ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Microevolution and macroevolution are not the same

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



Micro evolution and macro evolution  are not the same


Paul Nelson: 
if you want a fruit fly at all, you cannot perturb its early development. The problem is for macro-evolution to occur is that is exactly the place where the mutations have to take place. So you have this paradox. Hence you have this Darwinian paradox: In order to macro-evolve a species, if you will, you need to have early acting viable mutations. Thow those are the ones that are by far the most destructive. Which means that natural selection cannot operate. Natural selection thow it is a natural process, it is powerless to effect macro-evolution because the kind of variation that it needs is too destructive to animals.

Stephen C. Meyer,Darwins doubt :
The neo-Darwinian synthesis has long emphasized that large-scale macroevolutionary change occurs  as the inevitable by-product of the accumulation of small-scale "microevolutionary" changes within populations. The consensus in support of this idea began to fray in evolutionary biology during the early 1970s, when young paleontologists such as Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven Stanley realized that the fossil record did not show a pattern of gradual "micro-to-macro" change. In 1980, at a now famous symposium on macroevolution at the Field Museum in Chicago, the rebellion burst into full view, exposing what developmental biologist Scott Gilbert called "an underground current in evolutionary theory" among theorists who had concluded that "macroevolution could not be derived  from microevolution."
At the conference, paleontologists who doubted the "micro-to-macro" consensus found allies among younger developmental biologists. They were dissatisfied with neo-Darwinism in part because they knew that population genetics, its mathematical expression, sought only to quantify changes in gene frequency rather than explain the origin of genes or novel body plans. Thus, many developmental biologists thought that neo-Darwinism did not offer a compelling theory of  macroevolution. To formulate a more robust theory, many developmental biologists, such as Rudolf Raff, a developmental biologist at the University of Indiana and one of the founders of "evo-devo," urged evolutionary theorists to incorporate insights from their discipline. For example, developmental  biologists know that mutations expressed early in the development of animals are necessary to alter body-plan morphogenesis. Thus, they argue that these mutations must have played a significant role in generating whole new animal forms during the history of life. They assert that this understanding of developmental processes is crucial to understanding animal evolution. Some evo-devo advocates such as Sean B. Carroll and Jeffrey Schwartz have pointed specifically to homeotic (or Hox) genes— master regulatory genes that affect the location, timing, and expression of other genes—as entities  capable of producing such large-scale change in animal form. These evo-devo advocates have  broken with classical neo-Darwinism primarily in their understanding of the size or increment of mutational change.

Claim: Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events. A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions. In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps. Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software. Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.

Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.

Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two.

What prevents macroevolution?


   Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes  that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.


Macroevolution, on the other hand, would require really big structural (phenotypic) changes in organisms.  Genetically, it would require the creation of massive new arrays of information-packed genes from nothing but molecular gibberish.  For example, the alleged evolution of the first cell calls for emergence of at least 300 highly complex, working genes from nothing but random, simple chemicals like methane and ammonia.  Not even a small sequence of genetic code has ever been produced in this way, let alone 300 complex, interwoven genes working precisely together.  Similarly, the theorized transitions from microbes to invertebrates, fish, reptiles, etc., call for added vast amounts of totally new genetic information at each stage.  No process of genetic creation like this has ever been observed.  Natural selection is powerless to create completely new genes from random chemicals.


So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution? In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation.[2] This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information.

Information is the key factor if microevolution is going to eventually extrapolate into macroevolution. The evolutionists might try to counter this by pointing out that the reason we may not see new information arise is because it is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it might not ever happen in our lifetime or even in several generations. Admittedly, this might actually be true when it comes to multi-cellular life forms; however, if this type of evolution is true or is at least even possible, then one might not have to look much further than microscopic single-cellular life forms such as bacteria to observe the changes. Under the right conditions, a bacterium can divide every 20 minutes.[3] This means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours. As any biologist can testify, the numbers at which bacteria can populate is staggering, and because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. If macroevolution is true, it shouldn’t be that inconceivable to see bacteria gain new genetic information. It also shouldn’t be too unreasonable to expect to see a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Perhaps it’s because the types of changes that are needed to lead microevolution to macroevolution simply do not happen.

If the definition of microevolution is limited to what has been observed, then it is a powerful testimony that life has not evolved. It is no surprise to creationists that animals become more specialized and often lose information when they ‘microevolve’. This should be expected since our Creator created everything perfectly and now things are winding down.

BarbMay 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm
The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.” Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.

The whole idea of evolution rests on the premise that small changes can lead to survival advantage (or as least not *disadvantage*), and hence you would expect changes to biological life to be always occurring.

