Macroevolution: Its all around us...

see Message 75Once you've learned some of the basics, come back for a discussion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The non-admin mode would like to take you on, concerning these ideas.Please see and respond at this topic.Adminnemooseus

---

quote:

---

It looked to me like you were talking about micro-evolution, which I agree with because it proven and observable, and calling it macro-evolution, which is not.

---

Most people―including other creationists―consider macroevolution to be speciation and above (through to the Kingdom level). Some definitions from around the web.

quote:

---

it would seem that creating a new fish wouldn't claim anything for macro-evolution unless it formed legs.

---

A Schindleria brevipinguis can evolve into a whale shark, but a mudskipper can't evolve into a salamander-like amphibian?

I agree with Crashfrog.Random genetic change + selection / drift are all that is needed to explain evolutionary progress. Everything else can be shaved away with Occam's razor.Selection (directional) and genetic drift (random) are both biological forces that can act on heritable aspects of morphological and behavioral traits to effect changes in the characteristics of such traits over evolutionary time.Everything else is extraneous and superfluous....

Can you, with any rational conscience, say this with a straight face to such an experienced contributor to this board !?You are the one that seems more than a bit confused on terminology, at least *scientific* terminology.But you will have your chance to display your academic prowess, whatever it may be, in the Great Debate...This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-06-2005 09:56 PM

Hi Eclipse,I'm not quite sure what you want here. do you want examples of two insects mating and producing offspring that are "better" than themselves, in terms of their ability to reproduce, survive, or what have you?If that is what you want, I can give you some examples.Best wishes,Mick

I'm a "dish"?Cool.First time being called that.Oh, and the person appearing to torment the cat is my husband, aka Zhimbo.We titled that picture "cat yoga"

quote:

---

Fisrt of all I'm a she.

---

Noted. Me too, by the way!

quote:

---

Second, There are six different parts of evolution, two of which are macro-evolution and micro-evolution.

---

Well, no, that's not true.There is only one Biological Theory of Evolution.You can read about it here.

quote:

---

The whole reason I brought this up was because it seemed that you were just a little confused on terms.

---

Well, that's why I asked the following:

quote:

---

It looked to me like you were talking about micro-evolution, which I agree with because it proven and observable, and calling it macro-evolution, which is not. Even evolutionists should agree with this.

---

Please read the page I link to above.There is only one kind of evolution.The distinction you make is artifical and does not exist in real life.

quote:

---

With the exception, of course, that some still believe the miller experiment (oxygen would have terimnated the experiment and as we all know living things cannot survive without oxygen so they didn't really come close to creating life)

---

What does Abiogenesis have to do with Biological Evolution?The Theory of Evolution deals with life once it got here.Life could have been "poofed" into existence by your God and it would not change one thing about the evidence for Evolution.You have been told some pretty big lies about what evolution actually states, I'm afraid, by people who don't want you to have correct information about science.Please read the link I provided. Feel free to come back here with any questions you may have and we will clarify things for you.

quote:

---

Along the lines of micro and macro, it would seem that creating a new fish wouldn't claim anything for macro-evolution unless it formed legs.

---

What if it formed lungs?

quote:

---

Same with a new type of insect. Wouldn't that be micro-evolution because it is still an insect and not an arachnid.

---

I really think you need to read that link. I think it is wonderful that you are asking questions but you are looking for answers to scientific questions in the wrong place. You will find the best answers to science questions from scientists, don't you think?

quote:

---

This is just a thought but I'm still not sure that two insects mating would improve the species any.

---

I am not really sure what this sentence means, sorry.So, I am still waiting for answers to the questions in message #46 of this thread.

There appear to be two problems here.First of all, the example dealt with two *groups* (= populations) of the same insect species that appear to be speciating because they are no longer interbreeding with each other. That is sympatric speciation.Secondly, evolution is not directed, so there is no need to assume that it has to result in an 'improvement'. That's a value judgement we would be better off avoiding. It also reflects your underlying teleological thinking. Species don't necessarily evolve to 'get better', even though progressively refined adaptations to particular environmental circumstances are often the net result of natural selection.

First off Ezscience let me tell you that any legitimate creation scientist does not deny speciation. If you were unaware of the very basic creationist arguement of "created kinds" and of how speciation is not proof of evolution rather it is proof of mutations(de-evolution) then you are going to be swallowed up very easily in this arguement because you simply don't know your opponent. Creation science is alot more advanced than you make it out to be. I suggest you brush up on it if you are truely interested by reading "Refuting Evolution" and "Refuting Evolution 2" "Refuting Compromise" by DR. Jonathan Sarfati or subrcibing to TJ(Technical Journal)Or go to answersingenesis.org and do a search on what you're interested in and read up. Or even e-mail Dr. Sarfati himself from the website testing him with your greatest arguements. You will lose, because he has not lost yet. And he's argued people I'm sure with higher educations than you. No offense intended, forgive me if that sounded mean.Secondly, you must understand one the many and most important devastating arguements against evolution, is that there is no "real" evolutionary or natural process by which new information is created. I know that all the evolutionists list all the different types of mutations, but the fact is that there is no proof whatsoever of an information gaining mutation. Mutations results in the loss of information or of a deformation of a active site.This question of "can you think of any evolutionary process or mutation by which new information can be created?" Was asked of one of the leading evolutionists in the world, Dr. Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford University, in the documentary "From a Frog to a Prince" . He was left speechless for about a minute. As he sat there pondering the answer one could not help but notice his face grow red as he finally spouted out a popular explaination of how all creatures we see today are all evolved forms of thier ancestors, to an extent. This however did not answer the question at all and completely avoided the issue.I asked this question of my Biochemistry professor, Dr. Sprague at the University of Oregon who earned her doctorate degree at Yale. I first explained to her that even ants appearing to develop resistance to insecticides was a result of a loss of information and she agreed. And the best example she could think of was Hemoglobin. Which is not a plausible answer since there is no blood for us to test from the past to verify this. Yet in my own experimentation with hemoglobin in rabbit's blood it plainly clear that this does not even hold up in the present day in that there is no new information just a gathering of more of the same stuff.In the examples you give of insects and birds you give no evidence of genetic structure advancement (which I doubt the genome for is available) or of actual physical stuctural advancements of the animal . Rather you give evidence of species choice of mating partners. This holds no scientific merit as the genes responsible for this would be impossible to determine with any certainty. Though this would isolate mating partners resulting in dominate genes taking over and recessive ones being lost. This causes speciation which is not evolution, but a subunit of an already created kind which doesn't have all the genetic make-up it's original ancestor's had. This is how we get different species of dogs, why donkeys can't mate with other donkey's. This also explains how the so called human "races" arose after the Tower of Babel.I hope this brief explaination clears up a little bit what creations science is. If you want to find out more you are going to have to do the research yourself from the sources I listed. And they list all of their sources so you can check and see if their using false information.take care
quig

