Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 11:03 AM
41 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,580 Year: 3,617/19,786 Month: 612/1,087 Week: 202/212 Day: 17/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 166 of 248 (255537)
10-29-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
10-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: A last reply
Since nothing in your post makes any sense at all and avoids touching on the questions at hand it is clear that continueing to converse with you is a waste of time.

Could this fact have anything to do with one of us being a Darwinist and the other a Creationist ?

Also I note your definition of "macroevolution" given in the previous post is useless. Whether the ultimate source is God or not has nothing useful to say about the change in life-forms on the planet that we observe since it's inception.

You asked for my definition of macroevolution, rather how I believe Darwinists define it. I provided 3 definitions to a complex task. You now amend what you seek to actually be something ambiguous:

Ned: "....nothing useful to say about the change in life-forms on the planet that we observe since it's inception."

I will now say something useful to the above request:

Whether its you or RAZD, or any other evolutionist, your macroevolution claim/theory makes perfect sense, that is the logic-based fact of macro produced by micro. We can observe so many similarities between species and connect them on this basis - producing a chain (to oversimplify), but nontheless accurate. But like Lewontin, who claims he takes the side of Science, so do I and its absurd constructs like genetic homeostasis and the voluminous experimentation data proving its existence corroborated by what we observe in the fossil record.

The textual evidence of Genesis corresponding with reality/design/IC/Cambrian/fossil record, and the three scientific facts in the preceding paragraph (GH/experimentation/fossil record) undermine and falsify the completely logical deduction of Darwinian macroevolution.

If you choose to not reply then I will not participate any further either as topic author engages in ad hocary mockery = "waste of time."

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2005 4:56 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nwr, posted 10-29-2005 8:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 179 by mick, posted 11-19-2005 9:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 167 of 248 (255542)
10-29-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2005 7:56 PM


Re: A last reply
The textual evidence of Genesis corresponding with reality/design/IC/Cambrian/fossil record, and the three scientific facts in the preceding paragraph (GH/experimentation/fossil record) undermine and falsify the completely logical deduction of Darwinian macroevolution.

Even if evidence were to show up, that disproved ToE, that would not alter the fact that the Genesis story is wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 168 of 248 (255689)
10-30-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2005 4:29 PM


Re: What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?
The evidential reasoning was cited by me and you have ignored = inability to refute.

But it doesn't matter, Darwin withdrew, and logically, it was because he felt there wasn't any amount of evidence to support, yet his theory ploughed ahead - driven by atheistic needs.

The fact that my points show that (1) there is no single logical conclusion possible and (2) that there are many valid reasons for doing so and (3) that the theory itself is independent of any examples used

Mean that your point is refuted. Denial of this is not logical.

Why post the preceding speculation in the first place then ? (rhetorical)

To show you how silly it is to make any speculation on this issue, expecially when it doesn't affect the theory in question at all.

When I said speciation has not occurred/no evidence exists I was talking about Darwinian speciation.

Just for chuckles, what would "non-Darwinian speciation" be?

There is only one {level\type} to speciation. Speciation is when a new species is {observed\classified}. Period. This has been observed. There are no special "types" of speciation.

The Bible accuracy Forum is part of the Science Forum.

This is not the Bible accuracy Forum, but the

EvC Forum ⇒ All Forums ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution

Forum

90 percent of your post is ad hoc.

Substantiate that claim, demonstrate it. With a calculation of the actual percentage.

I will not go round and round with you and give dignity to a ignorant view denying the establish fact of genetic homeostasis.

(sigh) another ad hominem ... {turns other cheek}

What they all have in common is that they are the source/origin of something. Genetic homeostasis is caused by Genesis being true.

ROFLOL the logic there is stunning ... ly absent. The origins of words has absolutely no {effect\interaction\control} on the behavior of the natural world.

When you can falsify genetic homeostasis ...

It has been: speciation has been observed. Denial of this is not logical.

