Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 248 (118080)
06-23-2004 11:33 PM


A {macro vs micro} genetic question for creationists:
IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?
At the level of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).
Random mutations can cause any pair to be changed to another, thus at the molecular level it is entirely possible to change one {"macro" organism} into another {"macro" organism} with the correct series of mutations of exactly the same kind as are known to occur in "micro"evolution.
The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2004 1:26 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:39 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2004 6:58 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 18 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-05-2004 7:16 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 6:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-23-2005 5:30 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 176 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2005 11:12 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 186 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-28-2009 4:01 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 235 by Black, posted 02-25-2009 2:41 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 243 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 2 of 248 (118093)
06-23-2004 11:54 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 3 of 248 (118133)
06-24-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-23-2004 11:33 PM


Mosquitoes have mutated, cause of all the DDT spraying, and other sprayings, but how are they not still the mosquitoe. With all the mutatagens you'd think they would of macro-evolved, not micro-evolved. We're talking about a lot of generations, like a lot of mutations, but they are still being expressed as the mosquitoe. I mean if one wants to know the scientific name of any creature, go to the library, and you can look at the characteristics, and know the creatures scientific name, you'd think if macro-evolution was actually a happenings, you would see creatures macro-evolving, instead of micro-evolving. I suppose God got it all right the first time around, and via the male female gene swapping of the gene pool its kind of self correcting, is some way, like how in pure bred dogs, after the tenth generation the damaged gene is believed to of be purged from the gene pool. It does appear once the gene pool is established it protects the subspecies, that micro-evolved from the biblical kind, kind of like the ring species, that micro-evolved into a defined sub species of the species. The bible talks of the clean and unclean creatures, meaning this was written over 2,ooo + years ago, in spite of all these generations experiencing mutations, we are interestingly only see these biblical kinds of creatures reproducing, they apparently have not macro-evolved into new kinds of creatures, just sub species within their species (kind), if one wants evidence supporting creation, just go to the library, to find books to identify, all of Gods Creatures, cause they are only reproducing like kind creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2004 11:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Unseul, posted 06-24-2004 4:59 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 8:51 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 248 (118183)
06-24-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
06-24-2004 1:26 AM


What would you expect from the mosquito, its been bombarded with chemicals, its not then going to use a physical change (cept maybe a very minor one). Evolution takes a long time to get anywhere significant. Talking of dogs if you compare a mexican naked dog, a pug and a st bernard tell me then if you cant see the difference, hell its getting to the point where perhaps even their kind could maybe get confused as a few different ones im sure.
Pure bred dogs are the worst effected by hereditary diseases by far, almost every pure alsation develops problems with its hips. The tenth generation and the bad stuff disappears sounds like a bit of folk lore to me.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2004 1:26 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 248 (118213)
06-24-2004 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
06-24-2004 1:26 AM


grade: F-
Sorry, you failed to address the question.
The question is what is the mechanism that distinguishes between "micro" and "macro" at the molecular level.
All you have given is another of your arguments from incredulity with no factual basis.
Comparison of DNA between two closely related species, like dogs and wolves, shows similar differences in the DNA as comparison between to vastly diffeent species, like elephants and mice.
What is the mechanism that says wolf to dog can happen, but mouse to elephant can't?
KEY WORD: MECHANISM.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2004 1:26 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 06-24-2004 10:28 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 113 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 6:12 PM RAZD has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 248 (118227)
06-24-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
06-24-2004 8:51 AM


