"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Macroevolu...Evolution; God's Greatest Creation

This is a tricky question. If biological taxa is a species that only mates with like species in the wild then this is a non-sequitur. The links explain the reality of macroevolution which corresponds with reality as opposed to Darwinian macroevolution evading a Creator and the nonsense (not meant as an insult) their macroevolution scheme proposes.Ray

This is a Young Earth model that ASSUMES all animals died except those on the Ark. This model assumes the vast animal kingdom that now exists cannot be accounted for by the Deluge survivors on the Ark, therefore, they propose this macroevolution scheme. I am not a YEC and the best theist scholars are conspicuously silent as to the extent of the Deluge (worldwide or local). The value of the Model are the starting assumptions/Biblical base. Anyone can nitpick this YEC scenario to death; like the very young time duration their macroevolution scheme mandates. I posted the link to say the model makes infinetly more sense than yours; like "1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses."Wells, "Icons of Evolution", page 51: citing: Cao, Janke, Waddell, Westerman, Takenaka, Murata, Okada, Paabo, Hasegawa, "Journal of Molecular Evolution" 47 (1998)This message has been edited by Herepton, 10-23-2005 04:01 PM

You have misrepresented.I agree with the basic scheme. Contrasted next to Darwinian macroevolution schemes the YEC is on the right track. Feigning like you do not know what's wrong with the cows being closer to whales than horses tells me and anyone else what you and all evos are about.Mick, you were the person who without hesitation challenged the YEC scheme by citing data that places hyenas in feline taxa rather than canine. Now you are playing stupid when you aint. This response has conceded the point.This entire thread - the one here:http://EvC Forum: All species are transitional -->EvC Forum: All species are transitional....is the old 1000 is reached by 1's each step/digit at a time rhetoric - an excuse explaining the embarrassing lack of transitional, ToE's reason for being evidence. IOW, all species are transitionals in lieu of the fact that we cannot find the physical links between them. If you are going to yawn and act like cows being closer to whales than horses does not upset the step by evolutionary step ox cart then I will invoke the foundational lunacy this "view" of yours is based upon: What is obvious is that you take the side of starting assumptions regardless the falsifying evidence. Evos assert we descended from chimps yet the DNA evidence says a resounding no. Whats the point of having evidence if your philosophy will be used to overrule ? This is rhetorical. You are refuted.Ray

Yes, I will drop it as drift.I am currently writing a comprehensive article for a large Creationist website where the quote and others like it are discussed. When the link is up I will post it.Ray

Ernst Mayr answered this question, IIRC, when he said morphological change is prevented by natural barriers at a certain point. I am searching for the data and have not found it as of today. For the time being, we should assume this is true (Mayr fact) as your blue box quote retrospectively assumes the opposite; it HAS happened. IOW, your argument is evolution-did-it anyway because God is not an option at any step. Why don't you establish a fact then explain how ape sperm miraculously produced a better and more intelligent version of itself repeatedly ending in modern human beings ?

Does anyone do that ?Of course not.I can take and establish a fact from any source. Then provide what I believe is the correct interpretation. I don't need to demonstrate those barriers because the burden of speciation proof is on you. I won't have the time to track down the Mayr data until Friday or Saturday. I could post it as heresay but I won't.It is evolutionists who assert the genetic code randomly mutates, rather it MUST since no other explanation of living things exists. Now, here we are again, where is the evidence of this besides educational credentials asserting this as fact ?Ray

The above quoting is a butcher shop special. No page numbers or any of the ordinary standards to be found.Here is what Milton actually wrote:"Shattering Myths of Darwinism" [1997] Park Street Press:PAGE 132 "Darwin had accumulated hundreds of pieces of evidence that tended to support his idea, but he knew it was inevitable that skeptics would say: Show us an example of natural selection. So in the first edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin gave one. He said, 'I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more acquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.'

​

Here we have Darwin's central idea of evolution in a nutshell: bears can become whales, or whale-like, given enough time and enough natural selection. One species can turn into a completely different species by natural selection alone."PAGE 133: "Darwin changed his mind about this example after publication and withdrew it from the second and all later editions of his book. We don't know the exact reason why he had second thoughts and withdrew the example, but I think it is not too difficult to see why he would have done so.

​

In the first place, it is purely hypothetical rather than actual; it is based on conjecture not on direct evidence....there are no fossils of intermediate types and no other physical evidence, so the transformation that Darwin at first saw as highly probable has not in fact happened....But in dropping his example of bears evolving into whales by NS, Darwin was dropping not just a marginal example which could easily be jettisoned without penalty. In rejecting the acquatic bear, he was abandoning the central proposition of his entire theory - or at the very least was publicly displaying the kind of doubts he was privately entertaining about the process.

​

So what kind of influences caused Darwin to drop his example about bears and whales ?"PAGE 134: "Darwin was well aware of one central fact that dominated all animal and plant breeding experiments - then and now. No one has ever bred a new species artificially - and both plant and animal breeders have been trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists."PAGE 135: "Mayr: 'any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability....The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment.' Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (1963) "This limit to the amount of genetic variability available in a species, Mayr termed "genetic homeostasis." IT IS THE NATURAL BARRIER encountered not only by geneticists attempting to breed fruit flies, and the French botanists attempting to increase the sugar PAGE 136: content of the beetroot, but by all plant and animal breeders throughout the ages.