I suspect the Admins let you by on previous reputation that did not hold up in this case.

LOL - I get no special treatment from admins here ... this amounts to another ad hominem .... {turns other other cheek}

Speciation occurs, there is no limitation to it at the genetic level. The changes that are involved in new speciation events are not restricted to only certain zones that prevent what could be called "macro" evolution ... if such a thing really existed as a different mechanism than plain old simple vanilla evolution.

Enjoy.

{fixed quote box}

This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*06*2005 09:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 4:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 169 of 248 (257371)
11-06-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Macro Evolution - a definition?
Herepton writes:

In my forth-coming Internet article titled "Darwinism Refuted" to be posted on a large Creationist website...

Just made me laugh a bit. I thought it was worth repeating.

Mick

ps. I will bring it up as a special motion at the next communist international. I can tell you that the biologists at my university are pooping their pants right now. We could have handled a small Creationist website... but a large one???

This message has been edited by mick, 11-06-2005 09:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 3:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 9:46 PM mick has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 170 of 248 (257372)
11-06-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by mick
11-06-2005 9:38 PM


Re: Macro Evolution - a definition?
We could have handled a small Creationist website... but a large one???

But at the large one it will receive more peer review eh?

{more people will peer at it?}


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 9:38 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 9:54 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 171 of 248 (257373)
11-06-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
11-06-2005 9:46 PM


Re: Macro Evolution - a definition?
razd writes:

We could have handled a small Creationist website... but a large one???

But at the large one it will receive more peer review eh?

{more people will peer at it?}

Life is pretty hard for us communist atheist evolutionist darwinist scumbags right now. We spend most of our time dreading that killer online article titled "Darwin refuted". The whole thing is going to collapse like a house of cards.

I'm seriously thinking about moving into real estate or investment banking. At least we know that the economy is real, not just a figment of our imagination.

This message has been edited by mick, 11-06-2005 09:56 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 9:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 172 of 248 (261125)
11-18-2005 8:37 PM


RAZD:

We know Darwin in the first edition of "Origin" offered one lonely example of his theory: bears becoming acquatic and given enough time could somehow morph into a whale-like creature. This example was immediately yanked from all later editions.

Why ?

Do you know the origin of this claim ?

I do.

What evidence of macroevolution did Darwin ever present ?

I believe in 2nd chances. Now go.

Ray


Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 8:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2006 11:00 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 173 of 248 (261134)
11-18-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2005 8:37 PM


topic please
the TOPIC is

A {macro vs micro} genetic question for creationists:

IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?

At the level of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).

Random mutations can cause any pair to be changed to another, thus at the molecular level it is entirely possible to change one {"macro" organism} into another {"macro" organism} with the correct series of mutations of exactly the same kind as are known to occur in "micro"evolution.

The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

I suggest if you want to discuss editing differences beteen volumes of "Origin of Species" that you start a new topic as there is absolutely no way this is relevant to the discussion of genetic evidence for or against "macro" evoloution.

Note in particular that the field of genetics came long after Darwin.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 8:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 9:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 174 of 248 (261141)
11-18-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
11-18-2005 8:59 PM


Re: topic please
I suggest if you want to discuss editing differences beteen volumes of "Origin of Species" that you start a new topic as there is absolutely no way this is relevant to the discussion of genetic evidence for or against "macro" evoloution.

Note in particular that the field of genetics came long after Darwin.

You don't know as I suspected.

Darwin yanked the example because he knew from his own breeding experiments and the voluminous amount that preceded him that a natural genetic barrier had been profiled and established.

"Origin" is claimed to be a scientific endeavor - the most influencial of all time, yet the acquatic bear nonsense was derived from a 2nd hand report made by a Canadian trapper who said bears swim with their jaws open hoping to run into a meal which elicited this "scientific" source to quip that it reminded him of a whale.