However, a study of systems and how they operate show that generally, highly complex systems cannot just "gradually transition" from one fundamental way of operating to another. You don't just "gradually transition" from a mechanical point system in a car to electrical ignition for example. In most mechanical systems, if you were to introduce incremental changes, you would go through a significant dip of *reduced functionality* before it arrived at the next "system state" with *increased* functionality.

Now on the face of it, systems analysis would lead us to expect that there is a "range of change" that could be expected to occur, but *also* a degree of complexity that could not be "jumped" by small variations.
So, for example, in something highly complex, like the clotting mechanism of blood, what you would expect to see are different, complex systems in different species, but not a "smooth transition" between these mechanisms.

What should be evident from this is that the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution cannot be reduced down to "mere stupidity". There are real reasons involved for that distinction (and sometimes those who deny the distinction do so because they don't actually understand the problem).

Creationists invented micro and macro evolution


Some evolution apologists have claimed that creationists invented the terms micro and macro evolution. The scientific community doesn't use these terms, say some skeptics, they are used only by creationists in anti-evolution literature.[18] According to Jonathan Wells,
In 2005, Darwinist Gary Hurd claimed that the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution was just a creationist fabrication. … Hurd wrote to the Kansas State Board of Education: “…‘macro’ and ‘micro’ evolution ... have no meaning outside of creationist polemics. [18]
It is completely false to claim that creationists have invented these terms. As Wells argues in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 'micro' and 'macro' evolution have been used in the scientific literature for decades (55-56).
What's more, young earth creationists have argued for years that the distinction between small and large changes is not their focus. Instead, most young earth creationists emphasize that mutations and natural selection are incapable of adding new information to the genome. CMI summarizes this point:
“ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.[19]

Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:05 am; edited 13 times in total





For natural selection, the problem comes when a feature cannot be built through "numerous, successive, slight modifications" -- that is, when a structure requires lots of mutations to be present before providing any advantage for natural selection to select. Many structures in biology indeed require many mutations to be present before granting an advantage.


Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Life Was Created Fully Functional › Variation Is Limited within Kinds

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.

Last edited by Admin on Tue May 05, 2015 6:23 pm; edited 1 time in total





There is no known process that creates genetic information.

Information can get lost through random processes. (If you don’t believe me, rub a floppy disk with a strong magnet in a random pattern.) Information cannot be created by a random process. (If you want to convince me, rub a blank floppy disk with a strong magnet in a random pattern, and send me the resulting randomly-generated text file that explains how it can happen.)

The genetic information in a horse is greater than the genetic information in a bacteria. For a bacteria to evolve into a horse, genetic information had to be added. A horse’s genetic code is not simply a rearrangement of the genetic information already in a bacteria.

Evolutionists believe that genetic information somehow accumulates slowly over millions of years. But speed isn’t really the issue. Genetic information does not naturally increase at any rate at all. It does, however, get lost over time through the processes of mutation and extinction. We can’t clone any dinosaurs in the lab today because that genetic information has been lost.

Can the Small Changes We See Add Up to the Big Changes Needed for Evolution?


Evolution in the meaningful sense implies big changes, like a fish turning into a person. Has this happened? Do the small changes we observe over time add up to the big changes needed by evolution? Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor then a person? These truly big changes must have occurred if evolution really accounts for all of life.

It's instructive to try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.

Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on.

Step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution, as a concept of everything, is worse than non-science, it is nonsense. The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination. Surely some things simply cannot be.

When a vote was taken as to who won the debate, I came out on top 32-1. The lone vote for evolution was an exchange student from Marxist China, and even he admitted I had the better arguments. He just didn't dare vote against the party line.

Maybe that's the key. It takes a prior, gut-level commitment to evolution to continue to favor it in spite of the weight of evidence to the contrary.


4Microevolution and macroevolution  are not the same  Empty EVO-DEVO AND ITS PROPOSALS Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:38 pm



Paul Nelson: 
if you want a fruit fly at all, you cannot perturb its early development. The problem is for macro-evolution to occur is that is exactly the place where the mutations have to take place. So you have this paradox. Hence you have this Darwinian paradox: In order to macro-evolve a species, if you will, you need to have early acting viable mutations. Thow those are the ones that are by far the most destructive. Which means that natural selection cannot operate. Natural selection thow it is a natural process, it is powerless to effect macro-evolution because the kind of variation that it needs is too destructive to animals.

