Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

What is to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

That is completely not true. Where do you get that evolution (whether micro or macro) REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity? There is no requirement for traits to be eliminated from the gene pool. Evolution itself is based on the introduction of new traits (heterozygous alleles) through mutation, gene flow, genetic shuffling and other factors to create new species. If you mean that species are subject to a genetic reduction of diversity that is partly true only in the fact that once a new species comes into existance, natural selection and other factors winnow out the outlier species population to create a more genetically similar population. However, this is a balancing act between forces which narrow down genetic diversity (i.e. natural selection, genetic drift, etc) and those that increase genetic diversity (introduce new genetic traits). Yes, but organisms do not need to be homozygous to be a species. In fact humans as well as many other animals are both homozygous and heterozygous for many of their traits (alleles). Pure bred (homozygous) is not required for the evolution of species. Word salad. For a 'variety' or trait (allele) to perpetuate, that is somewhat true only in the fact that if the trait changed it would no longer be that trait. This may or may not have an effect (either beneficial or detrimental or neutral to the survival of that species) on the evolution of an organism. However, this in no way contradicts the TOE. Which is completely opposite of what YEC teach. They require super-evolution to create the diversity of life from 'kinds' that existed after the flood.You are self-contradictory and have a poor understanding of the TOE.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Which is an event which is intentionally directed by human intelligence not a natural process. So your point is void. Again, one case of genetic uniformity and bottlenecking in an existing species does not descredit the entire TOE. All this shows is that genetic uniformity and bottlenecking caused by various natural factors may occur in geographically, socially, and genetically isolated populations of organisms.So in essense you are only showing once side of the genetic equation so to speak. The other side which causes genetic diversity are genetic mutations, gene flow, and natural selection. It depends on what you are defining as the "gene pool". Are you talking about the entire genetic makeup of a species. If so you correct. Gene flow by itself does not introduce new traits. However in relation to subgroupings of individual organisms of a species aka populations may have new traits introduced through these mechanisms from one population to the next.Genetic shuffling also increases the genetic diversity of a population by intermixing alleles (traits) within that species population and a result help to decrease (but not eliminate) the amount of speciation that occurs.As far as mutations being useless or deleterious that is a seperate subject. Most mutations which are know to occur are neutral not beneficial or harmful, in that they provide minimal impact on an organism. Of course the only ones that make a difference in speciation are those that occur in an organisms gametes.What you gloss over is that natural selection favors mutations that benefit a species effictively weeding out the deleterious ones. This is the main driver of evolution and you have shown no evidence which contradicts this. Again which begs the question of what prevents your in-species evolution from producing enough genetic variation to create new species of organisms that can interbreed. That is these new "daughter" populations are new species that evolved from parent populations just as you suggest. You are making the case for the TOE. What is the mechanism for this reduction in genetic variability?
You have not provided one. Obviously it is not mutation as it continuously adds diversity to the "gene pool". Gene flow causes more genetic diversity between isolated populations of a species. Genetic shuffling (aka sex) also increases genetic variability within a species.Two factors that can cause a reduction in genetic variability in a species are natural selection and genetic drift. However, at the same time as reducing genetic variability, these forces are counteracted by the forces of mutation, genertic flow, and shuffling. Occassionally genetic unformity wins out in a species and it becomes extinct or may bottleneck (i.e. the cheetah). Or in other cases genetic isolation of a population may increase to the point that a new species may occur. Mutations do not take a long time to occur. They occur an incalculable number of times every day in organisms around the world. Provide the evidence. Again you are unfavorably weighing one side of the equation. Mutations, genetic shuffling and genetic drift cause genetic diversity. If there is enough of a change that this new population cannot interbreed from the original population of organisms it is now a new species aka TOE. What keeps this from happening? You are muddying the water metaphorically here. Speciation only requires that one population of a species becomes genetically divergent enough that it can't breed with the original species. So in that respect, genetic diversity must increase between the original population and the new population not the opposite. I think you are possibly confusing this with the fact that genetic drift reintroduces genes between populations of a species and may produce a breaking effect so to speak on speciation (but not eliminating it). Again it is all a balancing act by nature, which can tip one way or another at times depending on the environmental (climate, ecosystem, etc) and other forces involved. How? What? That does not even make sense. Do you know what phenotypes are? They are the obserbable traits of an organism. How does a reduction of genetic variability cause new phenotypes. Again word salad. You have not shown any mechanism of how or why this is done. A reduction in genetic diversity is going to cause new variations? What?!? this does not even make sense. That is like saying that as you remove more and more Beetles of other colors from a Volkswagon car lot except for red Beetles you are going to see more and more Beetles of other colors than red appear. This makes no sense. Please read up on Mendelian genetics.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

No inflated sense of yourself I see. Why not just stand on a pedstal and say "Nah, nah, nah nah nah, You are all wrong and I am smarter than you." You brought nothing to this debate but arrogance and ignorance.This is what many would categorize as Humble Bragging.