This is the origin of your macroevolution fantasies. I guess it is time to fall back on Lewontin's "we take the side of science despite its absurd constructs" shield.

If macro wasn't held as fact I would be laughing my ass off. Since it is I must conclude the lengths people will go to evade the facts of Genesis is seen above.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 8:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 175 of 248 (261148)
11-18-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2005 9:16 PM


Re: topic please
Again, you have not presented any genetic evidence of any barrier to "macro"evolution. Repeating nonsense about an editorial change to a book that predates the science of genetics is both off topic and totally irrelevant.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss your pet theory, but don't try to hijack another.

YOU ARE OFF TOPIC.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 9:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 248 (261164)
11-18-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-23-2004 11:33 PM


DNA INFO
RAZD writes:

vel of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).

I haven't read the thread, but do you abolutely positive know that we know all there is to know about all of the information contained in DNA? Likely not. Aren't we continually discovering that we don't know? In recent times haven't we discovered that there's a whole lot more than previously thought?

With the above in mind, I often read, "we don't know" in board discussions about science theories and that's fine. So aren't you implying by your question that, "we don't know" is unacceptable for creationists who don't advocate evolution but ok for evolutionists?


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2004 11:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 8:13 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 177 of 248 (261229)
11-19-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Buzsaw
11-18-2005 11:12 PM


Re: DNA INFO
So aren't you implying by your question that, "we don't know" is unacceptable for creationists who don't advocate evolution but ok for evolutionists?

No, because it is creationists that claim that "macro"evolution is impossible (and thus they do claim to know). The question is: if it is impossible, then where is the mechanism that makes it impossible.

Conversly, if no mechanism can be discerned, then why would "macro" evolution not be inevitable as just more "micro" evolution?

Here is where the creationist should say "I don't know" ...

The concept of the common ancestor means that each branch in the tree of life at the moment of branching was no more different than a speciation event: "micro" evolution occured. After that initial division more speciation events followed (more "micro" evolution) until first genus became divided, then family, and on .... these divisions above species being purely human constructs for convenience with little real meaning of course.

The genetic tree matches this concept with genetic divergence patterns, patterns that show the ability to mutate is not restricted at the genetic level.

Enjoy.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*19*2005 08:15 AM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2005 11:12 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2005 9:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 248 (261385)
11-19-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
11-19-2005 8:13 AM


Re: DNA INFO
RAZD writes:

No, because it is creationists that claim that "macro"evolution is impossible (and thus they do claim to know). The question is: if it is impossible, then where is the mechanism that makes it impossible.

Conversly, if no mechanism can be discerned, then why would "macro" evolution not be inevitable as just more "micro" evolution?

1. I don't think they claim any more than evolutionists are claiming. Neither know for sure, but each observes and interprets what is observed according to ideology.

2. Nothing is inevitable until and unless one can be absolutely sure we know all the mechanisms pertaining to DNA have been discovered and fully understood. LOL. That will never happen.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 8:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 179 of 248 (261388)
11-19-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2005 7:56 PM


Re: A last reply
herepton writes:

your macroevolution claim/theory makes perfect sense, that is the logic-based fact of macro produced by micro. We can observe so many similarities between species and connect them on this basis - producing a chain (to oversimplify), but nontheless accurate.

Great! An accurate chain/tree and a macroevolution theory that makes perfect sense. We finally got somewhere!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 180 of 248 (341775)
08-20-2006 5:50 PM


Refining the concepts
I have come to the conclusion that there is some value to the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution -- as long as they are properly defined.

This has turned up in a number of threads subsequent to this one but is summarized on this one:

Message 25

After a speciation separation, each population now has a new {stasis equilibrium} point that it will try to "center" (chose mates) around, and there is no mixing of genes between the divided populations so those {stasis equilibrium} points can diverge.