Stephen C. Meyer,Darwins doubt :
The neo-Darwinian synthesis has long emphasized that large-scale macroevolutionary change occurs  as the inevitable by-product of the accumulation of small-scale "microevolutionary" changes within populations. The consensus in support of this idea began to fray in evolutionary biology during the early 1970s, when young paleontologists such as Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven Stanley realized that the fossil record did not show a pattern of gradual "micro-to-macro" change. In 1980, at a now famous symposium on macroevolution at the Field Museum in Chicago, the rebellion burst into full view, exposing what developmental biologist Scott Gilbert called "an underground current in evolutionary theory" among theorists who had concluded that "macroevolution could not be derived  from microevolution."
At the conference, paleontologists who doubted the "micro-to-macro" consensus found allies among younger developmental biologists. They were dissatisfied with neo-Darwinism in part because they knew that population genetics, its mathematical expression, sought only to quantify changes in gene frequency rather than explain the origin of genes or novel body plans. Thus, many developmental biologists thought that neo-Darwinism did not offer a compelling theory of  macroevolution. To formulate a more robust theory, many developmental biologists, such as Rudolf Raff, a developmental biologist at the University of Indiana and one of the founders of "evo-devo," urged evolutionary theorists to incorporate insights from their discipline. For example, developmental  biologists know that mutations expressed early in the development of animals are necessary to alter body-plan morphogenesis. Thus, they argue that these mutations must have played a significant role in generating whole new animal forms during the history of life. They assert that this understanding of developmental processes is crucial to understanding animal evolution. Some evo-devo advocates such as Sean B. Carroll and Jeffrey Schwartz have pointed specifically to homeotic (or Hox) genes— master regulatory genes that affect the location, timing, and expression of other genes—as entities  capable of producing such large-scale change in animal form. These evo-devo advocates have  broken with classical neo-Darwinism primarily in their understanding of the size or increment of mutational change.




Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution




Is macroevolution just accumulated microevolution?

Most biologists probably follow Darwin’s view that evolution proceeds through a long series of small changes each of which can occur readily – not through exceptional large-scale jumps; i.e. that macroevolutionary changes are effected through the successive accumulation of many small (microevolutionary) steps.

Indeed, for some, that macroevolution is reducible to accumulated microevolution is an a priori tenet of evolutionary doctrine. For example, here is Ernst Mayr, according to Gould the ‘prime architect of modern neo-Darwinism’ [9] :

The proponents of the synthetic theory [of evolution] maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species. [10]

However, we need to examine the evidence, which requires careful consideration of the different processes taking place in evolution (which all too often are conflated):

There are 3 key processes to evolution:

The production of genes (which provide genetic variability) – presumed to arise by essentially random (undirected) mutations.
The production of variations – by mixing the available genes in the course of reproduction – again, essentially random, though with limitations depending on e.g. the location of genes within the genome.
The selection of favourable gene combinations (those associated with favourable phenotypic variations) – which is not random, but probabilistic (statistical) based on generally enhanced survivability and reproductivity of individuals having favourable variations; i.e. this is natural selection.
The evolutionary position regarding microevolution and macroevolution can be summarised as follows:

Evolution is substantially true, so all 3 processes are ongoing, more-or-less simultaneously; successive instances of microevolution will accumulate and naturally lead to macroevolution, i.e. microevolution and macroevolution are a continuum.
It is generally thought that either a species changes gradually until it is sufficiently different (from some starting point) that it is considered a different species (anagenesis), or different populations of a species diverge gradually until they are sufficiently different from each other to be considered separate species (speciation).
Either of these may involve segregation of existing genes and/or production of new ones – it does not matter which – so, again, macroevolution will emerge from successive accumulated microevolution.
There is ample evidence for (2) and (3) which are dependent on the existence of genes; so it is reckoned /presumed that (1) must also occur.
In addition, (1) and (2) are often conflated because both are random (and contrasted with non-random natural selection). Notably by Ernst Mayr who frequently stressed that evolution entails 2 steps:[11]
random generation of variations (by mutation and genetic processes, he lumped them together), and
non-random selection.
And, as there is ample evidence for (ii) this misleads many into thinking that there is also evidence for (i) – without considering the significant difference between (1) and (2) above.

A key assumption of this widely-accepted view of evolution – which treats evolution due to segregating genes and evolution requiring new genes as comparable – is that new genes will arise reasonably readily and frequently – at a rate that is comparable with the production of new variations by the mixing and segregation of existing genes. Yet, as mentioned above, this is patently not the case.

So it is also clear that the evolutionary dictum that macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution is advocated for essentially ideological rather than empirical reasons. And it is maintained by not looking too carefully at the scientific evidence – specifically, by presenting evolution that is due to mixing and segregating existing genes as if it were evidence for evolution through the acquisition of new genes.

Finally, whether or not the usage of 'macroevolution' changes along the lines I am suggesting, it is incumbent on biologists at least to recognise the different processes that occur in evolution, and to stop using loose usage of 'macroevolution' as a semantic argument to try to extrapolate from evolution that involves only the segregation of existing genes to justify evolution that involves the production of new genetic material.