Encouraging Faith by boasting about yourself. That is a new one. That may have applied if you had provided an argument, which you did not. Even so these are not epithets. I did not say 'Mike the Arrogant Buffoon and Ignoramus' which would be an epithet. Instead, these are assessments of your post attempting to "encourage" Faith. Ad hominem only applies if you provided an argument, which you did not. I do not even know what your argument in this debate is. I was ridiculing your ridiculous post defending Faith not a post by you defending YEC. What argument!?! What are you talking about. You only posted twice in this thread. Both have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

These two thing are synonymous. Changing the "sequence of DNA" is changing the genome or genetic information of an organism. It is the same thing. Mutations create new genetic information from existing DNA by modifying the sequence of already existing nucleotides and/or by changing one nucleotide into another (point mutations, insertions and deletions). How do new phenotypes reduce the effects of mutation on gamete DNA?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Changing the sequence of DNA can create an entirely new allele (trait) that did not previously exist. That is this new sequence of DNA will, in turn, construct new sequences of amino acids which, in turn, combine to form new protiens which, in turn, can alter the morphological characteristics of that type of organism. All that evolution needs to move forward is enough variation in a population to genetically isolate it from other populations of the same species enough to not be able to interbreed with the previous population and thus make a new species. Or create an allele for a new trait not previously existing in that type of organism. Most mutations are neutral not destructive. That is because many multicellular organisms are diploid and have duplicate chromosomes which can correct or mitigate the effects caused by mutations that may occur on the other chromosome. However, sometimes the effects of mutations (point, insert, deletion, frameshift, etc) overcome this mitigating factor to the point that new traits can come into existence. Since natural selection and other factors weed out the organisms with mutations that are potentially harmful to a species, mutations which cause new traits to be introduced are inherently 'favored' by nature to perpetuate. It changes the sequence of the genome which by definition changes the genome just like changing the amount of ingredients or the procedural steps of a recipe for a cake can change the outcome of that cake (or even create something different from a cake). See my explanation above. Junk DNA is a misnomer. Much of this 'junk' DNA actually serves a purpose and is a carry over of mutations from previous generations. The very existence of junk DNA, much carried over from the evolving of one species to another, is evidence for the TOE. Changes in traits combine to change the "formula" for that species. A change in the sequence of nucleotides in DNA can produce new traits. Even in single cell organisms such as E-coli bacteria there may be over 4 million base pairs (nucleotides), yet this bacteria only has about 3000 genes. Are you saying that any mutations of this DNA will ONLY result in one of the 3000 pre-defined genes being changed of another, and never creating a new gene with a different sequence of base pairs? If so what is keeping new sequences of gene base pairs other than the already exhibited genes from being created? No evidence to back up this claim. Correct, but this allele (gene sequence) can be a newly introduced one as opposed to one that existed previously in a population so your point it moot.Below is an example of the evolution of hindwings of fruit flys and beetles caried over by mutations in the regulatory genes of ancestral four wing insects as an example of how mutations in DNA can cause new traits to arise. This is but one of many examples of how mutations can cause new genetic traits to be introduced. For more in depth analysis of this, here is the link: From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design - Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee - Google BooksEdited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Herebedragons is discussing it because you brought it up. Why mention it in the first place if you know nothing about it. Than you know nothing about science. Science is man's attempt to explain the world around him. Why would anyone want to engage you on this since you don't even care to back up your claims with any shred of evidence.I will leave off with these quotes about evidence for you to ponder. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I am a church goer and Bible believer, but I accept the reality of evolution. There are many other Bible believers who do not hold the YEC worldview and are able to reconcile the TOE to their world view. The problem is when you hold an interpretation of the Bible which is inconsistent with science and historical evidence. I am probably one of the few admirers of both Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Jesus Christ.

