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: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 908 (385162)
02-14-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-13-2007 9:07 PM


MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
A smokescreen where any evidence offered to support evolution can be shunted into "microevolution" which, it is claimed, was never under contention in the first place.
And since the terms are perpetually undefined, it's remarkably easy to employ the smokescreen. Since "macroevolution" is never defined, it's impossible to objectively determine what evidence would be required to support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2007 9:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 02-14-2007 1:21 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 13 by Fosdick, posted 02-14-2007 2:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 908 (395475)
04-16-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
To evolve from fish to philosopher there has to be a huge increase in genetic information.
Why? Philosophers do philosophy because, as humans, they've chosen to study it; not because it's in their genes. When Plato wrote the Dialogues it wasn't an expression of the content of his DNA.
All I'm saying is that you're radically overestimating the number of genes it takes to specify a fish or a person. Did you know that humans have less than 20,000 genes? That's less genes than this guy:
Concerns about genetic information are interesting, but it's not the whole picture. The evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to account for all the genetic information necessary for the Earth's different species, because we're just not talking about all that much information.
These 2 mechanisms seem to limit genetic information not increase it.
Mutation increases information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 3:55 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 908 (402722)
05-29-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by MartinV
05-29-2007 3:41 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
How do we know that information was not "front-loaded" from the beginning in DNA?
Remember when I disproved that back in More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus?
We know that the information was not front-loaded because we know - for a fact, as proven by "co-speciating" species - that these informational changes are the result of environment and mutation, not pre-programmed changes happening over time.
I have read also that Venter sequenced genome analyzing RNA during expression of genes.
If I understand what you're referring to, you read wrong. The Human Genome Project results from Venter's Celera company came from whole-genome shotgun sequencing of nuclear DNA, not RNA.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by MartinV, posted 05-29-2007 3:41 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 4:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 149 of 908 (671520)
08-26-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Big_Al35
08-26-2012 3:10 PM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Here is another example which illustrates my point that even articles discussing macroevolution in bacteria are unsure about the definition and indicate that it might just aswell be called microevolution.
Largely this reflects the ambiguity of what constitutes a "species" - by definition, a "reproductive community" - among asexual organisms. It doesn't have anything to do with whether macroevolution can happen in bacteria. While it's frequently ambiguous whether any two related bacteria are the same species or not, there's no question that there are multiple species of bacteria.
It's a bit like asking when it started raining. There's no ambiguity between clear skies and a torrential downpour, but is it "raining" when you're splashed by a single drop? Most people would say "no." Two drops, probably the same. Fifty drops? Definitely raining. Five drops? Maybe, maybe not. The transition from "not raining" to "raining" is ambiguous even though the beginning and end of the transition is completely obvious; everybody can tell whether or not it's raining. Species in bacteria are the same way - exactly the situation we would expect if species-level macroevolution was underway in bacteria, as we know that it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Big_Al35, posted 08-26-2012 3:10 PM Big_Al35 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