Micro and Macroevolution Apr 29, 2021


Aron: evolution is not a religion
Reply: Is Evolution a Secular Religion?

Richard Dawkins
My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.

Richard Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The essential idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe.

The problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold:
1. Darwins proposed evolutionary mechanism has been falsified in recent times with the progress of scientific research: The BIG ( umbrella ) contributor to explain organismal complexity is preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various languages and communication through signaling by various signaling networks that act on a structural level. These instructions are pre-programmed ( or front-loaded ) to respond to environmental cues, development, and nutrition demands, and they are apt to communicate, crosstalk, signal, regulate, govern, control, recruit, interpret, recognize, orchestrate, elaborate strategies, guide and so forth. All codes, blueprints, and languages are inventions by intelligence. Therefore, the genetic and epigenetic codes and signaling networks and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

2. Darwins Theory of evolution only refers to the origin of species, IOW. biodiversity, but not all other relevant questions in regards to origins. Cosmological and chemical evolution are empty words that do not serve to explain anything that regards the origin and fine-tuning of the universe and the physical laws, nor the origin of chemical elements nor the origin of life. All questions, which have not been addressed adequately through " No-God hypotheses".

Aron: i don't know why believers got to pretend that a demonstrably accurate evidence-based understanding is the same as a faith-based belief
Reply: What is fact in regards to evolution :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )

What is not fact:
6. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
7. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Aron: many of the historic pioneers of evolutionary theory and some of its best champions have been and are christian they understand that when the bible says let the earth bring forth the living creature after their kind
Reply:  The problem is that the " let the earth bring forth the living " happened according to the Genesis narrative in a literal normal 24h day.

Is the Genesis account of literal 6 days just a myth ?

Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Book of Genesis page 73
One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours. Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.

Aron:  what they think science doesn't know because they think that whatever science hasn't yet explained is somehow evidence of supernatural miracles 
Reply: We infer a designer based on what we DO know, and what biological sciences have unraveled.

1. Genetic and epigenetic information directs the making of complex multicellular organisms, biodiversity, form, and architecture
2. This information is preprogrammed and prescribed to get a purposeful outcome. Each protein, metabolic pathway, organelle, or system, each biomechanical structure and motion works based on principles that provide a specific function.
3  Preprogramming and prescribing a specific outcome is always the result of intention with foresight, able to instantiate a distant specific goal.
4. Foresight comes always from an intelligent agent. Therefore, biodiversity is the result of intelligent design, rather than unguided evolution.

Aron: what we know about the origin of life points to a long collective sequence of unrelated autonomous processes in different chemical environments incrementally producing cumulative constituent components of increasing
complexity and that many of these processes have already been discovered and experimentally confirmed to work
Reply: The evidence leads to another direction:

Decomposition of Monomers, Polymers and Molecular Systems: An Unresolved Problem 2017 Jan 17
It is clear that non-activated nucleotide monomers can be linked into polymers under certain laboratory conditions designed to simulate hydrothermal fields. However, both monomers and polymers can undergo a variety of decomposition reactions that must be taken into account because biologically relevant molecules would undergo similar decomposition processes in the prebiotic environment.

CAIRNS-SMITH genetic takeover, page 70
Suppose that by chance some particular coacervate droplet in a primordial ocean happened to have a set of catalysts, etc. that could convert carbon dioxide into D-glucose. Would this have been a major step forward
towards life? Probably not. Sooner or later the droplet would have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and never have been heard of again. It would not have mattered how ingenious or life-like some early system was; if it
lacked the ability to pass on to offspring the secret of its success then it might as well never have existed. So I do not see life as emerging as a matter of course from the general evolution of the cosmos, via chemical evolution, in one grand gradual process of complexification. Instead, following Muller (1929) and others, I would take a genetic View and see the origin of life as hinging on a rather precise technical puzzle. What would have been the easiest way that hereditary machinery could have formed on the primitive Earth?