Actually any mutation or change in the DNA is a "new" allele since an allele is defined as an alternate form of a gene (a sequence of DNA on a chromosome that code for the production of one or more proteins). In other words a mutation causes a change in the DNA sequence through insertion, deletion, frameshift or by point mutation, which in turn changes that gene/allele. So bottom line is, all mutations create new alleles. However, not all changes in alleles cause phenotypic trait (exhibited) changes to that organism or its offspring (depending on whether the mutation was germinal or somatic).Now, whether these changes cause by mutations are beneficial, harmful or neutral to the organism and its offspring is another matter. True, in the fact that most mutations are neutral, but what prevents traits from being created which benefit the species. Again you are missing the whole point of natural selection weeding out the organisms with harmful mutations and favoring those with mutations that benefit the species. At the molecular level there is no difference from a beneficial mutation and a deleterious one. A mutation is a mutation in DNA world. It is only at the macroscopic scale of the organism and ultimately a population of genetically similar organisms aka species that it makes a difference. Please provide evidence for your assertion. And which you provide no evidence for.Again how does variation in phenotypes (aka traits) come about by a reduction in genetic variability (aka traits). Makes no sense and has no evidence to back it up. Ok, new daughter populations may bring out new phenotypes through the reinforcement of already existing alleles or the creation of new alleles through mutations, which may be either beneficial, neutral or harmful to that population. So yes, this may change the gene frequency of certain alleles (new or existing) in that population. Why is this a definitional "trick"? Scientists have been defining species as organisms that have the inability (or near inability, some can breed but produce infertile offspring) to interbreed, for nearly 200 years. So what is your definition of a species? Obviously you are smarter than the millions of biological scientists in the world. I think you mean genetic diversity not genetic variation correct? That is you are trying to say that that amount of traits reduces in a new population not that the genetic difference between these traits reduces, correct? Either way, what specifically is causing this. I need to understand what you are trying to say, to see if it is valid or not. There are several ways of getting more genetic variation (wider variation between genetic traits of a population): mutations, gene flow and sex (genetic reshuffling of traits). That is a population with a higher mutational rate and/or gene flow and/or sexual activity (especially between those with differing alleles) will create a wider range of genetic variation. Those with the opposite will create a more narrow range of genetic variation. For example, human populations which interbreed more with each other instead of those outside their group will create less genetic variation not more since dominant genes will be reinforced and the recessive genes may eventually be removed from the gene pool hence why you see very few red heads in oriental cultures. You fundamentally misunderstand this process and oversimplify it. Enough genetic variation is needed to make a daughter population of an organism genetically different than its parent to a degree that it can no longer effectively breed with that original population. This can be cause by physical dislocation of the two populations which cause each population to drift apart genetically and/or by a reduction of gene flow caused by numerous reasons between these two populations to the degree that they differ enough genetically to not produce fertile offspring. You missed my point, mutations can create a new allele from an existing one merely by changing DNA sequence of the existing allele. A change in the structure of the gene i.e. mutations which change the nucleotides will change the gene. Destructive to DNA does not make sense in reference to mutations. Mutations typically don't destroy DNA, destroy usually means eliminating it. We have so many mutations (aka changes) in our DNA that we don't know where previous mutations begin or end. Our DNA is built up over eons of changes aka mutations. Again, it does not make sense to call mutations at the molecular level harmful, beneficial or even neutral. Mutations are mutations. It is only at the organism level and above that these terms make sense.If you mean harmful to the survival of that particular species than yes the cumulative effect of mutations to an organism's gamete DNA can possibly be destructive to that organism's offspring. But again, natural selection and other factors will weed these individual organisms out of the gene pool or that