But there are other population dynamics that are involved both before and after that are different. Take pelycodus:


Click to enlarge

(Image copied to mirror site to save bandwidth originally from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html)

Where you see a general (normal) trend toward larger individuals as time passes, and then a speciation event with subsequest divergence between two populations. The right branch continues with the linear increase in size, however the left branch dives back to re-occupy the original {size\niche\function}. This would be forced by competition between the two groups, a selection pressure that doesn't happen while they are one population. Once they have diverged sufficiently that such competition does not threaten survival of one population, then each are free to take whatever evolutionary paths they want, but they will not be the same path - that bridge is burned.

Note that the reduction in size is faster than the general increase in size. This is the effect of being de-linked.

Note also that the population variation is restricted to the same general width rather than getting broader at each time level. This is the effect of the trendency towards stasis.

Stasis doesn't have to be a result, btw, it can be {static relative to a continued trend} as above; it is just a tendency inherent in sexual selection (imho) towards average individuals in a population -- ie sexual selection could be a two-edged sword, allowing greater (liberal) mixing of genes along with quick (conservative) selection to omit extreme divergence.

I tried to find the post where I had come to this conclusion last night and couldn't (silly ol search system + tired brain + impatience), but you can think of all the selection pressures that operate within a population and all the selection pressures that operate between populations as being the essential difference in the shape of the evolution that is observed.

Wait, I finally found the post

Message 267

"micro"evolution is the individual changes in species over time (and space), each change is a separate "micro"evolutionary event. This represents short term trends and fluctuations (larger beaks or smaller beaks etc), the change that occurs before speciation takes place.

"macro"evolution is the accumulation of changes over long periods of time, thus "macro"evolution is not the {change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection} but the {accumulation of changes incorporated into species by "micro"evolution ... and natural selection}. This represents long term trends - the change that continues (by continued "micro" changes) to occur once speciation has been achieved.

Which is further refined in

Message 278

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it's more than that, it's also the difference between application at different levels:

(1) the individual level -- each individual is conceived with it's basic kit of mutations and the fitness of the individual is tested to survive to live and breed, those with non-lethal mutations live, those without disabling mutations survive and grow, those without disadvantageous mutations - and maybe a bit of luck - breed. This is where continued mutation and adaptation occur.

(2) the population level -- the population is made up of individuals with a wide variety of mutations, adaptations and abilities, and the dynamics of interactions of the members of the population in reaction to the environmental pressures is where change versus stasis tendencies are selected, this is where the dynamics of the different adaptations and abilities come into play, whether for survival or for breeding. It can only act on the basis of the net accumulation of mutations that are available.

You could also say that "micro" changes are not fixed in the population, as the population as a whole can revert under changed selection pressures (the way the beak size can revert). Whether the {features\alleles\variations} can become part of the defining characteristics of the species is debatable, as this gets into what distinguishes one species from another (especially on a timeline).

Once a speciation has occurred those changes have become part of the {defining genome} of the species and so do become fixed (as part of the previous amount of variation is discarded in the divide), albeit still subject to "micro" changes around that {center\node\nexus}.

Speciation is the dividing line then between "micro" and "macro" -- and once two speciation events occur in succession the fact that "macro"evolution (by this definition) has occurred cannot be denied either: that is all that is needed to show that evolutionary branches occur and that the result is a nested hierarchy, which is the basis of all upper level taxonomy divisions.

You could also use the genetic differences between the species in these subsequent speciations and of their ancestors to validate the genetic tree derivations. I would think this has been done and that there would be ongoing work on it to refine the marker systems used (anybody know of papers on this?).

You can't have "macro" without "micro" -- the basic mechanism of change is still the same -- but you could have "micro" without "macro" ... hence evidence of such effect is different than evidence of (species) change over time.

Note that this does not mean that there is a barrier to "macro"evolution, as it rather confirms that it is the accumulation of "micro"evolution, and there is no mechanism yet proposed to stop or prevent change at a genetic level.

Enjoy.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2006 5:50 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019