​

Darwin himself, as a breeder of pigeons and other animals was aware that the amount of variability available was limited. And although Darwin afterwards thought better of his statement about bears and whales, and removed it from later editions of his book, the substance of his claim nevertheless remains THE central tenet of synthetic evolution - bears can become whales, or microbes can become elephants, by means of random mutation and natural selection. Today, few Darwinists could be found to put their names to such a bald manifesto. Yet that is what they teach in schools and universities.""Nobody has yet produced a black tulip or a blue rose because of the same barrier."PAGE 140: "So far, no step in the chain of reasoning has been taken which goes beyond the data. But Darwin's successors felt that the theory as it stood at that point could be extended logically and naturally one step further - and it was a step that appeared to be not very far beyond the data. If variation and NS explained how a finch could change its beak shape to adapt to its island home, and how a giraffe's neck could get longer, then it also explained how one species could turn into a completely different species.

​

After this intoxicating draft from the tankard of speculation, the newly hatched synthetic evolutionists were brought back to earth with a disillusioning jolt. As we have already seen, ordinary subspecific variation cannot be pressed into service as the mechanism of evolution for two important reasons: first, because what Mayr calls "genetic homeostasis" - the NATURAL BARRIER beyond which selective breeding will not pass; and, second, because the genetic program or recipe for whales is not contained in the existing genetic makeup of bears. A genetic change is needed BEFORE one can change into the other - and natural selection is not capable of initiating genetic change.""The genetic code is a one-way system. Information can be read out when a new life is generated but information cannot be written in to alter the characteristics of that new life." Crick, "Nature" 227:561 (1970)PAGES 152-3: "Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.

​

Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.

​

It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved) that is the really clever part.

​

When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree with this final part.

​

This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point; that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution in the fossil record." The data says macroevolution is prevented by natural barriers that no experimentation has been able to cross. Asserting it happens "behind your backs in the wild" is a theory contradicted by the available evidence - driven by worldview needs. Macro is assumed based on a need for Genesis to be wrong. No evidence exists for macro because it is not true.This topic and others like it only exist out of a recognition that there is no evidence for macro except by hindsight assumption, while attempting to place opponents on the defensive; evolutionists have established the fact for their opponents.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-27-2005 12:36 PM

You have accepted this as fact. Darwinists claim all species are transitional since there is no actual evidence linking them. This transitional claim is refuted by the fact above we have both accepted.Ray

I happen to know you are probably the most knowledgeable evolutionist anyone will find anywhere. But with all due respect these are weasel words.You briefly cite general well known CLAIMS. Yes, all species are in a state of transition, at issue is macro transition. You have no evidence of this claim and your observations are useless since at some times they are subject to illusions/Blind Watchmaker weasel words.Ray

You are confused. We are attempting to determine if macroevolution happens, or if not, then Genesis special creation remains true - not microevolution.Ray

No, the evidence says that whether you bow to it or not.Ray

content deleted, double post.sorry,RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-28-2005 11:21 AM

You knowingly replied to half a statement. Darwin withdrew his speculation that bears can morph into whale-like creatures. Your one-line drive-by to the Darwin withdrawal. Please address the evidence of Darwin rescinding this claim and the evidence pointing to why he did so.In reality, your comment above is an insult caused by the inability to refute. I will not press this point any further as the facts speak for themselves, and until they are answered the silence and evasions confirm their veracity. Barest of assertions.If you "have now" bred several new species....what the hell was your theory based upon prior to "now" ? How can I evidence a negative ?You are the one claiming bears can change into whales. Your argument is microevolution is a fact. Everyone agrees. Then from this fact you assert macro must have occurred. But the data from experimentation says there are natural barriers preventing change beyond a certain point.These crucial facts is exactly where science has proven Genesis special/sudden creation.Mayr, the staunchest of evolutionists, was so brainwashed by his creator Evolution, he was blinded to the fact that genetic homeostasis falsified his false Creator. In fact the Bible says the real Creator blinds every mind that denies Him Creator credit with the poison of Naturalism/evolution - a place where you will never run into Him again.RAZD, you ignored the Crick data I posted, and let me say it very plainly: I cannot provide what you ask because I am not aware of any evidence supporting it. If there was evidence, we would not be having this debate. Speciation cannot and has not been observed. Saying it does not make it true. The process as you know takes millions of years. The only natural time lapse visual event we have (fossil record) somehow, with millions of species, failed to capture any species transitioning as one would expect.Then you hand-wave away the fact of genetic homeostasis. In science we have decided that only experimentation determines facts. Hundreds of years of these experiments have established a natural barrier and its uncrossability. If you feel this database of evidence does not reflect the realities of nature outside the lab then post evidence that trumps these long known facts. Ad hom attack indicates the inability to refute. You have accepted the Mayr data, now, because you do not like the messenger (Milton) this somehow erases the message. I could easily and arbitrarily brand Darwinian sources as "questionable etc.etc." and then we would be determining claims and facts based on worldviews. Milton is an atheist, Mensa member, and 30 year science journalist. I suggest you cough up data which undermines genetic homeostasis or continue ad hom/poisoning the well tactic which is only done because you cannot refute.As for your questions in yellow. Why can't you answer them ?Ray

The statements are inconsistent.How could cows be closer to whales rather than horses IF step by tiny step macroevolution is true ? This becomes a monkey wrench in the mix.If all species are transitional, that is each species at some point evolved from a previous - common ancestor, then this scenario is falsified by the Jonathan Wells derived fact. How did cows evolve from a whale and horses did not get between ?Of course, an explanation of Olympic gymnastics must be forth coming ?My next post in this thread will address your macroevolution question.I was unable to get RAZD to address the Crick data, maybe you can ?Thanks,Ray