Sorry to tell you Ezscience that the Miller Urey experiment has more problems than just oxygen. The Miller Urey experiment states that methane gas needs to be present yet any geochemisist would tell you that in earth's early atmosphere this would have impossible. And I believe it states helium must be present but that would have floated off into space. And the result is simply organic matter which is far from life. It is like if I blended a frog in a blendor and expected after several millions of years for it to get up and walk away. That is not an entirely perfect analogy as the frog has a greater genetic make-up than the so called "soup". By the way if the correct atmosphere is used the resulting product is cyanide and embalming fuild and as you know cyanide is widely known for creating life.

Many seem to want to deny macroevolution which we biologists would argue is the same thing. Although many now retreat to higher taxa (or ethereal 'kinds' or 'baramins' that are nowhere adequately defined) given the undeniability of speciation. I will let you, and the readers of this board, speculate all they want about my level of education - and yours That's nonsense. Genes can be duplicated and subsequently diverge in sequence and function, and chromasomes can increase in number. That is surely an increase in information. And not all mutations comprise losses of information. Some do, certainly, but what about an insertion that causes a reading frame shift that actually lengthens a protein by causing the polymerase to miss its original termination signal on the gene during transcription? You would all of a sudden have a longer protein with more 'information' that may or may not be useful. That could be the case if there was a change in the target site of the insecticide that was achieved by omitting one or more amino acids. However, the resistance could equally well come about through the addition of one or more amino acids to the target protein. But I am still not comfortable with this idea that 'increased informational content' is at all essential for evolution to explain. I don't believe that information theory can be directly applied to organismal
complexity. For example, the vertebrate with largest amount of (potential) genetic information (= total quantity of DNA) is the salamander, but it is hardly the most complex or 'highly evolved' (in quotes because this is really bad terminology - organisms are not higher or lower as in Aristotle's Escala Naturae, but simply more or less well-adapted to their particular niche). You don't need to identify the genes involved to be able to prove that evolutionary changes have occurred. Your underlying teleological philosophy is showing.
There is no need to assume that all evolutionary change must represent some kind of 'advancement' for the organism. Some times evolution hits a dead end, or a species gets caught in a 'trough' that carries it to extinction. That's why so many species went extinct long before we humans started accelerating the process. Speciation is one product of evolution. It is a process of divergence among populations of living things - they diverge and then get more and more different. There is no requirement that they accumulate more 'information' or that they become any more 'advanced' in this process.Perhaps more later, but it is now light enough for me to go out and cut my lawn.

quote:

---

Secondly, you must understand one the many and most important devastating arguements against evolution, is that there is no "real" evolutionary or natural process by which new information is created. I know that all the evolutionists list all the different types of mutations, but the fact is that there is no proof whatsoever of an information gaining mutation. Mutations results in the loss of information or of a deformation of a active site.

---

What definition of "information" are you using?

Lets just put life's origins aside for a minute and deal with mechanisms of change. You can assume an initial creation event if you wish.Since you apparently accept the evolution of resistance to insecticides in insects as a real phenomenon, let's examine that.The engineeering of corn to express toxins produced by Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) has changed the face of American agriculture.
More than 6 million acres of transgenic corn are now grown annually, with the acreage rising every year.This technology represents an investment of many 100's of millions of dollars by Monsanto and has been thoroughly examined by the EPA. Both Monsanto and farmers have a vested interest in preserving the functionality of this technology (preventing the evolution of resistance in the target pest, the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis), or all that investment will be lost.Here is one version of the current management plan The same basic plan applies nationwide. It is a legal agreement farmers HAVE to enter into to plant the corn.I personally think that the approach has some flaws, and will eventually permit the evolution of resistance in the moths, but it is still the best approach currently available, given various constraints on corn production.I have always believed that science is only powerful if it is useful.
So my question is this. How would a plan for resistance management based on creationist science differ from this one that is based entirely on predictions from evolutionary theory ?Or, starting from scratch, how would creationist science approach the problem of trying to delay resistance evolution?To get you started, here are two limitations inherent in the current plan that is a strategy to reduce strong directional selection for resistance evolution:Dependence on adult moth dispersal over considerable distances.
Dependence on the initial mutation for resistance being recessive.

Hi quig23,Please could you explain? I've never heard the argument that speciation is proof of "de-evolution". What does this mean? Are you suggesting that novel species are "de-evolving" back into an archetypal form? Or are they "de-evolving" into something else?Thanks for your help,Mick