Macro and Micro Evolution

Please explain how so called macro evolution includes biogenesis and acqured characteristics.Please explain how so called macro evolution includes mutation and recombinations but micro doesn't.Are you suggesting that macro doesn't have natural selection, large scale changes, sexual selection, genetic drift etc? If so why?In fact, Quiz, you are wrong. (not for the first time) There are not two theories.

quote:

---

Messenjah, my question is:
What then is macro evolution?

---

Ill try to answer this question with this definition macro-evolution: the upward progression in complexity from bacteria to man. A few links below might help the understanding of the difference, Both state that new taxnomic groups may arise but their is a definition between the two that must first be understood.In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life SciencesThank you
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

Your site simply asserts the same thing you asserted, Sonic.Could you tell us where micro evolution leaves off and macro starts perhaps?Could you tell us what stops a number of "micro changes" becoming big enough to be called "macro"?Could you give us some examples of the most extreme cases of change that are still "micro"?Could you give us some examples of the smallest changes that are still "macro"?In other words, Sonic, could you demonstrate that you have the faintest clue what you are talking about?BTW, I think you are new, in which case, welcome aboard. Just don't expect a free ride. If you think you have something to say be prepared to defend it. If you're not then you will be ignored (at best). Good luck!

quote:

---

Please explain how so called macro evolution includes biogenesis and acqured characteristics.

---

Read the definition described by sonic he made a good point.

quote:

---

Please explain how so called macro evolution includes mutation and recombinations but micro doesn't.

---

Micro does include mutations as they may occur at any given time but the problem is generally natural selection or sexual selection will remove the mutation. Just like the mutations we see today of twins being stuck together etc. To make my point I will ask, who would sexualy select(i.e. NS) that twin over a darkskin, thin, large breasts, darkhair and blue eyes female?

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that macro doesn't have natural selection, large scale changes, sexual selection, genetic drift etc? If so why?

---

Yes because all of the mechinisms of micro-evolution off set the mechinisms for macro. Lets take for example mutation, I agree that mutations are present in both of the forms of evolution on topic, but in one(i.e. micro) the mutation is removed and won't exist longer then its generation, causing macro-evolution to be removed from micro-evolutions scope. So in effect the mechinisms of one does not cope with the mechinisms of another. I have seen macro-evolutionist try to stick micro and macro together but it simply does not work as described so far in my response.

quote:

---

In fact, Quiz, you are wrong. (not for the first time) There are not two theories.

---

Do I need to past my quote, I guess so since you are so wanting to say that I am wrong when I have not been so much as you say or try to explain, I simply have been justified a few times. This is what I posted, (There are so far 2 theories which have many mechinisms that I know of). You may notice that I left room for more (i.e. that i know of) in effect by what you said, you are wrong. But can we remove this word game from the puzzle and focus on your topic please.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-22-2003]

quote:

---

Your site simply asserts the same thing you asserted, Sonic.

---

Which is?

quote:

---

Could you tell us where micro evolution leaves off and macro starts perhaps?

---

Ill answer this with a question: Why dont you tell me were the two forms of evolution connect without asserting?

quote:

---

Could you tell us what stops a number of "micro changes" becoming big enough to be called "macro"?

---

Could you tell me how micro-evolution steps, could have lead up to a macro-evolutionary change?

quote:

---

Could you give us some examples of the most extreme cases of change that are still "micro"?

---

Sure, take two species of dogs, and mate them, this could create a new species. "My sight" already explained this understanding, so I am not sure why you need a defintion.

quote:

---

Could you give us some examples of the smallest changes that are still "macro"?

---

No, because I dont believe their have been any which are classified as macro changes.

quote:

---

BTW, I think you are new, in which case, welcome aboard. Just don't expect a free ride. If you think you have something to say be prepared to defend it. If you're not then you will be ignored (at best). Good luck!

