MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

I've come across mentions of mutations in dog breeds several times. Looking for them just now I turned up a couple.
This article describes mutations that cause disease: And this article describes a study that thinks they've identified the mutation behind smooshed-faced dogs: --Percy

It was not an insulting post. Taq only corrected your errors, and apparently you find this insulting. Seems like there's a simple solution: accept the corrections and incorporate them into future posts. Problem solved.--Percy

Been explained many times. Phenotypic changes occur as a result of random new gene frequencies. Lizards get big heads and jaws just from such random changes accumulating in their new population. The food doesn't drive the change, but the change causes the lizards to gravitate to food that their new jaws can handle. The test of the theory would be whether the kind of food their parent population ate is also available on their new island; and it most likely is because when they first landed there they were identical to the lizards of the parent population; it would have taken some generations for the new head and jaws and digestive system to emerge.As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post I realize that if you'd bothered to follow anything I've been arguing at length on this subject you wouldn't have all the silly objections and questions you have.

The fact that some traits are caused by mutations proves what exactly? The very rare mutation in a dog breed proves what again? Nothing that contradicts what I wrote above. In fact the mutants are contrasted with "wild alleles" which must refer to the originals I'm talking about. Of course a mutation would do something like cause a "smooshed" face which is basically a destructive effect even if silly people like it. Smooshed-face dogs have a hard time breathing, it's not a desirable condition. And I do suspect that some mutations are really the chemical reconstruction of a former lost allele, maybe that became junk DNA. Alleles are, after all, just a string of chemical codes, there could be some principle by which they recur from time to time. Which doesn't change the fact that the vast majority aren't beneficial.

quote:

---

Been explained many times. Phenotypic changes occur as a result of random new gene frequencies. Lizards get big heads and jaws just from such random changes accumulating in their new population. The food doesn't drive the change, but the change causes the lizards to gravitate to food that their new jaws can handle

---

In other words you are misusing the terminology again and expect us to guess what you mean. Please stop that since it hardly helps honest discussion.However, you are very likely wrong. The big heads alone might be just good luck - but the changes in head shape and the cecal valve as well would be an unlikely coincidence.

quote:

---

As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post I realize that if you'd bothered to follow anything I've been arguing at length on this subject you wouldn't have all the silly objections and questions you have.

---

And that IS pure insult, especially as it is obviously untrue.

The quality of larger heads and jaws would only increase in a population if it were selected for by the environment.What's actually true is that every population contains inherent variation. The particular set of variations contained in the founder population have a big influence on future directions of evolution. Those qualities best adapted to the environment are selected for and become more common and more emphasized in following generations. Mutations can assist in this process.Why are you ignoring selection? You go on and on about breeding being a model for evolution, and breeding is all about selection. Selection controls which genes gets passed on to the next generation, not genetics. But variation comes first, not change. Selection chooses among that variation according to fitness, according to which is best adapted. Those selected to reproduce get to pass their genes on to the next generation.Every population contains variation. For your lizards, some have bigger heads, some smaller. Some have bigger jaws, some smaller. Some have bigger feet, some smaller. Some have longer tails, some shorter. Some have sharper teeth, some duller. Some are faster, some slower. Those qualities providing the best adaptation to the environment are most likely to become passed on to the next generation. And again, mutations can assist in this process. Over longer time periods and greater environmental change, mutations are essential. That's not a test of your theory. If the food source requiring larger heads and jaws existed on both islands, then by your idea both islands should get lizards with larger heads and jaws. Again, if the food sources between the two islands were the same, the lizards on the two islands would be the same.What really happened is that Pod Mrcaru had a new and plentiful food source in the form of plants (as opposed to the primary food source of insects on Pod Kapisto), so the lizards adapted to that food source. And yet even for the single point you chose to rebut among all my points, you couldn't even get that right. The changes in the lizards on Pod Mrcaru resulted from selection, not genetically driven adaptation.--Percy

Well, this sentence by itself proves that you've finally conceded you were wrong that mutations don't exist, and later that you were wrong that they played no positive role.Mutations are not only the source of some traits of relatively recent occurrence, ultimately they're the source of all alleles everywhere. There must be few if any alleles in any life anywhere that have survived in their original form from billions of years ago. Deleterious mutations are selected against and are removed from the population. Mildly deleterious to neutral mutations propagate through drift. Beneficial mutations are selected for and can spread rapidly through a population. There is no evidence that the "original design of DNA" was any more elegant than the DNA of today. Evidence from ancient DNA tells us that DNA then was pretty much like DNA today. It would be possible for mutation to bring back an allele that was resident in the population in the past and then lost. The word you're looking for is "mutation." But deleterious mutations are removed while beneficial mutations are kept. What happens over time to the fitness of a population that rejects deleterious mutations while keeping beneficial ones?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