Intractable Mixtures and the Origin of Life 2007
Whatever the exact nature of an RNA precursor which may have become the first selfreplicating molecule, how could the chemical homogeneity which seems necessary to permit this kind of mechanism to even come into existence have been achieved? What mechanism would have selected for the incorporation of only threose, or ribose, or any particular building block, into short oligomers which might later have undergone chemically selective oligomerization? Virtually all model prebiotic syntheses produce mixtures. 6


Aron: evolution in general is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations leading to usually subtle changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets when compiled over successive generations these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically isolated groups lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins
so that from one original ancestor you end up with two distinct variations of that where either one has a suite of diagnostic characteristics that are shared with every member of their group
but that are not shared with any member of the other group
Reply: Primary, and secondary speciation

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”  

Secondary speciation does not solve Darwin’s problem. Only primary speciation — the splitting of one species into two by natural selection — would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution’s smoking gun has never been found.  there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”

Kinds of Speciation: The term speciation has been used ambiguously throughout much of the history of evolutionary biology. For evolutionists in the vertical tradition, it meant phyletic speciation ( primary speciation), that is the transformation of one species into another one. For those in the horizontal tradition, it meant the multiplication of species ( allopatric, or secondary speciation), that is the establishment of separate populations that are incipient species.
Much of the current conflict about the validity of punctuated equilibria is actually the subconscious perpetuation of the old ambiguity as to what speciation really is. Some of those who support phyletic gradualism are still thinking in terms of phyletic speciation. There is now little doubt that, at least as far as animals are concerned, the prevailing mode of speciation is allopatric. I defined this in 1942 as follows: "A new species develops if a population which has become geographically isolated from its parental species acquires during this period of isolation characters which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation when the external barriers break down."

Aron:  the mother of all cabbages was itself derived the same way as all these other crops by selecting mutations that changed the leaves or the bulbs or the flowers into new varieties according to new genetic information
that was never in the original form that's a problem for creationists
Reply:  I disagree. 

Evolution, adaptation, homeostasis, and the essential preprogrammed processes essential for life to survive in a changing environment 

Microevolution is better described as adaptation and is an engineered process, which does not happen by accident. The Cell receives macroscopic signals from the environment and responds by adaptive, nonrandom mutations. The capacity of Mammals and other multicellular organisms to adapt to changing environmental conditions is extraordinary.  In order to effectively produce and secrete mature proteins, cellular mechanisms for monitoring the environment are essential. Exposure of cells to various environmental causes accumulation of unfolded proteins and results in the activation of a well-orchestrated set of pathways during a phenomenon known as the unfolded protein response (UPR). Cells have powerful quality control networks consisting of chaperones and proteases that cooperate to monitor the folding states of proteins and to remove misfolded conformers through either refolding or degradation. Free-living organisms, which are more directly exposed to environmental fluctuations, must often survive even harsher folding stresses. These stresses not only disrupt the folding of newly synthesized proteins but can also cause misfolding of already folded proteins.  In living organisms, robustness is provided by homeostatic mechanismsAt least five epigenetic mechanisms are responsible for these life-essential processes :

- heat shock factors (HSFs)
- The unfolded protein response (UPR)
- nonhomologous end-joining and homologous recombination
- The DNA Damage Response
- The Response to Oxidative Stress

The cell modulates the signalling pathways at transcriptional, post-transcriptional and post-translational levels. Complex signalling pathways contribute to the maintenance of systemic homeostasis. Homeostasis is the mechanistic fundament of living organisms. 

Aron:  because they typically insist that all the potential variety for every possible daughter group must already exist in the ancestral genome but it's not there only the basis of it is evolution all of it micro and macro is summarily described as descent with inherent modification and every new variant has their own unique set of alterations to that original pattern that's why 20 percent of the genes in this pan genome are only present in some of the subsets that's why scientists find the pen genome of wolves within domestic dogs but you can't find the genome of a dachshund or a pit bull within the genome of a wolf because domestic dogs descended with new modifications that never existed
Reply:  I disagree. 

Genetic entropy 1

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations 07 November 2017
"...a great deal of evidence from several sources strongly suggests that the overall effects of mutations are to REDUCE FITNESS."