---

Thank you. well met.Sonic

This is the part that I like to see: The best we can do is show that each of the little pieces of the theory can individually be shown to work, and then hope that it's clear that each of the pieces, together add up to macro-evolution over the long term. That bold letter quote was from Chiroptera, good to see that some people understand were the hope in macro-evolutionary change is, rather then trying to say that macro did happen and is going to happen or like there is no doubt in their mind that macro is the conclusion, after reading history, of what we are today.Quiz

I'll come back to some of your issues later when I have more time. However, some are still in your court. Since many of your requests are already answered on this site I won't do too much work until you demonstarte some good faith (pardon the pun). We do get a lot of drive by posters you know. I don't think there are two separate forms of of evolution so I don't have to show any connection. I certainly can't suggest any connection between these two, apparently very separate things (according to you), if I'm not sure what you mean by them.We both agree that micro evolution occurs. I think it is all micro evolution repeated over and over. You don't. So you tell me where the deviding line is. If you introduce new terms (e.g., "kind") you will have to define them. Perhaps you could use this thread for that or open your own.
Baramins How can they not? Life is a continuum. And I still don't know where you draw the micro/macro line.You and your sources agree that micro evolution occurs. There must be, in your mind, some upper limit to it. What is that limit? You have suggested that it is a dog coming from two other types of dog. You are aware are you that we still consider all dogs to be the same species? So you are telling me that ANY change above the species level is 'macro'. Is that true? If so you will see 'macro' has happening if I show you any change in life greater than a species change? I see how I worded that poorly and you misunderstood. What I mean is what is the smallest gap between two living species would you consider to be across a 'macro' change boundary? From you dog example, I would presume that the difference between a fox and a dog would be 'macro' and uncrossable by evolution of the 'micro' type.

quote:

---

I don't think there are two separate forms of of evolution so I don't have to show any connection. I certainly can't suggest any connection between these two, apparently very separate things (according to you), if I'm not sure what you mean by them.
We both agree that micro evolution occurs. I think it is all micro evolution repeated over and over. You don't. So you tell me where the deviding line is. If you introduce new terms (e.g., "kind") you will have to define them. Perhaps you could use this thread for that or open your own.

---

The terms which I am representing are not new but I will move forth with such a conclusion and provide a defintion. The difference between Micro and Macro-evolution are that Micro-evolution can only lead up to a horizontal change, such as a new type of dog with the same amount of limbs and same formation, or a new color in humans, perhaps take the example of black becoming white, it involves black to brown to white as we see today (note: that their are inbetween shades from black to brown and from brown to white). Macro-evolution would present that Bacterian became Man at some point, (i.e. a vertical change) which is much more then a small change(i.e. horizontal change) which would be macro-evolution. I present that change is limited to Micro-evolution according to all obervations and say that nothing supports macro-evolution not even the fossil record because the fossil record does not show the same intermediate changes as we see today in the skin color of man.Thank you
Sonic

You have not explained what prevents the small changes you call "micro-evolution" from evenutally adding up to a large change. Why can't the fins of a fish, through small gradual changes, become the limbs of a frog? Acanthostega gunnari

Vertical ChangeCould you more clearly define this? I can see that you think H. sapiens is "higher" than a bacteria and so you use the term "vertical". However, that is a bit fuzzy to use here. Is an owl "higher" than a dog? Is a robin higher than a turtle? In each case why is one higher than the other?The other way you seem to be defining "higher" is by a greater "complexity". That might be definable in a way that can be used unambiguously? What is it?If a Paramecium complex than a blue green algae? If one thing is more complex than another is there a number which can be assigned to the complexity of a living thing? Is a Paramecium a complexity of 125, a bacteria 73 and a dog 450,234? So a horizontal change is one in which there is no change in the complexity number and a vertical change is one in which there is an increase?You didn't answer the other questions yet, Sonic. You are falling behind. You have made a claim that the ToE is wrong. Normally it requires a great deal of expertise to overthrow a current paradigm. It's going to be a bit hard for you to demonstrate that degree of expertise at your current rate. Skin color might be a poor example, it fossilizes poorly and doesn't to my mind represent a distinguishing feature between even speices talk about any taxon higher than that. Will you agree that macro evolution occurs when you are shown the intermediates between "higher" taxa?BTW, Sonic, I'm not an expert in this area. Brace yourself for the arrival of the real experts. Your life will get rather harder then.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-22-2003]

Natural selection or sexual selection removes that idea.Quiz

Thta is an awfully lonely looking assertion, Quiz. Would you care to back it up?

There are mechinisms which disprove that idea such as the mechinisms Quiz mentiond.Thank you
Sonic

Please describe how these mechanisms do that?You should note that you are still behind in clearing up a couple of the concepts which you choose to introduce. "Complexity" for example. Perhaps you could clear that up so we could move along some more.

{i posted on my bros name accidentally.} -messenjaH of oNe------------------
Bible
Search Results
"love" was found 865 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Love[This message has been edited by Iron Man, 11-22-2003][This message has been edited by Iron Man, 11-22-2003][This message has been edited by Iron Man, 11-22-2003]