It proves that even in your model organism there are mutations that keep evolution going at a point where you claim evolution should stop. Your argument has been refuted. That is just a fantasy, backed by zero evidence. Do you really think that making stuff up on the fly is a valid argument?

I don't know and neither do you. IF we conclude based on the dating methods using radioisotopic dating 4.5 billion years old. IF we conclude based on a Birkeland current there is no way to know the age of anything. I would make the argument that the current state of Science in explaining the universe is out of date. The idea of blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas. What you mean like with fossilization? You pretty much need a flood, or something to control the micro environments of dead things, to create the right conditions to fossilize bones. What I find more interesting is the passage of giants in Gen 6, Enoch, etc authored thousands of years before we discovered those fossils. LINK
I love all the uncertainty in your last point, how exactly are you so confident?Enjoy

I notice you didn't answer Message 687 which is closer to the topic under discussion (see thread title) You can argue opinion and assertion all you want to, but beliefs that are held in spite of invalidating evidence are delusions.If you want to talk about how age of the earth is measured, start with Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. It's off topic here. " ... or something ... " leaves a lot of open ground to causes of fossilization sans global flood, including local flood.But this too is off topic here. Why not try starting a new topic at Proposed New TopicsIt's what the objective empirical evidence based science says. You want to challenge that, then provide the scientific data and reasoning behind your challenge. Fair enough, so now let's turn to the topic, and start with when life began -- when and what forms first appeared on earth, and how did we get from there to here.

• Just MICROevolution?
• MICROevolution plus MACROevolution? (and what is MACROevolution?)
• MICROevolution plus something else (what and how does it work?)
• something else (magic)

Curious minds want to know.Enjoy

Hi DOCJ,You're either mostly off topic or completely off-topic, I can't tell which because you make no effort to show how your points tie in to the topic, if at all. That "blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas" is an incredibly weak idea.Okay, you've called the scientific position weak ideas. I've called that idea a weak idea. Now what? I guess we'll just have to look at the evidence, huh? Gee, what a novel idea! But not here, it would be off topic. This thread is about micro and macroevolution.--Percy

Ok. The only life that evolved in a sense on the earth is plant life. It was not random, it was divine in origination. And the limits are divine as well. I don't know where that fits into the terms of micro or macro change but I don't think those ideas fit the image I'm describing. I will say it COULD appear as though it was micro and macro to those who are using Science today. And what I mean by Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.

quote:

---

11 And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so.
12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

​

-GENESIS 1:11 - 13 DAY 3 ESV

---

Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣🤣Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣🤣Edited by DOCJ, : 😛

That is nothing but a creationist wet dream.Science is what follows the scientific method, and there is no requirement to limit it to a lab.Just imagine the varied fields of science that are not limited to a lab--start with astronomy.Creationists need to wake up and smell the coffee.

quote:

---

Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.

---

You mentioned Dark Energy and (early in the first second of the universe?) "inflation" as things that are something false.But Creationists accept the expansion of the Universe and the creation of space,Rapid "Dark Energy" (to create space faster) and much faster expansion of space (like early Universe "inflation" of Alan Guth) are the stuff that Creationists have been dreaming of.Except they want a much wider application for such ideas.They want Dark Energy to have started in millions of spots (not just a singularity)And ultra fast inflation to explain our Universe's age to be much younger than 13.7 billion years.See this thread.EvC Forum: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)I think 13.7 billion years is really young myself, but your problem is what exactly?Take it to the thread in my link.

The big problem is that all the available evidence shows that God was wrong in what you quoted, most likely simply because God was ignorant of the truth but possibly lying like the God in Genesis 2&3.The evidence shows that

quote:

---

And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so."

---

was not so. The first forms of life on the earth were not plants, not seed bearing, not vegetation, not fruit, not trees and not on earth but in the water.Your quotations is simply more evidence that the Bible is simply the creation of man and quite often the God the writers created is as ignorant as the authors.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title