Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Macro and Micro Evolution
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 15 of 301 (66910)
11-16-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Apollyon
11-16-2003 4:39 PM


Hello Apollyon
It would be much more plausible if we were able to take single-cell prokaryotic cell and 'evolve' it into a multi-celled eukaryote
I can see why you pick these particular examples. These steps occurred millions of years ago and took a loooong time to happen, is it any wonder why we don't know how to recreate them?
Try looking at a 'macro' change that has occurred relatively recently. How about the changes required for the common ancestor of us and chimpanzees to change into modern man? I'll admit that we don't know enough about developmental biology and genetics to actually predict what these changes are BUT to me they seem quite small. We do know that small changes in genes and their regulation can have very large effect, and small changes is exactly what is happening when you talk about speciation. If you accept that maybe the step between us and apes is not that large and well within the processes of 'micro' evolution, where do the steps actually get too big? Mammals to primates? Sea to land?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Apollyon, posted 11-16-2003 4:39 PM Apollyon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Apollyon, posted 11-16-2003 6:40 PM Ooook! has replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 23 of 301 (66928)
11-16-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Apollyon
11-16-2003 6:40 PM


I agree, it takes a leap of faith to believe in the consistency of macroevolution.
Don't confuse leaps of faith with gaps in our knowledge. We don't know HOW it happened, but things like the fossil record and molecular biology show it DID happen. Insert God A into gap B doesn't really work as an argument.
That, friend, I cannot accept. Apes and humans are relatively different; genotypically and phenotypically. That is why modern evolution was "refined" to believe that apes did not evolve into humans. We're simply too different.
Alright then what are these *huge* differences between us and apes? I'm fairly certain that genotypically we are not that different (98% ring any bells). How are we "simply too different" phenotypically?
And as for the idea that evolutionary theory was 'refined' I seem to have missed that piece of news! As far as I'm aware the idea is that Chimps and us shared a common ancestor and further back we both share a common ancestor with Gorillas. How has this been changed?
Don't think I'm being rude by not replying to your next post, I'm off to bed so I will reply tomorrow
edited for comedy cockney typo
[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 11-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Apollyon, posted 11-16-2003 6:40 PM Apollyon has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 140 of 301 (68817)
11-23-2003 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Sonic
11-23-2003 6:12 PM


Hello Sonic,
It would help the argument to progress if you could answer one question as straight as you can. I think Nosy might have asked it already, but given that:
-Mutation happens! The processes that are required for evolution are known to occur.
-Small DNA changes lead to large morphological changes (as seen in pigeons and dog breeds).
-There are no out of place fossils in the geological record. They follow a clear transition.
What could possibly *stop* 'micro' turning into 'macro'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Sonic, posted 11-23-2003 6:12 PM Sonic has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 166 of 301 (69613)
11-27-2003 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Sonic
11-26-2003 10:25 PM


Sonic,
I'm sorry if I seem to be butting in, but this topic interests me so forgive me for making an observation. So far you have provided a very arbitary distinction: if we ain't seen it in a lab, it ain't micro! You seem to be ignoring the evidence in both the fossil and DNA record that points to a graduated change in the life on this planet simply because it doesn't fit with your model.
Maybe it would help if you could define what kind of modifications are accepted as 'micro' and what transitions you find unacceptable, more than the rather vague "new abilities". For example in message #62 you posted a website that had a diagram showing what the percieved difference between 'macro' and 'micro' was. What is stopping a sideways mutation turning into an upward one? The first step on the highly detailed fossil record of horse evolution was quite small and has been described as 'doglike'.
Perhaps you could give us more examples of a 'proposed' evolutionary step (ie not an artificial cell to man one) that are a step too far in your eyes and explain why. You seem to be making a big deal of flight, but how many changes would really be required for a gliding/parachuting animal to start down the slope to feal flight?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Sonic, posted 11-26-2003 10:25 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 5:07 PM Ooook! 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