Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring

This is supposed to sound incredible... yet, this... ... is supposed to sound credible?How does the formation of entire collections of parts out of nothing, ever get to sound more reasonable than new parts forming in existing species from mechanisms we may not fully understand yet?In your own definitions you used prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes as the example of mystifiying "macro"evolution.Yet this is not so mystifying and goes beyond simple DNA mutations (something creationists and ID theorists keep avoiding). Prokaryotes and indeed simple eukaryotes arrange themselves into structures to better preserve themselves in an environment. A process called symbiosis reinforces this arrangement over successive generations such that the arrangement becomes permanent.The DNA within the ultimate structure ends up reflecting the new arrangement, but did not "suddenly appear from nothing".There is a valid question of how much a complex system can change from its existing form (at least without further symbiosis), but on the flip side it is valid to say there is essentially no limit on how complex a system may be created from simpler forms.One can argue that this is not a fully detailed process. Okay. But I have yet to see the beginning features of a process beyond the word "created" for those believing whole beings sprang out of nothing.By the way "all life is descended from a single cell" is not exactly correct. There could have been multiple occurences, with different cells doing this or that (some surviving and some not), and in any case for eukaryotic life there may have been many different "single cells" that were the initial strains of different branches of species (a "bush" rather than "tree" of life)...Which means the best we can say is that all life came from the same prokaryotic biomass.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-11-2004 08:43 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sure there is. There is a manyfold potential difference in mechanisms employed to make the change, and the time/environment required to make such changes.I would argue those are fundamental differences between those types of changes.The fallacy would be believing that those fundamental differences in how the change occured, gives anyone the ability to doubt either one is less natural or likely to have occured.Inherent in his argument (as is usually the case) is a willful ignorance of time and mechanisms which could connect one "kind" with another. Only by blowing off evolutionary explanations to begin with can one make statements like the changes came from no where, and there is inadequate reason to believe intermediates would be capable of survival.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps it depends on what one defines as fundamental. I think my definition may be a bit more generalized than yours (although I might note that symbiosis involves something a bit more than the three items you mentioned) and so I see differences.A person could argue that you are selecting criteria to make your argument correct. I'm not saying that I will, just that someone could.Perhaps you should take this as my saying I don't think your argument was strong enough given how one can use the vague phrase "fundamental differences". Msr Lynx might be able to put up a fight over that issue.(added in... just to let you know I thought the last part of your original post was strong, which is why I didn't discuss it. )This message has been edited by holmes, 07-11-2004 05:03 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Agree completely. Of course we all know what the fundamentalists are. Also agreed, though I was trying to suggest that evidence is beginning to build that the latter (creation of eukaryotic life) was not due to simple gene sequence alteration. It may have happened that way, but symbiosis theorists are racking up some good evidence it was not that simple. It is more about the loss of (or turning off of) gene sequences within more than one species, where the two are cohabitating (one within another) that "created" a more complex singular organism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)