in the wolf even the strictest
fundamentalists admit
that these are all the same species
domestic dogs and that each variant is a
product of
artificial selection but they can't
account for the origin of these
variations or why selective breeding
works to enhance them
the answer is whether we're talking
about agricultural crops or dogs cattle
people or any other organism at the
population level
every physical difference from their
common ancestor is caused by a
relatively recent change in genetics and
that means
mutation this college textbook on modern
genetic analysis says there are two
processes responsible for genetic
variation recombination and mutation
mutation is the ultimate source of
genetic change
new alleles arise in all organisms some
others as a result of exposure to
mutagenic agents in the environment
these new alleles become the raw
material for a second level of variation
affected by
recombination now as an example of the
dunning-kruger effect
some creationists may be uneducated
laymen yet still pretend that they know
more about genetics than
any geneticist so the wanna believers
often insist that mutation cannot
produce new information in the genome
despite the fact that we've now
documented many specific examples
proving that it does
even identifying exactly what type of
mutation had what effect and precisely
where it is in the genome
a single individual with a mutation is
not yet evolution it doesn't become
evolution until those traits are
inherited and spread through a wider
network of descendants remember that
evolution is a population level change
and this takes several generations
depending on the size of the breeding
the larger the gene pool the more likely
variances to be restricted or inhibited
but smaller groups evolve faster because
of the increased chance that inherited
traits will persist through subsequent
recombinations with other breeding pairs
mutations happen a lot more than you
realize too
every sibling of every generation
everyone who has ever
lived is a mutant this study estimates
overall average of 128 mutations per
human zygote
that's right from the point of
conception and you accrue more
mutations as you age there aren't as
many beneficial mutations as detrimental
ones but in either case they're usually
slight not significant and the vast
majority of mutations are neutral
which if anything leads to genetic drift
one example of genetic drift is when two
isolated groups continue to build up
unique mutations over time
that are not shared with the other group
because there's no gene flow between
them and the differences that arise
distinguish the two groups with one
becoming greener or red or fluffy or
smooth or with different patterns or
but where those uh where those
differences don't necessarily affect
survival or reproduction
so they're not subjected to selective
for example you can take one species of
animal from its ancestral home
and drop two groups of them in different
places different environments where
they're geographically and thus
genetically separate
so they will continue to grow apart
several generations down the road each
group will have their own recognizable
peculiarities such that
should you find a lone wanderer in the
no man's land between them
you could likely tell which group it
came from just by looking at it
genetic drift is just one evolutionary
mechanism continuously producing new
but if those variations impact
reproduction or survival
then they may be subjected to selective
detrimental mutations tend to be
eliminated very quickly if not
while beneficial mutations have a
preferential advantage
for example in wild plants the tastiest
and most colorful fruits tend to
because being eaten by birds is a good
way to for a plant to spread at seeds
the plant isn't trying to make more
attractive fruit it's just that the ones
with the best fruit end up being the
best distributed
so it's an emergent product of
incidental design
artificial and natural selection are
both evolutionary mechanisms that work
on the mutations and the new traits that
come from them
but there's an important there are two
important differences between them
one is that artificial selection is much
because it is deliberately orchestrated
bypassing all the normal testing periods
that would improve viability of the
that's where many of the weaknesses in
the new breeds come from too where
there's not enough time or generations
to work out all the kinks
because natural selection works for the
benefit of the organism making an animal
better stronger faster or otherwise
better adapted for where it lives and
what it does
whereas artificial selection works
according to the whim of the breeder
who often has entirely superfluous
criteria working for our benefit rather
that of the organisms we're
experimenting with now
if you say that you accept
that means that you accept the
mechanisms i just explained for
how this process works at the very least
you should accept natural selection
creationists don't have any argument
with natural selection we thought of it
first okay
so god gave all the creatures a gene
code with a variety of options coming
out in the babies
some might have longer hair some have
shorter hair some longer legs some
shorter legs and
gradually over many generations the ones
that are best suited to that environment
will survive and take over
that area so the dogs with long hair
survive better in alaska and the dogs
with short hair thin
legs thin body survive better in the
desert like the dingo
that's not evolution it is natural
this is one of those creationists who
says he accepts microevolution but
denies that it is evolution
and it turns out that he actually
rejects microevolution because he
refuses to admit the fact that mutations
are confirmed to really be
the source of new information in the
genome at least he accepts the
mechanisms of natural selection even if
he can't explain where that variation
comes from
he understands that these variations can
be selected either intentionally by
breeders or unintentionally by a matter
of population genetics amid
environmental dynamics
with that another way he can't accept
because that's blind chance but he can
accept a selection process that is also
blind to chance because that process is
at least eventually deterministic
so many different breeds of dogs cats
cattle and fowl were derived via
artificial selection and
there were many different species of
dogs cats cattle and fowl in the wild
that came about by natural selection and
genetic drift
in 1735 careless linnaeus worked out his
system of taxonomy
and he revealed that life did not fit
into the separate boxes that you might
expect from created kinds
instead everything was in an
interrelated hierarchy in a branching