species may possibly die out because of the cumulative results of the deleterious changes to the DNA. Hand waving away a logical and sound explanation does not help your case. If you don't like it, provide solid reasons why besides just saying it can't or doesn't happen. Mutations are not a disease process per se since mutations can be benefit as well as harm the survivability of that species. Mutations are a natural process. Your body, cells, and DNA are in a constant barrage of background (radiation from the Earth, other organisms, and man-made sources) and cosmic radiation which produce a number of mutations in the DNA of your body. However, our DNA is very good at correcting and counteracting these mutations. Basically we have a self-correcting DNA repair system in place. The number I found was that approximately 175 mutations (those that are not corrected) occur in one humans genome during his or her lifetime. And a very small amount of any of these for one individual occur in the gametes and passed down to future generations. However, more primitive organisms have a lower ability to correct these mutations. No, the gene IS the sequence. A gene is a sequence of DNA which allows the manufacture of amino acids which link up to form proteins. If you change the sequence of nucleotides you ARE creating new alleles than what existed previously. There are typically 88 keys on a modern piano. By changing the sequence of keys played you change the music that is heard. In a similar way changing the sequence of base pairs in a gene may produce a new allele to be introduced. There are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genome and a little over 20,000 protein-coding genes. In fact only a tiny percent, 1.5%, of the entire human genome are protein-coding genes. Therefore if the sequence in even one of these 20,000 genes which an extremely small portion of the genome changes, this can create an entirely new gene/allele and may or may not produce a new phenotypic trait depending on its effect on that organism.Maybe this illustration will help. It shows a point mutation of a specific nucleotide. This creates a new sequence which in turn depending on its location can create a new variation of a gene aka an allele. If a mutation changes the nucleotides in that specific gene than it is possible to vary that cat whisker enough to make it change morphologically. The modification or "making" of traits over time is what evolution is all about. You are proving the case for the TOE. Or lengthening or shortening that whisker until it becomes something other than a whisker. True. I wouldn't call this "destructive" unless it is harmful to the survival of that organism and its offspring. You prove my case above. No one mutation typically doesn't affect more than one gene. However, changes in traits over time can cause more morphological changes for the species. Of course it changes what the gene does. A gene is nothing more than the a protein-coding portion of DNA. So by changing the sequence of nucleotides in a gene you are changing the amino acids that the gene codes for which in turn changes the protein(s) produced. By changing the proteins produced you effectively change the function of the gene. Bottom line is that mutations change the coding of the gene which in turn change what the gene "does". I gave you the reason above concerning the human genome in that the higher-level organisms such as humans has an error-correcting mechanism which helps reduce the amount of changes that occur in the genome from one generation to the next. But it is not fool proof. Changes do occur. With lower-level organisms this error-correcting process is much less full proof if it exists at all. Thus the level of mutational changes are higher in these organisms.There, I argued your own case. You are welcome. Now go do some reading on genetics and microbiology. Repeating it over and over does not make it true. Theory is the bread and butter to a scientist. Heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun) is a "theory" (quotes are for emphasis). Newtons laws (a fancy word for a mathematical explanation of something) of motion are derived from his "theories" on gravitation and other forces, Quantum mechanics is a "theory". General relativity is a "theory". Plate tectonics is a "theory". All of these "theories" have been proven over and over from observation and repeated experimentation by peers to be correct. So to call this a theory is a complement to a scientist, who actually knows what the word "theory" means. It is not MY theory. It is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which has been peer-review for over 100 years by millions of scientists. And yours is not a theory it is a discombobulated attempt at a hypothesis for why "macroevolution" can not occur brought about by a poor understanding of the subject area.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

