Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,895 Year: 4,152/9,624 Month: 1,023/974 Week: 350/286 Day: 6/65 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What prevents micro evolution from becoming macro evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22503
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 5 of 25 (590342)
11-07-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by slevesque
11-07-2010 5:06 PM


slevesque writes:
- Neo-Darwinian evolutionists will say that these will accumulate to the point that new features, organs, etc. will appear in the population, showing an ever evolving and changing trend in biological populations. This is what they will cal macro-evolution.
This isn't an accurate characterization of what evolutionary biologists say. Through natural selection, deleterious mutations are removed and advantageous mutations retained. It is advantageous mutations (and to be more complete, also mostly neutral mutations) that accumulate, not all mutations.
- Creationists will say that these will accumulate to the point that the mutational burden will become much too high, and this will lead the population down a spiralling path to genetic meltdown. Macro-evolution will therefore never happen.
Because your characterization of the position of evolutionary biologists was incomplete, this characterization of the position of creationists fails to address the fact that deleterious mutations are removed from populations by natural selection and are not included among the mutations that accumulate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 11-07-2010 5:06 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 11-07-2010 7:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22503
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 9 of 25 (590361)
11-07-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
11-07-2010 7:10 PM


Hi WK,
I made clear I was aware of the neutral and nearly neutral theories when I parenthetically said, "and to be more complete, also mostly neutral mutations." If you don't like the level of detail I've chosen then make your own arguments at your own chosen level of detail to Slevesque.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 11-07-2010 7:10 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22503
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 12 of 25 (590378)
11-07-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by slevesque
11-07-2010 5:06 PM


slevesque in his edit reason writes:
Tried reformulating that opening line, thanks WK, my biology classes are getting a bit buried underneath my university courses.
I wouldn't sweat it too much. When you said "transcription" instead of "replication," I think your meaning was pretty clear from context anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 11-07-2010 5:06 PM slevesque 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