tree pattern like a family tree showing
that everything was related
somehow he couldn't explain that because
he believed that new species had to
conform to the biblical word for kind
meaning that they had to bring forth
fertile offspring which breeding pairs
from different species could not do
at best they could only produce
infertile hybrids if anything at all
a century or so later darwin realized
that the origin of species could happen
via the process of natural selection
back then in the 19th century
that was a profound announcement and
religious fundamentalists insisted that
species could only come about as a
special act of creation by god
and for more than a century they kept
saying that no one has ever seen the
evolution of a new species
then when they eventually found out that
speciation had been directly observed
and documented dozens of times both in
the lab and in
naturally controlled conditions in the
field they changed their story
carolus linius is famous for his work in
the science of identifying naming and
classifying organisms
plants bacteria et cetera he was born in
linnaeus thoughts on evolution are very
different from the modern day theories
he believed that species were immutable
mean species can't change
now he was wrong about this he's he
would say if there are 30 different
kinds of
sparrows then god made 30 different
kinds of sparrows
he went overboard in that regard god
might have made two sparrows and noah
might have had two sparrows on the ark
and they've now diversified to 30
varieties of sparrows
so you not only have a kind called
sparrows but you can also have different
kinds of sparrows
where one kind the sparrow kind can
become several different kinds of
whatever they came from
which is why the sparrow kind is still
part of the bird kind
and why the bible says that there are
different kinds of birds
if so then a kind is the same thing as a
meaning a monophyletic taxon and thus
there is no contradiction with evolution
at all using this guideline from the
creationist mindset
let's see how much evolution y'all will
accept according to wikipedia
the true sparrows are the old world
sparrows and that family is divided into
genera which is then diversified into 43
then there are also new world sparrows
that family diversified into
29 genera which are further diversified
into 138 species collectively
they're not true sparrows in the same
sense that the parrots of new zealand or
are not considered true parrots yeah but
they're obviously
still parrots and all of the sparrows in
the new world where i live
are still sparrows that's how we know
them so in each case
parrots or sparrows they differ only
because they're isolated on a different
continent so what we call sparrows
are actually two taxonomic families
comprised of 37 genera amounting to 181
various species
this is according to the biological
species concept which exactly matches
the definition of a biblical kind
when applied to sexually reproductive
animals because males and females from
the same kind slash species
should be closely related enough that
they can still bring forth fertile
after their kind but if two groups are
genetically isolated long enough to
they each become uniquely distinct and
their chances for interbreeding dwindle
when they've grown so far apart that
they either can't or won't interbreed
and thus do not bring forth anymore
then they have become two different
species and they may diverge even
further and faster now that the gene
pools have entirely separated and of
course this process repeats over and
over again
throughout their descendants that's what
it means to diversify
creationists have to use evolution to
explain how noah had all of those
animals on his mythic floating box
having just two of one species that can
then produce multiple taxonomic families
with dozens of genera and hundreds of
species each solves that problem
but you talk about macroevolution we're
talking about a super accelerated
hyper caffeinated electro mega evolution
to get this huge variety of species and
global distribution
just in the first thousand years after
the flood that never happened
ideally if all things in nature and
biology were consistent it should be
that two different species could only
produce infertile hybrids and then only
if they're in the same genus
but if they come from two different
genera even in the same taxonomic family
then they shouldn't be able to produce
any viable offspring at all
thus the division of species becomes the
most important taxonomic division and
the only one with definition
that's where we have to draw the line
between micro and macro
because every higher taxonomic clade
still begins with speciation
after which they can no longer bring
forth because they're now
different species see the bible says
clearly they will bring forth after
their kind
that's all i've ever seen i think that's
all any farmer in the world has ever
how many have ever done any farming
before we got several here now for the
farm okay
do you know of any exceptions to the
idea that corn produces corn and cows
produce cows and dogs produce dogs
now you might get some screwball
varieties like the chihuahua or what
but it's still a dog barely but it is
still in the dog kind okay
yes you get new varieties which is the
point of evolution but
you do not get one kind of thing giving
birth to or turning into another
fundamentally different kind
which creationists often describe as
being so completely different from its
immediate ancestor that it's not even
related anymore
like an amoeba turning into an elephant
or a pine tree into a dog
or or bacteria turning into people those
are all examples that creationists have
seriously given
as a matter of public record without
even being embarrassed about their own
every part of that view is wrong and
it's all a deliberate distortion
in taxonomy there's no such thing as a
kind the creationists will not define
what that's supposed to mean because
they already know that no definition
works for what they want
there was never any point in
evolutionary history that calls for or
even allows a change in kinds nor
changing clades either
in fact that would violate two of the
natural laws of evolution
instead the law of biodiversity holds
that one group branches into two
or more notably different groups and
then their daughter groups continue to
diversify into form
even more diverse subsets in the next
taxonomic generation or rank
then those four continue to diversify
into eight and then 16 and so on
accepting for those groups that become
and every sibling set is more different
from each other
than their ancestors were that means
that at every level evolution is just a
matter of incremental proportional
changes being slowly compiled atop