Grading Irregularities
RAZD,
I agree with you that the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is one that is much more significant to creationists than to those of us who affirm the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, let's not overstate the case. Your OP seemed to suggest that an organism could reproduce into a vastly different organism given the right mutations. Did you mean that the right series of mutations over a succession of generations could lead to significant morphological change, or are you trying to make a sort of "hopeful monster" argument? It's not clear from your wording.
Similarly, this last post would appear to suggest that mice are somehow ancestral to elephants. I think I see what you're truly saying: if genetic links can be found between species (like wolves and dogs) that are acknowledged to be closely related, aren't we correct in inferring that the same sorts of genetic links point to a less recent (but still valid) common ancestry between, say, mice and elephants?
In the past, creationists have said to me that DNA evidence can establish paternity of a human child, since obviously humans give birth to other humans. However, that same evidence can't be used to establish common ancestry between apes and humans, since creationism denies that they share a common ancestor. Their insistence that organisms give birth to 'like' organisms is not the issue: Darwinism merely maintains that the offspring are less and less 'like' their ancestors with every subsequent generation. In addition, factors such as geographical isolation can produce a subpopulation different enough from the ancestral one that we may consider the new population a separate species.
I agree with you that genetic data support the assertion that this mechanism is responsible for biological diversity on much higher than the directly-observable 'micro' level. I'd be interested to see what the creationists have to say about the imagined 'barrier' to change above the micro level, since the genes seem to deny this rather forcefully.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 8:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 10:54 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 248 (118233)
06-24-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by MrHambre
06-24-2004 10:28 AM


Re: Grading Irregularities
Thanks for the critique. No I am not suggesting that mice are ancestral to elephants, but that the differences in DNA between mice and elephants is not a different mechanism than the differences in DNA between wolves and dogs.
In essence you could take the DNA from one animal and rearrange it into the pattern of another animal within a {fertilized egg \ embrio} and the {full term result} would be the second animal. Note that recently a researcher took a specific segment of DNA from a fish and replaced the same segment in a mouse embrio and the DNA functioned appropriately -- for the mouse.
For "Macro"evolution to be 'prohibited' there must be some mechanism that stops the genetic change at one level while allowing it at a lower level.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 06-24-2004 10:28 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 248 (121969)
07-05-2004 12:01 AM


no takers
no creationists want to try?
the genetic difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is???

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2004 12:57 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 9 of 248 (121986)
07-05-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
07-05-2004 12:01 AM


ROFL
We both know that there isn't going to be any reasonable takers for this. They haven't an idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2004 12:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 248 (122028)
07-05-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-23-2004 11:33 PM


IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?
simple!
god does it!
actually, i've wanted to know the creationist answer to this for a long time. it tend to phrase it as "what stops little changes from adding up?" but it makes more sense this way.
seeing as how there is so little difference between us and chimps genetically. and remarkably little difference between chimps and bananas, genetically. it really only takes little changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2004 11:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 07-05-2004 5:49 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 248 (122043)
07-05-2004 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
07-05-2004 4:39 AM


Creationists do even better, Phillip Johnson in his collection of mistatements, out of context quotes, and outright lies otherwise known as the book Darwin on Trial, claims that species possess a genetic limit to variation. This is stated as a "fact" in his book yet no supporting evidence or reference to such a limit is given. This fictional limit is used to explain the barrier between micro and macro evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:39 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 5:53 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 59 by KCdgw, posted 07-06-2004 11:09 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 248 (122045)
07-05-2004 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
07-05-2004 5:49 AM


well, yeah, but the question is asking for evidence of the actual mechanism that allows one kind of change but not the other, while preventing little changes from adding up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 07-05-2004 5:49 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2004 4:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 248 (122178)
07-05-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by arachnophilia
07-05-2004 5:53 AM


heh
looks like it is one of those "we believe there is a limit because if there wasn't a limit then we coudn't believe that it couldn't happen which happens to be what we believe ... I think" kind of arguments.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 5:53 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 248 (122189)
07-05-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
07-05-2004 4:30 PM


Re: heh
honestly, i've never understood exactly why creationists are set against evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2004 4:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by coffee_addict, posted 07-05-2004 5:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 15 of 248 (122193)
07-05-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
07-05-2004 4:56 PM


Re: heh
Arachnophilia writes:
honestly, i've never understood exactly why creationists are set against evolution.
They don't like the idea that we have a common ancestor as a fish.
Just think back in history. Everything that fundies have done in the past have always been something that puts the human species in the center of "creation". If we have a common ancestor with a dog or cat, it kinda defeats the purpose of humans being god's favorite.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 4:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2004 6:09 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2004 8:17 PM coffee_addict 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