the burden of proof remains with the proponents of evolution. You can't simply fall back on the age old argument that homologous resemblance indicates common ancestry. Another problem... one must consider mathematical probability concepts. Nothing in nature, to my knowledge, defies basic laws of probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
he problem is, there is no experimental evidence that macroevolutionary change is possible. The grand changes proported to have occurred over eons of time are, as far as we observe, biologically impossible. You have been told such evidence exists. If you continue to ignore what you are told and avoid engaging in constructive debate you will have to take a short break while you read over material that is already available to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
On the timescales involved I would say that the sheer variety we see in the different breeds of dog is quite dramatic evidence that evolution is possible. It certainly isn't evidence that large scale change is impossible as you claim.
quote: Another non-problem, you mean. Neither made-up "probabilities" or probabilities based on straw-man scenarios have any validity. If you can produce valid probability calculations that show a real problem wiht evolution you'd be the first creationist to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
black wolf Junior Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 10 From: Berlin, Germany Joined: |
Since you do accept the fact of random mutation, where do you see the "barrier" you speak of? Where is your evidence that mutation of species-defining genes cannot happen, thus breaking the barrier? Are you saying that some genes are subject to mutation while others are not? How do you explain that we have experimental and directly observed new species of bacteria forming?
You are right about probability. Saying something can't happen means that the probability is 0. If the probability is something like 0.0000000000000000002, odds are that it will happen at some point in time, just not very often. {edit: spelling error} This message has been edited by black wolf, 29-09-2005 06:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
PaulK:
You miss my point... Dogs in all their varieties are still dogs. We are not any closer now to something other than a dog than we were 5,000 years ago. Phenotypic differences can actually be produced rather quickly... but there are obvious barriers that cannot be broken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
The new species of bacteria forming are examples of microevolutionary change that we all know exists in nature. No one is disputing that.
What I want to see is direct evidence of macroevolution... species evolving in complexity, evolution from the aquatic to the terrestrial egg, evolution of echolocation, powered flight, etc, etc. You cannot explain evolution of complex activities such as flight as accumulations of microevolutionary changes. I want to see someone try to breed a bat from a rodent. Do all the selective breeding you wish, and induce as many mutations as you want. I want to see one shred of evidence that you can bring the species one iota of a degree closer to a bat than it is now. The evolutinist rebuttal is simply, I don't have enough time. So, given enough time, you could do it. Where's the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
What barriers are those ? And how do you know that they can't be broken ? I can't see how you can justify either claim based on the evidence of domestic dogs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024