successive tiers of fundamental
and those tiers of similarity indicate
taxonomic clades
remember that evolution is descent with
inherent modification
thus every genus or species that ever
was just a modified version of whatever
its ancestors were and still belongs to
every ancestral clade that they did
in other words they're still the same
kind nothing ever turned into a
different kind
because you can't grow out of your
ancestry according to the law of
cladistics a monophyle phylo
mono phyletic group or clade is a group
of organisms that consists of all the
descendants of a common ancestor
oh so a clade is all the ones that came
from a common ancestor
i would be willing to say probably all
the dogs came from a
dog well the domestic dog can agree with
each other and can but would rather not
interbreed with wolves
they cannot interbreed with the african
painted dog
or the south american bush dog or the
asian raccoon dog
notice how many different species of
dogs there are they can no longer bring
forth because they have become different
yet they're all the same kind this chart
shows the genetic relationships of all
living candidates the family of dogs
notice also that bears and seals are
genetically just outside this group and
the fossil record reveals not only
proto-dogs that are not in this jar
because we don't have their dna but it
also shows fossil bear dogs and dog
bears and bear-like seals they can still
walk on land
so obviously the dog kind is a subset of
a larger carnivore kind that includes
more than just dogs
let's look at cats in this genetic chart
notice that the puma
caracal and lynx are all different
species of felines while lions tigers
and leopards
are all different species of panthers
there's a third group of several species
of scimitar cats that are only known
from the fossil record
and then there's another fossil group of
almost cats which differ from modern
cats only in the shape of the inner ear
people often confuse them with cats so
if you saw one you would probably
consider them the same kind
as cats even though they're a different
family as well
and all the true cats near cats meerkats
civic cats bearcats and everything else
in the cat side of the carnivore family
are all genetically connected to bears
weasels and seals and everything else on
the dog side of that same taxonomic tree
going out of that tree that the bible
mentions the cattle kind
which in modern parlance normally refers
to all these distinct species of the
sub-family bovine
but the bible seems to include sheep and
goats in a sister played within the
larger family bovidae
which itself is just one of a larger set
of ruminants and while all these modern
species look different now if you saw
the fossil intermediates you'd realize
these are all the same group
the same goes for every other taxonomic
clade you might think of as a kind
there is no point where any of them can
be separated from the surrounding groups
especially when you consider the fossil
record too where you can hardly tell
them apart
so if you accept that so many of these
species could have diversified by
rapidly succession of speciation events
just from noah's ark in only a thousand
years and
why not all of them over tens of
millions of years
speciation does not count as
macroevolution yes it absolutely does
the terms microevolution and macro
evolution were first coined in 1927 by
russian etymologist yuri philippchenko
it was an evolutionary biologist who
invented these words so science is the
authority on what they mean
according to universities teaching this
subject microevolution is variation
within species
and macroevolution is variation between
that means that the emergence of new
breeds or subspecies is microevolution
but the emergence of new species is
macro evolution
creationists refuse to admit that that's
what that means but if you don't believe
look it up macro evolution is evolution
on a scale of separated gene pools
macroevolutionary studies focus on
change that occurs at or above the level
of species
in contrast to microevolution which
refers to smaller evolutionary changes
typically described as changes in allele
within a species or population
macroevolution is major evolutionary
transition from one type of organism to
occurring at the level of species and
higher taxa
evolution that results in relatively
large and complex changes as in species
even though each of these is reasonably
accurate you can't always trust common
dictionaries for lay
people when they're trying to talk
science so sticking to strictly
scientific sources
let's start with the university of
california berkeley's online primer
evolution 101 microevolution happens on
small scale within single population
while macroevolution happens on a scale
that transcends the boundaries of a
single species
despite their differences evolution at
both of these levels relies on the same
established mechanisms of evolutionary
speciation turns one species into two
and is
thus macro evolution
we get the same definition from duke
university evolutionary patterns and
processes at and above the level of
and from the university of south
carolina beaufort macroevolutionists
study the processes that cause the
origination and extinction of species
and from stanford university
microevolution is defined as changes
within a species that aren't drastic
enough to create entirely new species
changes that result in a new species are
part of macroevolution
now let's look at the reference library
biology online
evolution happening at a large scale eg
at or above the level of species over
geologic time resulting in the
divergence of taxonomic groups
every such divergence begins with
speciation but creationists have already
explained that they accept evolution
even beyond that
probably so the kind indicates somewhere
around the family or genus level
everything above that is speculation
so micro evolution is variation within
species and macro evolution is the
creation of new species
variations in within species and even
creation of new species
is possible and has been observed that
is science and is no problem for bible
who say that god clearly said they will
always bring forth after their kind
exactly that means you accept the origin
of species by means of natural
selection or to put that another way it
means that you actually accept
macro evolution and not just at the
species level but even higher at the
genus or family level if not higher
still especially in the case of sparrows
but if you don't accept the fact that
really are the source of new genetic
information then you don't accept
micro evolution so don't tell me you
accept micro and reject macro because
you've got that exactly backwards


Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum