Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 195 (247258)
09-29-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
06-15-2005 12:48 PM


microevolution vs macroevolutoin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 06-15-2005 12:48 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by AdminJar, posted 09-29-2005 10:57 AM Springer has replied
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 09-29-2005 11:07 AM Springer has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 195 (247261)
09-29-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Springer
09-29-2005 10:53 AM


This is a scientific forum
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 10:53 AM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:09 AM AdminJar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 138 of 195 (247265)
09-29-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Springer
09-29-2005 10:53 AM


Re: microevolution vs macroevolutoin
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 10:53 AM Springer has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 195 (247266)
09-29-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by AdminJar
09-29-2005 10:57 AM


Re: This is a scientific forum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by AdminJar, posted 09-29-2005 10:57 AM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by NosyNed, posted 09-29-2005 11:14 AM Springer has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 140 of 195 (247273)
09-29-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Springer
09-29-2005 11:09 AM


Gene pools
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:09 AM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 195 (247281)
09-29-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by NosyNed
09-29-2005 11:14 AM


Re: Gene pools
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by NosyNed, posted 09-29-2005 11:14 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2005 11:51 AM Springer has replied
 Message 143 by Wounded King, posted 09-29-2005 12:06 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2005 5:32 PM Springer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 195 (247290)
09-29-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Springer
09-29-2005 11:29 AM


What evidence do you expect?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:05 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 143 of 195 (247295)
09-29-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Springer
09-29-2005 11:29 AM


Re: Gene pools
Why would you want to see evidence supporting such a transparent strawman?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM Springer has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 195 (247307)
09-29-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Chiroptera
09-29-2005 11:51 AM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2005 11:51 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2005 1:25 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2005 1:31 PM Springer has replied
 Message 147 by black wolf, posted 09-29-2005 1:32 PM Springer has replied
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2005 2:09 PM Springer has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 145 of 195 (247312)
09-29-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Springer
09-29-2005 1:05 PM


Debating in good faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:05 PM Springer has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 146 of 195 (247314)
09-29-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Springer
09-29-2005 1:05 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
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 problem... one must consider mathematical probability concepts. Nothing in nature, to my knowledge, defies basic laws of probability.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:05 PM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
black wolf
Junior Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 10
From: Berlin, Germany
Joined: 09-02-2005


Message 147 of 195 (247315)
09-29-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Springer
09-29-2005 1:05 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:05 PM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:57 PM black wolf has not replied
 Message 160 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:14 PM black wolf has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 195 (247318)
09-29-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
09-29-2005 1:31 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2005 1:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2005 1:58 PM Springer has replied
 Message 170 by Annafan, posted 09-30-2005 7:38 AM Springer has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 195 (247323)
09-29-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by black wolf
09-29-2005 1:32 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by black wolf, posted 09-29-2005 1:32 PM black wolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2005 7:00 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 171 by FliesOnly, posted 09-30-2005 8:40 AM Springer has not replied
 Message 187 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 1:26 PM Springer has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 150 of 195 (247324)
09-29-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Springer
09-29-2005 1:45 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:45 PM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 2:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024