That is precisely the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that the recipe for beef stew will change into something else, i.e. a recipe for beef stroganoff for example. However this would require many changes to the recipe and thus an evolution between these two recipes occur with many beef stew/beef stroganoff intermediates. In short order the beef stew recipe can be adapted and changed just like in your kitchen.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Not always. Here is one of several examples of a mutation of an existing DNA sequence for a protein of which the mutation provides a beneficial effect to humans. Specifically having to do with a mutation in gene called Apolipoprotein AI used for lipid (fat) metabolism.This mutation called ApoA-1 Milano manifests itself in the AP AI gene and was discovered to exist in a small group of people of an town in northern Italy called Limone sul Garda. The mutation of this gene is traced back to Giovanni Pomarelli who lived in the late 1700s and early 1800s. This group of people have extremely low amounts of HDL cholesterol, which is the good kind that helps reduce the "bad" LDL cholesterol. However, even though this small group of people had very low amounts of HDL, had poor diets, and many smoked, they have negligible amounts of heart disease. The reason is because they had a mutated form of the AP AI gene which modified the HDL cholesterol to be even more aggressive in getting rid LDL than it would with non-mutated AP AI genes. Here is some more information on this beneficial mutation. Also Research Papers on this beneficial mutation:Bielicki and Oda (2002) "Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and apolipoprotein A-IParis exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type apolipoprotein A-I." Biochemistry 41, 2089-2096. [PubMed]Calabresi L, et al. (1999) "Cell cholesterol efflux to reconstituted high-density lipoproteins containing the apolipoprotein A-IMilano dimer." Biochemistry 38, 16307-14. [PubMed]Franceschini G, Sirtori M, Gianfranceschi G, Sirtori CR (May 1981). "Relation between the HDL apoproteins and A-I isoproteins in subjects with the AIMilano abnormality". Metab. Clin. Exp. 30 (5): 502—9. doi:10.1016/0026-0495(81)90188-8. PMID 6785551.Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso A, Weisgraber KH, Mahley RW (1980). "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family" (PDF). J. Clin. Invest. 66 (5): 892—900. doi:10.1172/JCI109956. PMC 371523. PMID 7430351.Franceschini G, Calabresi L, Chiesa G, Parolini C, Sirtori CR, Canavesi M, Bernini F. (1999) "Increased Cholesterol Efflux Potential of Sera From ApoA-IMilano Carriers and Transgenic Mice." Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 19, 1257-62. Increased Cholesterol Efflux Potential of Sera From ApoA-IMilano Carriers and Transgenic Mice | Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular BiologyGualandri V, Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Gianfranceschi G, Orsini GB, Cerrone A, Menotti A (1985) "AIMilano apoprotein identification of the complete kindred and evidence of a dominant genetic transmission." Am J Hum Genet. 37, 1083-97Weisgraber KH, Rall SC, Bersot TP, Mahley RW, Franceschini G, Sirtori CR (25 February 1983). "Apolipoprotein A-IMilano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I" (PDF). J. Biol. Chem. 258 (4): 2508—13. PMID 6401735.Zhu X, Wu G, Zeng W, Xue H, Chen B (2005). "Cysteine mutants of human apolipoprotein A-I: a study of secondary structural and functional properties". J. Lipid Res. 46 (6): 1303—11. doi:10.1194/jlr.M400401-JLR200. PMID 15805548.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Because it does not exist anywhere else in the human population and can be traced back to one person.Besides a mutation to a gene is an allele. An allele is just an alternate form of a gene. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I assume your real question is, how do we know this mutation is not a preexisting allele which was original part of the human genome not a mutation that occurred later on, correct? My answer in the previous post explains this. The fact is that all the people with this mutated gene can all trace their lineage back to this one person. No one else has been discovered to have this gene mutation.There are only 35 people in this small Italian village to have this mutated gene.Here is the down and dirty on this from a news journalist aspect for those who have a hard time deciphering science journals: Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

BTW, I just noticed the news article is wrong where it says This is totally BS in that DNA is not a protein, and cysteine and arginine are the amino acids coded by DNA, they do not exist in the DNA. This is what happens when idiot reporters try to report on science.Here is a better news article: Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.