Why is it that microevolution is so often presented as foundational to the theory of evolution when microevolution is both accepted and celebrated by creationists and evolutionists alike?
In biology the term "micro-evolution" is not used anymore. Biologists only refer to evolution now. Evolution is the change of the genetic make up in populations over time. This has been observed to happen, in fact it is very easy to test. The modern day science of genetics is thus a supreme tool in providing evidence for evolution.
To me it seems that microevolution is just a matter of interpretation, and cannot be used as evidence for one side or the other.
A matter of interpretation? what other interpretations for: "the genetic make up of a population changes over time" are there?I hunt for the truth
ut this is my point entirely. No species has ever been shown to change into another species, yet evolutionists insist it is possible and even (as you mentioned) define the terms to support their side.
Through genetics, one can track the point where the current creature branched off from it's common ancestor with another creature.
So it is a matter of interpretation whether microevolution demonstrates evolution or not. Creationists completely affirm that animals change within species (or kind). We just know that there are limits. Evolutionists know there are limits too, they just insist there aren't any limits in certain areas.
Evolution is the change in genetic make up in a population over time. That's it, that's all it is. So if "Creationists completely affirm that animals change within species (or kind)." They agree evolution is happening. And about those limits, how can: "the change in genetic make up in a population over time." be limited?
For example: Say I'm breeding dogs and I get a dog that is 1 foot taller. Could we keep breeding for millions of years (provided we could stay alive that long) and get a dog that is 200 feet tall? No, there are limits.
It probably wouldn't be a dog anymore the way we define "dog" today. But I don't think any biologist is going to say that we can have a 200 foot dog. There were however some pretty big land creatures out there, you know them by the name dinosaur. So, big land animals ARE possible.
So if you can't breed indefinitely and get a 200 foot tall dog, why can you breed indefinitely and get a completely different kind of animal?
Because you keep adding small changes in the genetic make up over time, which will eventually lead to a different species. (by the way, a species is not the same as a kind, or if it is, Noah's got a bit of a problem)
Changes within a species do not demonstrate that the species can change to something else entirely. Therefore microevolution is not foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.
Yes it can, look at the genetic record. And I never said micro evolution WAS evidence for the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, I said that "micro evolution" is not used as a term anymore.I hunt for the truth
Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism?
No I can't, for the very simple fact that there are no "scientific procedures" that add new genetic material. These are all NATURAL processes.
(not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)
If a gene changes, it becomes a different gene, no? So, if a gene that's there changes into a gene that wasn't there, that's a NEW gene. By the way, all DNA is made up of only 4 different nucleotides. A, T, C and G.(these stand for adenine, thymine, cytosine and Guanine) That's ALL that's needed to get all the difference we see today.
What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.
The problem with making up words for stuff that are generally referred to by other words, is that it can make it hard to see what you are talking about.
So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new.
As pointed out above, a change of a gene into a gene that wasn't there before, IS new material.
This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".
Since you are wrong about it, I don't think it does.
We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material.
Once again: If a gene changes into a gene that wasn't there before, you have NEW material.
So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.
The Theory of evolution is a description of the evolutionary mechanism. So I would say it doesn't support creation in ANY way.
(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)
No problem, however it would be nice if you would define what a kind is. It'll make it a lot clearer when you state things like: "animals can only evolve within their kind". If we don't know what exactly a kind is, it's a bit hard for us to test that statement.