Macroevolution: Its all around us...

Marel, I think the discussion here might be of assistance in your debate.I am focussing on this because it is about the only very narrow part of your post asking for help and because you are about 5 to 10 weeks short of enough time to prepare yourself for this large topic.

You should not phrase this as a firm statement. When you are unsure of the subject you are discussing and someone with, perhaps, more knowledge suggests you have misconceptions you should respond with something like:I read, in such and such a place, that evolution happened quickly in the case of reptiles and birds.orI thought that this was supposed to have happened quickly.This gives the idea that you aren't so sure of your "facts" and are ready to be corrected.In each case it would make sense for you to fill in a few more details such as were you read it. As for "quickly" you might want to be sure that you have a number on the time scale involved so others can understand what you mean by quickly.What you have posted simply suggests that you have reached a conclusion without having,really, any facts on which to base a conclusion. This is neither good decision making or a very good base for learning new things.

Your analogy isn't adequate because if enclosed in the right markers any pattern of the DNA is "meaningful" -- guessing at what you might mean. That is, it produces a protein through the transcription mechanism.Now some proteins might not be good for much and some will be. Is it the "good for something" that you mean by "meaningful". Some are.Duplicating an entire sequence might produce twice as much of an existing protein -- this has effects on the organism (some of the time). Some of those effects maybe harmful, some neutral and some maybe beneficial. Is beneficial what you mean by "meaningful"? Some are.Those which are actually harmful will be weeded out by selection. Leaving us with a increase in "meaningful" "information".Remember, the DNA code is not a language in which only some orders of letters produce real output. Any order within the gene produces real output.

Up above you refused the stick insect example because you didn't get the exact genetics. Now you refuse an example because you need something called an "advanced structure". This begins to seem a lot like galloping goalposts.We are talking, at this point, about "information" (which you have not yet supplied a useful definition for) which you told us was some pattern in the genetic code. Let's stick with that until we figure out whether it can be increased or not. This is a moderately complicated topic it will be better to take one step at a time.

Please explain why you think that a separate gene pool isn't an "independnt evolutionary trajectory".Perhaps it would be useful for you to offer your understandings of those two terms.Once organisms are in a separate gene pool they are by definition following an independent evolutionary trajectory.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-27-2005 01:01 PM

SlV, if you refer to major creationist sources you will, I think, find that they have given up on the new species issue awhile ago. They now agree that new species arise. Some agree to new genera and, while it gets fuzzy, maybe new families too. You might be a bit out of date in your arguments.While you're doing that research could you find the "official" creationist definition of "kind" please. We haven't been given a useful one yet.

I would suggest that a mix of arrogance and ignorance is inclined to produce only foolishness. You don't know a tenth as much as you think you do (and a good chunk of that is wrong. ).From: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
(which is, I believe, one of the major creationist organizations, is it not?)

quote:

---

In fact, a biblical model of the history of life would seem to require that speciation not only happens, but does so rapidly. The wolf kind coming off the Ark, for example, would need to have been able to rapidly diversify into the different ‘species’ seen todaythe various types of wolves, jackals, coyotes and dogs, which are adapted to a wide range of different climates, from Arctic to tropical. These can hybridize, indicating that they came from the same original created kind12 (see pp. 19—22).

---

from:Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

This is not to deny that speciation occurs. Much evidence implies that isolating processes are establishing unique populations all the time. Indeed, in the case of ploidy, a new isolated species (depending on the definitions) can occur in one generation. However, if speciation (primarily reproductive isolation) is the process of microevolution, and, in turn macroevolution, as some proponents hold, then we are once again in the precarious position of declaring that the fact of speciation leads directly to the fact of macroevolution, without knowing very well how either takes place, or the causative relation between the two.

---

Speciation is not the issue they wish to argue about anymore. Now, you were asked to research the support for your side but it has been partially done for you. Did you find a good operational definition of "kind"? You might as well try, since that is where you are going now.

Perhaps you should back up and explain what you define as "convergent DNA"?It is a parallel to the convergent evolution of some traits of course. These traits are under selective pressure (streamlining in water living animals e.g.). Crash and others are refering to DNA that is NOT under any selective pressure.Can you clarify what it is that you are talking about and show, in some detail, why you think it counters the idea of common descent?